(10-02-2020 09:46 AM)smudge12 Wrote: [ -> ]I think I've posted this before, but in my opinion, life will always have risks.
However, society has a way to mitigate the risks. I get in a car, know there's a risk, but know we've created ways to mitigate the risks (traffic laws, engineering requirements, etc.). During flu season, I have the option of getting a flu shot. That one is even better because it gives me full control at the risk.
With Covid-19, only the people who want to be reckless have the option to "live life". The rest of us (which is most of us) have very little risk mitigation, so it takes our freedom to life away. This is a highly infectious disease which has lasted every season so far, so we can't just have people running around without masks, without social distancing, having large indoor gatherings, and continuing the risk for society as a whole.
Society doesn't allow people to do whatever they want precisely because one person's right to absolute freedom is another person's loss of freedom. Laws and rules are the middle-ground.
You admit, "life will always have risks" and then you insist the rest of us have to play by your rules in order to eliminate the risk of this virus.
The virus is highly infectious. True. But, is it really all that risky for most of us? If we get the virus, 40% of us probably won't know it. Of the 60% who get ill, a great majority will fight it off in a few days with some rest and tylenol. For a small percentage, it could be bad, even deadly. But, isn't that just the risk we take in life? And, if you don't want to take the risk, you don't have to. Stay home.
(10-02-2020 09:59 AM)smudge12 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 09:52 AM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ]Stay home.
There it is, and the reason we have masks, capacity limits, and social distancing guidelines in place.
People doing whatever they want risks my right to enjoy life. My freedoms are lost.
Again, you can't stop all risks, but laws and rules are the compromise. The world doesn't revolve around singular individuals and whatever they think their rights are.
Yet, you are insisting that your rights are more important than mine. Don't you see the hypocrisy there?
I'm not forcing anything upon you. You make your choice and I'll make mine.
(10-02-2020 10:04 AM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 09:59 AM)smudge12 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 09:52 AM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ]Stay home.
There it is, and the reason we have masks, capacity limits, and social distancing guidelines in place.
People doing whatever they want risks my right to enjoy life. My freedoms are lost.
Again, you can't stop all risks, but laws and rules are the compromise. The world doesn't revolve around singular individuals and whatever they think their rights are.
Yet, you are insisting that your rights are more important than mine. Don't you see the hypocrisy there?
I'm not forcing anything upon you. You make your choice and I'll make mine.
I think this discussion is going round and round. IMHO Rights should be upheld when having them and exercising them is not causing intentional harm to others or putting others at significant risk. Every person who is mentally and physically capable of driving a vehicle should have a right to drive one and every person who wants to possess and discharge a fire arm sensibly and responsibly can have one and no one should have a problem with that but its when they have lapse of judgement and drive that vehicle into property or much worse into someone or discharge that fire arm at someone who is of no harm to them is when the Govt should say **** your rights, you shouldn't have any of those since you exhibited the lapse of judgement and caused harm to someone. I think the murkiness sets in to this when its not clearly black and white but some shade of gray and deciding when someone can be of harm to someone else when its not a 0 or a 1. I think that is why most folks who are politically moderate are okay with this mask and social distancing thing because we rather be safe than sorry. JMO.
Honestly, I'd be ok with things if they were sensible (even if I disagreed). For example, if everyone is wearing a mask, why do we need six feet of distance (thus, why can only one parent attend a child's volleyball game)? If we have six feet of separation, why do we need a mask?
(10-02-2020 09:46 AM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 09:38 AM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not old enough to remember the Spanish flu epidemic but a lot of the same restriction were in place.
The Spanish Flu had a death rate that is 10x that of COVID.
Healthy people were never quarantined during the Spanish Flu either. Are we allowed to call it the Spanish Flu?
(10-02-2020 10:26 AM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ]Honestly, I'd be ok with things if they were sensible (even if I disagreed). For example, if everyone is wearing a mask, why do we need six feet of distance (thus, why can only one parent attend a child's volleyball game)? If we have six feet of separation, why do we need a mask?
