4 ms·

> I can and should be legally able to take whatever precautions I think are necessary A significant portion of the population isn't capable of making that judg

by u801e 6y ago

> I can and should be legally able to take whatever precautions I think are necessary A significant portion of the population isn't capable of making that judgment. > I'd much rather this sort of thing be policed socially amongst individuals There's a significant risk of becoming a victim of aggravated assault when you confront individuals or groups who insist on flaunting guidelines. Even if not, staying in close proximity to them while trying to get them to follow the guidelines increases your own risk of getting infected.

rglover 6y ago
> A significant portion of the population isn't capable of making that judgment. That may be, but that's the beauty of natural selection. If they can't do what they need to do to protect themselves, then their lineage will fail. Though it may inconvenience you, if you're smart enough to, you have the ability to move away from large groups of people (and take advantage of alternatives like grocery delivery, etc). > There's a significant risk of becoming a victim of aggravated assault when you confront individuals or groups who insist on flaunting guidelines. That's already happening and exacerbated by the media.
- u801e 6y ago
  > If they can't do what they need to do to protect themselves, then their lineage will fail. They're not living in isolation from the rest of society. Their actions are affecting those who are trying to take precautions. This is analagous to the situation where a portion of the population is not vaccinated and herd immunity to certain viral diseases can no longer be maintained. >>> I'd much rather this sort of thing be policed socially amongst individuals >> There's a significant risk of becoming a victim of aggravated assault when you confront individuals or groups who insist on flaunting guidelines. > That's already happening So why do you prefer it to be policed by individuals rather than relying on law enforcement?
  - rglover 6y ago
    > So why do you prefer it to be policed by individuals rather than relying on law enforcement? Precedent. Once this is written in to law, it opens the flood gates to a whole lot worse.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  “Lineage will fail”... rofl. I’m glad you took the argument down to the level of bizarre pseudo-darwinism. Textbook example of why civilized society has the keep the animal instincts of portions of the population in check.
salawat 6y ago
>A significant portion of the population isn't capable of making that judgment. Really? To whose satisfaction? Because aside from everyone under 18 being proxied through their parents/guardians and a limited subset of wards of the State/people granting powerof attorney for reason X, Y, Z, the legal reality is that yes, in fact by definition, those people do have the capability to make that judgement. Deep down, you're more annoyed that they don't arrive at the same answer you do, even when presented with what you consider the samme set of facts and reliable sources. Let's be clear. You're more annoyed you can't compel them, or have the government compel them to do what you want. While whatyou should be thankful for is the fact they generally can't do the same thing to you, leaving everyone at relative liberty to live life as they see fit. You are free to do as thou wilt. Take your precautions. I certainly won't judge you unreasonably. But stow the arrogant and dismissive attitude around others exercising and having the same liberties you enjoy and using them to different ends. Further, the fact that none of these types of legislation ever include sunset dates is more evidence that people are just looking to centralize and enshrine broad and disruptive enforcement powers without regard to the overall effect on the landscape of our overall set of civil liberties.
- u801e 6y ago
  > Deep down, you're more annoyed that they don't arrive at the same answer you do Please don't attribute things I never said to me.

by u801e 6y ago

rglover 6y ago

> A significant portion of the population isn't capable of making that judgment. That may be, but that's the beauty of natural selection. If they can't do what they need to do to protect themselves, then their lineage will fail. Though it may inconvenience you, if you're smart enough to, you have the ability to move away from large groups of people (and take advantage of alternatives like grocery delivery, etc). > There's a significant risk of becoming a victim of aggravated assault when you confront individuals or groups who insist on flaunting guidelines. That's already happening and exacerbated by the media.

u801e 6y ago
> If they can't do what they need to do to protect themselves, then their lineage will fail. They're not living in isolation from the rest of society. Their actions are affecting those who are trying to take precautions. This is analagous to the situation where a portion of the population is not vaccinated and herd immunity to certain viral diseases can no longer be maintained. >>> I'd much rather this sort of thing be policed socially amongst individuals >> There's a significant risk of becoming a victim of aggravated assault when you confront individuals or groups who insist on flaunting guidelines. > That's already happening So why do you prefer it to be policed by individuals rather than relying on law enforcement?
- rglover 6y ago
  > So why do you prefer it to be policed by individuals rather than relying on law enforcement? Precedent. Once this is written in to law, it opens the flood gates to a whole lot worse.
Spooky23 6y ago
“Lineage will fail”... rofl. I’m glad you took the argument down to the level of bizarre pseudo-darwinism. Textbook example of why civilized society has the keep the animal instincts of portions of the population in check.

salawat 6y ago

>A significant portion of the population isn't capable of making that judgment. Really? To whose satisfaction? Because aside from everyone under 18 being proxied through their parents/guardians and a limited subset of wards of the State/people granting powerof attorney for reason X, Y, Z, the legal reality is that yes, in fact by definition, those people do have the capability to make that judgement. Deep down, you're more annoyed that they don't arrive at the same answer you do, even when presented with what you consider the samme set of facts and reliable sources. Let's be clear. You're more annoyed you can't compel them, or have the government compel them to do what you want. While whatyou should be thankful for is the fact they generally can't do the same thing to you, leaving everyone at relative liberty to live life as they see fit. You are free to do as thou wilt. Take your precautions. I certainly won't judge you unreasonably. But stow the arrogant and dismissive attitude around others exercising and having the same liberties you enjoy and using them to different ends. Further, the fact that none of these types of legislation ever include sunset dates is more evidence that people are just looking to centralize and enshrine broad and disruptive enforcement powers without regard to the overall effect on the landscape of our overall set of civil liberties.

u801e 6y ago
> Deep down, you're more annoyed that they don't arrive at the same answer you do Please don't attribute things I never said to me.