LogFAQs > #942062595

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	American passports are worthless now, ok?
adjl 07/13/20 4:21:34 PM #100:	OhhhJa posted... By saying its okay to gather up to 100 people, they are encouraging them. I don't know how else you can spin that. If they weren't encouraging them, they should say something along the lines of "protesting is discouraged but wear a mask if you feel the need" instead of saying "go ahead and form groups of 100 people!" It's a neutral statement, not an encouraging one. Encouragement is an act of its own, not merely the absence of discouragement. If anything, the fact that they're placing limits at all indicates that there is some danger, which is more discouraging than anything else. OhhhJa posted... And what if all the stay at home protesters wear masks? Is it OK then? From a public health perspective? It'd help. From the perspective of the organization issuing medical advice? They'd probably still object to protests against that medical advice. Again, the CDC is not a legislative agency. They're a bunch of doctors saying "please stop protesting against the best medical advice we have because you won't change that fact." They're not making anything illegal, just telling people to stop interfering with the response (note that many of the anti-lockdown protests have including harassing medical staff, which the CDC obviously needs to object to). OhhhJa posted... People have really transformed science into religion now huh? Science is apparently deciding that one protest of 100 people is ok despite the CDC and WHO still determining how this is being transmitted. No, science is the one saying that staying home reduces the risk of transmission, which in turn is informing stay-at-home orders. People protesting stay-at-home orders are therefore protesting science. Protests against science are foolish and futile, and in a pandemic situation where protesting comes with a cost to public safety, that means they aren't okay. By comparison, protests against things which people can actually control are decidedly less foolish and futile, and it's therefore potentially possible to justify them against the public safety cost of having them. The 100 person thing is indeed arbitrary, particularly where pretty much everyone has been surprised by how little transmission has been seen at these protests. That's not what I'm referring to when I say that science justifies differentiating protests like this. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:942062595] in American p... [t:78839965]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>By saying its okay to gather up to 100 people, they are encouraging them. I don't know how else you can spin that. If they weren't encouraging them, they should say something along the lines of "protesting is discouraged but wear a mask if you feel the need" instead of saying "go ahead and form groups of 100 people!"</quote> It's a neutral statement, not an encouraging one. Encouragement is an act of its own, not merely the absence of discouragement. If anything, the fact that they're placing limits at all indicates that there is some danger, which is more discouraging than anything else. OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>And what if all the stay at home protesters wear masks? Is it OK then?</quote> From a public health perspective? It'd help. From the perspective of the organization issuing medical advice? They'd probably still object to protests against that medical advice. Again, the CDC is not a legislative agency. They're a bunch of doctors saying "please stop protesting against the best medical advice we have because you won't change that fact." They're not making anything illegal, just telling people to stop interfering with the response (note that many of the anti-lockdown protests have including harassing medical staff, which the CDC obviously needs to object to). OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>People have really transformed science into religion now huh? Science is apparently deciding that one protest of 100 people is ok despite the CDC and WHO still determining how this is being transmitted.</quote> No, science is the one saying that staying home reduces the risk of transmission, which in turn is informing stay-at-home orders. People protesting stay-at-home orders are therefore protesting science. Protests against science are foolish and futile, and in a pandemic situation where protesting comes with a cost to public safety, that means they aren't okay. By comparison, protests against things which people can actually control are decidedly less foolish and futile, and it's therefore potentially possible to justify them against the public safety cost of having them. The 100 person thing is indeed arbitrary, particularly where pretty much everyone has been surprised by how little transmission has been seen at these protests. That's not what I'm referring to when I say that science justifies differentiating protests like this. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1