Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How many masks do you wear?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

On 2/4/2021 at 11:17 PM, whYNOT said:

Sure, and this is rights-respecting and simple good manners, if needing to enter another's personal space or property, one would accede to their request. But not as a moral duty, and not in public areas and not because of initiation of force.

 

On 2/5/2021 at 1:04 AM, Easy Truth said:

So to be left alone (unharmed and undamaged) is not the moral duty of another person? In other words, it's okay for another to put you in danger.

The negative moral duty not to go on an axe-murdering-spree is not the same thing as a positive moral duty to wear a chin-diaper.

On 2/5/2021 at 5:52 AM, dream_weaver said:

Florida Supermarket Sparks Outrage Over Customers and Employees Openly Rejecting Mask-Wearing Rules

Note the outrage is by outsiders exerting the peer pressure to conform with the rest of the world, or at least the NBC viewing audience. Was his concern for his own health and well being so great that he immediately walked out, or is he so committed to public safety that he stayed and shot some footage so other concerned shoppers could avoid this particular venue?

I really need to move to Florida.  Minnesota isn't far from failing as a state.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This discussion has been rather far removed from the fundamental principles regarding man’s rights, and has focused instead on notions of aggression, spreading (versus other means), sensory inputs, af

https://youtu.be/ssvSsMqTtjo Kibbe on Liberty: Pandemic imprisoning and the culture war. Perspectives from Britain and the USA. Great conversation.

I wear one when required, out of respect for the fact that a private business is required to enforce the mandate. I never decided on a consistent policy to use in situations where I have a choice. I g

Posted Images

On 1/31/2021 at 6:56 PM, JASKN said:

A brain operates automatically in many or even most ways, and in fact the common understanding of idea "dredging" is that it's involuntary, which is why I used it as an example. Furthermore, some communicated ideas are intended to harm the recipient - not just lies, but perhaps bringing up past trauma, or shifting a person's focus with the intent to change his decisions. Why would these things not constitute an initiation of force?

I expect this was a deliberate straw-man set up for rhetorical purposes, but still...

 

Suppose someone went out and had a one-night-stand with someone one night and several months later discovered that they had AIDS.  The other person had known about their condition but hadn't mentioned it until it was too late, and now one of their lifespans has been significantly reduced; essentially robbing them of all the years they now won't survive to.  Have their individual rights been violated?

I think so.  If you are a responsible adult and you know that you carry a transmissible disease then part of being responsible should mean trying to minimize the risk of inadvertently harming others (at minimum informing them of the possible consequences of certain interactions, if they wouldn't already know) and if you fail to do that then you are criminally negligent.  It's analogous to if you ran over and killed someone because you were drunk or texting while driving; you are criminally responsible for the consequences of your own irresponsibility.

 

That's not what's wrong with the mask militia.

 

Firstly, there's the question of whether you are in fact a carrier of the Wuhan Flu.  You'll notice that never comes up - because the assumption is that everyone could have it, because EVERY single one of us has either had it already or probably will have it, unless we're vaccinated first.  But if you've already had it then you are immune (at least to the specific strain you caught), cannot now be a carrier and have no good reason to wear a mask at all.

Secondly, one of the core assumptions in the AIDS analogy (and to any other disease that warrants such treatment) is that the other person would not have caught the disease otherwise.  And there is no conceivable way to apply such reasoning to the Wuhan Flu.  If you do not get vaccinated for it then you will catch it from someone, somewhere, eventually.  So it makes far less sense to hold any one person accountable for any specific transmission because if they didn't spread it, someone else certainly would have.

Thirdly, AIDS is a disease which might actually kill someone, at some point.  Imagine suing someone for giving you a rather nasty head cold that lasted all of a week!

Finally, even in the AIDS analogy there is the chance that after informing the other person of your disease they might still choose to sleep with you (IDK; maybe you're just that good-looking) in which case they've taken on the responsibility for any potential infection.  You can only be held guilty if you weren't up-front with everything you knew at the time.  And this REALLY breaks down when you remember the degree of individual autonomy we're allowed to have about potentially spreading the Wuhan Flu.

We're not being allowed to take whatever risks we personally, rationally consider appropriate, in any sphere of our lives.  We're being gagged and leashed "for our own safety" and that's that.

