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 (), 6 guests, and 27 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Today's Birthdays
Devan Omega
Newest Members
Luckystrikes, Shingen, BillNyeCommieSpy, Lamp, AllenGlines
1,477 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums53
Topics13,094
Posts116,355
Members1,477
Most Online276
Aug 3rd, 2023
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
None yet
Top Posters(30 Days)
Popular Topics(Views)
1,986,836 Trump card
1,323,918 Picture Thread
473,873 Romney
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
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: 5,528
Likes: 10
Originally Posted by Derid
I think it is possible that masks will become a standard fashion accessory for the forseeable future.
Use proper terminology. If they are mandatory, then they can't be fashion. Fashion implies choice.
Originally Posted by Derid
I do not pretend that requiring masks will eliminate COVID.
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 can use your argument verbatim to ask for mandating daily flossing, then turn the society into police state while enforcing it. Its not the flossing that the problem in such scenario.

If masks are not a temporary measure in a time of dire emergency, then the level of justification to impose them on the population has to be on an entirely new, much higher level. I don't think marginal benefits they provide are anywhere near sufficent. More so, it is imperative that enforcement must be proportionate and measured. It is ridiclous that people would get arrested for this, when the crime is less severe than jaywalking.
Originally Posted by Derid
In large part because so many people refuse to do so.
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.
Originally Posted by Derid
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.
Faulty generalization with a touch of no true Scotsman.
In plain language - look at widespread infections amongst vaccinated, masking and socially isolating people. In my social circle (who is all vaccinated by the way) at least a third of people already had Omicron, myself included. Where I live, fully vaccination level is already at 75+%. Observable reality does not fit your narrative.
Originally Posted by Derid
But I also think that masking oneself appropriately to prevent spreading illness to others is a matter of basic deceny.
Since you are advocating for masking mandates, you are imposing your own definition of decency (i.e., morals) on others by force.

Last edited by Sini; 01/23/22 08:04 PM.

[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
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: 5,528
Likes: 10


[Linked Image]
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
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)
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Derid 

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