The conspiracy paranoids have won again

Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve never put anyone on an ignore list. Haven’t even considered it. I just never get that worked up by what other folks have to say...

It's not so much a matter of getting worked up as it is a lack of interest in what else they may have to say.
 
Wait a minute, jclemensfi's cut 'n paste was from Mother Jones! Mother Jones is the absolute last source on the entire planet I would trust for unbiased, factual info.
It's fair to question journalists' point of view, although the quote is simply reporting what others have already investigated and written. Anyone can check to see the facts listed above have been reported elsewhere.
So here is some more info for anyone who cares. None of these facts are from Mother Jones. People can check them at their leisure:
-In 2008, an article on AAPS’s website suggested that President Barack Obama was covertly hypnotizing people with his speeches, and that this might explain why Jews voted for him.
-Their director has said AAPS’s membership consists of “under 5,000” of the country’s millions or so doctors.
-In 2015, after measles broke out at Disneyland, AAPS put out a press release questioning the safety of vaccines.
-AAPS’s journal, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons has published articles raising doubts that HIV causes AIDS and questioning the wisdom of urging people to quit smoking, according to the Louisville Courier Journal.
-The AAPS is so fringe that Rand Paul left the group.
- The AAPS wrote a letter claiming that hydroxychloroquine helped 91% of coven patients recover.
And while is true that even fringe groups can be right occasionally, it is also true that pattern and history of the source is useful in making decisions about the veracity of its claims.
 
From the CDC a month ago: Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures. Perhaps the transmissibility of COVID & influenza are sufficiently different to render all of that moot. Perhaps not.
Definitely interested in hearing more about this, as it conflicts with other CDC studies. Nothing is absolute.
It looks like this wasn't new research, but a study of older and newer research. It will be interesting to see what we learn in the next year.

Here are a couple other CDC and WHO funded or published studies, or articles about them:
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...ates-of-covid-19-among-sailors-who-wore-masks
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext#
 
I honestly don't see how you could describe a state governor mandating their use as 'unethical or down-right evil.' Can you explain?

So this stems from the asymptomatic/pre-symptomatic debate. How would one know if they have the antibodies and are just randomly spreading this to others? Where are those scientific studies and what have they shown?

My point simply stated is if you are healthy and not sick, why are you wearing a mask? Before March, how many times have you been coughed or sneezed on in public? The numbers are going up from multiple variables, but primarily from elective surgeries being opened back up and mandatory testing when you enter a hospital for a procedure. People have contacted it and created immunity to it. Humans cannot continue to operate on fear otherwise we'll just continue down this societal spiral of Rome burning Rome because Rome.

And the "unethical" or "down-right evil" portion of your question is in response to you same statement of mandatory. There are guidelines, recommendations, and business-by-business preference. To continue to operate in a dictator-like manor telling your constituents that you have to do something is the opposite of liberty.

At this point we have two choices: liberty or authority. Based on my response I think you can see which spectrum I lean more towards. Also, this isn't political. If you are afraid of contacting the virus, stay home. You have the choice to do that... Hope that clarified and added some perspective (was NOT meant to aggravate).
 
Wh
So this stems from the asymptomatic/pre-symptomatic debate. How would one know if they have the antibodies and are just randomly spreading this to others? Where are those scientific studies and what have they shown?

My point simply stated is if you are healthy and not sick, why are you wearing a mask? Before March, how many times have you been coughed or sneezed on in public? The numbers are going up from multiple variables, but primarily from elective surgeries being opened back up and mandatory testing when you enter a hospital for a procedure. People have contacted it and created immunity to it. Humans cannot continue to operate on fear otherwise we'll just continue down this societal spiral of Rome burning Rome because Rome.

And the "unethical" or "down-right evil" portion of your question is in response to you same statement of mandatory. There are guidelines, recommendations, and business-by-business preference. To continue to operate in a dictator-like manor telling your constituents that you have to do something is the opposite of liberty.

