3 ms·

> any other restriction on the freedom of movement and freedom of assembly. > clubs and other private properties is off limits. To give you the benefit of the

> any other restriction on the freedom of movement and freedom of assembly. > clubs and other private properties is off limits. To give you the benefit of the doubt, you don’t mean that you refuse to have temporarily restricted movement during a pandemic?

ndiscussion 7y ago
I believe that is what they refuse. I refuse it.
- aplummer 7y ago
  Wow. It’s so selfish to sacrifice other people’s lives for your own delusional paranoia.
  - jlokier 7y ago
    It's worse than delusional paranoia. Because it's not necessarily delusional, or paranoid. Give them the benefit of the doubt: Assume they are competent, healthy adults, who really believe in what they say. With that assumed, it's someone choosing to sacrifice other people's lives for their political values. Personally I think that situation crosses the "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" line. We should certainly build systems that protect privacy if we can, to the extent we can. I'm very pro privacy, not against privacy at all. But to the extent values conflict in a material situation, such as privacy versus not harming other people in a deadly way as the current crisis, we have to choose priorities, and then be smart and subtle about retaining as much of our overall values as we still can given the priorities.
    - 1996 7y ago
      > With that assumed, it's someone choosing to sacrifice other people's lives for their political values. No, not just other peoples - that includes my own life too. The freedoms enshrined upon us by the constitution are not negotiable. "shall make no law" admits no exception. > we have to choose priorities I chose mine.
      - aplummer 7y ago
        > No, not just other peoples - that includes my own life too. Glad you don’t get to make that decision on behalf of other people, and those actions are at least illegal in California. I also think it’s nonsense to imply you are putting yourself at any real risk, if you were immunocompromised or elderly you wouldn’t have such a callous attitude.
        1996 7y ago
        > those actions are at least illegal in California. Time will tell if California had the right to treat the constitution just like toilet paper. I know TP in short supply there at the moment, but the end doesn't justify the means. That's what constitutions are for.
        jlokier 7y ago
        Constitutions are for many things. A well written constitution allows for provisions to be suspended and outweighed in a state of emergency. Ideally it has a mechanism for doing so where possible, and for limiting the effect and scrutinising it, treating such a state as a serious exception to the normal state of things. Constitutions are a tool and an inspiration for better society. They are not able to anticipate or codify every situation, though. Ideally they themselves codify recognition of that, and govern how exceptions are to be handled with care.
      - O_H_E 7y ago
        I sometimes don't get why some Americans worship the Constitution like that. It was written by humans Albeit educated, thoughtful people who greatly cared about it, but still more or less humans.
      - jlokier 7y ago
        > No, not just other peoples - that includes my own life too. Yes, I agree, your own life is important too. If you're not familiar with "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose", it refers to when your exercise of your personal freedom deprives another person of their personal freedom. > The freedoms enshrined upon us by the constitution are not negotiable And yet here you are, advocating depriving people of their freedom to live. In the present case, your right to freely wander around, asymptomatically spreading COVID-19 contributes to depriving others of their freedom, by killing and disabling them. The cold harsh reality of the biological world right now is that some freedoms exercised by a person are causally depriving other persons of those same freedoms. You might not like that, but it appears to be the state of biological nature right now. To assert that the freedoms enshrined by the constitution are "not negotiable" involves irony, denial and paradox: Because in exercising those freedoms, you yourself are taking them away from other people. That's my argument and moral basis, anyway. The point is to persuade you to comply voluntarily due to compassion, whereby you ideally make the choice to do so out of consideration for the welfare of others in a situation where your actions affect others. I've been stuck at home for a while now, so as to not kill another person staying with me. It's not like I enjoy being stuck at home. I'll be mighty unhappy, and unimpressed by constitutional arguments, if they get killed or disabled because other people make an informed decision that their inalienable right to spread COVID-19 outweighs my person's inalienable right to life, liberty and dignity.
  - nqwenklzb 7y ago
    you are the delusional one and you are a raging shithead to boot

ndiscussion 7y ago

I believe that is what they refuse. I refuse it.

aplummer 7y ago
Wow. It’s so selfish to sacrifice other people’s lives for your own delusional paranoia.
- jlokier 7y ago
  It's worse than delusional paranoia. Because it's not necessarily delusional, or paranoid. Give them the benefit of the doubt: Assume they are competent, healthy adults, who really believe in what they say. With that assumed, it's someone choosing to sacrifice other people's lives for their political values. Personally I think that situation crosses the "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" line. We should certainly build systems that protect privacy if we can, to the extent we can. I'm very pro privacy, not against privacy at all. But to the extent values conflict in a material situation, such as privacy versus not harming other people in a deadly way as the current crisis, we have to choose priorities, and then be smart and subtle about retaining as much of our overall values as we still can given the priorities.
  - 1996 7y ago
    > With that assumed, it's someone choosing to sacrifice other people's lives for their political values. No, not just other peoples - that includes my own life too. The freedoms enshrined upon us by the constitution are not negotiable. "shall make no law" admits no exception. > we have to choose priorities I chose mine.
    - aplummer 7y ago
      > No, not just other peoples - that includes my own life too. Glad you don’t get to make that decision on behalf of other people, and those actions are at least illegal in California. I also think it’s nonsense to imply you are putting yourself at any real risk, if you were immunocompromised or elderly you wouldn’t have such a callous attitude.
      - 1996 7y ago
        > those actions are at least illegal in California. Time will tell if California had the right to treat the constitution just like toilet paper. I know TP in short supply there at the moment, but the end doesn't justify the means. That's what constitutions are for.
        jlokier 7y ago
        Constitutions are for many things. A well written constitution allows for provisions to be suspended and outweighed in a state of emergency. Ideally it has a mechanism for doing so where possible, and for limiting the effect and scrutinising it, treating such a state as a serious exception to the normal state of things. Constitutions are a tool and an inspiration for better society. They are not able to anticipate or codify every situation, though. Ideally they themselves codify recognition of that, and govern how exceptions are to be handled with care.
    - O_H_E 7y ago
      I sometimes don't get why some Americans worship the Constitution like that. It was written by humans Albeit educated, thoughtful people who greatly cared about it, but still more or less humans.
    - jlokier 7y ago
      > No, not just other peoples - that includes my own life too. Yes, I agree, your own life is important too. If you're not familiar with "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose", it refers to when your exercise of your personal freedom deprives another person of their personal freedom. > The freedoms enshrined upon us by the constitution are not negotiable And yet here you are, advocating depriving people of their freedom to live. In the present case, your right to freely wander around, asymptomatically spreading COVID-19 contributes to depriving others of their freedom, by killing and disabling them. The cold harsh reality of the biological world right now is that some freedoms exercised by a person are causally depriving other persons of those same freedoms. You might not like that, but it appears to be the state of biological nature right now. To assert that the freedoms enshrined by the constitution are "not negotiable" involves irony, denial and paradox: Because in exercising those freedoms, you yourself are taking them away from other people. That's my argument and moral basis, anyway. The point is to persuade you to comply voluntarily due to compassion, whereby you ideally make the choice to do so out of consideration for the welfare of others in a situation where your actions affect others. I've been stuck at home for a while now, so as to not kill another person staying with me. It's not like I enjoy being stuck at home. I'll be mighty unhappy, and unimpressed by constitutional arguments, if they get killed or disabled because other people make an informed decision that their inalienable right to spread COVID-19 outweighs my person's inalienable right to life, liberty and dignity.
- nqwenklzb 7y ago
  you are the delusional one and you are a raging shithead to boot