And that's specifically what's pissing me off.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2021 at 11:23 AM, DonAthos said:

I invite people here to reflect on the notion of a more serious disease going around. One that kills more routinely, more certainly, and with less discrimination (with respect to age, etc.). Suppose it were granted that masks provided protection, and otherwise people must not come within six feet of one another lest they potentially transmit this very deadly disease. We would soon come to regard it as "the initiation of the use of force" for an unmasked individual to come close to us -- even if we did not know whether they had the disease or not. And we would be justified in using force in response, to avoid them or to stop them from approaching us. This may not have been true before the onset of the disease, and it may not continue to be true after the disease has been mostly contained (even if some risk of getting the disease persists in perpetuity), but while the disease rages, it is a fact of reality that matters to our assessments and cannot be ignored or rationalized away.

Absolutely, but there are biological limits on how bad a pandemic can get.  Some diseases are highly infectious but barely lethal at all (like the Wuhan Pneumonia) but the ones that kill too many of their own carriers (like Ebola) tend to burn themselves out pretty rapidly.  In principle, though, yes.

On 2/5/2021 at 8:08 PM, whYNOT said:

What is being proposed here, is that it is initiation of force to transmit a virus, right? Therefore, it is the imposition to not infect others, and the corollary, indeed you are arguing IS the "right to not being infected". No strawman.

Or else you all would have no arguments.

Not to be willfully infected by someone who knows they have a dangerous disease.  There is a true principle beneath what you're arguing against.  The problem is not that principle but its application to the Wuhan Pneumonia (which is ridiculous).

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:
On 2/5/2021 at 12:04 AM, Easy Truth said:

So to be left alone (unharmed and undamaged) is not the moral duty of another person? In other words, it's okay for another to put you in danger.

The negative moral duty not to go on an axe-murdering-spree is not the same thing as a positive moral duty to wear a chin-diaper.

Granted. That was not the argument. (I am not advocating for forced masks)

The moral duty is to avoid complete unawareness of how you affect others. It is to your self interest for many reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2021 at 9:46 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

You should take it off before you're allowed to if you'd like to prove to yourself that you are still a free man.

No, because I think there are goods reasons for wearing one, and for not setting any arbitrary deadline for taking it off.

I don't have to prove anything to myself, but I might want to reaffirm something.

Edited by Doug Morris
Addition
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2021 at 9:58 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I have looked this up and your odds of dying from skin cancer from exposure to sunlight is FAR more likely than dying from the Wuhan Flu.  So if spreading the latter should be a criminal offense then so should be Sunshine.

People can control their exposure to sunlight much more easily than their exposure to the spread of germs.

COVID-19 is killing more people than a normal flu outbreak.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2021 at 10:14 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Now, when we discuss Wuhan Pneumonia we are discussing a disease that's usually so mild (BEFORE any treatments or interventions) that many of its carriers don't even realize that they are carriers because they literally have none of its symptoms.

 

To treat the potential spread of THAT as a form of assault it insane.  There's no other word for it than insanity.

A lot of people are dying from COVID-19.

If someone were scattering small amounts of peanut dust in a restaurant kitchen, most people would not be affected at all.  But some would be severely affected, perhaps dying.  That is a form of assault.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2021 at 10:18 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

And I've been quite tempted for some time now to stop wearing my mask even at work, just to yank a bit on the opposite end of mine.

Maybe I should go around naked in public "to yank a bit on the opposite end of mine."  At least that way I wouldn't be spreading anything physically dangerous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The moral duty is to avoid complete unawareness of how you affect others. It is to your self interest for many reasons.

Definitely.  In one of my posts earlier on page nine I believe I laid out my own case for why I think that's true.  It's the mandatory nature of it that I'm objecting to in the strongest terms I can.

If there were no unconstitutional mandates involved and it was purely a matter of what the sensible (frankly just polite) thing to do is then I'd probably be voluntarily masking up without any issues.  Only I didn't volunteer.

4 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

A lot of people are dying from COVID-19.

I don't think so.

