The KGB Oracle
Serving the online gaming community since 1997
Visit www.the-kgb.com
For additional information

Join KGB DISCORD: http://discord.gg/KGB
 
KGB Information
Untitled 1

Visit KGB HQ
www.the-kgb.com

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 4 guests, and 25 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Newest Members
Felix Jaegar, Thib KGB, Aristotyle, Frost, Shellseahoth
1,472 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums53
Topics13,075
Posts116,211
Members1,472
Most Online228
Dec 19th, 2019
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
None yet
Top Posters(30 Days)
Sini 3
syev 2
Popular Topics(Views)
1,340,917 Trump card
1,026,982 Picture Thread
358,926 Romney
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,652
Likes: 6
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,652
Likes: 6
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Derid
One reason spheres are apt descriptors of idealogical spectrum is that is you travel far enough in one direction, you end up on the opposite side.

My key objection to your statement can be summarized as "anti-authoritorian != left-wing". At least not for the past 50 years.


I don't classify these people as anti-authoritarian, quite often these types are actually very authoritarian - they just make exceptions for excercise of authority they personally dislike. In any case, I still consider these demonstrations very pro-authoritarianism because they fundamentally assert that the rights of others are secondary to their own personal opinions. In their view, the rights of property owners are secondary to their their own personal opinions and desires, giving them the right to harass people and tresspass until they get their way.

Noted that you object to the rhetoric, I think the subtext that these people are pretty similar in many regards to what they purport to hate still stands. Largely because I don't think these folks even have a coherent idealogy beyond the theatrics of outrage. I don't think a thorogough examination of their overall belief spectrum would reliably place them as left or right, just attention-seekers who like chaos and confrontation. Though I also view many who self-identify with the far left in the same light.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,516
Likes: 9
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,516
Likes: 9
Originally Posted by Derid
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Derid
One reason spheres are apt descriptors of idealogical spectrum is that is you travel far enough in one direction, you end up on the opposite side.

My key objection to your statement can be summarized as "anti-authoritorian != left-wing". At least not for the past 50 years.


I don't classify these people as anti-authoritarian, quite often these types are actually very authoritarian - they just make exceptions for excercise of authority they personally dislike.

This might as well be the case, but in this specific example we are discussing, the behaviour is clearly a civil disobidience against unreasonble infractions of personal freedoms. Which is anti-authoritorian behaviour.

Originally Posted by Derid
I still consider these demonstrations very pro-authoritarianism because they fundamentally assert that the rights of others are secondary to their own personal opinions. In their view, the rights of property owners are secondary to their their own personal opinions and desires, giving them the right to harass people and tresspass until they get their way.

In this specific example, the American Museum of Natural History would likely be considered public space. More so, your argument presupposes that any property owner neccessary agrees with mandates and enforces them without being compelled to do so by the state.


[Linked Image]
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,652
Likes: 6
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,652
Likes: 6
Originally Posted by Sini
This might as well be the case, but in this specific example we are discussing, the behaviour is clearly a civil disobidience against unreasonble infractions of personal freedoms. Which is anti-authoritorian behaviour.

How is not being allowed to wander about unmasked and unvaccinated in a private establishment either an infraction of their personal freedom, or unreasonable?

Originally Posted by Sini
In this specific example, the American Museum of Natural History would likely be considered public space. More so, your argument presupposes that any property owner neccessary agrees with mandates and enforces them without being compelled to do so by the state.

It does not, it only requires that the establishment chooses to enforce said mandates in compliance with what they believe are their legal obligations. The reasons are immaterrial, even if the sole reason for enforcing restrictions were based on compliance with percieved legal obligations. There are caveats there if said obligations were inhumane, immoral, etc. But that isn't the case here.

Had said protestors been arrested for standing outside of City Hall with signs and/or chanting, etc, I'd possibly share in the outrage. Instead they chose to trespass repeatedly and make life difficult for others and put them at risk. Even if their cause were just, and they had moral high ground - which they can claim neither - they are still targetting the wrong people, and appear to be doing so in a manner of which they would be asked to leave and then forcibly removed no matter the nature of their complaint.

So again, looking at it from the side of the poor folks working at the establishments they target - how are they supposed to deal with it? Change the rules, or neglect to enforce them simply because people show up and refuse to comply? Because they yell and get nasty?


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,516
Likes: 9
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,516
Likes: 9
Originally Posted by Derid
How is not being allowed to wander about unmasked and unvaccinated in a private establishment either an infraction of their personal freedom, or unreasonable?

Is the American Museum of Natural History a private establishment? I am asking, because I don't know. I suspect it is government-funded. Regardless, being denied access is infraction of personal freedom, the only question if it is justified.

It is unreasonable because benefits of these mandates could not be shown to exceed the costs they impose. We now know that neither vaccines nor cloth masks prevent spread of Omicron. So what possible justification of known to be ineffective measures could you have?