I am not sure about the "6 feet away" reasoning and i am guessing that's a safety net if someone accidentally drops them or not wear them properly. That only one parent thing is weird, its not like family members don't interact at home when they might or might not be sitting close to each other. That's plain stupid if true because the family as a unit can come, sit together and leave together while staying 6 ft away from rest of the crowd.
(10-02-2020 10:27 AM)Monarchblue Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 09:46 AM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 09:38 AM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not old enough to remember the Spanish flu epidemic but a lot of the same restriction were in place.
The Spanish Flu had a death rate that is 10x that of COVID.
Healthy people were never quarantined during the Spanish Flu either. Are we allowed to call it the Spanish Flu?
Only healthy people (or potentially sick rather) can be quarantined if you're already sick then you are isolated. Just some terminology. But that's incorrect. There was probably not a statewide stay at home order that I'm aware of but there were certainly locales that had mandatory quarantines for outsiders entering their town, county or state. There were certainly quarantines of people exposed to sick people. There were mask mandates, etc.
And the death rate is only 10X higher due to modern medicine. Today Covid is 10X deadlier than the Spanish Flu which was an H1N1 strain.
(10-02-2020 09:49 AM)FearTheLion Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 05:38 AM)Grommet Wrote: [ -> ]The wife just told me POTUS and FLOTUS tested positive. Asymptomatic at this point.
The NYT reported early this morning that they were indeed symptomatic.
But given that the subject has spent the past 3 3/4 years discrediting everything that has come out of there, who knows?
Yep, mild symptoms now. Biden and also Pence negative. Hope Hicks, Mike Lee, Rona McDaniels positive.
https://www.pilotonline.com/coronavirus/...e-updates-
(10-02-2020 10:24 AM)smudge12 Wrote: [ -> ]For now, to protect everyone's right to life (as Constitutionally enshrined), we have to make some compromises.
I, for one, am open to compromise - - so long as that word retains its dictionary meaning and has not become another euphemism for "you have to agree to do it my way".
Here's are a few suggested compromises:
I, on the one hand, will agree to wear a mask without complaint whenever I am in a confined public place or whenever in a private space where the owner or proprietor asks me to do so. At all other places/times, on the other hand, I expect to be spared any lectures about where/when I need to wear a mask.
I agree, on the one hand, that we should make certain that essential workers are fully and fairly paid for doing their essential jobs. I expect, on the other hand, that essential workers actually show up and do their jobs if they expect to be paid. (Looking at you VEA.)
I agree, on the one hand, that large gatherings are to be avoided for so long as we lack an effective vaccine or herd immunity. (This is a huge concession on my part, given the coming of basketball season.) I expect, on the other hand, that we be spared the b.s. that civil rights somehow preempts all else, such that those using the excuse of rioting, protests and vandalism under the claimed banner of "injustice" be arrested and harshly prosecuted. At least so long as we are now in the business of suspending Constitutional rights.
Are you good with those compromises? Or is this just a one-way street?
(10-02-2020 12:06 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 10:24 AM)smudge12 Wrote: [ -> ]For now, to protect everyone's right to life (as Constitutionally enshrined), we have to make some compromises.
I, for one, am open to compromise - - so long as that word retains its dictionary meaning and has not become another euphemism for "you have to agree to do it my way".
Here's are a few suggested compromises:
I, on the one hand, will agree to wear a mask without complaint whenever I am in a confined public place or whenever in a private space where the owner or proprietor asks me to do so. At all other places/times, on the other hand, I expect to be spared any lectures about where/when I need to wear a mask.
I agree, on the one hand, that we should make certain that essential workers are fully and fairly paid for doing their essential jobs. I expect, on the other hand, that essential workers actually show up and do their jobs if they expect to be paid. (Looking at you VEA.)
I agree, on the one hand, that large gatherings are to be avoided for so long as we lack an effective vaccine or herd immunity. (This is a huge concession on my part, given the coming of basketball season.) I expect, on the other hand, that we be spared the b.s. that civil rights somehow preempts all else, such that those using the excuse of rioting, protests and vandalism under the claimed banner of "injustice" be arrested and harshly prosecuted. At least so long as we are now in the business of suspending Constitutional rights.
