8 ms·

just make masks 100% mandatory That would require me to confess that other people might know more than me. Which some conflate to total loss of all personal li

just make masks 100% mandatory That would require me to confess that other people might know more than me. Which some conflate to total loss of all personal liberty.

msandford 6y ago
As a counter-argument thought experiment to try and understand how some people might feel that way, imagine this situation: We've got an epidemic of terrorist shootings in the US. Some law enforcement experts suggest that not only should open carry be legalized everywhere in the US, but that carrying a gun should be mandatory while in public. It's the only way to stop the shootings. I'm not going to suggest that this is in any way a 100% equivalent argument, far from it. But it might help you get a feel for why some folks are opposed to mandatory masks, even if they seem entirely sensible.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  If they are actually experts, and this is an actual epidemic with an equivalent death potential, then sure! Give me the gun. What's the problem? Is the equivalent to a cloth mask a BB gun?
- simion314 6y ago
  I think if I spit on your face is illegal (probably assault) so we could apply the existing laws, if someone without a mask gets close to you while speaking existing laws could be apply because is basically spiting germs on you. I am wondering if this would be accepted by a judge and no new laws will be required.
- staplers 6y ago
  Masks cannot end someone's life either on purpose or accidentally. A better example is seat belts or government issued ID, which are already currently mandatory.
  - msandford 6y ago
    I would respectfully disagree that things which are currently mandatory are better examples. We're talking about making new rules in response to a newly emerging phenomena. A change to the status quo, as it were. Asserting that a change to the status quo is the same as the existing status quo that you already "bought in to" 5-50 years ago (for most of us) is in a lot of ways not the same at all. Further it's possible to opt out of seat belts by not driving and you can kind of opt out of government IDs also by not driving or flying. It'd be difficult but if you really, really cared you could. I'm not saying that these people's reaction is entirely rational. But if you want to try and understand them a bit better I think my very, very loose analogy might help you. If you don't want to understand them feel free to ignore entirely!
    - untog 6y ago
      > Further it's possible to opt out of seat belts by not driving and you can kind of opt out of government IDs also by not driving or flying. It'd be difficult but if you really, really cared you could. Not driving (or being the passenger in a car) is all but impossible in the vast majority of the US. In fact, it’s almost equal to saying “just don’t go to any public places” in response to your gun requirement hypothetical.
    - sixothree 6y ago
      It seems like you shifted your argument there.
    - rumanator 6y ago
      > A change to the status quo, as it were. You didn't thought things through. If you're talking about a global pandemic then quite obviously you aren't talking about a scenario where the state of things already changed radically. Moreover, I fail to see how keeping things as they are can be passed as a rational argument against something. You're actually arguing that things should not change because otherwise things would change, which makes absolutely no sense at all.
      - msandford 6y ago
- beowulfey 6y ago
  I just point out that the government already mandates we wear clothing in public and a mask is basically just a shirt for your face. Not wearing a mask during covid == indecent exposure in my book.
  - tomjen3 6y ago
