What's your COVID-19 gameplan?

HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Expletive.

Sorry man. My gf has asthma and an autoimmune disease - she is scared and doesn't even have to be around people like that. I hope your wife stays safe and wish for the best.


Not per capita, it isn't.
I am not sure that word means what you think it means.
 
ValiantThor08

ValiantThor08

Board Sponsor
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Sorry man. My gf has asthma and an autoimmune disease - she is scared and doesn't even have to be around people like that. I hope your wife stays safe and wish for the best.




I am not sure that word means what you think it means.
Forskolin can help those with asthma. Your GF take that?
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
All their premises were wrong and he disagreed with them regarding the 15 minute testing which is fine for outpatient situations but not en-mass like other testing. He stated we knew of this in December of 2019 and nobody responded to it. Only now has there been a call to get tests into the system.

Additional beyond this video:
The government is permitting US companies to buy up supplies and export them.
HOW THE F&CK can they permit this? This profiteering is coming at the expense of American Lives.

“Roughly 280 million masks in warehouses around the U.S. were purchased by foreign buyers on Monday alone, according to Forbes. A FEMA spokesperson said the agency ‘has not actively encouraged or discouraged U.S. companies from exporting overseas’.”

We in fact do need a 9/11 kind of commission to look at the failures of this administration and hold them all accountable. This is by far worse than 9/11 to our country and requires every aspect of discovery.
 
Last edited:
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Ron DeSantis deems religious services ‘essential’ — allows them to continue amid coronavirus outbreak..
I'm going to say, this is not a victimless crime and he should be prosecuted for this reckless endangerment of public safety.

You want to pray? Pray at home. Apparently God is everywhere and requires no 'place' to be worshiped.
Oh, and churches should be taxed starting now.
 
Godstrength

Godstrength

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Ron DeSantis deems religious services ‘essential’ — allows them to continue amid coronavirus outbreak..
I'm going to say, this is not a victimless crime and he should be prosecuted for this reckless endangerment of public safety.

You want to pray? Pray at home. Apparently God is everywhere and requires no 'place' to be worshiped.
Oh, and churches should be taxed starting now.
Believers ain't scared of the Rona dawg.... And trying to tell people they can't go to church would be like telling people they can't own guns. Government getting a little bit too involved and how to control people. Understandably Is it wise probably not but yet all the same people going to go to church cuz Faith. That's something people either get it or they don't. Either way all the same different strokes for different folks
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Ron DeSantis deems religious services ‘essential’ — allows them to continue amid coronavirus outbreak..
I'm going to say, this is not a victimless crime and he should be prosecuted for this reckless endangerment of public safety.

You want to pray? Pray at home. Apparently God is everywhere and requires no 'place' to be worshiped.
Oh, and churches should be taxed starting now.
I had a bigger problem with his delay in closing beaches for spring break. desantis in all honesty has disappointed me, I expected better from him...but he is still head and shoulders above his meth head democratic opponent.

one thing to consider, religious freedom is protected by the constitution, spring break is not,
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Believers ain't scared of the Rona dawg.... And trying to tell people they can't go to church would be like telling people they can't own guns. Government getting a little bit too involved and how to control people. Understandably Is it wise probably not but yet all the same people going to go to church cuz Faith. That's something people either get it or they don't. Either way all the same different strokes for different folks

Sorry, there's a huge difference in gun ownership laws and one's ability to go to church during a pandemic.
You go to church, you touch what others touched, you come out infected or the ability to infect.
That's criminal. Nothing like owning a gun.

Sounds like a suicide cult with the ability to commit homicide.
It's more like using your phone and texting while driving. Reckless endangerment. It's not until it is.

Get some sense.
You're free to pray at home. (Practice safe worshiping.)

Or not.
You can see the problem in this map.
But go ahead, and explain to me how your having faith is not harming others in going to church now.

192709
 
Last edited:
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Believers ain't scared of the Rona dawg.... And trying to tell people they can't go to church would be like telling people they can't own guns. Government getting a little bit too involved and how to control people. Understandably Is it wise probably not but yet all the same people going to go to church cuz Faith. That's something people either get it or they don't. Either way all the same different strokes for different folks
guns and religious freedom are both protected by the constitution, if we are willing to start giving away our constitutional rights where will we draw the line?
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Sorry, there's a huge difference in gun ownership laws and one's ability to go to church during a pandemic.
You go to church, you touch what others touched, you come out infected or the ability to infect.
That's criminal. Nothing like owning a gun.

