9 ms·

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

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
      > 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. I agree that the state of the world has changed radically. What we're debating is how the law should change. The world will get over C19 in another year or two. We're still stuck with a PATRIOT Act from 2001. That's 19 years ago now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act > 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. I was attempting to suggest that there's a difference between "things which already are a given and have been for a long time" vs "new things which we're going to decide are a thing newly, right now". Yes seatbelts are essentially mandatory (if you drive) and have been so for the last 30-50 years depending on state. But I think it's not entirely fair to compare new mandates/requirements/laws to existing ones. The existing ones have had a chance for their long-term implications to play out. The new ones would be new. We don't know all the long-term implications of the new thing. It's probably impossible to know what the long term implications would be. What I don't see (sadly) is anyone saying "hey lets make masks mandatory until expiration on Jan1 2021 with possible 6mo extensions after that". So people who are worried about government overreach have every reason to be worried! The pandemic is very, very unlikely to last forever. The laws that get passed are very, very unlikely to ever be repealed. PATRIOT Act was a temporary measure until we "got" the terrorists. It's nearly 20 years later. It only took a decade in Afghanistan to bankrupt the USSR. We're going on two decades. These concerns may not be entirely foolish.
- tick_tock_tick 6y ago
  Government issued ID's are not mandatory nor is seatbelt use on any private property.
  - fouc 6y ago
    and mask use on private property wouldn't be mandatory either
    - bargle0 6y ago
      Most businesses are on private property.
      - rumanator 6y ago
        It seems you're entirely oblivious to the fundament difference between discussing property ownership and whether a space is opened to the public.
        bargle0 6y ago
        Don’t assume ignorance on my part. Words have meaning, and I think the distinction is important. There is a fundamental difference between regulating public spaces and private businesses, and we should treat that with the seriousness it’s due. For what it’s worth, I think a mask order is reasonable.
        crusty 6y ago
        Assumptions not required. Spaces open to the public does not equal Public spaces. Public spaces are necessarily spaces open to the public but spaces open to the public are not necessarily public spaces. Also, think of a man as underwear for your face. You can strut around your house naked all you want, but you can't walk down the street that way, and I'm fairly certain the grocery store can't unilaterally decide to be a nudist friendly operation either. If the Venn diagram of places where you can be legally naked and places you can not wear a mask were basically the same, the original commenter' version of "everywhere" would be sufficiently met.
- zaroth 6y ago
  Seat belts are mandatory, but not for example on public transportation. And in most jurisdictions you can’t pull someone over if the only reason is because you think they aren’t wearing a seatbelt. In MA, for example, it can only be added on top of another infraction. So even a common sense policy which saves many lives from a public health perspective has some clear limits to when and how we enforce it as part of the overall social contract. Particularly with regard potentially discriminatory police actions which can be non-uniformly enforced, think for example homeless people who might not have access to a clean mask being targeted. Making up a new kind of law which can be used to fine/arrest literally anyone just for walking down the street “the wrong way” is a big deal.
  - chrischen 6y ago
    Car insurance is mandatory, and is more analogous to masks (liability limitation).
    - kube-system 6y ago
      Technically speaking, car insurance is not mandatory in the US; two states do not require it. Maybe that makes it a great analogy -- it's a state-by-state patchwork just like mask laws :)
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > Seat belts are mandatory, but (...) I fail to see how any of the examples you pointed out have any relevance to the subject. The point was that there are plenty of examples of behavior that's deemed mandatory in order to uphold the common good. Wearing face masks during a pandemic fits the bill. You don't negate this by cherry-picking unrelated examples that aren't covered. I mean, not requiring seatbelts on public busses is just as acceptable as not requiring facemasks while staying within private property and for the same reasons: the negligible risk that's presented to both the public and the individual.
    - zaroth 6y ago
      Beyond the nuances of where seat-belt law is enforced, I’m also speaking of tempering the social cost of policing the policy. We know that both policies obtain a public health benefit. Both policies are also not “blanket policies” but rather should be carefully tailored based on expected benefits changing depending on circumstances. For seat-belts it’s mainly the type of vehicle, but then remember there’s also variables like child seats which vary depending on age, height, and weight and it can get complicated. For masks it’s even more dynamic. E.g. it can’t be expressed simply as “everyone wear masks”. Both also have, or need to have, limits on how strictly they are enforced, even if that means imperfect compliance. The reason we (culturally) accept this trade-off is because the enforcement is accomplished through a form of sanctioned violence by the State, and that sanctioned State violence carries a cost / public health risk of its own! After all this is said and done, recall it’s not a binary switch. Mask wearing is a continuum for each addition interrupted transmission. By the time we’re done with all this, how much have we moved the needle? Lastly, keep in mind focusing on implementing one policy comes at the cost of having the time and political capital to implement some other policy. Politicians which claim they can “walk and chew gum” at the same time are generally over-estimating their own capabilities.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Unfortunately masks can end someone's life: https://abcnews.go.com/US/driver-crash-passed-wearing-n95-mask-long-police/story?id=70346532 https://abcnews.go.com/US/driver-crash-passed-wearing-n95-ma...
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    Ya, you can die from swallowing a toothpick too. Passing out from a mask is either a fluke, or a separate, serious underlying issue.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      N95 masks? That's a pretty rigorous level of filtration. It's not a cloth mask. If someone isn't taking it off if they aren't getting enough oxygen it could lead to this kind of problem. Rare? Sure. But so is a COVID death of a healthy young person.
- tomjen3 6y ago
  Seat belt laws should not be on the books. Yes you should wear it, but the government should not be allowed to make rules that only protect you - so many other draconian rules would disappear if they could only outlaw things that show clear danger to third-parties. And I wear my seatbelt always when driving, though not necessarily if I am backing into a spot.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    Ok, but if you don't wear a seatbelt and get into an accident and fly out the window onto the pavement, are you going to expect all the government services, police, firemen, public hospitals to eat the cost of your accident that will likely be much more severe due to your lack of seatbelt?
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]

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
    > 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. I agree that the state of the world has changed radically. What we're debating is how the law should change. The world will get over C19 in another year or two. We're still stuck with a PATRIOT Act from 2001. That's 19 years ago now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act > 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. I was attempting to suggest that there's a difference between "things which already are a given and have been for a long time" vs "new things which we're going to decide are a thing newly, right now". Yes seatbelts are essentially mandatory (if you drive) and have been so for the last 30-50 years depending on state. But I think it's not entirely fair to compare new mandates/requirements/laws to existing ones. The existing ones have had a chance for their long-term implications to play out. The new ones would be new. We don't know all the long-term implications of the new thing. It's probably impossible to know what the long term implications would be. What I don't see (sadly) is anyone saying "hey lets make masks mandatory until expiration on Jan1 2021 with possible 6mo extensions after that". So people who are worried about government overreach have every reason to be worried! The pandemic is very, very unlikely to last forever. The laws that get passed are very, very unlikely to ever be repealed. PATRIOT Act was a temporary measure until we "got" the terrorists. It's nearly 20 years later. It only took a decade in Afghanistan to bankrupt the USSR. We're going on two decades. These concerns may not be entirely foolish.
tick_tock_tick 6y ago
Government issued ID's are not mandatory nor is seatbelt use on any private property.
- fouc 6y ago
  and mask use on private property wouldn't be mandatory either
  - bargle0 6y ago
    Most businesses are on private property.
    - rumanator 6y ago
      It seems you're entirely oblivious to the fundament difference between discussing property ownership and whether a space is opened to the public.
      - bargle0 6y ago
        Don’t assume ignorance on my part. Words have meaning, and I think the distinction is important. There is a fundamental difference between regulating public spaces and private businesses, and we should treat that with the seriousness it’s due. For what it’s worth, I think a mask order is reasonable.
        crusty 6y ago
        Assumptions not required. Spaces open to the public does not equal Public spaces. Public spaces are necessarily spaces open to the public but spaces open to the public are not necessarily public spaces. Also, think of a man as underwear for your face. You can strut around your house naked all you want, but you can't walk down the street that way, and I'm fairly certain the grocery store can't unilaterally decide to be a nudist friendly operation either. If the Venn diagram of places where you can be legally naked and places you can not wear a mask were basically the same, the original commenter' version of "everywhere" would be sufficiently met.
zaroth 6y ago
Seat belts are mandatory, but not for example on public transportation. And in most jurisdictions you can’t pull someone over if the only reason is because you think they aren’t wearing a seatbelt. In MA, for example, it can only be added on top of another infraction. So even a common sense policy which saves many lives from a public health perspective has some clear limits to when and how we enforce it as part of the overall social contract. Particularly with regard potentially discriminatory police actions which can be non-uniformly enforced, think for example homeless people who might not have access to a clean mask being targeted. Making up a new kind of law which can be used to fine/arrest literally anyone just for walking down the street “the wrong way” is a big deal.
- chrischen 6y ago
  Car insurance is mandatory, and is more analogous to masks (liability limitation).
  - kube-system 6y ago
    Technically speaking, car insurance is not mandatory in the US; two states do not require it. Maybe that makes it a great analogy -- it's a state-by-state patchwork just like mask laws :)
- rumanator 6y ago
  > Seat belts are mandatory, but (...) I fail to see how any of the examples you pointed out have any relevance to the subject. The point was that there are plenty of examples of behavior that's deemed mandatory in order to uphold the common good. Wearing face masks during a pandemic fits the bill. You don't negate this by cherry-picking unrelated examples that aren't covered. I mean, not requiring seatbelts on public busses is just as acceptable as not requiring facemasks while staying within private property and for the same reasons: the negligible risk that's presented to both the public and the individual.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    Beyond the nuances of where seat-belt law is enforced, I’m also speaking of tempering the social cost of policing the policy. We know that both policies obtain a public health benefit. Both policies are also not “blanket policies” but rather should be carefully tailored based on expected benefits changing depending on circumstances. For seat-belts it’s mainly the type of vehicle, but then remember there’s also variables like child seats which vary depending on age, height, and weight and it can get complicated. For masks it’s even more dynamic. E.g. it can’t be expressed simply as “everyone wear masks”. Both also have, or need to have, limits on how strictly they are enforced, even if that means imperfect compliance. The reason we (culturally) accept this trade-off is because the enforcement is accomplished through a form of sanctioned violence by the State, and that sanctioned State violence carries a cost / public health risk of its own! After all this is said and done, recall it’s not a binary switch. Mask wearing is a continuum for each addition interrupted transmission. By the time we’re done with all this, how much have we moved the needle? Lastly, keep in mind focusing on implementing one policy comes at the cost of having the time and political capital to implement some other policy. Politicians which claim they can “walk and chew gum” at the same time are generally over-estimating their own capabilities.
thu2111 6y ago
Unfortunately masks can end someone's life: https://abcnews.go.com/US/driver-crash-passed-wearing-n95-mask-long-police/story?id=70346532 https://abcnews.go.com/US/driver-crash-passed-wearing-n95-ma...
- jjeaff 6y ago
  Ya, you can die from swallowing a toothpick too. Passing out from a mask is either a fluke, or a separate, serious underlying issue.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    N95 masks? That's a pretty rigorous level of filtration. It's not a cloth mask. If someone isn't taking it off if they aren't getting enough oxygen it could lead to this kind of problem. Rare? Sure. But so is a COVID death of a healthy young person.
tomjen3 6y ago
Seat belt laws should not be on the books. Yes you should wear it, but the government should not be allowed to make rules that only protect you - so many other draconian rules would disappear if they could only outlaw things that show clear danger to third-parties. And I wear my seatbelt always when driving, though not necessarily if I am backing into a spot.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  Ok, but if you don't wear a seatbelt and get into an accident and fly out the window onto the pavement, are you going to expect all the government services, police, firemen, public hospitals to eat the cost of your accident that will likely be much more severe due to your lack of seatbelt?

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]