Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
People who divide the country into tribes, classes, and skin color are Marxists. It's literally what Marxists do, pit one class against another class.
what? That has nothing to do with marxism. Trump loves to divide people up into tribes, classes and skin color. I guess by your definition trump is a marxist.
BLM is a tool for Marxists and is actually founded by, funded by, and run by Marxists. Go read their manifesto on their website. "Economic injustice" is a core Marxist belief.
how is "economic injustice" marxist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
My point is if this is actually about slavery, then the religion that practices slavery today wouldn't be tolerated.
ok, but your point is still irrelevant. You are talking about statues in America. No one is building monuments to the muslim slavers from africa in the US. So they are entirely unrelated to this discussion.
Marxists don't need additional reasons to hate the founding fathers. Slavery is just a convenient tool in the box.
why do you think that everyone is a marxist? You use that to describe pretty much anyone who isn't right wing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because Mohammed is the leader of a religion that de-Facto still practices slavery today in Africa and ME.
Apparently you don't know this, but Muhammad has been dead for like 1,400 years. He isn't the leader of anything. And that still doesn't explain how actions taken by random people in africa have anything at all to do with a discussion about what we build monuments to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Don't be silly. For a start, one is tolerant the other isn't. Have a guess which one isn't?
lol, no. Countless atrocities have been carried out for Christianity. Muslims were usually much more tolerant of other faiths inside their borders. Christians relentlessness attacked, suppressed or expelled religious minorities.
No, wrong again. One is about blind submission and the other isn't. Have a guess which one isn't?
well since they both are, there is no point in guessing.
Me neither, but you have ignored the uncomfortable fact that blacks rounded up other blacks and sold them to the highest bidder.
i don't understand how I could ignore something that is completely irrelevant. No one is talking about building statues to them, so how could what they did be at all relevant to a conversation about statues?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
That is correct. However, tearing George Washington statues apart while the US is technically still intact is a big and unnecessary deal.
I don't see slave ownership on it's own being cause to tear down his statues. It is possible he did things that are bad enough to warrant that, if so i am not aware of them. But alot of historical figures owned slaves. Alot of historical figures did terrible things. If we set the bar for a monument at "perfect" then we won't have any monuments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I will take down neither. That would be probably equivalent to taking down every Mao's statue in China just because he persecuted some ppl.
mao killed millions and millions of his own people. If communism ever falls, it is entirely possible mao statues would come down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
religion is an ideology i.e. and idea, and in the case of Islam a very bad one.
Islam isn't fundamentally that different from christianity. They are both about blind obedience to an unknowable deity. And if you disobey, you will be gravely punished.
Your arguments here are simply nonsense. Slavery is slavery no matter who or when.
no it isn't. There are very different forms of slavery. In some cultures, slaves are highly respected and well treated. For example the Janissaries of the ottoman empire. they were slaves, but they lived good lives and were very prestigious. There is evidence that people tried hard to get their children into the Janissaries because it would give them a better life.
Europeans, and by extension americans, engaged in "Chattel Slavery". This was the most brutal and dehumanizing form of slavery. Basically, the slaves were believed to either be sub-human, or so "barbaric" that white people were doing them a favor by working them to death. This gave them the "moral" right to abuse, torture and kill their slaves.
The silence from the left is deafening when it is put to them the fact that black people from one tribe in African would round up black people from other African tribes and sell them to Muslims or anyone who wished to buy them.
I don't hear about anyone in america wanting to build monuments to those slavers though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well I worship the state, so if you take down George Washington, that is a religious act against me.
that is completely unamerican. America, along with the rest of the western world, is a secular state. A division of church and state is critically important.
Lil surprised you are against taking down Washington (or “don’t think it is necessary”). Why is that?
I am a history buff. No one in the history of the world has ever been perfect. Everyone has their flaws. Everyone has done things that are wrong. If we can only have monuments to people who are perfect, there will be no monuments. I think that, as a society, we can have a real conversation about what things we value and what we want to memorialize.
Created:
Posted in:
1st off, I don't agree taking down statues of washington is necessary. But I thought there were 2 major points that make the comparison between washington and mohommad a poor one.
1) one of these people is politician, the other is a religious leader. So banning Mohammad is overtly religious act, while taking down statues of washington is just a political one.
2) Mohommad lived over 1000 years before washington. Virtually all societies used slaves at that time. Slavery was much better understood as an moral problem by the time washington was alive. Not to mention that chattel slavery tended to be much more brutal than the slavery used by many other societies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
But unlike normal flu-like outbreaks where we quarantine the sick and the elderly, those deaths are at a minimum, as compared to COVID where our policy was to infect nursing homes on purpose.
what? No one infected a nursing home on purpose. The point was to quarantine everyone. That includes the sick and the elderly as well as everyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Your math is wrong, as usual.
sorry, was writing it quickly. You're right. Your plan would kill more like 10 million people. Probably more because hospitals would run out of beds by then and the death rate would spike.