At this point we have two choices: liberty or authority. Based on my response I think you can see which spectrum I lean more towards. Also, this isn't political. If you are afraid of contacting the virus, stay home. You have the choice to do that... Hope that clarified and added some perspective (was NOT meant to aggravate).
When I wear a mask and see others wear masks I feel pride in my fellow man and confidence we will defeat this virus. Wearing a a mask means strength and use of it is a necessary weapon to save our lives and economy at the same time. Fear does not remotely apply! Anti mask people are looking at this all wrong and it is sad we are even having the debate. It is such a small sacrifice for a huge return.
 
Last edited:
TO ALL:
I was away from the forum for 24 hours, and the "part deux" thread vanished. Was it deleted, or just locked and put in some obscure location?

In fact, it's kinda weird: I'm not able to find this conversation in the usual way; i.e., by navigating to The Lounge and scanning through the recent threads. It does, however, show up in the home page if you look under "Off Topic" and check the most recent Lounge post on the right-hand side (desktop view). Why's that?

@Henry:
Interesting graphic; where does that come from?
 
Anti mask people are looking at this all wrong and it is sad we are even having the debate.

Not debating, and not an anti-masker so please do not create a label for me. I do not have time for division-driven topics (pro/anti), I do have time for uniformed understanding of the science and physics behind wearing a mask.

What data will we as a society be using to determine when masks will no longer be required? When governors stop mandating it? December 2020? July 2021? When/what/where is the defeat of this threat determined? Again, not trying to aggravate, I just have questions that I'm struggling to find answers on.
 
My point simply stated is if you are healthy and not sick, why are you wearing a mask?
The problem is, you can be asymptomatic for quite a long time with the illness and infecting people the whole while. So your point is moot. Feeling "healthy and not sick" doesn't mean you arent infected and aren't spreading it. That's been the crux of the problem this entire time.

You wear a mask because you are potentially infected if you are moving about in the world and want to help curtail the spread.

The long asymptomatic-but-infectious time has been well-known and well-publicized since the onset of this virus.

To continue to operate in a dictator-like manor telling your constituents that you have to do something is the opposite of liberty.
So, I assumed you were geniuine when I first started to answer your post, but now I think you're just not that intelligent.

Liberty in America only extends so far as your actions having no impact on others. As soon as you start to act in a way that impinges on the liberty of others, you are outside of America's social contract and subject to control and restriction by the State. That has been true since America was founded. Your rejection of wearing a mask risks others, ergo it risks their liberty, and therefore the State is justified in curtailing our actions and imposing restrictions.

States impose restrictions on your "liberties" all the time to protect the liberties of everyone around you.

To underpin your abjectly awful understanding of liberty here, using your "logic" it's a "liberty" to have ten beers and drive your car on the freeway, the State can't tell you not to do that because..."mah freeedumbs!"

These are equivalently dangerous actions. The State is acting in accordance with its role here, to protect the greater population's liberty from harm because of the negligent actions of a few.

All of this, of course, is taught in basic civics classes every American is required to take in their juvenile years.
 
Not debating, and not an anti-masker so please do not create a label for me. I do not have time for division-driven topics (pro/anti), I do have time for uniformed understanding of the science and physics behind wearing a mask.

What data will we as a society be using to determine when masks will no longer be required? When governors stop mandating it? December 2020? July 2021? When/what/where is the defeat of this threat determined? Again, not trying to aggravate, I just have questions that I'm struggling to find answers on.
New Zealand has eradicated covid within its borders. Let's get to where they are with the help of masks and then discuss your questions.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-53274085
 
@ibanezfreak4:
Hey there, I realize you're already getting replies from others, but I also come from a reflexively-libertarian kind of perspective. Since you're touching on some of my own favorite themes, I hope you don't mind if I offer a thought or two?
And the "unethical" or "down-right evil" portion of your question is in response to you[r] same statement of mandatory. There are guidelines, recommendations, and business-by-business preference. To continue to operate in a dictator-like manor [sic] telling your constituents that you have to do something is the opposite of liberty.
Certainly you're correct that a state-government official issuing guidelines or recommendations is no threat to liberty and ought generally to be preferred over mandates.

