5 ms·

> I don't know of any society that has had a social contract or laws to this effect, unless a person is maliciously, intentionally, spreading a disease. Intent

by biddit 6y ago

> I don't know of any society that has had a social contract or laws to this effect, unless a person is maliciously, intentionally, spreading a disease. Intentionally and maliciously is one thing, but there is a level below that, which is well-established: reckless endangerment, manslaughter, etc. Not wearing a mask in the middle of a pandemic is somewhere within the ballpark of this, and it’s reasonable to enforce and punish it, as we do with other reckless behaviors.

tertius 6y ago
Who decides when a mask is needed/not needed? Should we always be forced to wear masks going forward given that we've been made aware of the efficacy? Why stop at Corona? Flu is next. Then "we" (or whoever chose masks) learn that 70% of mask wearers still get sick (because either masks don't work or because plebs can't be trusted with them) next we need universal vaccination or else we get fined. And if we don't pay fines, jail... Etc. Etc. Who decides when we are required to wear masks? 'Rule by expert'?
- renewiltord 6y ago
  I don't think anyone should force you to do anything. You just pay up when you make someone sick. Pretty easy.
  - pindab0ter 6y ago
    So you can only be “free” when you can afford it.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      That's the nature of freedom when you impose costs on others, you need to be able to make them whole. Sort of intrinsic to the No Harm Principle.
    - davvolun 6y ago
      Right, wrong, or whatever, welcome to America. What, today, is stopping a billionaire from parking nearly anywhere they like and then just paying the fine, over and over? Or, beyond that, the quality of civil or criminal defense you can expect to receive is directly correlated to how much you're willing to pay.
- davvolun 6y ago
  You're arguing "slippery slope." The answer to any slippery slope argument, when asked "when does it stop" is to just choose a point to stop. (And in the case of a representative Democracy like the U.S., the choice mechanism is well documented if imperfect)
  - tertius 6y ago
    Before we get to the answer we need to realize that a slippery slope is often presented to make the opposition realize that they're being irrational or missing something. Once this realization has been made it is often also unnecessary to actually answer the question. Engaging in this type of discussion leaves the choice of where to stop at the individual level to justify and not swallowing what an expert says today or tomorrow and ignoring all information left out of the communication. Forcing mask wearing probably won't go anywhere federally. The states is where it becomes a problem.
    - davvolun 6y ago
      > Who decides when a mask is needed/not needed? The elected authorities, whether local, regional, state, or federal, preferably as advised by trained and trusted experts. > Should we always be forced to wear masks going forward given that we've been made aware of the efficacy? If that makes sense, as determined by the above answer. > Why stop at Corona? Flu is next. If that makes sense. In fact, there would almost certainly be a net benefit to society for the majority of the population to wear masks during flu season, and literally no reasonable downside. But it won't happen, despite making rational, logical sense, because our society can't even get people to wear masks, maintain social distance, wash your hands, etc. during an actual, honest-to-God pandemic. > Who decides when we are required to wear masks? See the first answer. The value of your "slippery slope" argument doesn't seem to be there to me; you seem to have already decided that the buck of mask wearing or public health in general stops at the individual level, ignoring the fact that that's simply not true. Cue rehashed arguments discussing seat belts, nudity, etc. etc. > Forcing mask wearing probably won't go anywhere federally. Here's hoping Biden can be persuasive https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/11/joe-biden-national-face-mask-mandate-covid/6233249002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/11/joe-bi...
1123581321 6y ago
Absolutely cruel and unjust, unless you want to redefine manslaughter’s punishment to perhaps the cost of a couple doctor’s copays. A jury trial would hopefully protect most people by refusing to condemn under such a punitive and anti-social regime. Humans cannot survive if they reduce social interactions to such a naked transactional level. Reminds me of that short story in which, in the future, we all pay each other micro-transactions for the dozens of small IP infringements we commit every day. I’m not saying coronavirus isn’t serious, in case it need be said.

by biddit 6y ago

tertius 6y ago

Who decides when a mask is needed/not needed? Should we always be forced to wear masks going forward given that we've been made aware of the efficacy? Why stop at Corona? Flu is next. Then "we" (or whoever chose masks) learn that 70% of mask wearers still get sick (because either masks don't work or because plebs can't be trusted with them) next we need universal vaccination or else we get fined. And if we don't pay fines, jail... Etc. Etc. Who decides when we are required to wear masks? 'Rule by expert'?

renewiltord 6y ago
I don't think anyone should force you to do anything. You just pay up when you make someone sick. Pretty easy.
- pindab0ter 6y ago
  So you can only be “free” when you can afford it.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    That's the nature of freedom when you impose costs on others, you need to be able to make them whole. Sort of intrinsic to the No Harm Principle.
  - davvolun 6y ago
    Right, wrong, or whatever, welcome to America. What, today, is stopping a billionaire from parking nearly anywhere they like and then just paying the fine, over and over? Or, beyond that, the quality of civil or criminal defense you can expect to receive is directly correlated to how much you're willing to pay.
davvolun 6y ago
You're arguing "slippery slope." The answer to any slippery slope argument, when asked "when does it stop" is to just choose a point to stop. (And in the case of a representative Democracy like the U.S., the choice mechanism is well documented if imperfect)
- tertius 6y ago
  Before we get to the answer we need to realize that a slippery slope is often presented to make the opposition realize that they're being irrational or missing something. Once this realization has been made it is often also unnecessary to actually answer the question. Engaging in this type of discussion leaves the choice of where to stop at the individual level to justify and not swallowing what an expert says today or tomorrow and ignoring all information left out of the communication. Forcing mask wearing probably won't go anywhere federally. The states is where it becomes a problem.
  - davvolun 6y ago
    > Who decides when a mask is needed/not needed? The elected authorities, whether local, regional, state, or federal, preferably as advised by trained and trusted experts. > Should we always be forced to wear masks going forward given that we've been made aware of the efficacy? If that makes sense, as determined by the above answer. > Why stop at Corona? Flu is next. If that makes sense. In fact, there would almost certainly be a net benefit to society for the majority of the population to wear masks during flu season, and literally no reasonable downside. But it won't happen, despite making rational, logical sense, because our society can't even get people to wear masks, maintain social distance, wash your hands, etc. during an actual, honest-to-God pandemic. > Who decides when we are required to wear masks? See the first answer. The value of your "slippery slope" argument doesn't seem to be there to me; you seem to have already decided that the buck of mask wearing or public health in general stops at the individual level, ignoring the fact that that's simply not true. Cue rehashed arguments discussing seat belts, nudity, etc. etc. > Forcing mask wearing probably won't go anywhere federally. Here's hoping Biden can be persuasive https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/11/joe-biden-national-face-mask-mandate-covid/6233249002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/11/joe-bi...

1123581321 6y ago

Absolutely cruel and unjust, unless you want to redefine manslaughter’s punishment to perhaps the cost of a couple doctor’s copays. A jury trial would hopefully protect most people by refusing to condemn under such a punitive and anti-social regime. Humans cannot survive if they reduce social interactions to such a naked transactional level. Reminds me of that short story in which, in the future, we all pay each other micro-transactions for the dozens of small IP infringements we commit every day. I’m not saying coronavirus isn’t serious, in case it need be said.