Sounds like a suicide cult with the ability to commit homicide.
It's more like using your phone and texting while driving. Reckless endangerment. It's not until it is.

Get some sense.
You're free to pray at home.
freedom of speech is also protected by the constitution, are you sure you want to let the government start violating our constitutional rights?

it is a slippery slope...you can't compare texting and driving to religious freedom, our country was founded on religious freedom and it is constitutionally protected.
 
Last edited:
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
I think if you want to ignore social distancing guidelines and umm, congregate at a church, you should also be consistent in your selfishness and be sure you have a whole ER and ICU team as members too so you dont burden the rest of society with your dumbness.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
I think if you want to ignore social distancing guidelines and umm, congregate at a church, you should also be consistent in your selfishness and be sure you have a whole ER and ICU team as members too so you dont burden the rest of society with your dumbness.
what other constitutional rights are you willing to give up?

I agree it is dumb to congregate for any reason, but for the government to make it illegal to attend church goes against the very fabric this country was founded upon.
 
DA_MOSS

DA_MOSS

New member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
"Hey, its my constitutional right to catch this virus and spread it around, brothers!!"
Its also not your constitutional right to shoot someone in the face, but it is to own the gun that can do that...

Infringing on constitutional rights can turn into a slippery slope, but i do agree they shouldnt congregate at this time
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Nothing.. That twitter account is the epitome of severe TDS
Really. That's all you got after watching the video from Fox News?

Rush Limbaugh: February 24: "Folks, this coronavirus thing, I want to try to put this in perspective for you. It looks like the coronavirus is being weaponized as yet another element to bring down Donald Trump. Now, the truth, ... “The coronavirus is the common cold, folks."

Rush Limbaugh; Feb. 25: “They’re trying to lay it at Trump’s feet & make him responsible for it and they're doing irresponsible news reports claiming that the coronavirus is gonna destroy the US economy by when? November! Isn't it magical? The coronavirus is the new Russians..."

Rush Limbaugh: March 11: "This coronavirus, all of this panic isn’t warranted. This, I’m telling you, when I tell you — when I’ve told you that this virus is the common cold. When I said that, it was based on the number of cases. It’s also based on the kind of virus this is.”
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I think if you want to ignore social distancing guidelines and umm, congregate at a church, you should also be consistent in your selfishness and be sure you have a whole ER and ICU team as members too so you dont burden the rest of society with your dumbness.
Wow, I thought you were a liberal until you made this statement. I WHOLE HEARTEDLY agree. You want to do stupid ****, have at it - don't show up at the hospital though, and don't be upset when we imprison you to keep you from infecting others.
 
DA_MOSS

DA_MOSS

New member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
Really. That's all you got after watching the video from Fox News?

Rush Limbaugh: February 24: "Folks, this coronavirus thing, I want to try to put this in perspective for you. It looks like the coronavirus is being weaponized as yet another element to bring down Donald Trump. Now, the truth, ... “The coronavirus is the common cold, folks."

Rush Limbaugh; Feb. 25: “They’re trying to lay it at Trump’s feet & make him responsible for it and they're doing irresponsible news reports claiming that the coronavirus is gonna destroy the US economy by when? November! Isn't it magical? The coronavirus is the new Russians..."
All of that was brought up in the video? or did he bring up some of the downfalls so far , she thanked him and thats all...?
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Wow, I thought you were a liberal until you made this statement. I WHOLE HEARTEDLY agree. You want to do stupid ****, have at it - don't show up at the hospital though, and don't be upset when we imprison you to keep you from infecting others.
I agree there should be consequences for acts that go against, and endanger the general population....but taking away constitutional rights scares the daylights out of me...once this is done what other situation will the government apply this to for suspending the constitution? and what other rights will this apply to?
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
what other constitutional rights are you willing to give up?