Created:
Posted in:
f the healthy herd immunity groups go home to, touch the same surfaces as or even slightly interact with the elderly and vulnerable, it will result in death (unlike with the flu). Also, unlike with the flu, you don't always know you've got it when you're the less-at-risk type.
fair points. But my point wasn't that letting huge numbers of people die to build up herd immunity was a good plan. My point was that there is no evidence that would even work. So the cost we would pay might be entirely for nothing since it seems like getting covid might not confer immunity from it. So basing our entire strategy on a guess that doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence is a terrible idea.
Created:
Posted in:
here is a link to a segment about corona in a specific texas hospital. Take a look at 5:10 for a section where the doctor describes getting calls about 10 sick "young people" in one day, all who needed a ventilator or they will die. He only had 3 beds available.
But fox would have you believe this is just like the flu and young people will be fine if they catch it. That is a lie. It also highlights the serious danger we are in if hospitals reach the limit of their capacity. If the hospitals run out of beds, then people who would otherwise recover will start dying. Some regions are getting close to, if not already at maximum capacity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
All the research and science surrounding Covid 19 is clearly subjective as no one can agree on anything, most especially the so called experts. They are all using the so called same facts to come up with their differing opinionated recommendations.
it takes years of research and repeated testing and study. You are basically advocating for not believing doctors and scientists because the research isn't 100% conclusive yet. By the time the research is conclusive hundreds of thousands will be dead.
The only people who are 100% in agreement on any aspect of Covid 19 are mask manufacturers and what masks do and don't filter Covid 19.
because you are asking the wrong question. The point of the mask is not to filter covid, it is to prevent your saliva from spreading. Since your saliva will carry covid, preventing that from spraying out will significantly reduce the spread of covid. mask companies agree they don't filter covid, but they also agree that they do filter saliva (which carries covid).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hyper-sanitization by saturating the human body with antibodies isn't a new concern when it comes to weakening the immune response in humans to novel viruses.
so your argument is that we should let 3% of the US population die and not do anything about it? That would be over 3 million people dead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's not, no matter how much you inflate the death count, it's marginally 1.5 times deadlier than a bad flu outbreak.
The death rate from the flu is roughly 0.1%. The death rate from covid is hard to pin down as it varies by region, but it has been more like 3%. Covid is much, much deadlier than the flu.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
There’s no use arguing with the dude. He can’t even vote in US Elections cause he’s probably not even American.
lol that's right. hide in your right wing echo chamber. I know you need a safe space. But if that is what you are looking for, you shouldn't be in a politics forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's funny to consider why we are not doing the exact same things we do for normal flu, which is to quarantine the sick and elderly and actively promote young people to stock up on vitamins and eat healthy so that they can develop the herd immunity that lowers the spread of the flu.
I don't know how you are not getting this. Covid is not like the flu. It is 10-30 times deadlier. And even those who survive can have long term, even permanent, impacts to their health.
You know, back when we encouraged herd immunity instead of actively suppressing herd immunity among the young and healthy?
There is no evidence that exposure to Covid will prevent you from getting it again. There are already documented cases of people getting it more than once. You are suggesting we should gamble hundreds of thousands of lives on a guess.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
love the qualifying statements in that one, might, they love that word
of course, any responsible doctor would use that. It requires years of testing and many, many rounds of repeated studies to make empirical statements. They aren't allowed to announce the results of their study as if it is empirical fact.
ah suggesting, another fave.
again, all responsible studies this early into a new virus use this language.
Your entire post just essentially showed that you will look for anything to try to prove your predetermined opinion rather than actually look at the facts. You are now nit picking how responsible studies report their findings and pretending like this invalidates the study.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
A gun puts them on equal footing. Guns are more deadly. That is why one person can fend off multiple attackers with them.
guns massively increase the odds of critical injury and death.
I have black neighbors, but I don't see how the anecdotal evidence that you are sure to spew at me will prove anything as a general trend for every black person in the country.
See this is the problem. The systemically racist system collects the stats. If they choose not to note their racist interactions, or choose to misclassify it, then there is no stats to prove anything. So saying you won't believe it without stats is like saying you won't believe a crime happened unless the criminal describes in detail what they did.
Something about bearing arms and not being VIOLATED. Arms referred to guns. So, drawing the line anywhere else is attacking the constitution.
no. It says right to bear arms in order to be part of a well regulated militia. It doesn't say that citizens can own any weapons they want. It says they can own weapons for the purpose of being part of a regulated militia. The intention was that the US military would be tiny and would need a large militia force to back it up. Since that is no longer true, the entire amendment is pointless.
And if you are complaining about gun homicide still, I'll let you in on a little fun fact:Blunt objects like hammers kill more people than all rifles combined. Fists and feet kill more people than all rifles combined (NOT just "assault rifles".)
so your argument is that because people die in other ways, we should do nothing about them dying in this way? So because people die in car accidents, we should stop all cancer research.... sounds logical.
And even if you get rid of guns, you won't get those crime rates down to zero.
i know, i keep telling you that.
