|
|
Post by okie on Oct 15, 2020 9:55:07 GMT -6
The smoking ban was a big deal. I remember when Bars had to enforce it. Where I was at the time people kept smoking for months; the enforcement was slow. People in restaurants and businesses would have little pockets of places where people smoked.
The employees did not like enforcing the law, but they did. I did in the music store and I was a smoker; I hated it.
It is just a faded memory now. I cannot imagine seeing a person smoking in a public place of business. I never saw the police called. This is a near perfect analogy.
|
|
|
|
Post by okie on Oct 15, 2020 10:17:59 GMT -6
"I'm not going to comment directly about the president, but I am going to comment as the CDC director that face masks, these face masks, are the most important powerful public health tool we have," Redfield said. "And I will continue to appeal for all Americans, all individuals in our country, to embrace these face coverings." cdc.gov
This is not a personal freedom issue. It is a public health issue.
Only in anti-intellectual America are masks resisted to any sizable degree. But then Americans also have the large percentage of the population that deny evolution, global warming, and believe in a literal translation of the Bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by daneaux on Oct 15, 2020 10:35:24 GMT -6
"You have to decide if it is a good allocation of resources to prosecute the 40% or so of Americans that do not think it is in their best interests."
Where did you get that number? The latest Trump approval rating?
In your argument, you neglect that fact that the vast majority of people follow laws not only because of the fear of enforcement, but because they are law-abiding citizens. You don't have to catch every speeder or red-light runner to slow traffic down or make people stop at lights. All you have to do is make them believe that it might happen. A fine example is King and Queen County here in VA. They have one major intersection in the entire county and people were running the light all the time. So they bought some old cameras and put them on the light without even hooking them up. Just their presence brought red-light running down to a level that satisfied the county.
In my observations, compliance with mask-wearing is much better now than it was before the big upswing in June. Peer pressure is the thing that makes it work. Signs everywhere, body language and verbal indications of disapproval, all have their effect and it adds up to much more than what law enforcement can provide by itself. Perhaps endorsement of the habit by a person in a position of significant national influence might even help.
The argument that there is no proof that masks work is an argument that cannot be settled until millions have died. It's a NOVEL virus. We are making it up as we go along and using the best indications that medicine has presented us. Maybe that guy can come up with proof that masks DON'T work.
I hope there's more to the rest because that one is some weak $%^.
|
|
|
|
Post by daneaux on Oct 15, 2020 10:45:53 GMT -6
Being here in the cigarette capital of the world, there was significant resistance and some places have developed ways to work the loopholes. I hated it, too because I was a smoker and the place I liked to smoke in was usually a bar.
But now when I go into a bar, I still expect that smoky smell and am happy to miss it.
The growth of law compliance is kind of like the opposite of killing a virus. You take steps to make sure it starts spreading and give it time. We're already seeing better and better compliance with mask wearing. Maybe in something like 97 days from now, we can get that person in a position of significant national influence to endorse mask wearing and actually accomplish what we should have already done.
If the helicopter hasn't hit the fog covered mountain by then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on Oct 15, 2020 16:00:25 GMT -6
"Your argument was about employees being put in a position of enforcing the mandate. That is sole context of the smoking ban comparison."
Yes. And that is why it is in the conclusion portion of my explication above. The smoking ban is enforceable because most everyone agrees with it and the police can and will police it to a high degree. The mask mandate is not enforceable because a significant portion of the population disagrees with it and the police cannot possibly police it to a high degree, therefore causing the predicament I outlined in my conclusion which is an unfair burden on employees.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on Oct 15, 2020 16:02:21 GMT -6
"Where did you get that number? The latest Trump approval rating?"
That's probably a good proxy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on Oct 15, 2020 16:07:56 GMT -6
I like that you tout the increase of compliance as it coincides with upticks in infections.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on Oct 15, 2020 16:11:20 GMT -6
"This is a near perfect analogy."
It still fails for the same reason as before. The evidence against cigarettes was overwhelming. The evidence for masks is underwhelming and there are good arguments against it. Just because you are convinced does not mean that there is no vigorous debate ongoing. There is still much research to be done and we will not have a complete picture for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on Oct 15, 2020 16:50:07 GMT -6
"This is not a personal freedom issue. It is a public health issue."
