To mask or not to mask....That is the question. Part II

[Chewie]

Or, maybe, just maybe, the discussion on masks has devolved into feckless political statements rather than science???

Or, maybe, just maybe, we are fed up with the bs being flung around. You want to mask? Mask! You don't want to mask? Don't mask!

And please no more of the Myeeee Reeeiiiights crap. It is shallow, bogus, and insulting (which I know is the intent).

 

[Chewie]

Health policy is set by the States pursuant to the Tenth Amendment.

Doesn't make the policies correct does it.

 

[churchmouse]

Is Kirk plying his craft in here.
Defense attorney.
Takes on a client and defends him to his best ability even possibly knowing said client is wrong or straight up guilty.

Sounds like he is arguing his case to 12 that would as soon be at home.

 

[Chewie]

Is Kirk plying his craft in here.
Defense attorney.
Takes on a client and defends him to his best ability even possibly knowing said client is wrong or straight up guilty.

Sounds like he is arguing his case to 12 that would as soon be at home.

100% agree. All of his talking points sound like attorney speak from the side he is defending. Selecting experts to support the chosen view, demonizing those who oppose, and playing on emotion (just a short list).
But he his who he is and his opinions are his as well.

 

[SwikLS]

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I found it, the masterplan. This is even more damning than a phony Stanford study:

 

[Kirk Freeman]

100% agree. All of his talking points sound like attorney speak from the side he is defending. Selecting experts to support the chosen view, demonizing those who oppose, and playing on emotion (just a short list).
But he his who he is and his opinions are his as well.

Lol, no, not defending anyone. Just showing the Pauline Kaels of INGO that the mask mandate, now recommendation, is based on science not fraud, not on the "Stanford" study or the lunatic rants and conspiracy theories of an aging rocker or talk show host. The anti-mask position was political only, heck that is why this thread is in the forum that it is. There is no reason to allow politics to displace science during a pandemic.

The good news, assuming arguendo India does not explode over again, we are on the down slope of this. We can learn from it and potentially save millions of lives in the future.

 

[jamil]

Lol, no, not defending anyone. Just showing the Pauline Kaels of INGO that the mask mandate, now recommendation, is based on science not fraud, not on the "Stanford" study or the lunatic rants and conspiracy theories of an aging rocker or talk show host. The anti-mask position was political only, heck that is why this thread is in the forum that it is. There is no reason to allow politics to displace science during a pandemic.

The good news, assuming arguendo India does not explode over again, we are on the down slope of this. We can learn from it and potentially save millions of lives in the future.

You realize that's not a very good defense against the charge, right?

Making it a mandate was based on science? I think one could reasonably say that saying masks may help in the pandemic would be based on science. Deciding to make it a mandate was likely based on politics.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You realize that's not a very good defense against the charge, right?

Making it a mandate was based on science? I think one could reasonably say that saying masks may help in the pandemic would be based on science. Deciding to make it a mandate was likely based on politics.

Kael is a metaphor for the danger of living being one's own jar. I cannot see Covid-19 thus it does not exist, or "it's just the flu" or the like.

I am open to such arguments (the masks are merely political, but cui bono?), but dispute the use of phony studies and anecdotal evidence (everyone knows) which are preferred by the anti-maskers.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This is a question I often ask of people who state such things so confidently. What if you’re full of ****? Have you considered that possibility?

There a pandemic. The only ones denying it are the grifters on the Right that have a nonsense agenda to sell.

People that buy into the "Covid-19 ain't real" pay for it. See Ted Nugent.

If the pro-mask side is full of it, then there is no harm.

If the anti-mask is full of it, there there is a novel virus that continues along to do its harm.

 

[buckwacker]

Lol, no, not defending anyone. Just showing the Pauline Kaels of INGO that the mask mandate, now recommendation, is based on science not fraud, not on the "Stanford" study or the lunatic rants and conspiracy theories of an aging rocker or talk show host. The anti-mask position was political only, heck that is why this thread is in the forum that it is. There is no reason to allow politics to displace science during a pandemic.

The good news, assuming arguendo India does not explode over again, we are on the down slope of this. We can learn from it and potentially save millions of lives in the future.

You could ask the mods to move it to the science forum then.

 

[BugI02]

We are good at 0 or 100; 50, not so much. Everyone wants convenience and safety, not happening.

Could it not be that we are actually competent to judge 50, and in our judgement if 45 out of 50 is nuisance just to make others FEEL safe, then the erosion of liberty is too high a price for ephemeral and somewhat delusionary feels

Is not the constant appeal to 'your' science, as opposed to just science, a fallacy of appeal to authority? Why are we not allowed, in Kirkworld, to make a personal evaluation of the authority invoked? Why will you not accept that decision if it is at variance to what YOU want. That has been the crux from this thread since its beginnings in part I

I think the demonstrated fear of giving people an open choice says you know which way this will go

 

[nonobaddog]

If the pro-mask side is full of it, then there is no harm.

No harm? Think again. There were an estimated 1.5 Billion masks discarded that made it into the oceans in 2020. This in addition to all the other reasons already stated.

 

[BugI02]

Is Kirk plying his craft in here.
Defense attorney.
Takes on a client and defends him to his best ability even possibly knowing said client is wrong or straight up guilty.

Sounds like he is arguing his case to 12 that would as soon be at home.

No, I think Kirk is the client. Either out of a sense of personal insecurity or some misguided notion that masks will end lockdowns quicker (rather than set the stage for the next one), IMO he is defending the position he himself holds. A lawyer presenting to the jury would not be so condescending

 

[BugI02]

I am open to such arguments (the masks are merely political, but cui bono?)