 

I'm not going to start searching for statistics (nor ask you to) because at this point those numbers are not set in stone; the very best either of us could do would be to quote what the mortality rate seems to be today.  But the google search I did when I was composing that post reaffirmed what had seemed to be true the last time I'd checked: that as a percentage of our overall population the vast majority of us are surviving it just fine.  Give them enough time to weed out the rest of the "COVID deaths" who were hit by buses while also carrying the Wuhan Flu and it'll be an even lower number than it seems to be today.

I know how that sounds; talking about the deaths of human beings in terms of percentages, but as far as I'm aware that's where our national conversation is at right now.  Since those statistics are the ONLY justification for the fascist nightmare we've collectively decided to inflict on ourselves I'm not about to just say "oh, sure; everybody's doomed and this is our only possible answer".  And according to the Johns Hopkin's COVID19 mortality calculator (which is updated weekly) the odds of a thirty year old white smoking male with hypertension (such as myself) dying from Wuhan Pneumonia is one in ten billion.  And those sound like pretty great odds to me.

Seriously; my blood pressure is gonna kill me a very long time before any strain of this disease ever does.  And I'd still be happy to reexamine the absolute mortality rate once we actually know the precise number that it is.  But it already seems pretty clear to me that not only was no part of the fascism ever truly justifiable but that not very many of us were ever doomed to begin with.

 

4 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

If someone were scattering small amounts of peanut dust in a restaurant kitchen, most people would not be affected at all.  But some would be severely affected, perhaps dying.  That is a form of assault.

And forbidding by law (by all the guns of the American government) that ANY healthy human being ever touch the stuff again; that's just fine???  Because in terms of essentials that is precisely what we are doing about this damnable disease.

 

For the exclusive purpose of not allowing this to get as dark as it can get, here's a slightly relevant YouTube video that made me chuckle.

 

4 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Maybe I should go around naked in public "to yank a bit on the opposite end of mine."  At least that way I wouldn't be spreading anything physically dangerous.

You make a good point...

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
hyperlinks
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I know how that sounds; talking about the deaths of human beings in terms of percentages, but as far as I'm aware that's where our national conversation is at right now.  Since those statistics are the ONLY justification for the fascist nightmare we've collectively decided to inflict on ourselves I'm not about to just say "oh, sure; everybody's doomed and this is our only possible answer".  And according to the Johns Hopkin's COVID19 mortality calculator (which is updated weekly) the odds of a thirty year old white smoking male with hypertension (such as myself) dying from Wuhan Pneumonia is one in ten billion.  And those sound like pretty great odds to me.

Do you see what I'm saying about forbidding any healthy person from ever consuming peanuts again?

 

I know the mortality rate climbs pretty stiffly with age (and one of the most surprising quirks of this disease is that it really does not affect children) and that it might be a ten or twenty percent chance of death if you catch it over the age of seventy.  In the UK I know the average age of death from the Wuhan Pneumonia is 82.  At that point in a person's life (I'm very sorry to say this but) if we outlawed every single thing that could kill an eighty-year-old then I'd struggle mightily to come up with anything that could remain legal.

And although I know that the social darwinist perspective is an irrational and very-not-good reaction to the opposite (which seems to suggest that anything which might potentially kill some octogenarian, somewhere, must be outlawed) do you trust the majority of American voters to be able to identify that feeling as such when it shows up inside of them?

Have you stopped and asked yourself why Donald Trump happened at least once and perhaps twice if he runs again in 2024?  I don't mean to be harsher than deserved on you @Doug Morris and I'm sure that once we hear each other's caveats we won't actually disagree by that much, but I truly do believe that there is an unheard cause beneath this which nobody in the wider society seems to care about (and, to be fair, which its own defenders don't tend to help very much).

The fundamental principle there is that the normal dangers of being alive do not grant ANYONE license to control anyone else's life and that if it's death by the Wuhan Flu versus survival (but certainly NOT "life") under this alternative is significantly worse than allowing the disease to simply run its macabre course.

I know that sounds like a horrible thing to say but I happen to believe that it's true.  And one of the personal rules I set for myself a long time ago is that I never apologize for saying what I believe to be true, nor ask anyone else to.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
reasons
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

The fundamental principle there is that the normal dangers of being alive do not grant ANYONE license to control anyone else's life and that if it's death by the Wuhan Flu versus survival (but certainly NOT "life") under this alternative is significantly worse than allowing the disease to simply run its macabre course.

I know that sounds like a horrible thing to say but I happen to believe that it's true.  And one of the personal rules I set for myself a long time ago is that I never apologize for saying what I believe to be true, nor ask anyone else to.

Certainly not "horrible" to say. It was not said enough. By anyone, not enough by those who know that the standard of value is man's life, a life with quality, lived "as man", lacking which lives are hardly worth living. Nothing - not a thing- should have stopped man's life from continuing for a moment. The pandemic would have an end, but people by the billions, have suffered and lost without end. It's the meek acquiescence to sacrifice I can't stand and find tragic: "Ah but you know it's Covid, what can one do?" - says the person who's permanently closed the doors to his long-established business. Or those who have run out of savings while unemployed, or mental health and medical damages - and so on and on. (I believe we won't catch up on the cost to individual lives for another generation, at least). No, the cause was not Covid, it was the lockdown, social distancing - and masking - the bureaucrat and social edicts that raised panic levels and embedded this sacrificial responsibility to others over one's own life. Reality check, if it's SO risky for you (anyone) to catch Covid, go into hiding. Don't emerge until it's over, or you get vaccinated. And if you need and choose to go out ~you~ mask up and avoid contact with the majority, the active folk. What gives one the greater moral right to presume on being specially protected by outsiders intent on fully living their lives? Altruism, the default universal code. And right, I'm sure most would take care around the elderly, etc., but don't push it!  I'm glad someone is also infuriated at the utter human wastage over this pandemic year, HD. Everyone I know, almost, has taken the human losses as a given. Some intellectual I read, raved - Is it not incredibly wonderful that we would give up our global economies to save lives? Horrible man.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2021 at 9:07 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

allowing the disease to simply run its macabre course

I don't disagree but I would argue it differently.

From a utilitarian standpoint, one could argue that the course is not macabre. Very few young people will be harmed by Covid. But using the utilitarian statistical argument will ultimately turn against the "government do nothing" stance because of the argument that "in two years more people died than in the entire Vietnam War from Covid". Any government has a fear or falling over that, it has a huge optics problem. That is the concern that has to be countered.

Also, isn't there a problem with arguing that an 82 year old's life is worth less than a 20 year old's life. (Although if it was a triage situation I would save the younger person, or if it's about selling life insurance, the 20 year old's will be much cheaper). But worth less? To whom? We're not going to go the intrinsicism route with value of a specific person's life. 

On 3/9/2021 at 9:07 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

The fundamental principle there is that the normal dangers of being alive do not grant ANYONE license to control anyone else's life and that if it's death by the Wuhan Flu versus survival (but certainly NOT "life") under this alternative is significantly worse than allowing the disease to simply run its macabre course.

If the argument is solely about "mandatory chin diapers", to many or most people, it does not amount to "controlling someone's life" (even though it is on some level). The argument against being forced to put on a chin diaper is going to have less weight than against preventing a person from running their business and losing their life savings. That has a greater chance of being heard and cause political change.

From an ideal/ethical stance the government should not control anything without your consent.

But the requirement to wear a chin diaper, or that kind of discomfort is not solely possible from the governmental action. If your employer requires it, or if you will be ostracized, or boycotted, or some businesses don't want to sell you goods (unless you wear a mask), that kind of control is acceptable. But your argument is probably that your employer is being forced by the government to do that. Then there would be some justification for rebellious behavior. But isn't it possible that they (employer) would voluntarily, due to insurance costs, require you to wear it?

From the standpoint of the worst kind of control to the least kind of control, the chin diaper is less control than having to stay home or not doing business. 

The point is that little control vs. large amount of control arguments should be separated or the effective arguments will be overshadowed by the weak ones.

Edited by Easy Truth
Link to post
Share on other sites

The govt. do nothing method, counter-intuitively for nearly everyone, was always going to be and still looks to be the correct strategy. Some scientists recommended that approach at the start of the pandemic (and were silenced on social media). The role of government, surely, is to advise of the latest information and allow the public to choose, it's their own (and their grandma's) lives to look after not any (scientific) bureaucrat's to control.

On the face of it, I'd agree with ET that masking is the softest measure. Better than the anti-life lockdowns. Apart from how it has still devastated small and medium businesses, all part of "the economy" - I'd also point out the psychology of it. That even now out of lockdown, watching masked people scurry around avoiding each other, rushing home to safety - the whole mask business is fraught with guilt and fear. We've been taught that masks protect others better than oneself. The onus has been thrown onto one to care for others first. Largely away from protecting oneself (if need be).

On pain of death, everyone hates imagining the possibility of transmitting the virus to another person. That way, the 'other' has become our standard of morality in the pandemic and will be long afterwards. And the children, who have been warned and admonished by parents and adults that they are responsible for others' lives. How does that duty and this long episode go on to affect them later in life? Depression, low self-esteem, angry defiance?

Many people, while watching the numbers climb, might feel guilty that they personally are too healthy or young to be a victim of Covid. Guilt and fear, once implanted, is the way a society becomes obedient to others/Gvt. and will meekly surrender its freedoms.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

"So, lockdowns, mask mandates, and social distancing requirements are effective in limiting virus cases, but not in reducing deaths.

Of course, these data do not take into account the ancillary ills that lockdowns may cause. Episodic information points to spikes in suicide rates during the pandemic (in Idaho, for example). Nor does it account for increases in unemployment and poverty.

But the death rate data clearly casts doubt on the efficacy of lockdowns, enough that it is worth considering the economic and social impact of these policies to see how much harm they, in fact, do." (Dick Morris)

---

I'd a thought this info was of maximum importance - while paradoxical.

Lockdowns etc. - 'worked' - but didn't "work".

If there were a much reduced case rate through those harsh measures in one state, why was there a closely identical mortality rate with another, relaxed (free-er) state?

Were the major, unbelievable, sacrifices made by all countries, in vain?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

An experimental toothpaste aims to treat peanut allergy

A more rational approach to peanut allergy. Interesting to note that roughly 32 million (~10%) Americans have food allergies. The politicians seek to modify the behavior of the 90% (through mask mandates or taxing infringements), while the better scientists strive to inure the 10% of the anomalies that prevent them from enjoying the foods others enjoy without reactive concerns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Also, isn't there a problem with arguing that an 82 year old's life is worth less than a 20 year old's life. (Although if it was a triage situation I would save the younger person, or if it's about selling life insurance, the 20 year old's will be much cheaper). But worth less? To whom? We're not going to go the intrinsicism route with value of a specific person's life.

Yes, there is, which is why I don't consider the social darwinist perspective to be a serious point.

 

The way everyone seems to be framing this is that my quality of life is at odds with the survival of the very old, which is why the reflexive "can't we just let them die" response does appeal to me at times. But they wouldn't be at odds if one could invoke any semblance of individual rights (which would allow the very old to take care of themselves while letting me do the same).

11 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

If the argument is solely about "mandatory chin diapers", to many or most people, it does not amount to "controlling someone's life" (even though it is on some level). The argument against being forced to put on a chin diaper is going to have less weight than against preventing a person from running their business and losing their life savings. That has a greater chance of being heard and cause political change.

But they're all part of the same overarching thing. The chin diapers are simply the most concrete aspect (and, yes, by far the least offensive) of it all.

 

As for my employer - according to the state of Minnesota they'll be fined $1000 if they don't force me to wear a mask, but my own has made it clear that he won't pay that fine if it ever comes up; I will. Which is a risk I'm happy to take!

That's why I keep using the word "fascism" - that's what forcing a corporation to do the government's dirty work for them means. The little Napoleons involved (like Tim Walz) don't even have the balls to enforce their own rules; they have to rope perfectly innocent third parties into doing it for them.

If it was only a private matter of insurance costs then that wouldn't be an issue either. Since it is yet another outrageous law I am violating it on principle and look forward to the possibility of expressing why in a courtroom, if it ever comes to that. :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

And the children, who have been warned and admonished by parents and adults that they are responsible for others' lives. How does that duty and this long episode go on to affect them later in life? Depression, low self-esteem, angry defiance?

What; the kids who learned that going outside and being carefree will cause old people to die, that they aren't in charge of their own decisions (the nanny-state is) and that anything they ever work to accomplish could be destroyed at any moment with the flick of some bureaucrat's pen? I'm sure they'll grow up to be the good little footsoldiers we obviously want them to be.

I mean ...

