Originally Posted by Sini
Use proper terminology. If they are mandatory, then they can't be fashion. Fashion implies choice.

I used terminology fitting for the purpose, the point was made. If the shoe fits, wear it. Or the mask in this case.

Originally Posted by Sini
Then what is your justification for imposing them on others? Marginal reduction in a spread of highly infectious disease that everyone will end up getting anyways?

I'm not for actively policing what people do in their private establishments. You also dont know that everyone will get it, nor is it good for everyone to get it at the same time. As for justification, I'll point to same justifications used to wearing clothing at all. Arguments can be made against requiring use of clothing, but that topic has been litigated repeatedly for a very long time and its pointless. Before you can get anywhere with this line of thinking you need to make a plausible case on how wearing a mask is somehow more burdensome than wearing pants or shoes.

Originally Posted by Sini
Faulty generalization with a touch of no true Scotsman.
Observable reality does not fit your narrative.

Nope. Flawed assertion. To begin to be valid, youd need to at least relate your own experience vs a similar control. Not to mention no details on other behaviour in your example.

Originally Posted by Sini
The freedom to make bad choices is a fundamental freedom; if you are only allowed to make good choices then you have no freedom at all. I don't know why I am finding myself having to remind you of that.


Sure. But if an establishment asks them to not do it on their property, that should also be respected. Whether the government has coerced them or not. There are right and wrong ways to go about airing grievances, and harassing fast food workers when they could still get a burger by going through the drive-thru is no expression of righteousness even if you agree with their aims.

You still seem to confuse areas generally open to the public with public property, and harassing people with civil disobedience.

As far as favoring mandates, I favor ones that would have more impact.

The bottom line is that, unlike discriminating against people for what they are - asking people to wear a mask is not unjust or harmful. Some people just dont like it, and feel entitled to make trouble simply because they feel unhappy.

To pursue any of your lines of thinking with any credibility, you need to establish that the rules or actions in question are either unjust, or that the 'protestors' had some kind of legitimate moral claim on the right to set the rules at the time and place of the protest. Or at the very least that said rules do some sort of harm.

Come back when the police raid a private gathering of maskless people who weren't actively bothering anyone else, as opposed to removing a handful of entitled grievance mongers from a premisis.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)