I agree it is dumb to congregate for any reason, but for the government to make it illegal to attend church goes against the very fabric this country was founded upon.
Its not exactly "illegal" for me to congregate at a gym with others, but like most others I have effectively signed up to a Social Contract where I have temporarily relinquished my right to do so, for the greater good.

If I and others can do this, why should church congregations be exempt?

If I decide to say fuk it and go to the gym anyway, I can be arrested. And so I damn well should be.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Its not exactly "illegal" for me to congregate at a gym with others, but like most others I have effectively signed up to a Social Contract where I have temporarily relinquished my right to do so, for the greater good.

If I and others can do this, why should church congregations be exempt?

If I decide to say fuk it and go to the gym anyway, I can be arrested. And so I damn well should be.
I went back and re-read twice...I couldn't find 'GYM GOING' in the bill of rights..
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
All their premises were wrong and he disagreed with them regarding the 15 minute testing which is fine for outpatient situations but not en-mass like other testing. He stated we knew of this in December of 2019 and nobody responded to it. Only now has there been a call to get tests into the system.

Additional beyond this video:
The government is permitting US companies to buy up supplies and export them.
HOW THE F&CK can they permit this? This profiteering is coming at the expense of American Lives.

“Roughly 280 million masks in warehouses around the U.S. were purchased by foreign buyers on Monday alone, according to Forbes. A FEMA spokesperson said the agency ‘has not actively encouraged or discouraged U.S. companies from exporting overseas’.”

We in fact do need a 9/11 kind of commission to look at the failures of this administration and hold them all accountable. This is by far worse than 9/11 to our country and requires every aspect of discovery.
Are you sure you posted the right video? What premises? It is basically one statement from the Fox anchor and then him responding - she says, "What we hear is that there are millions of tests available, and yet we don't have that 15 minute finger prick test".

And the Dr. CONFIRMS this and says, yes - great question. He talks about how we do, now, have the FDA approved test as of the past week, but we needed this months ago and it's still not good enough because it is only one test at a time, not the large volume testing they need. He didn't disagree with anything - he confirmed and then took the case even further. Of course, maybe there is something before the clip that was cut off?

But from here it looks like a case of someone putting up a fox news clip and saying it states something, and then people watch it (or don't even watch it) and just believe it says whatever we were led to believe it said on instagram or twitter.
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Its also not your constitutional right to shoot someone in the face, but it is to own the gun that can do that...

Infringing on constitutional rights can turn into a slippery slope, but i do agree they shouldnt congregate at this time
You seem like a reasonable person.

Unfortunately for us there are some unreasonable people in society who will put themselves and others at risk, and disagree that they shouldnt be allowed to congregate. What effective measures would you put in place to ensure this didnt occur?
 
DA_MOSS

DA_MOSS

New member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
You seem like a reasonable person.

Unfortunately for us there are some unreasonable people in society who will put themselves and others at risk, and disagree that they shouldnt be allowed to congregate. What effective measures would you put in place to ensure this didnt occur?
oh yea, I 100% agree with you and think these people still congregating are idiots

Just saying its a slippery slope

We had a local pastor claim he was exempt from all government issued mandates since his sermon's cure cancer..

He blocked media and law enforcement from the grounds of his church. They eventually arrested him. The night he got out of jail, he had another mass... **** those people..
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
It doesnt need to be. Its a goddamn FREEDOM I relinquished, temporarily, for the greater god. I mean good.
you do understand the difference between you choosing to do something and suspending a constitutional right, right?

freedom of religion is probably not a right you are all that concerned about, but you should be concerned about EVERY constitutional right.

you never know, the next constitutional right they decide to suspend might just hit you where it hurts.
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Wow, I thought you were a liberal until you made this statement. I WHOLE HEARTEDLY agree. You want to do stupid ****, have at it - don't show up at the hospital though, and don't be upset when we imprison you to keep you from infecting others.
Im a liberal in some aspects, but decidedly not in others.