Can you demonstrate that a scenario where these people met the minimum level of compliance (cloth mask and 1-shot of J&J 12 months ago) is materially safer for other patrons than what transpired?

Originally Posted by Derid
It does not, it only requires that the establishment chooses to enforce said mandates in compliance with what they believe are their legal obligations. The reasons are immaterrial

Is it so? Mandate needs to be reasonable for establishment enforcing it to be reasonable. Otherwise "just following orders" applies.


[Linked Image]
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,652
Likes: 6
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,652
Likes: 6
My quick investigation indicated the museam was owned and operated by a 501c3 nonprofit, so yes private. It's not operated by the gov't, though it is possible it gets gov't subsidies of some sort. Which in this case would incentivize the establishment to follow guidelines.

I do not consider being able to do whatever you feel like doing on someone elses property a legitmate right.

Conversely, I'd point to the quote in my signature here: "For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57) "

In this discourse, the protestors are "every other man"

It is simply not their place to vent their ire against COVID restrictions at someone elses place of business, nor their right. They have the right to open their own establishment, and perform civil disobience there - or to do so on public lands in a manner where they are not spreading plague to bystanders. (ie: a protest at a DMV would not be proper) Refusing to mask in public when asked, is simply asserting their supposed right to spread disease and denying other people of the freedom to enjoy public venues with less risk of catching dangerous illness.

The fact that Omicron is more contagious than previous strains makes rules requiring certain levels of contagion mitigation on behalf of patrons even more reasonable, not less - the fact that said rules do not go far enough to eliminate possibility of spread notwithstanding.

There are no rights or freedoms at play here, aside from the rights and freedom of establishments to set and or enforce guidelines for behaviour for their patrons and have troublemakers and unruly people removed. Rights and freedoms go both ways, something most people on any 'side' of any issue tend to conveniently forget or ignore.

Though I would agree that making N95 level protection and boosters mandatory would be a better step. I would also agree that if the protestors opened their own establishment for anti-vax anti-maskers to congregate and the police came and arrested them in that context that it would be overreach, and their refusal to comply might qualify as legitimate civil disobedience.

Also, given that people are literally dying because they cannot get a bed at hospitals that are filled with unvaccinated COVID patients, setting some minimum requirements for contagion mitigation seems like a reasonable public policy. As long as the antivax crowd is provided with the means to perform mandatory public functions, such as govt licensing, mail, etc, there is no moral issue. As far as mask mandates, its merely a piece of clothing and has never been shown to harm the user. I can understand the philosophical reluctance of some people to get an injection, and agree that it is reasonable to defend the right of someone to reject doing so on the grounds of personal sovereinty over ones own body. But that does not imply they need be welcomed everywhere.

Masks and vaccinnation may not eliminate the spread of COVID, but they have been shown to reduce it. Better masks and more vaccinations reduce it more.


As an aside - of my biggest complaints about asshats like these people is their actions undercut the philosophical discussion about personal rights in the public sphere. They poison the well against defense of legitimate concerns regarding unvaccinated population, including people who are truly allergic, because I think most reasonable people who hear of their antics just see a bunch of asshats who haul their kids to a "lets go get arrested" party so they can loudly cry about how wronged they are when rightfully shown the door.

Just because someone isn't welcome somewhere doesn't make them a martyr, if the reason they are not welcome is based on what they do (or don't) not on what they are. And especially their actions incur additional risks to people other than themselves. If they chose to create their own spaces for unmasked, unvaccinated people to congregate among themselves - well, I'd still think they were being dipshits since they are encouraging spread of disease, but I'd still be more likely to defend their rights to do so despite the negative social consequences. By the same token, I believe that people who want less risk of disease should be free to establish their own spaces where some level of disease mitigation is required.

Last edited by Derid; 01/22/22 06:26 PM.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,516
Likes: 9
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,516
Likes: 9
Originally Posted by Derid
The fact that Omicron is more contagious than previous strains makes rules requiring certain levels of contagion mitigation on behalf of patrons even more reasonable, not less - the fact that said rules do not go far enough to eliminate possibility of spread notwithstanding.

You are engaging in motivated reasoning. Your starting point is that masks and vaccines are a public good and necessity and everything else is argued from there. I am not going to grant you this as a premise in 2022.

In 2022 we know that masks, save for N95, are ineffective. We know that vaccines do not provide sterilizing immunity and vaccinated people still transmit when infected. We know that Omicron breakthrough infections (mild - yes, but still there) are widespread. We know that Omicron is measels-level infectious. We know that there are now animal reservoirs so even if COVID 0 is somehow achived, it will re-emerge. Because of all that I can say with 100% certanty that we failed to control COVID. Even if we somehow tomorrow reach 100% boosted-vaccination and 100% masking compliance. As such, the rationale for these policies is no longer there.