    If that is your argument then I would counter that I do not believe the government should have any say on the clothing you wear. Though I would not be comfortable with going naked, we should not pay any consideration to religious feelings, be they Muslim or Christian - and that is all US clothing regulations are based on. Being uncomfortable having to explain to a child what a dick is because they saw one hanging out while walking to the bus is not something I should be forced to give a shit about. Taking simple steps to prevent spreading an infections disease is.
    - beowulfey 6y ago
      That’s great, but my point was it’s already illegal and no one complains about that on the regular. In my view the two viewpoints are identical, so those who argue against masks should get out there and argue against clothing too if they were truly consistent.
- landryraccoon 6y ago
  I think you're talking about a zombie apocalypse type situation, in which case yes if there are zombies roaming the streets trying to eat everyone's brains it might be wise for every sane person to carry a shotgun in public.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
centimeter 6y ago
There’s a difference between admitting other people know more than you and giving up entirely on the use of your own rational faculties. Blindly trusting that masks work, in the face of (at best) low predictive power and (at worst) outright contradictory evidence, is an example of the latter.
- wrs 6y ago
  My rational faculties tell me that masks sure as heck work equally well or better than no masks. Also that there is no downside whatever to me from wearing one (ego damage doesn’t count — this is real life, not a game). Put those together and it’s my personal responsibility to wear a mask until the evidence tells us it’s of zero value. (Maybe it’s not clear: masks are to protect other people from you, not vice versa.)
  - centimeter 6y ago
    > there is no downside whatever to me from wearing one The eternal refrain of economically innumerate people who can’t multiply.
  - tdfx 6y ago
    The logic the Netherlands used to counter the "only can help" argument is that wearing cloth masks can lull people into a false sense of security where they are less observant of social distancing because they are overconfident in the protective power of the mask. I'm not aware of any study that confirms or debunks this but from a neutral point of view I would say it's at least plausible. For the record, I wear a mask.
    - rumanator 6y ago
      > The logic the Netherlands used to counter the "only can help" argument is that wearing cloth masks can lull people into a false sense of security That line of reasoning makes no sense because it leaves out the fact that the conclusion is drawn from the comparison between a) wearing a mask in public and b) stay locked down indoors while avoiding all social interaction. The conclusion was never drawn from a comparison between a) wearing a facemask in public, and b) not wearing a facemask in public. Additionally, during the onset of the covid19 pandemic there were indeed some health officials that argued against mass adoption of facemasks and other personal protection equipment such as latex gloves. However, their rationale was that this would increase demand so radically that it could jeopardize their availability to frontline workers.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
chrischen 6y ago
What about my right to use tiktok? We give up rights all the time.
m3kw9 6y ago
If they create a law based on a real necessity, I don’t think you can call it a liberty violation. For example a law states you cannot carry grenades.
drukenemo 6y ago
Often, the problem for menis not that I don’t trust what others know, but that things like these get to be imposed without educating the public what it is necessary, the evidence etc.
tomjen3 6y ago
Okay I will let you in on the secret, but for the love of God keep your mouth closed. The disease is as you suspected drastically overblown, although not entirely fake. Bill Gates is absolutely using it to spread his vaccines and the masks do very little. The masks are there for us to counteract facial Bill Gates facial surveillance, not to stop the disease. That is highly hush-hush though so wear your mask but don't tell anyone. Mum told me lying was wrong, but if it works?

just make masks 100% mandatory That would require me to confess that other people might know more than me. Which some conflate to total loss of all personal liberty.

msandford 6y ago

As a counter-argument thought experiment to try and understand how some people might feel that way, imagine this situation: We've got an epidemic of terrorist shootings in the US. Some law enforcement experts suggest that not only should open carry be legalized everywhere in the US, but that carrying a gun should be mandatory while in public. It's the only way to stop the shootings. I'm not going to suggest that this is in any way a 100% equivalent argument, far from it. But it might help you get a feel for why some folks are opposed to mandatory masks, even if they seem entirely sensible.

Dylan16807 6y ago
If they are actually experts, and this is an actual epidemic with an equivalent death potential, then sure! Give me the gun. What's the problem? Is the equivalent to a cloth mask a BB gun?
simion314 6y ago
I think if I spit on your face is illegal (probably assault) so we could apply the existing laws, if someone without a mask gets close to you while speaking existing laws could be apply because is basically spiting germs on you. I am wondering if this would be accepted by a judge and no new laws will be required.
staplers 6y ago
Masks cannot end someone's life either on purpose or accidentally. A better example is seat belts or government issued ID, which are already currently mandatory.
- msandford 6y ago
  I would respectfully disagree that things which are currently mandatory are better examples. We're talking about making new rules in response to a newly emerging phenomena. A change to the status quo, as it were. Asserting that a change to the status quo is the same as the existing status quo that you already "bought in to" 5-50 years ago (for most of us) is in a lot of ways not the same at all. Further it's possible to opt out of seat belts by not driving and you can kind of opt out of government IDs also by not driving or flying. It'd be difficult but if you really, really cared you could. I'm not saying that these people's reaction is entirely rational. But if you want to try and understand them a bit better I think my very, very loose analogy might help you. If you don't want to understand them feel free to ignore entirely!
  - untog 6y ago
    > Further it's possible to opt out of seat belts by not driving and you can kind of opt out of government IDs also by not driving or flying. It'd be difficult but if you really, really cared you could. Not driving (or being the passenger in a car) is all but impossible in the vast majority of the US. In fact, it’s almost equal to saying “just don’t go to any public places” in response to your gun requirement hypothetical.
  - sixothree 6y ago
    It seems like you shifted your argument there.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > A change to the status quo, as it were. You didn't thought things through. If you're talking about a global pandemic then quite obviously you aren't talking about a scenario where the state of things already changed radically. Moreover, I fail to see how keeping things as they are can be passed as a rational argument against something. You're actually arguing that things should not change because otherwise things would change, which makes absolutely no sense at all.
    - msandford 6y ago
beowulfey 6y ago
I just point out that the government already mandates we wear clothing in public and a mask is basically just a shirt for your face. Not wearing a mask during covid == indecent exposure in my book.
- tomjen3 6y ago
  If that is your argument then I would counter that I do not believe the government should have any say on the clothing you wear. Though I would not be comfortable with going naked, we should not pay any consideration to religious feelings, be they Muslim or Christian - and that is all US clothing regulations are based on. Being uncomfortable having to explain to a child what a dick is because they saw one hanging out while walking to the bus is not something I should be forced to give a shit about. Taking simple steps to prevent spreading an infections disease is.
  - beowulfey 6y ago
    That’s great, but my point was it’s already illegal and no one complains about that on the regular. In my view the two viewpoints are identical, so those who argue against masks should get out there and argue against clothing too if they were truly consistent.
landryraccoon 6y ago
I think you're talking about a zombie apocalypse type situation, in which case yes if there are zombies roaming the streets trying to eat everyone's brains it might be wise for every sane person to carry a shotgun in public.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

centimeter 6y ago

There’s a difference between admitting other people know more than you and giving up entirely on the use of your own rational faculties. Blindly trusting that masks work, in the face of (at best) low predictive power and (at worst) outright contradictory evidence, is an example of the latter.

wrs 6y ago
My rational faculties tell me that masks sure as heck work equally well or better than no masks. Also that there is no downside whatever to me from wearing one (ego damage doesn’t count — this is real life, not a game). Put those together and it’s my personal responsibility to wear a mask until the evidence tells us it’s of zero value. (Maybe it’s not clear: masks are to protect other people from you, not vice versa.)
- centimeter 6y ago
  > there is no downside whatever to me from wearing one The eternal refrain of economically innumerate people who can’t multiply.
- tdfx 6y ago
  The logic the Netherlands used to counter the "only can help" argument is that wearing cloth masks can lull people into a false sense of security where they are less observant of social distancing because they are overconfident in the protective power of the mask. I'm not aware of any study that confirms or debunks this but from a neutral point of view I would say it's at least plausible. For the record, I wear a mask.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > The logic the Netherlands used to counter the "only can help" argument is that wearing cloth masks can lull people into a false sense of security That line of reasoning makes no sense because it leaves out the fact that the conclusion is drawn from the comparison between a) wearing a mask in public and b) stay locked down indoors while avoiding all social interaction. The conclusion was never drawn from a comparison between a) wearing a facemask in public, and b) not wearing a facemask in public. Additionally, during the onset of the covid19 pandemic there were indeed some health officials that argued against mass adoption of facemasks and other personal protection equipment such as latex gloves. However, their rationale was that this would increase demand so radically that it could jeopardize their availability to frontline workers.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

chrischen 6y ago

What about my right to use tiktok? We give up rights all the time.

m3kw9 6y ago

If they create a law based on a real necessity, I don’t think you can call it a liberty violation. For example a law states you cannot carry grenades.

drukenemo 6y ago

Often, the problem for menis not that I don’t trust what others know, but that things like these get to be imposed without educating the public what it is necessary, the evidence etc.

tomjen3 6y ago

Okay I will let you in on the secret, but for the love of God keep your mouth closed. The disease is as you suspected drastically overblown, although not entirely fake. Bill Gates is absolutely using it to spread his vaccines and the masks do very little. The masks are there for us to counteract facial Bill Gates facial surveillance, not to stop the disease. That is highly hush-hush though so wear your mask but don't tell anyone. Mum told me lying was wrong, but if it works?