I went to extensive lengths to compare gun ownership rates to homicide rates in other countries. I showed how #19 in the world for most guns per capita, Switzerland, had one of the lowest homicide rates in the world, and much lower than UK that had gotten rid of most guns.
true. Switzerland does more to deal with the underlying issues that cause crime. They also treat gun ownership as a significant responsibility. Everyone must get training and education on proper use of firearms. They don't wander around out in public with their assault rifles just to prove they have a tiny penis as the right loves to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
there is no proof that asymptomatic people spread it, only that's it's possible
there are multiple studies that show it happens.
, how many hospitalized got it even though they followed all the guidelines?
how is this relevant? The guidelines are intended to slow the spread. They are not going to be able to prevent every case, but they will reduce the number of cases. There are still going to be cases of people who follow the guidelines and still get sick. but there will be alot less cases than if we don't follow the guidelines.
I'm not convinced asymptomatic people should be forced to wear masks under threat of imprisonment, force or by people with guns.
why? Even if you don't believe asymptomatic people spread it (which several studies have shown they can), then there are still lots of people out there who will only develop mild symptoms and will think it's no big deal. They will still spread corona all over the place and keep america locked down for a long time as well as resulting in the deaths of potentially hundreds of thousands of people.
Wearing a mask is a mild inconvenience. They are kind of uncomfortable. But they aren't going to hurt you. They aren't going to prevent you from living your life in any way. They are safety equipment. It is no different that using "threat of imprisonment, force or by people with guns" to enforce laws that make you wear clothes outside your house, or wear a bicycle helmet. We already have these rules in place. this is just a minor change to those rules in order to save thousands of lives, not to mention billions of dollars since we will be able to get the economy open faster.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Yet it's Trump's opposition that is lawlessly burning buildings, looting stores, and canceling free speech on college campuses! Weird huh?
no. It is criminals who are looting things. They are not "trump's opposition".
I guess those building burned themselves, and those stores self-lootedIf your dogma trumps reality, (pun intended) you're liberal left.
you are intentionally ignoring a critical detail. That protesters and looters are separate groups. There are people out protesting, fighting for their rights and freedoms. There are also looters out there trying to steal or destroy things. There is a little bit of overlap between the groups, but they are largely separate. But you wouldn't believe that because fox news just wants you to think they're all criminals and terrorists so that you will immediately dismiss them.
What is more nazi-like? Trump, or his opposition lawlessly burning buildings, looting stores, and canceling free speech on college campus? Don't answer. The question was rhetorical.
well i will answer anyway. It is trump. trump loves authoritarian leaders. He loves fear mongering about minorities and foreigners. He loves exalting uses of force on his opponents. These are all classic nazi traits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
actively sick......sneezing, coughing like I said before.
ok, but lots of people can have mild or no symptoms at all and spread the virus. They don't realize they are sick. There is no way to get them to wear a mask unless:
1) we massively ramp up test so that virtually everyone is tested
2) we get everyone to wear a mask
Unless we do one of those 2 things, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to reopen the economy. Unless you prefer to keep the country on lock down for the next 6 months to a year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ok, if you want to ban oil filters for cars, then fair enough.
no, I want to ban suppressed weapons. Knives are fine, but if you use one to stab someone that is a crime. Oil filters are fine, but if you use one to suppress a killing machine that should be a crime.
so you admit that guns are much more deadly than a knife?That is the point. It allows someone who is weak to defend themselves from larger people.
I mostly just wanted to point out that you seem to understand your other argument about how "if they can't get a gun they will use a knife" is completely bullshit. You understand that knives are much less deadly, but when it suits you, you will pretend that they aren't.
Outside of stop and frisk, I see little evidence of just pulling people over for no reason.
ok, but do you live in a neighborhood with lots of black people? Or do you live in a predominantly white neighborhood and have no idea what you are talking about?
Why is it all or nothing with you people? It is either "you must support getting rid of all guns" or "I bet you want everyone to own nukes".
the point is to show that your argument is ridiculous. You believe you should have an unquestionable right to own weapons that no government has any right to curtail in any way. But you also accept that the government absolutely has the right to curtail what weapons people can have (grenade launchers, nukes etc). You want to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and pretend like it is inviolable. But that line keeps moving all the time and you just pretend it doesn't and that anyone who thinks that line should be somewhere else is attacking the constitution.
You make a determination on both the chance of getting caught and the punishment/payoff.
except most people don't do that. If they thought they were likely to get caught, they wouldn't commit the crime. They do it because they don't think they will be caught. So while the severity of the penalty does play a role, it is a relatively small one.
Nuclear weapons and grenades aren't self-defense or hunting tools. They really have no use outside of blowing things up.
this is again, a silly argument. An assault rifle is not a particularly useful weapon for self defense. no one is going to announce they are attacking and give you time to get your weapon and then use it at an effective range. They are designed to assault enemy positions and put down high rates of fire. There is no reason for a civilian to own that. If your dividing line is things that are useful for self defense and hunting, then you should advocate for only handguns and hunting rifles. Is that your position?
Again, it isn't the guns. That is like saying "men beating women is a problem. We need to do something about those fists". Awfully like UK blaming stabbings on knives and not the people. Much easier and convenient to blame inanimate objects instead of people.
I keep repeating this for you. I understand that there are underlying causes of crime that need to be addressed. You would likely oppose the methods needed to do that, but that is a separate argument. But you will never get crime down to 0. No matter how well we do, there will be criminals. And right now, virtually any criminal can arm himself to the teeth with little to no problem. Until the supply of guns is brought under control, it will never be possible to prevent this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
your lack of understanding is just too frustrating for me, I keep repeating myself but you are too arrogant and closed minded to even try to understand, yes masks should be worn by those actively sick, i've said that and I'll say it again, I'm not convinced those who are NOT SICK need to wear them. maybe you can only understand things in small bites like this.
You do keep repeating yourself, however the things you are repeating don't really make sense. You keep repeating sick people should wear masks, absolutely. And if we could determine who was sick and get them to wear a mask before they started spreading Covid, that would be a perfectly logical argument. However we can't do that. Lots of people are asymptomatic and don't know they are sick. Lots of people are sick but have mild symptoms so they don't think it's covid.
It isn't possible to get masks on all the sick people because alot of them don't know they are sick/have covid. So if you make exceptions for who has to wear a mask, then covid will spread. It is very simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
it did happen,
yes, there were cases of looting in some areas. However, there was definitely not "looting businessess and towns all over the country". That is some right wing nonsense.
It is fear mongering in an attempt to smear the BLM movement. Basically, paint them as looters and terrorists so that people don't see them for what they are, protesters against a rigged and unfair system. That way you will continue to support suppression and hate while still able to pat yourself on the back and repeat some tired lines about "law and order".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
how masks work and what they will and won't filter etcanyway it's clear you are convinced you know everything and aren't willing to consider anyone else's opinions or sides without bashing them
Did they tell people that masks don't work and not to wear them? Or are you just throwing out vague bullshit?
simply don't believe facts or reality. Some of them are too stupid to understand.I'm done with this topic, there's no more point in it.
Well i have repeatedly shown you why masks work. You agree that masks work. Then you backtrack and ramble about maybe they don't work. Maybe they are just attacking our rights!!! but can't explain why a rule to wear a mask is any different than rules we already have mandating clothing or safety equipment.
basically, i have dismantled your arguments, but then you just repeat yourself. Since you clearly have your mind set on "mask bad!!", you are right there is no point discussing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you think? how about the 12 year old boy knocked down by the big black man? the guy being attacked while at work?
I don;t know what you are talking about. you are throwing out super vague descriptions of things that may or may not have happened.
there's an awful lot of instances aside from rogue cops and white supremacist that would motivate first time gun purchasers, many of which, ironically are learning that the laws they supported are now biting them in the ass.
Like what for example? Which laws they supported are biting them in the ass?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
or it could be that waves of people are looting businessess and towns all over the country
it could be, but since that didn't happen it definitely isn't. But since you are probably getting your info I can understand why you would think that. You also probably think Obama was a secret kenyan muslim and that caravans from mexico are invading america.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Yet it's Trump's opposition that is lawlessly burning buildings, looting stores, and canceling free speech on college campuses! Weird huh?
no, it's trump's authoritarianism that causes him to attack peaceful protesters.
If your dogma trumps reality, (pun intended) you're liberal left.
your attempts at humor are as sad as your misguided beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I wonder why the rush to buy guns?
people fear change. establishment figures love to fear monger. If they can convince you commies are coming to kill you, you will sign up for whatever horrible, corportist policies they want to pass.
The rush to buy guns has more to do with the insane nonsense being spread by fox news than by actual reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
oh I totally get where you are coming from, if they won't do what you want force them under threat of law or people with guns, I totally understand your point of view, personally just because it's difficult and you won't succeed 100% shouldn't mean you just result to force, but I know you disagree with that.
people already have the facts. You already have the facts. People don't care. Some of them think some hypothetical threat to their freedom is more important than the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Some of them simply don't believe facts or reality. Some of them are too stupid to understand. But at the end of the day lives are on the line. The country will never be able to get back to normal until we get covid under control. And until everyone socially distances and wears masks that isn't going to happen.
We can't let their suspicion, ignorance or stupidity allow people to die and the country to slide deeper into a depression.
people will still do itthat really made me laugh because I said the same thing about gun laws and you turn around and use the same argument, it's pretty darn funny, doubt you'd admit it.
not really. I am saying people will do stupid things unless we as a society prevent it. You are saying people will do stupid things so we should do absolutely nothing about it and let people die.
well, there was no number of people in the study, pretty much no criteria for the study, other than it may, might take my word for it, I don't consider that proof.
I linked to an article on it. One of the papers they referenced was research looking at a number of different studies. They were using all of these as a basis for their results. Why would you think there were no people? How would that even make sense?
it might reduce the spread of covid from asymptomatic people.
It definitely would reduce the spread. That is beyond question at this point. If you think it wouldn't you would have to give a reason why since i have explained several times why it would.
your opinion is not fact as evidenced by your "studies" that use terms like may or might etc
all studies use those words. It takes years of research before studies begin to draw absolute conclusions. Tests have to be repeated over and over and over in order to be certain. There hasn't been time for that yet.
also your examples of things you can NOT do is vastly different than a government trying to MAKE you do something.
no they weren't. They make you put on clothes to go outside. They make you wear a helmet to ride a bike. etc. Society has lots of rules for what is required of people. If the government can write a law saying you have to wear clothes, they can also decide you need to wear a mask. In fact, a mask is probably much more important than wearing pants. No one is going to get hurt because they see your genitals. Alot of people could get hurt if you give them covid.
you can choose not to believe the f.d.a. and what they state about masks, you seem to ignore the facts and accept maybe, might as factual statements.
what are you talking about? Are you saying that the FDA is telling people not to wear masks? What facts am I ignoring?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
helping people make an informed choice is the best way of convincing people, not demanding, shaming, forcing etc
disagree. you can explain to people till you are blue in the face that it is a bad idea to drink and drive. people will still do it. If you don't enforce laws protecting the public good, then people will act against the public good. in this case, there will always be people who deny the evidence, or simply don't care. They will decide they would rather take the risk. But it isn't just their life they are gambling with. It is everyone's lives and the state of the entire economy.
those where studies, they didn't actually study people or anything, it was assumptions.
what? Why would you think that a study didn't study anything?
then you clearly missed the point, there's always a risk as I said, there always will be, just like flu, I'm not sure how else to explain it to you.
true, and the risks are many, many times higher with covid than the flu. It is way more deadly.
IE saliva carries corona, and masks stop saliva.reduces =/= stop
ok, so massively reduces the spread of covid is still a huge improvement.
tell that to nudist and nude beach goers
because we have determined specific zones where it is permissible to do so. Everywhere else it is illegal.
Newsflash, ladies: it’s legal to go topless in New York State.
topless is not nude.
anyway, it is an infringement on rights to be forced to wear a mask, they and you try to justify it, even if it is justified it's still and infringement right?
lol you just confirmed that it is illegal to go naked, but they say that it is an infringement of your rights to be forced to wear something. You are already forced to wear things to go outside.
I want proof not "maybe" "might" and assumptions, just the facts.
you already have them.
1) it is a fact that covid is in infected people's saliva.
2) it is a fact that a mask massively reduces the risk of your saliva ending up on another person or surface they may touch
3) as a result of facts 1 and 2, wearing a mask helps to reduce the spread of covid.
It isn't complicated. Its not like there is some astrophysics needed to calculate things. It is very simple. But you insist like more study is needed to prove things we already know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I don't know, how long does it take before the mask becomes ineffective? swapping it out makes sense for sure, but for how long? how long are they designed to be worn?
I don't know the answer to that. There is certainly room for discussion about what kinds of masks should be worn, how often they should be swapped etc. But problem number 1 is convincing people that wearing a mask isn't some attack on your freedom, it is an attempt to save your (and everyone else's) life.
social distance is #1, unless you want to say just stay home.
agreed. That is also critically important. I'd say it is more important than the mask, but both are important.
here's the thing, you'd think there would be better info about asymptomatic people and their ability to spread or not right? this isn't new science2009 flu
Different viruses have different characteristics. but comparing it to the flu isn't accurate. The flu and a corona virus are quite different. Things that are true for the flu are not necessarily remotely accurate to corona-virus.
In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak.
This is one study carried out months ago apparently in china which I don't trust to report information accurately. There have been lots of reports of them suppressing information about coronavirus. More recent studies (that I have already linked) showed between 20-40% of cases could be asymptomatic transmitters.
you can get flu year round also,
Covid is like 10-30 times more deadly than the flu. Comparing them is kind of silly.
so while it's still possible I don't think the risk and effectiveness of masks is worth a rights violation.
You have already acknowledged that masks are effective. IE saliva carries corona, and masks stop saliva. So that part doesn't appear to be in question.
And there is no "rights violation" as far as i can tell. Society already has lots of requirements that we live with every day. You can't walk around naked. You have to wear a seat belt in a car. You have to wear a helmet to ride a bike. You can't drink on the side walk. etc. This is no different. Those rules exist because we, as a society, have decided that they are necessary to protect people. Well now we need masks to protect people. You can whine about it all you want, but there is violation of rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well, you can use an oil filter as a suppressor. Are you banning those, too?
If someone is attempting to modify a weapon to suppress the sound it makes, I think that should be illegal. So i would support that.
Gangs poisoning children with drugs, doing drive-by shootings, and robbing stores/people does sound like actual policing tasks.
Those are absolutely police tasks. But those make up a relatively small percent of what police spend their time doing. Stats can be hard to come by because lots of police forces don't report on this. But here is an article discussing how police in these specific locations that actually report on this, spend about 4% of their time dealing with violent crime. A large percent of what they spend their time doing could be better handled by other agencies.
Assuming the intent is to cause bodily harm, she would be better off than if none of them had guns. At least she would have a chance if she had a gun.
so you turn a situation where she may get hurt into a situation where she is very likely to be killed. I don't see that as an improvement.
Because guns are an "equilizer". No matter how small you are, you can adequately defend yourself against any attacker if you have a gun. That isn't the case with a golf club, bat,etc as those depend on your dexterity, size, and strength.
so you admit that guns are much more deadly than a knife?
Police do have to have a reason to stop you. If they don't, they can't legally arrest you. They should be punished for arresting people without reason.
agreed. But that is a core part of the problem. Police do this all the time. Many police see being black as a reasonable reason to stop, question or arrest people. They need a reason to do this, but since there is little to no enforcement of this, they can make up any flimsy pretext they want to question or arrest someone.
But first off, do you really think these teenagers know they didn't break any of the thousands of laws in their state when they are resisting arrest? Tell me, what good comes from telling people that they shouldn't have to submit if they think they didn't do anything wrong? That is when people get violent with cops and get shot or beaten.
I agree that resisting arrest rarely ends well for anyone and that they shouldn't do it. But the core problem is that they shouldn't be in a situation where they need to. The police harassing them, questioning them or arresting them when they have done nothing wrong is causing the problem.
He stopped the truck. If he tried to murder someone, he would have kept going and even swerved to try to hit people. He wouldn't have blared his horn to warn them to get out of the way. Stop being silly.
he drove directly into a crowd of people. That is reckless endangerment. That driver was arrested for this.
A cost of freedom worth the risks.
ok. so we should have the freedom to own nuclear weapons? I mean it will be the end of the human race, but hey, at least we will be free as we die.
Just make examples out of straw purchasers and gun runners. If those guns are used to kill somebody, give them both the death penalty.
Strict penalties on their own are completely worthless. They don't work. People don't think they will get caught, or they wouldn't have committed the crime in the 1st place. Just slapping harsher punishments on them will do nothing. You need to actually get the guns out of circulation.
As I pointed out in an above post, white people own way more guns and have a homicide rate of less than 1.5 per 100,000. Black people own less guns and have an 11.4 per 100,000 rate. Obviously, guns aren't the issue. They are a tool.
They aren't the only issue, but i have never argued that they are. The underlying causes of crime also need to be fought. But the guns themselves are a problem too. Nuclear weapons and grenade launchers are also "tools". But they also would cause way more problems than they solve if we were allowed to own them.
Fixing the issue of killing somebody because they wear a different colored bandana would be a good start.
agreed. And that is why we need progressive public policy to address those issues (although Republicans will fight tooth and nail to prevent that happening). But that sort of thing will never eliminate crime altogether. If we want to stop people being killed by guns, we need to do something about the guns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
a damp cloth won't absorb as much as a dry cloth, your breath is human and whatever kind of mask you wear absorbs some of that humidity....up to a saturation point.anyway, according to the fda
that seems to be an argument for swapping out your mask after use. It is in no way an argument against wearing a mask.
I've also read (but I'll have to look deeper) that they haven't recovered vial virus from the air in covid positive patient rooms. Which is extremely interesting.
I haven't been arguing that it can remain airborne. The science is still unclear on that. The particles of saliva need to be extremely small for them to remain in the air. It is unclear if they can. But it is quite clear than when people speak, cough, sneeze or even breath heavily they expel saliva from their mouth. This will carry coronavirus if it lands on someone or lands on an object that someone then touches.
This is why everyone needs to wear a mask. Asymptomatic people can carry and spread the virus. Any time they talk to someone, or even breath they could potential spray some saliva that could infect people. Since we can't possibly test everyone all the time, there is no way to know for certain if you are infected or not. So the best way to get the virus under control is for everyone to wear masks and social distance. The longer people refuse to take these precautions, the longer the pandemic lasts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ever heard of a suppressor?
Well presumably if this sort of law were passed, suppressors would also be super illegal. I mean there is absolutely no reason why a law abiding citizen should need to be able to fire a weapon suppressed.
Man, it'll be hard to take down organized crime when you take funding from the police.
why? It would probably make it easier. When you remove tasks that they are unsuited for you both take funding away from them and refocus them on actual policing tasks.
And let's not just limit this to defending yourself from another person with a gun. What if you're a small woman being attacked by a group of men or someone with a knife?
ok but the inverse is also true. What if you are a small women being attacked by a group of men with guns? If you draw your weapon you are likely to be killed. Adding guns into that scenario does not improve the outcome.
I said nothing about a private, civilian police force. I said that you should be able to have a gun because the criminal won't wait 15 minutes until the cops get there when they broke into your home. So, you shouldn't have to wait around with a violent criminal in your house when you can defend yourself.
I have never said that a person shouldn't defend themselves. What I have said is that you are much better off if neither the intruder or you has a gun. You keep insisting that knives are just as dangerous as guns don't you? Why can't someone defend themself with a knife? or a baseball bat?
No. You can get upset on either side. However, you are not entitled to resist arrest because they are rude to you. You need to "submit" to individuals responsible for enforcing the law.
wait, aren't you the same person always railing against abuse of authority by the government? Why are you fine arguing that people should just submit to police when there is no reasonable reason for them to have to? Police have to have a lawful reason to stop you, search you etc. They are not allowed to harass anyone they want.
Maybe don't be a bunch of violent miscreants blocking an intersection?
ok, so people are peacefully protesting, then a guy tries to murder them, they attack the guy who tried to murder them. And you think the peaceful protesters are the issue? Not the driver trying to run people down?