As part of social contract we agree that imposing on someone’s freedoms must be both justified and kept to necessary minimum. If the society break that social contract it is just to peacefully engage in civil disobedience.

Suppose these people were protesting a mandate to wear a burqa to enter any public space. Now re-read your post from this perspective to understand my view of your response.

Last edited by Sini; 01/22/22 08:59 PM.

[Linked Image]
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,652
Likes: 6
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,652
Likes: 6
Masks of any sort reduce aerosol dispertion from the breather to some extent, which reduces cloud of contagion. Vaccination reduces viral load in the host in cases of breakthrough infection, thereby also reducing window and virility of contagion to some degree. You are arguing that since something cannot be eliminated, efforts to reduce impact are pointless which does not follow. It isn't an all or nothing proposition. I think the standard to you using to register benefit is unreasonably high.


Just because mitigation does not in this case reduce impact to zero does not mean it is without benefit. What I read from your argument is that restrictions should be increased to be more effective under the current circumstance, not done away with.

A mask does not carry religious connotation, so I don't agree that it is an applicible comparison to a burqa. A better comparison would be to standard dress codes. "No shirt no shoes no service"

Why is asking someone to wear a shirt and shoes acceptable, but a mask somehow not? Not to mention benefits of masks reducing transmission of illness beyond COVID, I'm not sure how you could argue that it is fundamentally different or less impactful than shoes or shirts.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,516
Likes: 9
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,516
Likes: 9
Originally Posted by Derid
Just because mitigation does not in this case reduce impact to zero does not mean it is without benefit. What I read from your argument is that restrictions should be increased to be more effective under the current circumstance, not done away with.

You misunderstood me. I think in 2022 mantaining restrictions is fallacy of sunk costs. I did support lockdowns 2 years ago in a beleif that COVID could be contained until it could be stopped with vaccines. Both of these assumptions turned out to be false. The situation right now is different and requires re-evaluation of cost vs. benefit.

You can't keep making 2020 arguments today, you have to adjust your views to account for the new situation.

What we have right now is Iraq war, only with COVID. What is your exist plan?


[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,516
Likes: 9
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,516
Likes: 9
Originally Posted by Derid
A mask does not carry religious connotation, so I don't agree that it is an applicible comparison to a burqa.

It absolutely does, it is just not a traditional theistic religion.


[Linked Image]
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,652
Likes: 6
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,652
Likes: 6
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Derid
Just because mitigation does not in this case reduce impact to zero does not mean it is without benefit. What I read from your argument is that restrictions should be increased to be more effective under the current circumstance, not done away with.

You misunderstood me. I think in 2022 mantaining restrictions is fallacy of sunk costs. I did support lockdowns 2 years ago in a beleif that COVID could be contained until it could be stopped with vaccines. Both of these assumptions turned out to be false. The situation right now is different and requires re-evaluation of cost vs. benefit.

You can't keep making 2020 arguments today, you have to adjust your views to account for the new situation.

What we have right now is Iraq war, only with COVID. What is your exist plan?


We aren't talking about lockdowns though. New situation has me thinking, as I stated, that N95 class masks should probably be the benchmark. Wearing a mask does not inflict any harm on the wearer. If we find it aceptable to require people to wear a shirt that isn't see-through in public, I don't see why it is unreasonable to require masks that are effective against transmission of disease.

Exit? I think it is possible that masks will become a standard fashion accessory for the forseeable future.

I do not pretend that requiring masks will eliminate COVID. In large part because so many people refuse to do so. That being said, I'm pretty sure every reputable study has concluded that if everyone wore good masks in public and got vaccinated that COVID spread would be drastically reduced.

But I also think that masking oneself appropriately to prevent spreading illness to others is a matter of basic deceny. I therefor have no objection to legal enforcement provided that the punishment fits the crime. The 'punishment' as far as I can discern has been limited to eviction from said premises, so this seems non-problematic. If people were being jailed or massively fined for simply stepping foot somewhere, that may be different. But asking someone to leave seems like a reasonable response, and refusing to comply not reasonable unless it can be shown where their burden of compliance is somehow significant or their actual human rights are being trampled upon.

Wearing a mask lowers the chances of spreading illness to others, the better the mask the lower the chance. Being vaccinated lowers the risk of contracting disease and therefore spreading it to others, though as noted breakthrough infections are certainly a thing and people with them are certainly contagious. Still, I'd say the right of people to endure less risk to their actual safety in the public domain far outweights the desires of others to not wear a mask, or even their desire to visit public areas where the establishment requires certain measures. (regardless of whether those measures are prompted by govt)

We cannot pretend that mask wearing especially is onerous or does not make a difference.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Derid 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5