Your closing sentiments are great about the imprisonment, but how does a nation practically go about doing this? On what grounds does a chruch-goer get imprisoned in this context? The same grounds as me, the gym-goer?
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I agree there should be consequences for acts that go against, and endanger the general population....but taking away constitutional rights scares the daylights out of me...once this is done what other situation will the government apply this to for suspending the constitution? and what other rights will this apply to?
I agree with you 100% too - I think NAC is pretty much on the same path with the comment he just pointed out. If you want to go get a gun, have at it. You can do whatever the heck you want - right up to the point where it impedes on the rights of someone else. If you shoot someone with that gun - ok, now you go to jail.

You want to congregate in church - great. If you get sick there and then make someone else sick - you're going to face the consequences (similar to assault, murder, etc.). If you want to go congregate yourself and get sick, but don't make anyone else sick, the consequence is that you're on your own. You may want to make sure you have medical care before you go is good advice. But stopping someone from going to church, or to a store, or to spring break, or shopping or whatever - that's a slippery slope.

But I think it's funny here - people actually WANT Trump to eliminate freedoms but don't expect people to act in an educated manner. Yeah, you aren't going to jail if you congregate. There's no police patrolling the streets looking for parties and arresting people. Nor should their be. And if Trump suddenly called for this, it would be wreckless and we all know it. But you know Bernie would take our freedoms away in a heart beat, because the liberals know better what is best for us.
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
you do understand the difference between you choosing to do something and suspending a constitutional right, right?

freedom of religion is probably not a right you are all that concerned about, but you should be concerned about EVERY constitutional right.

you never know, the next constitutional right they decide to suspend might just hit you where it hurts.
If its a "right" that affects every mutha fuka and if I can see its temporary removal is rational and for the greater good, Im all for it.

Everyone, EVERYONE, is being asked to follow social distancing rules. Not just churchy folks.
 
Godstrength

Godstrength

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Exactly, these are rights that the government is constitutionally supposed to uphold. To me the comparison of taking firearms and taking choice to worship is in the same constitutional vein. I personally am choosing not to go to services at the moment. But I know a lot of people that are and I respect it.

The government again made this decision, which ultimately it doesn't matter how you feel about it. It's being allowed so that's that.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Im a liberal in some aspects, but decidedly not in others.

Your closing sentiments are great about the imprisonment, but how does a nation practically go about doing this? On what grounds does a chruch-goer get imprisoned in this context? The same grounds as me, the gym-goer?
look at it like this. you can have your license to drive revoked making it illegal for you to drive...you know why they can do that?

because driving Is not a constitutionally protected right, and neither is going to a gym...!!!
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
I think if you want to ignore social distancing guidelines and umm, congregate at a church, you should also be consistent in your selfishness and be sure you have a whole ER and ICU team as members too so you dont burden the rest of society with your dumbness.
There will always be a threat to life and fear of living but we can't stop living or give into fear. It's easy to blame others for their beliefs less so when your own belief is the one being challenged. Who has the right to tell others what to believe or how to live?

Nearly a million people a year die of the flu. We have never shutdown society to save these lives but we are now. In the past there was nothing that could be done to save lives as medicine which bypasses natural living artificially saves lives of people who were not meant to survive on their own.

Yes people are dying and that's horrible but it's part of life.

We don't know who is sick or not sick so we consider everyone and everything sick or infected it's not much different from we don't know who is a criminal or not but let's impose restrictions on everyone just the same. Knowing there is risk and accepting the risk is different than people getting infected without awareness. We let people play extreme sports because it's ok to risk one's life this way. But people get upset when public shaming demoralizes those who want to live their life they want they want to. There's a huge difference being someone who goes out to enjoy their life and someone who is purposeful spreading a disease. Right now the lines are blurred.

I get people want to be safe but there's no such thing. Life isn't safe. The gov is not designed to protect you from every form of death. If you're worried stay home or avoid people but there will always be a threat.

People have a right to risk their lives to live their lives. Everyone who is going out knows it. All essential workers are risking their lives and at the same time they could be spreading the virus around yet the law isn't applying to them, or cops, or military. You think they are practicing social distancing in the ER or station? No. Anytime we accept any limitations on living it's a cost. But the bigger cost is accepting it as normal and never questioning or challenging it no matter how long it lasts or what it takes from us. Life isn't about surviving and just being alive isn't living.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
If its a "right" that affects every mutha fuka and if I can see its temporary removal is rational and for the greater good, Im all for it.

