LogFAQs > #959997387

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You're snarkily implying here that you did that. Let's chalk it up to the length that this has been going on that I don't recall that happening.

Pretty much everything I've said on the subject amounts to "you don't have to take the bible that literally."

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

If individuals are concerned that they are at risk then they should take precaution.

They are taking precautions: They're excluding unmasked people from the building.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I recall not having a position on that until you argued that was the case. Don't hold me at fault that you managed to be persuasive that one time.

The only thing I did to persuade you of that was to point out how analogous your logic was to claiming that traffic laws shouldn't exist. The intent was to help you realize how absurd you were being. Instead, you just adjusted your other views to be equally absurd. I applaud your willingness to update your views for the sake of logical consistency, but being intellectually honest about holding absurd views that are blatantly incompatible with reality doesn't make them any less absurd.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'll add that to my to do list after I interview the preacher and find those medical records. Oh wait, one of those are your task.

Interviewing the preacher and finding medical records would add nothing to the discussion. The corresponding pieces of information (that is, the previous trespassing incidents and the possibility that he's infectious, respectively) have already been sufficiently established (by Duckbear saying so and the mere existence of the pandemic, respectively). Meanwhile, without providing statistics on the case, hospitalization, and death rates among both the Amish and general populations, claiming that case, hospitalization, and death rates among the Amish population are lower than those among the general population is just a teensy bit completely baseless.

Therefore, providing statistics to substantiate the claim on which you're basing your entire argument would add appreciably to the discussion. Specifically, it would give you an actual point.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

a) If someone has not been exposed there is no risk of exposing others.

This is true, but that's a hell of a condition to prove, and until you prove it, you cannot conclude that there is no risk.

In practice, what people tend to do in this regard is to estimate the risk of exposure for whoever they're interacting with, and use that to assess how risky it is to interact with them in person. In a public setting like this, however, you can't really do that for every stranger that walks through the door. It's just not practical, and even for regulars, the risk assessment has to take into account the comfort levels of everyone present, which gets unreasonably complicated. Given that difficulty and how utterly trivial mask-wearing is, everyone's just assumed to be risky enough to warrant masks for the sake of erring on the side of caution. It's not a big deal, until somebody like this decides to make it into one by trying to fight it.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

b) If someone doesn't develop symptoms then being exposed posed no risk to them.

This is objectively false. Covid can spread asymptomatically for up to two weeks after the initial exposure. This has been common knowledge since nearly day 1 of this whole mess, which is a major part of why it's so difficult to prove that somebody has not been exposed and the sole reason all of these preventative measures are being applied so proactively.

Unless, of course, you're talking about assessing the situation after the fact to determine whether or not any harm has come from it, but assessments after the fact are utterly useless for deciding whether or not to take precautionary measures (by virtue of happening after the decision has already been made), so that's not even worth considering in such a context.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

c) If someone has a condition that places them at risk the responsibility is theirs alone to avoid exposure.

Should hemophiliacs wear body armour at all times to offset their increased risk of death if somebody stabs them? Or should we expect the rest of the world to just not stab them?

Moreover, part of avoiding exposure can include prohibiting people that might pose a risk from exposing them. In turn, part of that can include people that care about them enacting such measures for their protection. If those running the church want to kick out people that aren't wearing masks for the sake of protecting their more vulnerable congregants, that's their prerogative. If those running the country want to restrict those that won't wear masks for the sake of protecting their more vulnerable citizens, that's their prerogative.

Further still, those without comorbidities are still at considerable risk from Covid. People love to cling to the assumption that it's just unhealthy old people dying from it, but that's just not true at all. Everyone should be trying to avoid infection, and everyone should be trying to avoid infecting others.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
But as you said you wouldn't it has become clearer that your answer changed based on a perceived act of aggression.

That is indeed how all of those "assuming the person was actively endangering me" conditions should be interpreted, yes. I don't really know how else they would have been interpreted, but I'm glad we're on the same page now.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
The next step is to convince you that disregarding your preference to be called on the phone is not an act of aggression.

Any deliberate decision to expose me to harm (or the risk thereof) against my wishes is an act of aggression. You're not going to convince me otherwise, nor should you, because that's pretty much exactly what any reasonable person would say "act of aggression" means.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.