Are you good with those compromises? Or is this just a one-way street?
I'd (relucatantly) agree to these compromises, as long as we also include allowing both my wife and I to attend the volleyball games, with masks.
(10-02-2020 09:59 AM)smudge12 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 09:52 AM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ]Stay home.
There it is, and the reason we have mask requirements, capacity limits, and social distancing guidelines in place.
People doing whatever they want risks my right to enjoy life. My freedoms are lost. Telling me to "stay home" is not a compromise.
We can't stop all risks, but laws and rules are the middle-ground. The world doesn't revolve around individuals, but holistic solutions.
You do not have a right to go to the store of your choice and demand that the patrons behave that you would prefer in order to accommodate your preference. The store has the right to decide you are the customer that they want and adjust their rules to accommodate you and risk losing me. But you absolutely do not have a right to make the world conform to your preferences.
(10-02-2020 10:22 AM)12thmonarch Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 10:04 AM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 09:59 AM)smudge12 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 09:52 AM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ]Stay home.
There it is, and the reason we have masks, capacity limits, and social distancing guidelines in place.
People doing whatever they want risks my right to enjoy life. My freedoms are lost.
Again, you can't stop all risks, but laws and rules are the compromise. The world doesn't revolve around singular individuals and whatever they think their rights are.
Yet, you are insisting that your rights are more important than mine. Don't you see the hypocrisy there?
I'm not forcing anything upon you. You make your choice and I'll make mine.
I think this discussion is going round and round. IMHO Rights should be upheld when having them and exercising them is not causing intentional harm to others or putting others at significant risk. Every person who is mentally and physically capable of driving a vehicle should have a right to drive one and every person who wants to possess and discharge a fire arm sensibly and responsibly can have one and no one should have a problem with that but its when they have lapse of judgement and drive that vehicle into property or much worse into someone or discharge that fire arm at someone who is of no harm to them is when the Govt should say **** your rights, you shouldn't have any of those since you exhibited the lapse of judgement and caused harm to someone. I think the murkiness sets in to this when its not clearly black and white but some shade of gray and deciding when someone can be of harm to someone else when its not a 0 or a 1. I think that is why most folks who are politically moderate are okay with this mask and social distancing thing because we rather be safe than sorry. JMO.
This is totally fair and, I think, the way that Gov't is intended to work, and I accept your premise that we should wear masks and social distance, but where I think we have massive government overreach is in telling people that they have to stay home, or can only travel within a dictated radius from their home, telling people that they can't operate their business, telling people they can't worship as they please, and generally revoking people's constitutional rights without it running through the proper legislative process.
(10-02-2020 12:09 PM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 12:06 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 10:24 AM)smudge12 Wrote: [ -> ]For now, to protect everyone's right to life (as Constitutionally enshrined), we have to make some compromises.
I, for one, am open to compromise - - so long as that word retains its dictionary meaning and has not become another euphemism for "you have to agree to do it my way".
Here's are a few suggested compromises:
I, on the one hand, will agree to wear a mask without complaint whenever I am in a confined public place or whenever in a private space where the owner or proprietor asks me to do so. At all other places/times, on the other hand, I expect to be spared any lectures about where/when I need to wear a mask.
I agree, on the one hand, that we should make certain that essential workers are fully and fairly paid for doing their essential jobs. I expect, on the other hand, that essential workers actually show up and do their jobs if they expect to be paid. (Looking at you VEA.)
I agree, on the one hand, that large gatherings are to be avoided for so long as we lack an effective vaccine or herd immunity. (This is a huge concession on my part, given the coming of basketball season.) I expect, on the other hand, that we be spared the b.s. that civil rights somehow preempts all else, such that those using the excuse of rioting, protests and vandalism under the claimed banner of "injustice" be arrested and harshly prosecuted. At least so long as we are now in the business of suspending Constitutional rights.