Everyone, EVERYONE, is being asked to follow social distancing rules. Not just churchy folks.
temporary removal is a sadassed term for suspension of a protected right. once the government has the power of temporaryremoval' of constitutional rights where will it stop?
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
I agree with you 100% too - I think NAC is pretty much on the same path with the comment he just pointed out. If you want to go get a gun, have at it. You can do whatever the heck you want - right up to the point where it impedes on the rights of someone else. If you shoot someone with that gun - ok, now you go to jail.

You want to congregate in church - great. If you get sick there and then make someone else sick - you're going to face the consequences (similar to assault, murder, etc.). If you want to go congregate yourself and get sick, but don't make anyone else sick, the consequence is that you're on your own. You may want to make sure you have medical care before you go is good advice. But stopping someone from going to church, or to a store, or to spring break, or shopping or whatever - that's a slippery slope.

But I think it's funny here - people actually WANT Trump to eliminate freedoms but don't expect people to act in an educated manner. Yeah, you aren't going to jail if you congregate. There's no police patrolling the streets looking for parties and arresting people. Nor should their be. And if Trump suddenly called for this, it would be wreckless and we all know it. But you know Bernie would take our freedoms away in a heart beat, because the liberals know better what is best for us.
it just seems that liberals are more than willing to have rights they don't agree with, like guns and religion be violated...they need to understand that if ANY right is violated it puts ALL rights in jeopardy!!!
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
it just seems that liberals are more than willing to have rights they don't agree with, like guns and religion be violated...they need to understand that if ANY right is violated it puts ALL rights in jeopardy!!!
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

A timeless and timely prose. If we don't stand up for each others rights (our human rights) in the end no one will have rights except those in power.
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
There will always be a threat to life and fear of living but we can't stop living or give into fear. It's easy to blame others for their beliefs less so when your own belief is the one being challenged. Who has the right to tell others what to believe or how to live?

Nearly a million people a year die of the flu. We have never shutdown society to save these lives but we are now. In the past there was nothing that could be done to save lives as medicine which bypasses natural living artificially saves lives of people who were not meant to survive on their own.

Yes people are dying and that's horrible but it's part of life.

We don't know who is sick or not sick so we consider everyone and everything sick or infected it's not much different from we don't know who is a criminal or not but let's impose restrictions on everyone just the same. Knowing there is risk and accepting the risk is different than people getting infected without awareness. We let people play extreme sports because it's ok to risk one's life this way. But people get upset when public shaming demoralizes those who want to live their life they want they want to. There's a huge difference being someone who goes out to enjoy their life and someone who is purposeful spreading a disease. Right now the lines are blurred.

I get people want to be safe but there's no such thing. Life isn't safe. The gov is not designed to protect you from every form of death. If you're worried stay home or avoid people but there will always be a threat.

People have a right to risk their lives to live their lives. Everyone who is going out knows it. All essential workers are risking their lives and at the same time they could be spreading the virus around yet the law isn't applying to them, or cops, or military. You think they are practicing social distancing in the ER or station? No. Anytime we accept any limitations on living it's a cost. But the bigger cost is accepting it as normal and never questioning or challenging it no matter how long it lasts or what it takes from us. Life isn't about surviving and just being alive isn't living.
Im neither a fatalist nor a defeatist. Normally. Plus I have a wife and kids.

We are all in the same boat. A highly contagious virus gives no fux about our ultimately arbitrary human philosophies and ideals. But I certainly give a fuk when people are blatantly disregarding sh1t that puts the rest of us unnecessarily at risk.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Its not exactly "illegal" for me to congregate at a gym with others, but like most others I have effectively signed up to a Social Contract where I have temporarily relinquished my right to do so, for the greater good.

If I and others can do this, why should church congregations be exempt?

If I decide to say fuk it and go to the gym anyway, I can be arrested. And so I damn well should be.
First, I love the "Social Contract" idea that people cling to- such a farce.

Second, you start off saying it is not illegal to congregate at a gym, and then end with saying that if you do go to the gym you can and should be arrested. Which one did you mean? How and why do you arrest someone for something that is not illegal?

You seem like a reasonable person.

Unfortunately for us there are some unreasonable people in society who will put themselves and others at risk, and disagree that they shouldnt be allowed to congregate. What effective measures would you put in place to ensure this didnt occur?
It is legal for people to congregate. We have all kinds of laws that can be invoked already without removing freedoms to protect people. If people are congregating in a restaurant, and risking food safety because the chefs could get sick - well, the health dept. can use their authority to shut it down. If a church is congregating, those people have the right, but if a pastor or a member of the church is putting people at risk, it's endangerment and they are responsible for that. Nobody is getting arrested for going to church, or hanging out in a gym, or hanging out with their friends. Not to my knowledge anyway. Nor should they be. We have plenty of social pressures in place to prevent endangering others without removing constitutional rights.

If a pastor wants to give a sermon - he could do a Youtube video in an empty church. If people wish to see the pastor individually and he wishes to see them, how can you really stop them? But if he's calling people to flock together so they can hear his sermon, not only is that moronic, but that's endangerment and if someone gets sick and dies - he could be liable.

It doesnt need to be. Its a goddamn FREEDOM I relinquished, temporarily, for the greater god. I mean good.
By definition, you cannot relinquish a freedom willingly - because the mere act of doing so is exercising that freedom.

you do understand the difference between you choosing to do something and suspending a constitutional right, right?

freedom of religion is probably not a right you are all that concerned about, but you should be concerned about EVERY constitutional right.

you never know, the next constitutional right they decide to suspend might just hit you where it hurts.
He's talking freedoms and you are talking rights...not the same thing. i.e. - your driver's license comment...a freedom not a right. We are born with "certain inalienable rights" and I get a real kick out of the social contract talk when it is being used to suspend a constitutional right. Talk about a contradiction!

Im a liberal in some aspects, but decidedly not in others.

Your closing sentiments are great about the imprisonment, but how does a nation practically go about doing this? On what grounds does a chruch-goer get imprisoned in this context? The same grounds as me, the gym-goer?
What do you mean how do we practically go about doing this? How do we deal with people who throw parties and then send someone home drunk and they have an accident and die or kill someone? They are liable. If a preacher wants to hold a sermon and someone gets sick - they are liable.

And why do you think you can't go to the gym? You think there is a law in place right now saying they will arrest you? Not that I'm aware of - but the gym owner would be very liable if he had half his customers get sick because he didn't close down. Not to mention, it's not good business to sicken or kill your paying customers.

The mere fact that people are more responsible for their own actions would also change their behavior.

If its a "right" that affects every mutha fuka and if I can see its temporary removal is rational and for the greater good, Im all for it.

Everyone, EVERYONE, is being asked to follow social distancing rules. Not just churchy folks.
The reason we have "rights" (again, distinct from freedoms) - IS for the greater good. They are the basis of our society and the reason America is so different than everywhere else. And if you doubt that other people want what those rights create, then have a look at the number of illegal immigrants who will risk so much in order to just get a taste of what we have. If you are worried about a social contract, you should understand the terms that form the base of that contract.

And yes, everyone is being asked to follow social distancing guide lines. And it is stupid not to follow them. And I agree with that. And I actually wish I had socially distanced myself from more people LONG ago now that I have a taste of it - but there has been no need to remove rights to get you and I to comply. It isn't necessary.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Im neither a fatalist nor a defeatist. Normally. Plus I have a wife and kids.

We are all in the same boat. A highly contagious virus gives no fux about our ultimately arbitrary human philosophies and ideals. But I certainly give a fuk when people are blatantly disregarding sh1t that puts the rest of us unnecessarily at risk.
I agree - but removal of freedoms is not the answer. Education is.

Think about smoking. I'm not sure how old you are, but before I was around EVERYONE smoked. You were weird if you didn't smoke. Then when I was a kid, there was a ton of promotion/eduction around smoking. There was social pressure against using drugs, against smoking, and how it was bad for you. They started making people feel like outcasts when they smoked.

Today, people still smoke - but the numbers are dramatically lower. Some people travel in groups where a smoker is really the anomaly, and others probably have groups where everyone smokes still. But the numbers have fallen dramatically.

Is smoking dumb? Absolutely. Does it place a burden on others? Yup. Did we need to trample rights in order to make major progress? No. We needed to use social pressure and education, etc.