But, it's also true that branches of the government do have their proper roles to play, delegated to them by the people whom they serve. It isn't necessarily the case that, when an official issues a mandate, he is operating "in a dictator-like manner." He may merely be exercising a role delegated to him by the people of that state. So it seems to me that the first question we have to ask is, "Does the constitution of State X delegate authority to Governor Y to issue public-health mandates (e.g. mask-wearing, social distancing) in the event of pandemics?" If that authority has not been delegated to him, then his exercise of that authority is a usurpation.

It occurs to me that different states have different constitutions, and whereas in some states such authority may be delegated to the governor, others might have a surgeon-general figure fulfilling that role (although still within the executive); still others might require some kind of involvement from the legislature; and still others might not have ever bothered adding such a plank to their constitution. In the latter case, no government official would have mandate authority, and the governor would have to rely on the "bully pulpit."

So our first step should be to ask whether the person issuing the mandate is a usurper or not. That's gonna depend on individual state constitutions and laws, and I frankly am mostly ignorant about my own state, and entirely ignorant about others.

Secondly, I don't think every usurper -- although usurpation is a very bad thing -- qualifies as dictator-like. It depends on which powers are being usurped from the people.

I realize that the complaint about masks is premised on the notion that masks are (or may be) mere "security theater" or a form of political "tribalism" rather than something with real public-health benefit. (After all, the "public experts" back in January-March claimed loudly that they weren't effective...though I admit I myself thought they were probably wrong, or lying, at the time.) Okay: Let's presume (for the sake of argument!) that mask-wearing is ineffective and that you have adequate reason to be confident about that. Even so, a mandate to wear a mask (while it would be an obnoxious mandate, given the presumption of known ineffectiveness) would not, I think, be the kind of usurpation I'd expect from a dictator.

I'd expect a dictator to usurp power that...
(a.) compelled speech or silence on debatable topics, either by the dictator's government or via privately-owned proxies supporting him;
(b.) limited my right to self-defense in the gravest extreme (including right to owning/bear the tools thereof, typically firearms);
(c.) prohibited me from making reasonable choices in the education of my children, or enforced propagandizing of them;
(d.) punished me for failure to enthusiastically support the dictator's political or cultural agenda, either directly through fines or imprisonment, or indirectly through job loss, denial of professional certifications, etc.;
(e.) confiscated property without any recourse for "redress of grievances";
(f.) prohibited my right of (peaceable!) assembly, especially in solidarity with persons who opposed the dictator's agenda, whether for protest purposes or other purposes;
..., etc.

Mask-wearing looks pretty piddly, alongside the rest of that list.

So while a state governor in one state, where the governorship included the power to mandate masks, might be merely exercising proper authority by doing so, a governor in another state, where that power was not constitutionally delegated might be a usurper if he tried exercising it anyway. But in either case, that alone just wouldn't seem dictatorial to me.

Again, I'm coming at this as someone with libertarian leanings, so I hope I'm coming across as a friendly voice here. I just think the details of this particular example don't hold up as being dictator-like. And in many states, I don't even suppose it's a usurpation (unless some lawyer in that state can show that it is).

At this point we have two choices: liberty or authority. Based on my response I think you can see which spectrum I lean more towards.
With you on that one. I'm just cautioning that some exercises of authority are entirely legitimate, and depending on your state and its constitution, this could very well be one such.
 
Countless labs have reported a 100 percent positivity rate, which means every single person tested was positive.
Well. That's confidence-inspiring. :rolleyes:

I gotta say: Perhaps the #1 take-away from the last six months (perhaps even the last few years) is that "public experts" (defined as anyone who gets in front of a camera to let you know what's going on) cannot be relied upon to have a clue.

That includes the linked article, by-the-way: I'm not going to trust that it's correct until some time passes without further corrections being issued.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom