COVID-19 Outbreak (Update: More than 2.9M cases and 132,313 deaths in US) (30 Viewers)

[DaveXA]

The conversation stemmed from the New Mexico governor mandating masks.

Plenty of states have indecent exposure laws. The forum this site resides in being one of them. Including state laws regarding simply mentioning direct sexual acts. Certain cities even went so far as to ban baggy pants here(link in the previous post).

If you want to make the case that swinging your dick on bourbon is a moral hazard but not refusing to put on a mask during a pandemic that is costing thousands of people their lives a day, feel free.

Like I said, I’m down for the entertainment.

Yeah, I had federal government in my head when reading SBTB's post. I think probably because someone asked the Constitutionality of a mask wearing law in public open places.

I don't think it should be banned if we're talking open public places where people aren't gathered in numbers. But if its a group or gathering for a rally or some sort of event, I do think an ordinance requiring masks would be prudent.

Anyway, it's cool.

 

[Eeyore]

Are we going to need a separate thread for posting the articles about the anti-mask attacks?

Police: Man assaults Mishawaka 7-Eleven clerk for asking him to wear mask

Mishawaka police say they are searching for a man accused of assaulting a 7-Eleven clerk who told him he needed to wear a mask in the store. This happened at the 7-Eleven at 601 N. Main Street this morning around 9 a. m. According to a release from police: "A male subject entered the 7-11...

wsbt.com

 

[DaveXA]

Are we going to need a separate thread for posting the articles about the anti-mask attacks?

Police: Man assaults Mishawaka 7-Eleven clerk for asking him to wear mask

Mishawaka police say they are searching for a man accused of assaulting a 7-Eleven clerk who told him he needed to wear a mask in the store. This happened at the 7-Eleven at 601 N. Main Street this morning around 9 a. m. According to a release from police: "A male subject entered the 7-11...

wsbt.com

I'd say keep it here, it's relevant enough.

 

[Loose Cannon]

I'm just here to write the word "dick" on SR.com and not have it censored

Strange times indeed

 

[St. Widge]

Ah, no, that's not an equivalent comparison. You're talking about state/local ordinances that govern people wearing clothes. Some places allow topless at the beach, while others allow nudity in certain situations.

I view mask wearing in a similar vein. It's a state/local issue. Federal has no enforcement power unless it's on federal property when it comes to what we wear.

It was the governor of New Mexico that gave the order.

The Feds don't really have that power. But, that wouldn't necessarily stop them from trying to claim that power under some strained interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

 

[St. Widge]

The conversation stemmed from the New Mexico governor mandating masks.

Plenty of states have indecent exposure laws. The forum this site resides in being one of them. Including state laws regarding simply mentioning direct sexual acts. Certain cities even went so far as to ban baggy pants here(link in the previous post).

If you want to make the case that swinging your dick on bourbon is a moral hazard but not refusing to put on a mask during a pandemic that is costing thousands of people their lives a day, feel free.

Like I said, I’m down for the entertainment.

Personally, I'm not sure public nudity laws have much justification, beyond some concerns with spreading germs, and I'm certain that laws telling people they can't wear their pants low and baggy have no justification either. But, I have this general thing about laws not being used to enforce morality.

On the other hand, I do think that laws made for the protection of public health are on pretty solid legal ground.

 

[dtc]

Ok, let me ask you this...

Give me your most grim scenario of the future as it pertains to you specifically giving this data to restaurants today. Come up with the most absolutely absurd negative consequence you can think of and tell me a.) what exactly are you accomplishing by not going to a restaurant under this condition, and b.) What prevents this absolutely absurd scenario from taking place to you personally with your name and email not being on a restaurant list?

This whole discussion is stupid.

The list is an easy way to get info that the government can access easily if they want simply by getting cell phone records.

Half the people worried about this probably have their locations set to on on 42 apps on their smartphones and send messages via life360.

 

[superchuck500]

Cats can catch Covid-19 from other cats, study finds. The question is: Can we?

A new study finds that cats can catch Covid-19 from one another. The question now is whether felines can transmit it back to people.

www.statnews.com

 

[dtc]

Personally, I'm not sure public nudity laws have much justification, beyond some concerns with spreading germs, and I'm certain that laws telling people they can't wear their pants low and baggy have no justification either. But, I have this general thing about laws not being used to enforce morality.

On the other hand, I do think that laws made for the protection of public health are on pretty solid legal ground.

It's as if "conservatives" would pass any law restricting gays from reading to kids or adults from wearing thongs bikinis on the beach, but cry like suckling babies if you tell them they have to take steps to ensure their own safety.

The life of a fetus seems so precious to some while the life of 85k Americans and counting isn't worth wearing a mask or drinking at home.

 

[bonnjer]

I'm just here to write the word "dick" on SR.com and not have it censored

Strange times indeed

Yeah, how the fork does that work?

 

[DaveXA]

It's as if "conservatives" would pass any law restricting gays from reading to kids or adults from wearing thongs bikinis on the beach, but cry like suckling babies if you tell them they have to take steps to ensure their own safety.

The life of a fetus seems so precious to some while the life of 85k Americans and counting isn't worth wearing a mask or drinking at home.

Speaking as a fairly conservative individual, I don't much care for laws restricting much of personal and social freedom. My conservatism is fairly unique though. I'd probably get labeled a liberal by a lot of people, lol.

 

[DaveXA]

Yeah, how the fork does that work?

Well, some people are named Dick. And the word dick has several meanings, so context. Lol. But other words no so much. Sometimes language is a moving target though. The goal is to keep the site reasonably family friendly.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Personally, I'm not sure public nudity laws have much justification, beyond some concerns with spreading germs, and I'm certain that laws telling people they can't wear their pants low and baggy have no justification either. But, I have this general thing about laws not being used to enforce morality.

On the other hand, I do think that laws made for the protection of public health are on pretty solid legal ground.

That’s my point here.

Indecency laws have been defended and maintained for centuries now, upheld in court, but suddenly a temporary mask ordinance to prevent the spread of an incurable disease is the bridge too far and a violation of fundamental human rights and free expression?

Ok, I’m down, let’s hear the first principles arguments. I need all the entertainment I can get on my stay-at-home breaks.

 

[Taurus]

Speaking as a fairly conservative individual, I don't much care for laws restricting much of personal and social freedom. My conservatism is fairly unique though. I'd probably get labeled a liberal by a lot of people, lol.

Us actual conservatives have a wide range of situations where our response is "It's none of my business."
Buck up, my friend. Eventually this reactionary, regressive abomination called the GOP will run out of dirty tricks and foreign assistance and they'll be forced to run on the merits of their ideas once again.

 

[St. Widge]

That’s my point here.

Indecency laws have been defended and maintained for centuries now, upheld in court, but suddenly a temporary mask ordinance to prevent the spread of an incurable disease is the bridge too far and a violation of fundamental human rights and free expression?

Ok, I’m down, let’s hear the first principles arguments. I need all the entertainment I can get on my stay-at-home breaks.

I mean, I'm not disagreeing with you.

I'm just saying I don't think decency laws should stand, but they are on much less solid ground than laws directed at protecting public health.

And I'm going to do something that is against my nature. I'm going to admit I don't know something. What is a "first principles argument"?