Predominantly the Democratic Party, fearing if they didn't crash the Trump economy they would not be able to cheat sufficiently to even have a chance against America First. Then after achieving the primary purpose, they can't just admit it was a useful fiction and unwind it quickly, but you did notice how quickly after Election Day talk of and actions to open up in blue states began to happen, yes?

To completely lose control of both chambers of congress in '22 takes only a gain one senate seat and 7 house seats. I suspect the desire to maintain the 'emergency' has something to do with that

None so blind ...

 

[jamil]

Predominantly the Democratic Party, fearing if they didn't crash the Trump economy they would not be able to cheat sufficiently to even have a chance against America First. Then after achieving the primary purpose, they can't just admit it was a useful fiction and unwind it quickly, but you did notice how quickly after Election Day talk of and actions to open up in blue states began to happen, yes?

To completely lose control of both chambers of congress in '22 takes only a gain one senate seat and 7 house seats. I suspect the desire to maintain the 'emergency' has something to do with that

None so blind ...

Plausibly? Yeah, it could be that. Is it that? If you say definitely yes I’ll ask you the same question I asked Kirk.

 

[jamil]

Kael is a metaphor for the danger of living being one's own jar. I cannot see Covid-19 thus it does not exist, or "it's just the flu" or the like.

I am open to such arguments (the masks are merely political, but cui bono?), but dispute the use of phony studies and anecdotal evidence (everyone knows) which are preferred by the anti-maskers.

If you want to rail against the conspiracy theories have at it. I may enjoin. I kinda think you're wrapping all of it with the same bow as if to say it's all the same thing.

There a pandemic. The only ones denying it are the grifters on the Right that have a nonsense agenda to sell.

People that buy into the "Covid-19 ain't real" pay for it. See Ted Nugent.

If the pro-mask side is full of it, then there is no harm.

If the anti-mask is full of it, there there is a novel virus that continues along to do its harm.

Two sides:
First side:

1. There are people who think the pandemic is flat out fake.
2. There are people who think the pandemic is a "plandemic", that it's real, but that they're making more of it than there is to impose restrictions on people. I dunno, I guess to make them used to being told what to do.
3. And there are people who think it's real, it's potentially dangerous to vulnerable people, and that it's an act of personal responsibility to take steps not to infect vulnerable people. But there are people exploiting it as more than it is for political gain, including imposing unreasonable mandates.

Second side:

1. There people thinking that this is the end of humankind unless we all wear masks and shut everything down until no person has it.
2. There are people who think the restrictions imposed thus far across the country are warranted to help get us through this quicker, and that we should continue locking businesses down/requiring masks in public, until this is over.
3. There are people who think it warrants some restrictions to end this.

One side doesn't think mandates are necessary. The other does. There are bat **** crazy people on both sides thinking all kinds of nonsense. But you seem to treat the people who oppose mandates as if they're all the same, and as if there aren't bat **** crazy people demanding more restrictions regarding masks than is warranted. We don't need to double mask. That's retarded.

It's okay to point out the crazy. When I see fat ass Karens duking it out with some trailer park floozy in Walmart because the trailer park floozy doesn't want to wear a mask, I'm not taking sides on that. They're both ****ing crazy.

 

[jamil]

I found it, the masterplan. This is even more damning than a phony Stanford study:

View attachment 137175

This man is an attention seeking, lying, **********. Trump should have fired him by March 2020.

I mean. Why not wear 3 or 4 masks? Better than 2, right?

 

[MCgrease08]

When I see fat ass Karens duking it out with some trailer park floozy in Walmart because the trailer park floozy doesn't want to wear a mask, I'm not taking sides on that. They're both ****ing crazy.

Anecdotally, I was in the Noblesville Walmart today and saw quite a large percentage of shoppers not wearing masks. It was probably close to 10% unmasked, which is nice to see IMHO. Also, the signs at the "masks required" signs at the entrances seem to have been removed. At least I didn't seem them today. But I've been ignoring them since April 6th when the statewide mandate was lifted and the Hamilton County health department declined to impose one.

 

[bobzilla]

If you want to rail against the conspiracy theories have at it. I may enjoin. I kinda think you're wrapping all of it with the same bow as if to say it's all the same thing.



Two sides:
First side:

1. There are people who think the pandemic is flat out fake.
2. There are people who think the pandemic is a "plandemic", that it's real, but that they're making more of it than there is to impose restrictions on people. I dunno, I guess to make them used to being told what to do.
3. And there are people who think it's real, it's potentially dangerous to vulnerable people, and that it's an act of personal responsibility to take steps not to infect vulnerable people. But there are people exploiting it as more than it is for political gain, including imposing unreasonable mandates.

Second side:

1. There people thinking that this is the end of humankind unless we all wear masks and shut everything down until no person has it.
2. There are people who think the restrictions imposed thus far across the country are warranted to help get us through this quicker, and that we should continue locking businesses down/requiring masks in public, until this is over.
3. There are people who think it warrants some restrictions to end this.

One side doesn't think mandates are necessary. The other does. There are bat **** crazy people on both sides thinking all kinds of nonsense. But you seem to treat the people who oppose mandates as if they're all the same, and as if there aren't bat **** crazy people demanding more restrictions regarding masks than is warranted. We don't need to double mask. That's retarded.

It's okay to point out the crazy. When I see fat ass Karens duking it out with some trailer park floozy in Walmart because the trailer park floozy doesn't want to wear a mask, I'm not taking sides on that. They're both ****ing crazy.

All of this. I for one am sick of the Kirks constantly talking down to anyone that disagrees, calling them anti-science and pulling the myeeee riiiiiights ********. Either have a rational argument that you can defend or shut the **** up. We don’t need more of this divisive ********. If you can’t understand there’s more going on than your black and white narrative then you really have no place in this conversation.