Are you good with those compromises? Or is this just a one-way street?
I'd (relucatantly) agree to these compromises, as long as we also include allowing both my wife and I to attend the volleyball games, with masks.
Agree, if everything opened up with masks being the only restriction and distancing where possible, I would reluctantly agree as well.
People also have other rights Constitutionally enshrined, like the right to peaceably assemble, etc.
(10-02-2020 12:59 PM)EverydayInVA Wrote: [ -> ]People also have other rights Constitutionally enshrined, like the right to peaceably assemble, etc.
You are 100% correct. Yet if those rights and liberties are impervious to "compromise", than so are mine.
(10-02-2020 12:30 PM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 12:09 PM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 12:06 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 10:24 AM)smudge12 Wrote: [ -> ]For now, to protect everyone's right to life (as Constitutionally enshrined), we have to make some compromises.
I, for one, am open to compromise - - so long as that word retains its dictionary meaning and has not become another euphemism for "you have to agree to do it my way".
Here's are a few suggested compromises:
I, on the one hand, will agree to wear a mask without complaint whenever I am in a confined public place or whenever in a private space where the owner or proprietor asks me to do so. At all other places/times, on the other hand, I expect to be spared any lectures about where/when I need to wear a mask.
I agree, on the one hand, that we should make certain that essential workers are fully and fairly paid for doing their essential jobs. I expect, on the other hand, that essential workers actually show up and do their jobs if they expect to be paid. (Looking at you VEA.)
I agree, on the one hand, that large gatherings are to be avoided for so long as we lack an effective vaccine or herd immunity. (This is a huge concession on my part, given the coming of basketball season.) I expect, on the other hand, that we be spared the b.s. that civil rights somehow preempts all else, such that those using the excuse of rioting, protests and vandalism under the claimed banner of "injustice" be arrested and harshly prosecuted. At least so long as we are now in the business of suspending Constitutional rights.
Are you good with those compromises? Or is this just a one-way street?
I'd (relucatantly) agree to these compromises, as long as we also include allowing both my wife and I to attend the volleyball games, with masks.
Agree, if everything opened up with masks being the only restriction and distancing where possible, I would reluctantly agree as well.
I agree also, but I would like to make a few distinctions. Teleworking is an acceptable form of “doing their job” even though some may consider it to be not “showing up”. Not everyone can do it, but those that can should be allowed to as long as employers agree and have policies addressing it.
Also, the word “protest” should be removed from your third compromise. Protesting, in and of itself, is a right that should be protected and one should never be arrested and prosecuted for it. But anything that results in breaking the law, such as vandalism and sometimes rioting (if violent). Bottom line is that if you break the law, you could be arrested. Obviously there are exceptions for minor issues (who hasn’t been let go on a speeding ticket?) but you always run that risk.
Are we having a moment here?
(10-02-2020 01:15 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 12:30 PM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 12:09 PM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 12:06 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 10:24 AM)smudge12 Wrote: [ -> ]For now, to protect everyone's right to life (as Constitutionally enshrined), we have to make some compromises.
I, for one, am open to compromise - - so long as that word retains its dictionary meaning and has not become another euphemism for "you have to agree to do it my way".
Here's are a few suggested compromises:
I, on the one hand, will agree to wear a mask without complaint whenever I am in a confined public place or whenever in a private space where the owner or proprietor asks me to do so. At all other places/times, on the other hand, I expect to be spared any lectures about where/when I need to wear a mask.
I agree, on the one hand, that we should make certain that essential workers are fully and fairly paid for doing their essential jobs. I expect, on the other hand, that essential workers actually show up and do their jobs if they expect to be paid. (Looking at you VEA.)
I agree, on the one hand, that large gatherings are to be avoided for so long as we lack an effective vaccine or herd immunity. (This is a huge concession on my part, given the coming of basketball season.) I expect, on the other hand, that we be spared the b.s. that civil rights somehow preempts all else, such that those using the excuse of rioting, protests and vandalism under the claimed banner of "injustice" be arrested and harshly prosecuted. At least so long as we are now in the business of suspending Constitutional rights.