It can be both. It is both. That is why I mentioned Bad Samaritan Laws previously, which are vindictive in nature, id est coercive altruism.
We don't pass laws making it criminal for a passerby to not jump in a lake to save a drowning child. Yet we want to criminalize people in public spaces for not taking a measure that may or may not prevent someone from getting a disease with a remote chance for fatal complications, and if they get the disease it would be almost impossible to say from whence they contracted it since it is entirely possible they got it from a mask wearer or when they were not in public at all from a family member.
Red lights and speeding tickets are not comparable because driving a car is not a Right. But to travel about in public unmolested is a Right established in Article 4 of the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
Post by okie on Oct 16, 2020 9:33:47 GMT -6
"Your argument was about employees being put in a position of enforcing the mandate. That is sole context of the smoking ban comparison." Yes. And that is why it is in the conclusion portion of my explication above. The smoking ban is enforceable because most everyone agrees with it and the police can and will police it to a high degree. The mask mandate is not enforceable because a significant portion of the population disagrees with it and the police cannot possibly police it to a high degree, therefore causing the predicament I outlined in my conclusion which is an unfair burden on employees. That is not the conclusion portion. That is the goal post moving red herring portion. Why can’t you simply lose one argument at a time like a good boy. When you lose an argument, expanding it does not save you. Conceded the point and we can move on. The mask mandate is just as enforceable as the non-smoking mandate. I never saw police involved in the enforcement of nonsmoking and I was a consistent violator until I was a significant minority and all my buddies were going outside to smoke. Regarding the number of people that agreed with either mandate... they seem about the same. |
|
|
|
Post by okie on Oct 16, 2020 9:39:14 GMT -6
"Your argument was about employees being put in a position of enforcing the mandate. That is sole context of the smoking ban comparison." Yes. And that is why it is in the conclusion portion of my explication above. The smoking ban is enforceable because most everyone agrees with it and the police can and will police it to a high degree. The mask mandate is not enforceable because a significant portion of the population disagrees with it and the police cannot possibly police it to a high degree, therefore causing the predicament I outlined in my conclusion which is an unfair burden on employees. That is not the conclusion portion. That is the goal post moving red herring portion. Why can’t you simply lose one argument at a time like a good boy. When you lose an argument, expanding it does not save you. Conceded the point and we can move on. The mask mandate is just as enforceable as the non-smoking mandate. I never saw police involved in the enforcement of nonsmoking and I was a consistent violator until I was a significant minority and all my buddies were going outside to smoke. Regarding the number of people that agreed with either mandate... they seem about the same. It is a public health issue. It is action to control a pandemic that the US lags behind in. Every other civilized country in the world mandated and adopted wearing masks and numbers went down. We have led the world in number of cases, number of deaths, case rate and death rate for months. We also lead the world in lax restrictions. The CDC, AMA, and WHO all recommend it. I will take their recommendation over whomever’s tweets you are following. |
|
|
|
Post by okie on Oct 16, 2020 9:40:57 GMT -6
Rex is so ashamed of you right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by daneaux on Oct 16, 2020 9:42:16 GMT -6
"Where did you get that number? The latest Trump approval rating?" That's probably a good proxy. It seems so. |
|
|
|
Post by daneaux on Oct 16, 2020 9:47:49 GMT -6
I like that you tout the increase of compliance as it coincides with upticks in infections. I like the fact that here in Virginia the exact opposite is true. We have experienced a downturn after what I presume to be improved mask compliance. More masks=fewer cases. Fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on Oct 16, 2020 21:53:10 GMT -6
"Your argument was about employees being put in a position of enforcing the mandate."
Yes. These are your words.
I then explicated and concluded with, "The mask mandate is not enforceable because a significant portion of the population disagrees with it and the police cannot possibly police it to a high degree, therefore causing the predicament I outlined in my conclusion which is an unfair burden on employees."
Last clause of the final sentence above is the same as what you said I was arguing. If you followed that much what exactly are you missing?
|
|