Yes, straw purchases are illegal for a reason. Most gun crimes are committed by illegal owners of the guns (gun was obtained in straw purchase, stolen, black market, etc.).Still don't see why ALL gun owners should be punished when the VAST majority of legal owners never use them in a crime.
because the fact that they are so readily available makes sure that it is impossible to keep them out of the hands of criminals. No matter what laws we put in place, what checks we do, as long as guns are so readily available they will always be available to criminals.
How about you actually understand that this is a people problem and not a "gun problem"? Aren't you the one that earlier advocated for spending money on social services to "fight the problems that cause crime"? Or do you not actually believe that?
Absolutely we need to fight the underlying causes of crime. But the 2 things go hand in hand. They are in no way contrary to each other. You need to work to fight the causes of crime, but no matter how well we do there will still be crime. So we need to make sure that those criminals have as much difficulty as possible in securing deadly weapons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
The masks that are not designed to filter corna virus don't filter corna virus. Go ahead and call me a science denier all you want.
it goes past science denier at this point because you have already acknowledged the science. IE coronavirus is carried is saliva, masks stop saliva. You have acknowledged both of those points. The thing you are denying is the last step of connecting those 2 facts. IE if coronavirus is in your spit and mask stops your spit, then it stops coronavirus spread (or at least significantly hinders it).
for some reason you acknowledge the critical points, but then deny the obvious conclusion of those points. Is it willfully ignoring reality or can you honestly not connect the dots?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Is it economically right wing to lobby for free college? No. It's Marxist. Your party has changed.
When did pelosi lobby for that?
Is it economically right wing to lobby for free medicare for all? No. It's Marxist. Your party has changed.
virtually no one in the democratic party supported that.
Is it economically right wing to lobby for the green new deal? No. It's Marxist. Your party has changed.
When did pelosi lobby for that?
Is it economically right wing to lobby for social benefits for illegals? No. It's Marxist. Your party has changed.
show me when pelosi did that
Is it economically right wing to lobby for free living wages for not working? No. It's Marxist. Your party has changed.
you think basic social services like unemployment are marxism? That is insane.
Is it economically right wing to lobby for free child care? No. It's Marxist. Your party has changed.
When did pelosi do that?
You listed a bunch of things that are in no way marxist, but peope like joe biden and pelosi are dead set against virtually all of them. do you even know what are you are talking about or are you just parroting back things you saw on breitbart or fox news?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
The party leadership; a bunch of Marxists, are beside themselves with Joe Biden as a candidate.
What are you even talking about? There are no marxists in the democratic party. Most of them are economically right wing.
How asked you this last time but you seem to have ignored it. How are nancy pelosi and Kamela harris marxist? Tell me how the democratic leadership are somehow communist while being economically right wing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not EVERYONE is going to be at any measurable risk.
yes they are. There are risks to every single person in the world. Some of them will be at higher risk than others, but everyone is at risk.
The health risks to children under 10 are absolutely negligible. Where are you getting this information?\
from your own link. I just quoted it.
You can easily protect at-risk people by quarantining those few at-risk people.
no you can't. 1) because the number of people with underlying health conditions is considerable.
2) because those people need to interact with other people in order to survive
3) because literally everyone is at risk of serious medical issues when infected. with proper medical care most healthier people will survive. But the critical part is "proper medical care". Once the number of cases explodes and all the hospital beds are taken, now people cant get proper medical care and lots and lots of people die.
You should never trust a source that states this.
are you attempting to deny that viruses can pass through saliva?
Especially with a novel virus with few data points.
there are millions of cases and a number of studies done already. What exactly does "few data points" mean to you? Do we need a billion cases before studies become valid?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
how many actually have? I've posted the study where zero have spread.
I'm sorry, maybe i'm misunderstanding your question. In the studies linked to, between 20% and 45% of cases were asymptomatically transmitting. Are you looking for total cases in the world? this sort of statistic is not possible to get. All we can get is the number of cases in a specific sample group.
Could you please provide me with that study again? I looked back through your posts and didn't see it.
I understand how the virus might be spread, however there is a thing called viral load, you need a certain number/amount to actually infect a person. Again talking does not create that much nor does it float and or survive in the air that long. These a are theories, guesses at best.
No, it is pretty much settled science. There is still debate about whether droplets that are aerosolized and stay in the air for hours can spread the virus as these droplets are very small. But there is no question that saliva from coughing, sneezing or speaking can spread the virus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
An evaluation of 1286 close contacts of index cases in China found that infection rates in children were comparable with or slightly higher than in younger adults (aged 30-49 years) but were significantly lower than in older patients (aged ≥60 years).8 This finding suggests that children seem to have similar rates of becoming infected compared with middle-aged adults following close contact with a person infected with SARS-CoV-2. In contrast, a targeted screening approach in Iceland found SARS-CoV-2 in 6.7% of children younger than 10 years old (n = 564) compared with in 13.7% of people aged 10 years or older (n = 8635).
