4 ms·

But don't you realize it's completely circular? You have the right to have me not have the right to infect you. But don't I also have the right to have you no

But don't you realize it's completely circular? You have the right to have me not have the right to infect you. But don't I also have the right to have you not have the right to have me not have the right to infect you? The point is. How much do we want to limit _individual_ freedom in order to achieve community/global safety. This is not a black/white question with a right/wrong answer. As much as you want it to be a cut-and-dried issue - "you're rights end where mine begin", etc. - it is not. It is trivial to disassemble any argument along those lines. At the end of the day - it's all about freedom vs safety. It's fine if you don't draw your line in the same place. But trying to imply/suggest that your position is somehow objectively more right/true is ridiculous.

unityByFreedom 6y ago
You're choosing to die on a hill of not wanting to wear a face covering for a short period of your life. IMO there are much worse encroachments on rights happening, and this anti-mask thing seems to be symbolic for some people. But to others it appears foolish because temporarily wearing a mask or distancing really isn't the big deal you make it out to be. You're worried that these changes will become permanent, and I promise you they won't be. Everyone wants to go back to having freedom of movement.
- rwcarlsen 6y ago
  These specific changes won't be permanent - I agree. But the precedent they set for the future will be. And, in the mean time - these mitigations have and are having a huge personal impact on me, my wife, and my children - among others. Just because a lot of these things might not be a big deal to you, doesn't mean they're not a big deal to others. And I'm tired of people telling me that these things aren't a "big deal" to me. How the hell can they know how big of a deal they are to me? That's up to me to decide.
  - unityByFreedom 6y ago
    You know the irony of refusing to take precautions for concern about the future is it makes the future worse. More people get sick when we are not careful. If you were in a region with Ebola you would wash hands, wear a mask and more. And for 300k dead Americans, this essentially was Ebola. Right now is a once in a hundred year event where the whole world has to endure this pandemic. These are temporary steps that no one takes lightly to make the future better.
    - rwcarlsen 6y ago
      What makes you think I'm refusing to take precautions? I take precautions consistent with how I perceive the risk to myself and others - just like I always have my entire life. Just like you have your entire life. Ebola is a completely different risk/tradeoff profile than covid. Consider how many quality of life years have been lost due to things "saving" us from the pandemic. I'd wager we've had at least a ~10% reduction in quality of life for everyone in the U.S. (that's where I live so I'll use the example). That's 300+ million people for about a year. That's 30 million quality of life years lost. How many people will we have saved? Maybe 500,000? On average they had maybe 3 years left to live each. Also, people dying tended to not have a great quality of life (i.e. they were near the end of their life anyway) - but just to keep the estimate conservative we won't discount/reduce the worth of their final years. So we saved 1.5 million quality of life years. What kind of moronic tradeoff is that?
      - unityByFreedom 6y ago
        > people dying tended to not have a great quality of life (i.e. they were near the end of their life anyway) Who are you to say a grandparent is not enjoying the best years of their life seeing their children raise children, or a great grandparent for that matter? And, children may well enjoy sharing the experience of parenthood with their parents, so the premature loss of one life can hurt many people. Your whole take is based on a bunch of assumptions that everyone is miserable towards the end of their lives, that children and community feel no loss when elders die, and that just is not true. Life takes on a different meaning as we grow, and no age is of less worth.
bryanlarsen 6y ago
What's circular? You're free to not wear a mask on your own property. On somebody else's property you follow the other person's rules. On public property you follow public rules.
- rwcarlsen 6y ago
  There are all kinds of rights that have nothing to do with what people can do on their own property. Read almost every amendment - many have to do with rights we have places outside our own personal property. The entire point of this discussion is about what we are allowed to do in places nobody "owns" - i.e. places the govt owns - because the govt's purpose is to serve the people after all. Your argument is hopelessly broken here. What if the government told you you didn't have the right to leave your property - even to get food for yourself. Too bad for you - you are only free to get food on your own property. You probably wouldn't like that I suspect.

unityByFreedom 6y ago

You're choosing to die on a hill of not wanting to wear a face covering for a short period of your life. IMO there are much worse encroachments on rights happening, and this anti-mask thing seems to be symbolic for some people. But to others it appears foolish because temporarily wearing a mask or distancing really isn't the big deal you make it out to be. You're worried that these changes will become permanent, and I promise you they won't be. Everyone wants to go back to having freedom of movement.

rwcarlsen 6y ago
These specific changes won't be permanent - I agree. But the precedent they set for the future will be. And, in the mean time - these mitigations have and are having a huge personal impact on me, my wife, and my children - among others. Just because a lot of these things might not be a big deal to you, doesn't mean they're not a big deal to others. And I'm tired of people telling me that these things aren't a "big deal" to me. How the hell can they know how big of a deal they are to me? That's up to me to decide.
- unityByFreedom 6y ago
  You know the irony of refusing to take precautions for concern about the future is it makes the future worse. More people get sick when we are not careful. If you were in a region with Ebola you would wash hands, wear a mask and more. And for 300k dead Americans, this essentially was Ebola. Right now is a once in a hundred year event where the whole world has to endure this pandemic. These are temporary steps that no one takes lightly to make the future better.
  - rwcarlsen 6y ago
    What makes you think I'm refusing to take precautions? I take precautions consistent with how I perceive the risk to myself and others - just like I always have my entire life. Just like you have your entire life. Ebola is a completely different risk/tradeoff profile than covid. Consider how many quality of life years have been lost due to things "saving" us from the pandemic. I'd wager we've had at least a ~10% reduction in quality of life for everyone in the U.S. (that's where I live so I'll use the example). That's 300+ million people for about a year. That's 30 million quality of life years lost. How many people will we have saved? Maybe 500,000? On average they had maybe 3 years left to live each. Also, people dying tended to not have a great quality of life (i.e. they were near the end of their life anyway) - but just to keep the estimate conservative we won't discount/reduce the worth of their final years. So we saved 1.5 million quality of life years. What kind of moronic tradeoff is that?
    - unityByFreedom 6y ago
      > people dying tended to not have a great quality of life (i.e. they were near the end of their life anyway) Who are you to say a grandparent is not enjoying the best years of their life seeing their children raise children, or a great grandparent for that matter? And, children may well enjoy sharing the experience of parenthood with their parents, so the premature loss of one life can hurt many people. Your whole take is based on a bunch of assumptions that everyone is miserable towards the end of their lives, that children and community feel no loss when elders die, and that just is not true. Life takes on a different meaning as we grow, and no age is of less worth.

bryanlarsen 6y ago

What's circular? You're free to not wear a mask on your own property. On somebody else's property you follow the other person's rules. On public property you follow public rules.

rwcarlsen 6y ago
There are all kinds of rights that have nothing to do with what people can do on their own property. Read almost every amendment - many have to do with rights we have places outside our own personal property. The entire point of this discussion is about what we are allowed to do in places nobody "owns" - i.e. places the govt owns - because the govt's purpose is to serve the people after all. Your argument is hopelessly broken here. What if the government told you you didn't have the right to leave your property - even to get food for yourself. Too bad for you - you are only free to get food on your own property. You probably wouldn't like that I suspect.