Part of the problem though is that there is no shame nowadays, so it's harder to instill social pressure. It used to be that making you stand outside by yourself if you wanted to smoke would make a lot of people hide what they were doing. Today, that doesn't work as well because people don't have shame or humility anymore.
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
but there has been no need to remove rights to get you and I to comply. It isn't necessary.
Thats the whole crux of it for me. Sorry to edit out the bulk of your post, it was a very good rebuttal with many excellent points (Im being genuine, sorry if this sounds ~unintentionally~ condescending!)

Most of us ARE complying, for good reason. I disagree with those who dont comply, and I disagree with the defence of them not complying.
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
it just seems that liberals are more than willing to have rights they don't agree with, like guns and religion be violated...they need to understand that if ANY right is violated it puts ALL rights in jeopardy!!!
By nature and perhaps some nurture people discriminate against anyone or anything that's different or that they don't understand. It's a frightening concept in the 21th century. Having a legal right does not ensure safety or prevent violations. It's ink on paper. An idea or concept. It doesn't change everyone's feelings or prevent actions otherwise. Rights like anything in life has to be constantly fought for or protected. Be it physically, legally, or collectively. Whether it's another person or the gov. Many don't fight for themselves or others. As much as people disagree and are focused on their lives the bigger picture is lost. Some people if not many can not see or much less care for the bigger picture.
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
I agree - but removal of freedoms is not the answer. Education is.
The education surrounding smoking is understandably a multi-generational prolongued endeavour...we dont have that luxury with this virus.
 

stimtron

Member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Thats the whole crux of it for me. Sorry to edit out the bulk of your post, it was a very good rebuttal with many excellent points (Im being genuine, sorry if this sounds ~unintentionally~ condescending!)

Most of us ARE complying, for good reason. I disagree with those who dont comply, and I disagree with the defence of them not complying.
People with weakened immune systems are always at risk of dying from any infection. Should we protect those people indefinitely by maintaining the shelter in place order until we have cured them? Or rather force them to stay home to protect them from everyone else? Grey lines.

Before the crisis they were dying from the flu other healthy people were giving them. Should those healthy people be charged with a crime? Because they got someone sick and died? How would you even begin to hold people accountable for that?
 
Last edited:
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Nobody wants your guns or to stop you from believing in God.
We want to keep everyone safe, and that means form human contact that could endanger non-believers alike.

You can pray anywhere.
Pray all day and all night.
When this pandemic is over, you can go every single day of the week.
I'll drive you. Well, I only have a bike, so you can ride on the handlebars.

Can any of you that are so upset about not going to church you can unequivocally state, it cannot harm others in the process as opposed to staying at home and praying by remote access? Just the though of close proximity and hygiene...

If you think that, then I might suggest everyone going to church sign a registry they promise to not go to the ER if they are infected with Covid-19, and not accept medication, or medical help. Because God will cure you right?

I thought God sent doctors and medication...
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Thats the whole crux of it for me. Sorry to edit out the bulk of your post, it was a very good rebuttal with many excellent points (Im being genuine, sorry if this sounds ~unintentionally~ condescending!)

Most of us ARE complying, for good reason. I disagree with those who dont comply, and I disagree with the defence of them not complying.
I agree. And I am conservative and I am complying and you are liberal and you are complying so obviously this transcends those ideals.

But the basics if the society we live in have to be upheld. Millions of lives have been lost for those basic principals. Why? Because it seems impossible to us, but it starts with ONE step. Then another. Then another. And with every step you give, the harder it becomes to get it back. So on the third step, you want to draw a line and get what you gave up back - but you have given up all your leverage to do so.

People are gonna be stupid. Do your best to educate I guess. Unfortunately, if you start taking away rights because of stupidly, we will all be living in a cage. In a way, it gives more power to those stupid people when we give up our own rights just to stop them from being dumb. It's like shooting yourself in the foot so they won't get gangrene.
 
Smont

Smont

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Smoking only harms yourself if your considerate and don't do it around others. Is it stupid, of course it is, but so is skydiving and trying to deadlift 3x your bodyweight. But once again your only putting yourself at risk.
 

Similar threads


Top