slug.com slug.com
2 0

Inreally want to know when the mandates/guidelines will be enough for those who actually think they are doing more good than harm? At this point we are letting the government tell us what we have to wear, where and when we can congregate, what jobs you are allowed to do, where you can shop, how many people can congregate, how we can learn, what is fact vs fiction, who we get to listen to, and so much more. and many if these guidelines and mandate demoralize people. like being able to see human faces and touch are key things for people’s emotional wellness and the government is literally making us sick by taking those things away from us. and of course they keep promising us, “just a little longer” every time we question how much longer. they mask all of this with trying to save people from a virus but if you stop blindly listening to them and run the numbers the harm from their mandates is far worse than what they want to make you think. sure the numbers they are reporting are high and rising fast so it seems like a lot right now but just wait, the sliw impacts are going to be far greater when all is said and done and the sad part is we are letting them control our happiness. you shouldnt need the government to tell you who you can be around and have contact with and we are letting them change that on a daily basis and when we allow them that power have niw set the precedent that we will allow them full control over just about anything and they get to give and take as they please and as it benefits them. Id argue they wantbus feeling so bad so they can give us this false sense that they provide this to us when in reality we should be able to provide it for ourselves.

Joehlert11 7 Nov 18
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Don’t take any advice from Government. They do not know what is good or bad for us as individuals. How can they know what’s good for 300,000,000 million individuals. They can’t. Use your own good judgement and life will work out great. America doesn’t need or want a NAnny state.

0

Just curious on your thoughts. How is this different than other government mandates / guidelines?

The government already tells use what we have to wear. In many states women are not allowed to go topless, or they can be fined for not wearing the right kind of bikini bottom on beaches. Stores have the right to dictate dress codes, and can refuse someone entry or service for not wearing shirts or shoes. In the 2000's, several cities in the US passed ordinances banning "saggy pants" which would lead to fines and jail / community service. There used to be laws against cross-dressing. In Blythe, CA, it is illegal to wear cowboy boots unless you own at least two cows. There are laws against wearing military uniforms / ranks that do not apply.

The government already tells us where we can congregate. You are not allowed in public parks after sundown. North Carolina still has a law making co-habitation before marriage a misdemeanor. There are ordinances making people need permits to hold rallies or marches, and plenty of regulations adding conditions to the right to peacefully assemble / protest.

The government already tells us what jobs we can do, or where we can engage in commerce. In most states, prostitution is illegal. In some places, even stripping is illegal. Setting up a kiosk without permits is illegal. Unlicensed gambling is illegal. Selling unpasteurized milk is illegal. Eric Garner was killed by police because he was selling loose cigarettes. In places where drugs are legalized, you still need to buy from a state-sanctioned dispensary. You live in PA, as do I - so you know full well the history of the blue / alcohol laws we've had.

For decades the government dictated who we could marry, making mixed-race and same-sex unions illegal. It still has laws against incestuous marriage or polygamy. The government had laws against consuming alcohol in Prohibition, and still has many laws against consuming other drugs. The government used to police what people did in their own bedrooms, arresting consenting adults for homosexuality. The government has restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, requiring permits and licenses and restricting open carry in many states - both with guns and knives.

Yet it seems by your posts that you want MORE Government.

@73jazzbass not true. I want smart regulations on a temporary basis using the best science available to help stop the spread of a deadly virus, more specifically a virus which can affect and potentially disable / kill a non-consenting party. If only the person acting foolishly could be affected, I'd have no problems. I think telling people they can't do drugs is wrong, but I have no problem telling people they can't drive under the influence.

as far as clothing and the like it is because of sexual purposes in regards to exposing oneself. that infringes on someone else. it’s one of those things where yea you have rights but so does everyone else and yiu have to toe the line on where do yours end and theirs begin. mask mandates as they stand have no real basis in science beyond medical grade ones. there is a reason they still have to put “not guaranteed to prevent Covid”. on top of that sorry but covid is not as deadly as people are wanting to believe, i don't know what percentage of cases need to result in death to warrant masks even just to maybe be effective but the over 90% (at the minimum) recovery rate is no reason to mandate we all wear them to protect others. not wearing one is not infringing someone else's right [to life] because based on the numbers its no more harmful than a ton of other things we don't have mandates around but forcing people to wear them is another story. and now yes businesses can require certain attire, that isa private business not the government. the same thing with congregating, they are over reaching and now going to the private sector, they are saying church can't meet and that you can't even meet in your own homes. now moving onto alcohol laws and marriage i disagree with them to some degree as well however, again, it comes down to where your rights end and other’s begin. that’s why so few are willing to go along with the mandates because of an ill conceived notion they are saving lives but that just isn’t the case and now we see then doing more and more and we keep letting them at our own expense. i mean where does it end? how much freedom do we have to give up before we realize it’s gone? and the more we get used to this, like i said we are just setting the precedent for future leaders that we are willing to let them dictate how free or not free we are.

@JacksonNought sorry it seems some comments were made while i was posting my initial response. maybe back in march the science showed it could be as deadly as the plague and we had to distance ourselves and wear masks but at this point almost a year later the science shows the complete opposite. Rapidly rising cases does not equal rapidly rising deaths but according to the media it does. if it did, like i said, sure id be on board with some regulations but that isn't what is happening. i am sure all those other regulations you brought up started this way too and came about either because the danger warranted they stick or because people rolled over and let them stay. here we have the regulations rapidly increasing as we have shown our willingness to comply and like i said where does it stop? what is the final straw on what we are willing to let them regulate? if not church, out interactions with our families, how we make a living, then what?

@JacksonNought the even scarier part is people willing to relinquish control over to the government in the meantine actually believe the government is able to provide for us in the meantime. like we shit on the government so much but now we think they know what they are doing when it cones to these matters. like i don't hate government, it has its purpose but to literally be our provider is not it nor do i believe it can be and that’s kind of the follow up to the how much control do you give them is how royally do they have to screw up to realize they can’t do the work we think they should be in charge of?

@Joehlert11 sexual is only in how someone perceives it. Why are men allowed to go topless, but not women? Can't people find topless men sexual? In Muslim-run countries, women have to wear burkas because the mere sight of a woman is too sexual and impure - is that how we want to handle ourselves? Remember when women showing their ankles was scandalous?

Yes, you have to toe the line and figure out where your rights end and another's begins. So you are saying going topless infringes on someone else's rights because they have to be exposed to it? But you don't think the same applies to spreading a disease to someone? You may dismiss it as not serious enough, but we have seen over 250k Americans die over the past 8 months. You don't know how someone will react when catching it, whether they have immunodeficiencies or underlying conditions which will make it much worse for them. The main point of the mask is to protect others from spreading it, and by not wearing one or not social distancing, you are putting others at risk and exposing them without their consent. Someone could be making a much-needed trip to the grocery store, taking all precaution, but you decided to attend a packed gathering the day before and now are carelessly walking through the store without following safety guidelines, and spread the virus to them and they end up dying. But you did it because of your "freedoms" - how is that any different than going topless for freedom and someone sees it who chose not to?

Typically being careless are resulting in someone's death can result in involuntary / voluntary manslaughter charges. We've seen people actually charged for spitting on people during the pandemic. We just can't apply this consistently because we can't trace who is spreading.

The science seems pretty clear on masks, actually. The medical grade ones are more for protecting the wearer, the other masks (when worn properly) protect others. They are based on the science that we continually evolve on with new information - as science operates - which is why masks weren't originally required.

And yes, we already let the government regulate everything else. As I already said, we let them define who we marry and what someone can do with their own body (drugs, prostitution, etc). After 9/11 we let the government get away with invasion and murder to circumventing due process because it made people feel safe from their Islamic paranoia. We let the government enforce arbitrary hurdles based on religious propaganda on perfectly legal procedures, like mandatory waiting periods and forced ultrasounds for abortions. The same people who protests wearing a thin piece of cloth on their face are usually the ones who think it is okay to run over protesters for walking in the street or think it is okay for police to murder someone for walking away.

@JacksonNought sorry for the late response as slug was nit working m, yes 250k dead but run the numbers thats a small percentage of people who get it overall. an i know it’s not .07% or whatever but then take into account amrecoveries and such and it really is much closer to .07% than youd think. are we going to hold people accountable anytime they might pass a disease to someone else. yes, it is deadly and you don't know how people will react. its been a year almost, i think we have an idea of who and hiw it affects MOST people. sure we will have outliers. and you keep bringing up ither examples if government control as if you presume i agree with all of them. and even with the clothing issue i may not agree with it entirely at least the argunebt holds more water than the regulations surrounding covid.

Recent Visitors 7

Photos 6,648 More

Posted by jaymaronOne does not simply change the Constitution.

Posted by Sensrhim4hizvewzTo all those I salute:

Posted by sqeptiqDemocrats who hate Clarence Thomas have lost it.

Posted by KCSantiagoThe first time I bought the 6 pound box of Equal Sweetener was Dec.

Posted by WeltansichtIt is hard to imagine.

Posted by WeltansichtIt is hard to imagine.

Posted by WeltansichtWe're coming for you Jefe Cabrón ;-)

Posted by JohnHoukRoe v.

Posted by EdgeworkGosh, we never looked at it that way before.

Posted by GeeMacHow will today’s landmark decision to overturn Roe v Wade reverberate at the ballot box?

Posted by JeffHoneyagerIgnore the 5% that are whinny, privileged, wokesters...

Posted by JeffHoneyager"Agana Shim Swalla Kim Snagal..."

Posted by GeeMacWhile I have nothing against LGBT representation in movies — it’s a free country — I don’t get Disney’s aggressive pushing of the queer agenda in kid’s content.

Posted by EdgeworkShow your commitment.

Posted by KrunoslavHot of the press!

Posted by KrunoslavHot of the press!

  • Top tags#video #youtube #world #government #media #biden #Police #democrats #truth #Canada #children #USA #society #reason #money #god #freedom #rights #China #culture #hope #racist #vote #politics #death #evil #communist #TheTruth #justice #kids #hell #conservative #evidence #democrat #socialist #liberal #nation #laws #Socialism #racism #military #fear #federal #politicians #community #violence #book #crime #antifa #joebiden ...

    Members 9,246Top

    Moderators