3550..jpg.d911098f22003b3e9a72eb3889e69d5d.jpg

"STAY HOME TO HELP US SAVE LIVES

IF YOU GO OUT

YOU CAN SPREAD IT

PEOPLE WILL DIE!"

 

Great message for the kids. Can't imagine any unfortunate consequences of plastering those signs all over the UK.

Actually, I can just picture one such kid on a therapist's couch in about twenty years trying to figure out why they have a crippling phobia of going outside, but maybe that'll be considered normal at that point anyway.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
"People will DIE!"
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

An experimental toothpaste aims to treat peanut allergy

A more rational approach to peanut allergy. Interesting to note that roughly 32 million (~10%) Americans have food allergies. The politicians seek to modify the behavior of the 90% (through mask mandates or taxing infringements), while the better scientists strive to inure the 10% of the anomalies that prevent them from enjoying the foods others enjoy without reactive concerns.

Exactly.

 

I don't remember which lecture it was but I distinctly remember a lecture by Peikoff in which he explained that nothing which is forced can be a value, because to "value" something involves a certain mental process ("mind" being the opposite of "force") of understanding and appreciating that thing, without which it cannot be considered "valuable" to the individual who doesn't actually value it.

The example he gave involved forcing a young man to become a doctor (which would in fact be his true calling) despite his irrational (but truly and deeply held) conviction that he was meant to paint.  It didn't take him long to show how forcing him into his ideal career path would make him resent and hate it, which would discourage him from paying close attention to his own work, which would eventually sap away whatever talent he had ever had for it; ultimately and necessarily leaving him as an embittered quack.

Huddling in our homes and only venturing outside to collect our welfare handouts is not living; it's just not-dying.  That most of us were forced by government fiat to do so for almost a year (and some parts of America might stay that way for a second year) - well, it seems certain to be at least a major contributing factor in our brand new suicide rates.

 

We should count ourselves lucky if that's all that comes of this.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally suspect that our society will continue bearing punishment for the past year's sins for many decades to come.  I do not know all the different forms that punishment will take, but if nothing more comes of it than an excess of suicides and mental disturbances then we will have been damn lucky.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

From the standpoint of the worst kind of control to the least kind of control, the chin diaper is less control than having to stay home or not doing business. 

When Minnesota locked down I entered into a several-week-long debate with the employer I had at the time and ultimately convinced her (or just annoyed her to the point of giving in; it wasn't quite clear) that there are certain laws which should be violated on principle, and that the lockdown was one of them.  Although I've changed my employment since then I have not changed my mind about it.

If they try locking Minnesota down again I will set up a fucking lemonade stand in the most public place I can.  MASKLESS.  To Hell with the immediate consequences; there are some things you simply must find a way to fight.

 

PS:

 

The sidewalk in front of Tim Walz's house would be the perfect spot to make that sort of a scene.  Let that "person" look me in the eye and witness the functioning of his own ideas on his own front lawn, for once.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
postscript
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

But what is the return on investment for you?

I don't know, exactly.  At least a $1000 fine (which will never be paid) and certainly many other nasty things.  That's not what I'm thinking of; what I'm worried about are the consequences of silently allowing all these things to be done to me.

Although I violated the lockdowns the first time I did so in secret.  None of my arguments were heard by anyone except my coworkers and family; I maintained the appearance of obedience.  In retrospect I think I was also being one more part of the problem; not part of the solution.  I am ashamed that I didn't make a scene over the first lockdown and I truly do hope its consequences will not be as severe as I suspect they might be.

It's not something I've thought all the way through, to the root, but if it ever happens again I intend to pick some very public fights over it.

That's why I do not wear any mask at all right now.  I'm still waiting for someone to crack down on me about it - and if and when they do then I'll fight them, too.

I'm far more scared of the consequences of my own obedience.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth be told, almost every single aspect of today's political landscape both frightens and angers me.  And if that's not what you feel about it then I don't think you're actually paying attention to it.  Maybe that's for the better (for your own psychological health); I really meant it when I said that my blood pressure is gonna kill me long before the Wuhan Flu does.  But bear in mind that I have been paying probably too much attention to this subject when I say that we would be in a far better place today if a few more people had found the courage to pick such fights, last year, than actually did.

Including my self.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...