To Mask or Not to Mask?

[SwikLS]

 

[churchmouse]

Wow.
I think you have worms in your apples.

You are just now seeing this....

 

[drillsgt]

From the press briefing yesterday the nonsense may continue on into 2022.

 

[BugI02]

From the press briefing yesterday the nonsense may continue on into 2022.

Well, gotta' keep all those fraud-prone voting changes in place through the midterms because; pandemic

 

[drillsgt]

Well, gotta' keep all those fraud-prone voting changes in place through the midterms because; pandemic

That's true, I didn't think of that.

 

[SwikLS]

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Can the person carrying that firearm shoot someone around them willy-nilly so long as the person shot doesn't die? That seems to be your argument, that if they don't die their rights weren't violated. After all, there's only the right to life, not the right to not get shot.

Sure, as long as they have no idea if they are firing blanks or not and the govt tells them it's okay if they put a pillow in front of the barrel.

Mask today, semi-auto or 'high capacity' magazine tomorrow, maybe someday somebody will make a video of you.

It's been said many many times on this forum, carry how you like but if a store realizes you have a firearm regardless of mode of carry and they ask you to leave, do so or risk being an arrested Karen. Well the Karen part not so much but everything before it.

 

[CampingJosh]

Maybe you will answer.

Is a person responsible for the reasonably foreseeable harm he causes to another person who is acting within their own rights?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Maybe you will answer.

Is a person responsible for the reasonably foreseeable harm he causes to another person who is acting within their own rights?

Is a person who is acting within their own rights responsible for the “foreseeable harm” he causes to another person who is acting within their own rights?

 

[actaeon277]

I think we have different definitions of "reasonably foreseeable harm".

Some might think controlling a 2 ton mobile killing machine 70 mph mere yards away fits that definition.
So, do we make everyone go 10 mph?

 

[CampingJosh]

I think we have different definitions of "reasonably foreseeable harm".

Some might think controlling a 2 ton mobile killing machine 70 mph mere yards away fits that definition.
So, do we make everyone go 10 mph?

We allow people to drive at posted speed limits (though driving is a privilege, not a right). But we also have vehicular homicide, manslaughter, liability insurance, and more to protect the rights of others.

 

[actaeon277]

Great. We agree.
However, we do not charge people with those crimes, FOR JUST DRIVING.

 

[CampingJosh]

Great. We agree.
However, we do not charge people with those crimes, FOR JUST DRIVING.

Agreed.
We do require liability insurance "FOR JUST DRIVING" to protect others. We do in some instances charge people with reckless driving even if no one else was harmed. But again, this is a bad parallel because we're talking about a privilege.

 

[Ingomike]

We allow people to drive at posted speed limits (though driving is a privilege, not a right). But we also have vehicular homicide, manslaughter, liability insurance, and more to protect the rights of others.

Man, you are out there pushing this line of thinking.

 

[CampingJosh]

Is a person who is acting within their own rights responsible for the “foreseeable harm” he causes to another person who is acting within their own rights?

You have set up a false paradox because you misunderstand rights. It's not possible to have a right to harm another person.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Maybe you will answer.

Is a person responsible for the reasonably foreseeable harm he causes to another person who is acting within their own rights?

Perhaps, it would depend upon many factors. The Flu has been brought up here many times, it can be fatal, just like the rona. How should all those who infected others during the flu seasons of past be held accountable? And also per a few different studies mask or no mask doesn't matter. Another one I read said it might provide some mitigation. Are those that infect others while wearing a mask responsible for the harm he causes to another?

I think we have different definitions of "reasonably foreseeable harm".

Some might think controlling a 2 ton mobile killing machine 70 mph mere yards away fits that definition.
So, do we make everyone go 10 mph?

10 mph!!! You inhuman monster!!! No more than 2 should be allowed, and then only in dire circumstances.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You have set up a false paradox because you misunderstand rights. It's not possible to have a right to harm another person.

Do you have the right to self defense? And I'm pretty sure I know what your response will be.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

You have set up a false paradox because you misunderstand rights. It's not possible to have a right to harm another person.

I said the exact same thing you did. I only added “who is acting within his own rights” to the first person. Sounds like they’re both acting within their own rights.

I believe it is you who doesn’t understand rights.

 

[CampingJosh]

Do you have the right to self defense? And I'm pretty sure I know what your response will be.

You have a right to self-defense against someone who is violating one of your rights, yes. That's why, when I asked the question, I included the caveat that the other person is acting within their own rights.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

You have a right to self-defense against someone who is violating one of your rights, yes. That's why, when I asked the question, I included the caveat that the other person is acting within their own rights.

Is it not my right to be in the same public space as you? Would that not be acting within my own rights?