Are you good with those compromises? Or is this just a one-way street?
I'd (relucatantly) agree to these compromises, as long as we also include allowing both my wife and I to attend the volleyball games, with masks.
Agree, if everything opened up with masks being the only restriction and distancing where possible, I would reluctantly agree as well.
I agree also, but I would like to make a few distinctions. Teleworking is an acceptable form of “doing their job” even though some may consider it to be not “showing up”. Not everyone can do it, but those that can should be allowed to as long as employers agree and have policies addressing it.
Also, the word “protest” should be removed from your third compromise. Protesting, in and of itself, is a right that should be protected and one should never be arrested and prosecuted for it. But anything that results in breaking the law, such as vandalism and sometimes rioting (if violent). Bottom line is that if you break the law, you could be arrested. Obviously there are exceptions for minor issues (who hasn’t been let go on a speeding ticket?) but you always run that risk.
Are we having a moment here?
Okay. I am not a churchgoer, but should people be legally barred from attending church in large numbers? That also is a Constitutionally protected right.
And since you are elevating protests to such an exalted and unquestioned level, can I not claim that ODU men's basketball is a spiritual experience for me?
(10-02-2020 05:38 AM)Grommet Wrote: [ -> ]The wife just told me POTUS and FLOTUS tested positive. Asymptomatic at this point.
I’m not a fan of him politically, but I hope he has a smooth and swift recovery.
(10-02-2020 01:32 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 01:15 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 12:30 PM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 12:09 PM)ODUCoach Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020 12:06 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote: [ -> ]I, for one, am open to compromise - - so long as that word retains its dictionary meaning and has not become another euphemism for "you have to agree to do it my way".
Here's are a few suggested compromises:
I, on the one hand, will agree to wear a mask without complaint whenever I am in a confined public place or whenever in a private space where the owner or proprietor asks me to do so. At all other places/times, on the other hand, I expect to be spared any lectures about where/when I need to wear a mask.
I agree, on the one hand, that we should make certain that essential workers are fully and fairly paid for doing their essential jobs. I expect, on the other hand, that essential workers actually show up and do their jobs if they expect to be paid. (Looking at you VEA.)
I agree, on the one hand, that large gatherings are to be avoided for so long as we lack an effective vaccine or herd immunity. (This is a huge concession on my part, given the coming of basketball season.) I expect, on the other hand, that we be spared the b.s. that civil rights somehow preempts all else, such that those using the excuse of rioting, protests and vandalism under the claimed banner of "injustice" be arrested and harshly prosecuted. At least so long as we are now in the business of suspending Constitutional rights.
Are you good with those compromises? Or is this just a one-way street?
I'd (relucatantly) agree to these compromises, as long as we also include allowing both my wife and I to attend the volleyball games, with masks.
Agree, if everything opened up with masks being the only restriction and distancing where possible, I would reluctantly agree as well.
I agree also, but I would like to make a few distinctions. Teleworking is an acceptable form of “doing their job” even though some may consider it to be not “showing up”. Not everyone can do it, but those that can should be allowed to as long as employers agree and have policies addressing it.
Also, the word “protest” should be removed from your third compromise. Protesting, in and of itself, is a right that should be protected and one should never be arrested and prosecuted for it. But anything that results in breaking the law, such as vandalism and sometimes rioting (if violent). Bottom line is that if you break the law, you could be arrested. Obviously there are exceptions for minor issues (who hasn’t been let go on a speeding ticket?) but you always run that risk.
Are we having a moment here?
Okay. I am not a churchgoer, but should people be legally barred from attending church in large numbers? That also is a Constitutionally protected right.
And since you are elevating protests to such an exalted and unquestioned level, can I not claim that ODU men's basketball is a spiritual experience for me?
LOL. Dear tiny baby Jesus, help me to see the roundball pounded against the hardwood, let me hear the clank of the rim, and be blinded by the laser light show. Hallelujah!