This is from your own source. It shows that children do get covid. They might get it at a lower rate than adults, but they still get it. So you have proven yourself to be wrong when you said " Young children can't get the COVID." they absolutely can.
Then don't make the claim that walking around maskless puts everyone at risk. It doesn't put EVERYONE at any meaningful level of risk.
it does though. the virus can have serious health affects on virtually anyone. You could be the healthiest person in the world and corona could still hospitalize or kill you. Anyone who is exposed to corona is endangered. You wouldn't kill everyone you meet by spreading the virus, but you could kill anyone you meet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I challenge all the suedo science that says I can control the spread of a virus.
i'm not sure you understand what the words pseudo science mean (other than mis-spelling it). Masks prevent saliva from your mouth from being expelled when speaking, coughing, yelling, sneezing etc. Since this saliva carries covid, being around people and doing normal activities would spread covid. wearing a mask prevents your saliva from escaping and infecting people. It's really super simple.
You trade your rights and liberties for promises of safety and security.
lol it is a little bit of cloth. you aren't sacrificing your 1st born. please tone down the theatrics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
can you provide some legit evidence it can be transmitted from asymptomatic people?
here is an article about it the backlash from the medical community when the WHO incorrectly said it was "rare". It is hard to be certain, but something like 20% - 45% of cases could spread with the person showing no symptoms according to studies.
"One recent paper estimated that 40 to 45% of cases might be asymptomatic, though others have pegged that figure at closer to 20% or even lower."
can you provide some legit evidence on the effectiveness of masks for asymptomatic people?
What sort of evidence would you like? Here is info from the CDC reccomending wearing masks. Here is info from John's Hopkins recommending wearing masks.
basically, the saliva in your mouth (assuming you were infected) will carry the virus. Speaking, coughing, sneezing, yelling would all spray a little bit of this saliva into the air potentially spreading covid to anyone around you. The point of the mask is to keep these droplets from being sprayed into the air and reducing the ability of the virus to spread from person to person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Objectively false. Young children can't get the COVID.
yes they can. where did you hear that?
20-40 year olds with no co-morbidities have a greater chance of dying from lightning than COVID alone.
even if i granted that was true, (which i'm guessing it isn't), so what? You have no idea who around you has underlying health conditions that could put them at risk. Alot of people do. So even if your questionable info were correct, you are still endangering people around you.
When the method to prevent that danger is so ridiculously simple (just wearing a piece of fabric) why would you not do that? It doens't cost very much. It isn't going to harm you. It is a slight inconvenience that will save lives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I'm not endangering other people's lives, unless you mean my driving, guess anyone who drives is technically endangering other people's lives.
you coming near anyone while not wearing a mask is endangering their life. You could be infected and you wouldn't necessarily know it.
Covid is much deadlier than the flu. It therefore requires a much stronger response.yeah I know, flu requires no response, I mean I've said that, what's to disagree about?
nothing at all if you are now agreeing that because covid is so much deadlier that masks are absolutely needed.
because it's my right, my choice, my body, use whatever you like.
but it isn't. Because it doesn't only affect you. You are endangering everyone around you too. If the only downside was that you might get sick and die, then sure. I don't care if people want to risk their own life. But when you are risking the lives of everyone else, then society gets a say.
I am more important to me than hundreds of thousands of lives
this is kind of sociopathic
I would not sacrifice myself to save hundreds of thousands of lives
no one is asking you to sacrifice yourself. They are asking you to wear a small piece of fabric to save hundreds of thousands of lives. you aren't giving up anything by wearing a mask.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No one can tell if you are sick or not.We have tests for COVID in the blood JUST like we have tests for alcohol in the blood. That statement is false.
so your argument is that we should be testing every american citizen every day to make sure we know who is infected? I would be totally fine with that. But I don't think it's realistic to do over 300 million blood tests per day.
Also, if right wing people are going to cry this hard over wearing a piece of fabric, how hard do you think they would scream if you forced them to take a blood test?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Exactly, you don't put someone driving in jail because you THINK they might be infested with Alcohol. You have to prove they were drunk with EVIDENCE in a court.
in this example, you not wearing the mask is the equivalent of driving drunk.
No one can tell if you are sick or not. It isn't possible to know until you have already done the damage and infected people. The only way to protect people is to ensure you are wearing the protective equipment before you start infecting people. And since you won't know when you get infected, you obviously have to be wearing it before you find out.
this isn't that complicated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You have the right to stay home, you have the right to stay 6 feet or more from anyone, you have the right to purchase a hood with filters and supplemental air. I'm an individual with unalienable rights, stay away if you don't like what someone does.
do you think that your rights include the right to endanger other people's lives rather than take very minor precautions?
No one has cared any given flu season including h1n1, what exactly is the death count cutoff for the government to be authoritarian? Must be higher than flu deaths right? So that means if the covid deaths drop to flu levels or lower no one will need masks etc?
man you guys are seriously obsessed with minute details while actively trying to ignore reality. Covid is much deadlier than the flu. It therefore requires a much stronger response. Why do you feel the need to fight to protect your "right" to not wear basic protective equipment? I honestly cannot understand why you think that is more important than hundreds of thousands of lives.
Created: