# Am I the only person with consistent views? (COVID19/abortion)



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 10, 2020)

More and more I question whether I live in a simulation.

When talking to people it seems I am the only person with consistent views: I am pro-life (except in extreme cases) and for mandatory mask-wearing in public.

But most people have contradictory views on this. What about you? (read survey questions carefully)
Stay civilized, please.


Just to be clear: This is NOT about COVID19 pregnancies. This is about the motives behind these seemingly unrelated issues. In fact, they are related: individualistic choices at the potential cost of lives.

*EDIT: I now realize the way of expressing this thread can be offensive. I apologize for that. We can just discuss whether there is a contradiction. Disregard the poll.*


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 10, 2020)

im not against mandatory mask wearing, in my country its mandatory but only for indoors, i just wish stores had masks for sale on the entrance in case you forgot yours


----------



## Xzi (Aug 10, 2020)

Being pro-choice and pro-mask mandate is a consistent position.  It's consistently in favor of medical science and advancements in that field.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 10, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Being pro-choice and pro-mask mandate is a consistent position.  It's consistently in favor of medical science and advancements in that field.


How is pro-choice a scientific question? It is a moral one.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 10, 2020)

When people say consistent they usually mean don't change with time (usually expressed in American as flip flop).

In this case I am not sure such a setup is logically consistent either, or at least that if I operate with anti abortion (though the reasoning for why some feel that way, never mind the variability in it -- "extreme cases" is a broad line, is massively variable as well -- unnecessary operation, because this book says so, because it is life, only up to, only in these circumstances...) that masks need fall from that.

To that end a question.
What moral principles would you hold that see you derive both positions? I am also curious about something else but can't mention that for concern about tainting the answer.

Does this change any in light of practical effectiveness? (if everybody was a time served and beardless medic/grinding room operative/car painter with high grade gear vs people shoving a sock over their mouth and often not their nose, possibly removing it to sneeze and because they are annoying to wear for long periods, especially cheap ones, usually end up touching their face all the time).


----------



## Xzi (Aug 10, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> How is pro-choice a scientific question? It is a moral one.


People have been performing abortions since long before the birth of Jesus, it was only ever a matter of medical science catching up to the point where abortions could be performed *safely*.  Limiting or removing access to safe abortion now would not stop people from having them done, it would just mean going back to back-alley abortions using coat hangers instead.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 10, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> What moral principles would you hold that see you derive both positions? I am also curious about something else but can't mention that for concern about tainting the answer.


It is about invididual choice at the expense of the life of others.
It is moral to wear a mask as it reduces distance one´s droplets travel when speaking loudly, sneezing, coughing, etc. Exceptions could be e.g. asthma. It is moral not to abort a pregnancy for obvious reasons (unless it threatens the life of the mother, etc).



FAST6191 said:


> Does this change any in light of practical effectiveness?


The principle remains but if masks wouldn´t be effective at all or if abortions led to high mortality of the mother, both would be questionable.


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 10, 2020)

It's just a troll trap, this conversation is not being offered in good faith.  Not hard to spot.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 10, 2020)

Xzi said:


> People have been performing abortions since long before the birth of Jesus, it was only ever a matter of medical science catching up to the point where abortions could be performed *safely*.  Limiting or removing access to safe abortion now would not stop people from having them done, it would just mean going back to back-alley abortions using coat hangers instead.


The amount of abortions would certainly decrease if they weren´t relatively safe for the mother.
You are arguing from consequences for society at alarge. The wearing of a mask in order to decrease your likelihood of infecting others would be moral, even if everyone else would purposefully make holes in their mask (e.g. like a German politician).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



yuyuyup said:


> It's just a troll trap, this conversation is not being offered in good faith.  Not hard to spot.


I am not a troll. Why the ad hominem?
I admit that the thread title is provocative.
So let´s try the softer approach: I think the freedom with regards to abortion and mask-wearing have something in common: individual choices vs enforcement for the purpose of saving lives. Do you disagree? Why?


----------



## Xzi (Aug 10, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The amount of abortions would certainly decrease if they weren´t relatively safe for the mother.
> You are arguing from consequences for society at alarge. The wearing of a mask in order to decrease your likelihood of infecting others would be moral, even if everyone else would purposefully make holes in their mask (e.g. like a German politician).


It's less a matter of morality, more a matter of harm reduction.  Pro-choice and pro-mask mandate are both positions in favor of harm reduction.  "Pro-life," however, is an inherently contradictory stance, at least in hyper-capitalist countries where neither the mother nor her baby are provided any sort of guaranteed assistance (or even maternity leave) after birth.  

More accurately it would be, "pro-life insofar as providing more bodies for the meat grinder that is the military industrial complex goes," but I suppose that doesn't fit quite as neatly on a bumper sticker.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 10, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> It is about invididual choice at the expense of the life of others.
> It is moral to wear a mask as it reduces distance one´s droplets travel when speaking loudly, sneezing, coughing, etc. Exceptions could be e.g. asthma. It is moral not to abort a pregnancy for obvious reasons (unless it threatens the life of the mother, etc).
> 
> 
> The principle remains but if masks wouldn´t be effective at all or if abortions led to high mortality of the mother, both would be questionable.


That is rather black and white thinking. What are the costs, what are the benefits? There are many things that could be done. Lock everybody in their houses for a month and say if we see you on the streets be prepared to get two in the head -- transmission rates go to very low and it stops in fairly short order (along with a lot of other things too) but that would probably be a step too far, I mean your nuclear power plants would probably melt down so I guess we could make an exception for that.
There are however costs, and the benefits can stand to be questioned too.

As for threat to life of the mother.
I could do this very simple thing or I could not and it would cost you hours of time per day, some $300000 in additional expenses over the next few decades (possibly more like $400000), possibly your education and your career (or at least many options within it), in all likelihood will cost you physical fitness and make it very hard to find a relationship.
That said we had that thread before so I will skip that one in favour of bringing one of those back.


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 10, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The amount of abortions would certainly decrease if they weren´t relatively safe for the mother.
> You are arguing from consequences for society at alarge. The wearing of a mask in order to decrease your likelihood of infecting others would be moral, even if everyone else would purposefully make holes in their mask (e.g. like a German politician).
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...


here you go, a response.  You're welcome.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 10, 2020)

Xzi said:


> It's less a matter of morality, more a matter of harm reduction.  Pro-choice and pro-mask mandate are both positions in favor of harm reduction.  "Pro-life," however, is an inherently contradictory stance, at least in hyper-capitalist countries where neither the mother nor her baby are provided any sort of guaranteed assistance (or even maternity leave) after birth.
> 
> More accurately it would be, "pro-life insofar as providing more bodies for the meat grinder that is the military industrial complex goes," but I suppose that doesn't fit quite as neatly on a bumper sticker.



I can see your point. I agree with regards to the US.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 10, 2020)

trying to claim a stance on abortion and a stance on mask wearing is contradictory is a false equivalency. by getting an abortion, I am not putting potentially hundreds of people's lives at risk. we have case law on this shit from 100 years ago when the Spanish flu hit. hell pro choice can be the same as wearing a mask if one chooses to abort to prevent the mother from dying in the process. The OP's argument is clearly in bad faith. even the argument that wearing a mask is infringing on one's religious rights is BS now that the satanic temple has deemed abortions a religious practice. our country doesn't get to pick and choose which religions are "real", and as such abortion is now protected under religious freedom.
https://announcement.thesatanictemple.com/rrr-campaign41280784
https://announcement.thesatanictemple.com/rrr-campaign41280784


----------



## wiindsurf (Aug 10, 2020)

I'm both pro-life and pro-choice. I personally think abortion is an abomination, however I will always fully respect a woman's choice, regarless of legal standing.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 10, 2020)

omgcat said:


> by getting an abortion, I am not putting potentially hundreds of people's lives at risk.


It is a false equivalency to some extent, I admit that. Let´s imagine you were immune from COVID19. Therefore, neither the abortion of woman XYZ nor her not wearing a mask would affect you. In both cases, it only affects other people (the unborn baby vs infected people).



omgcat said:


> even the argument that wearing a mask is infringing on one's religious rights is BS now that the satanic temple has deemed abortions a religious practice.


I haven´t made this argument. I am against church/temple... gatherings in times like this.
------


wiindsurf said:


> I'm both pro-life and pro-choice. I personally think abortion is an abomination, however I will always fully respect a woman's choice, regarless of legal standing.


What if it was your wife? Couldn´t she say "it is my body" both with regards to mask-wearing and abortion?


----------



## crimpshrine (Aug 10, 2020)

Being considerate and wearing a mask to both potentially decrease the odds of spreading and receiving a virus seems very reasonable.  Do I have any issues with people that I encounter that don't wear masks?  No.  Will I think they are potentially more selfish? Yeah but they might have a reason.  

I also have no interest in telling people not to kill their babies.  Even though I believe killing is killing.

I have to say I think it is ironic that there are those that would be so pushy with masks though, but at the same time have no issues with people taking a babies life. (outside of medical reasons/rape)   It's like put the damn mask on so you can potentially save peoples lives, but then have no issues with whatever reason a person wants to end the life of a baby over.  To me that is hypocritical. 

And more times than not it is a moral issue regarding abortion.  At least in the USA I believe (unless something has changed) a father really has no rights when it comes to abortion.  Which is pretty messed up.  How does that not become a morality issue at that point? (Outside the morality of being OK with killing)


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 10, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I have to say I think it is ironic that there are those that would be so pushy with masks though, but at the same time have no issues with people taking a babies life. (outside of medical reasons/rape)   It's like put the damn mask on so you can potentially save peoples lives, but then have no issues with whatever reason a person wants to end the life of a baby over.  To me that is hypocritical.


Exactly. I also don´t get how people can be mask resisting "heroes" even though they claim they are pro-life. That´s why I opened this thread. It was not in bad faith.


----------



## Pikm (Aug 10, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> How is pro-choice a scientific question? It is a moral one.


Because all pro-life people are retards who advocate for positions like forced re-implantation of ectopic pregnancies even though no such procedure exists or even should exist.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 10, 2020)

Pikm said:


> Because all pro-life people are retards who advocate for positions like forced re-implantation of ectopic pregnancies even though no such procedure exists or even should exist.


That is factually wrong. I am against a procedure like this.

E.g. it is like sb saying "All pro-choice people are monsters. They would choose an abortion even if it were possible to bring the baby to term with an artificial womb one day."
I would not make this statement, because it is a generalization which is obviously incorrect


----------



## crimpshrine (Aug 10, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Exactly. I also don´t get how people can be mask resisting "heroes" even though they claim they are pro-life. That´s why I opened this thread. It was not in bad faith.



Yeah, I totally get what your saying.  I am guessing you will hit a nerve in some though.  Many get really uncomfortable when their views are questioned.  Especially when it revolves around killing something.  Name calling is the first sign of that.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 10, 2020)

I miss the option "what the hell does one thing have to do with the other?".

Okay, I get it : you're "pro-life", and therefore consider any fertilized embryo as valued as any living and breathing human being. Fine. Good for you. You don't have to agree with pro-choice opinions, but at least respect our reasoning, will you? 

 I mean... I can start polls ridiculing your position as well ('should pro life people be allowed to swat flies?' 'I saw a pro life eat a salad... Should these innocent crops be murdered for the appetite of a hypocrite?'... And so on), but I know none of these have anything to do with your opinion,and starting trolling threats won't solve anything but will show disrespect for you. So I won't.
I thank you kindly to at least try to treat me (us) with the same courtesy. 

Signed, 
Someone you judge hypocrite


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 10, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> I mean... I can start polls ridiculing your position as well


Where did I ridicule your position? I don´t even know it yet.



Taleweaver said:


> 'should pro life people be allowed to swat flies?' 'I saw a pro life eat a salad... Should these innocent crops be murdered for the appetite of a hypocrite?'.


People who advocate for mask wearing (including me) do it so that human lives may be saved. There are even people who kill their pets in fear of the virus. I do not see the contradiction.

If you want to force mask wearing for the sake of saving human lives, shouldn´t you at least be neutral on the question of abortion? Unless you do not regard a human fetus as a human life. You can hold this view but it is not scientific. Is it a fish? Is it a bird no? Is it human? Yes. Does it live? Yes. I.e. a human life.



Taleweaver said:


> and starting trolling threats won't solve anything but will show disrespect for you.


How is that trolling?
It would be trolling if I wasn´t interested in your answer or reasons for your views. Or if I held a different view from my stated one.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Aug 10, 2020)

They're not remotely the same thing though. Mask wearing is about protecting other people. Abortion is about protecting yourself.


----------



## DarknessPlay3r (Aug 10, 2020)

The Real Jdbye said:


> They're not remotely the same thing though. Mask wearing is about protecting other people. Abortion is about protecting yourself.


Exactly, some one choosing to have an abortion doesn't have any impact on my health/well being. Not wearing a mask in public potentially (and from what we have seen so far and what we currently know) impact myself and others.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 10, 2020)

The Real Jdbye said:


> They're not remotely the same thing though. Mask wearing is about protecting other people. Abortion is about protecting yourself.


Are you a fellow Jew? It is a very traditional way of thinking... that the child is "yours". Not another person. I respect this perspective. In this sense, you are correct.

However, I would think that the vast majority of people view it differently. I am torn on this issue, to be honest.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Aug 10, 2020)

What a dumb question, wearing a mask isn't about you, it's about society, it's all our duty to wear masks to prevent the spread of disease.  Having an abortion is an incredibly personal issue that doesn't put the rest of society at risk whether or not you have it performed on yourself; whether it is ethical or not is besides the point.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 10, 2020)

MikaDubbz said:


> What a dumb question, wearing a mask isn't about you, it's about society


DarknessPlay3r made a good point: An abortion from a woman he doesn´t does not affect him. But if she does not wear masks, it might affect him. Correct, however, I think it is a selfish view. It´s not like I support mask-wearing because I am afraid of the virus. I am mostly afraid I might pass it to my parents etc.
Furthermore, are the 600.000 aborted unborn children (in the US) not part of society? Can I punch a pregnant woman in the stomach because, after all, it is not part of society? I am just harming her a bit.
Is this unborn child only valuable because she finds it valuable? Like a Nintendo Switch she might also find valuable.


----------



## Super.Nova (Aug 10, 2020)

It's always a no-no to inflict harm on others, be it in regards to abortion or not wearing a mask.

In some cases, abortion is life-saving for a mother and is recommended, in some are not.
If a mother-to-be is not fit to become one, abortion would save a life by not subjecting it to a hard one (unless she has 2 brain cells to rub together and puts them for adoption to a fitcfit couple/individual).

Not wearing a mask is either inflicting harm onto yourself (if you're not sick) or others (if you're a confirmed case).
If you think you don't have it, it's still not an excuse as you might have an asymptomatic COVID and still transmit it to others resulting in their demise.

TL,DR: abortion depends on the case, always wear your mask.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Aug 10, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> DarknessPlay3r made a good point: An abortion from a woman he doesn´t does not affect him. But if she does not wearing masks, might affect it. Correct, however, I think it is a selfish view. I do not support mask wearing so that I do not get the virus. I am mostly afraid I might pass it to my parents etc.
> Furthermore, are the 600.000 aborted unborn children not part of society? Can I punch a pregnant woman and in the stomach because, after all, it is not part of society? I am just harming her a bit.
> Is this unborn child only valuable because she finds it valuable? Like a Nintendo Switch she might also find valuable.



To your first point, it doesn't matter if you agree with wearing masks or not, it's a simple task that could be saving millions of lives from needlessly getting a life threatening disease.  To your other point, it's like I said, whether abortions are ethical or not is beside the issue.  If people continue to get abortions, those that are alive and have lived full lives are not at risk of being needlessly killed because of your decision to get that abortion.  If you want to make an argument that those fetuses had souls, you're free to make that argument, but for me that is beside the point since they wont feel their death, and they have no sense of their surroundings or life in general, a lost fetus is not the same as a lost life of 30 years of experience, it just isn't, having said that, you can't go about punching women in the stomach: which in that case would be entirely unwanted and unasked for from the mother, that is not the same as an abortion at all, and the fact that you think it is, is incredibly alarming.  I will say, that if your real question is if I am in favor of wearing masks and not punching pregnant women in the stomach who didn't ask for it, then I'm 100% in agreement with both of those things.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 10, 2020)

MikaDubbz said:


> To your first point, it doesn't matter if you agree with wearing masks or not, it's a simple task that could be saving millions of lives from needlessly getting a life threatening disease.  To your other point, it's like I said, whether abortions are ethical or not is beside the issue.  If people continue to get abortions, those that are alive and have lived full lives are not at risk of being needlessly killed because of your decision to get that abortion.  If you want to make an argument that those fetuses had souls, you're free to make that argument, but for me that is beside the point since they wont feel their death, and they have no sense of their surroundings or life in general, a lost fetus is not the same as a lost life of 30 years of experience, it just isn't, having said that, you can't go about punching women in the stomach: which in that case would be entirely unwanted and unasked for from the mother, that is not the same as an abortion at all, and the fact that you think it is, is incredibly alarming.



People keep assuming things about me. I am not religious. Actually, very many Jews aren´t (though tradition is important to many of us). So no, I do not think anything has a soul (in the sense you think; soul is different from a spirit; but anyway I believe in no eternal soul or spirit).

Let me ask you: Is there a difference (in severity) between punching a pregnant woman (whose unborn child is harmed in the attack) and a non-pregnant woman?

If a lost life of 30 years of experience is worse than that of a fetus, then the lost life of a small child is also less severe. However, most people would disagree with you. Most people find the younger the life, the more tragic the loss (because presumably, more life-span has been lost; and because of a higher degree of innocence).


----------



## MikaDubbz (Aug 10, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> People keep assuming things about me. I am not religious. Actually, very many Jews aren´t (though tradition is important to many of us). So no, I do not think anything has a soul (in the sense you think; soul is different from a spirit; but anyway I believe in no eternal soul or spirit).
> 
> Let me ask you: Is there a difference (in severity) between punching a pregnant woman (whose unborn child is harmed in the attack) and a non-pregnant woman?
> 
> If a lost life of 30 years of experience is worse than that of a fetus, then the lost life of a small child is also less severe. However, most people would disagree with you. Most people find the younger the life, the more tragic the loss (because presumably, more life-span has been lost; and because of a higher degree of innocence).



I don't really care if you are religious or not, it's like I've said many times now, the ethics of abortion really are not a part of the equation here.  When you look at it as I've laid out now, the two simply are not equal thoughts, that you must agree with A if you do B or vice versa.

You're getting off track with your questions here.  You shouldn't be punching anybody in the stomach if they aren't asking for it.  If your real question is if I am in favor of wearing masks and not punching people in the stomach who didn't ask for it, then yes, I'm 100% in agreement with both of those things.

A lost life of any years holds more value than a lost fetus, it simply does.  Once the brain has developed and can form thoughts and memories, then you're talking about 2 very different things.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 10, 2020)

MikaDubbz said:


> I don't really care if you are religious


Ok, but please refrain from assuming I want to make an argument about souls.



MikaDubbz said:


> or not, it's like I've said many times now, the ethics of abortion really are not a part of the equation here.  When you look at it as I've laid out now, the two simply are not equal thoughts, that you must agree with A if you do B or vice versa.


They are not equal. But there is a layer of similarity.



MikaDubbz said:


> You're getting off track with your questions here.  You shouldn't be punching anybody in the stomach if they aren't asking for it.


Are you afraid of answering a hypothetical? I know that you should not punch anyone. 
Let´s say a pregnant woman is attacking you. Would you be just as willing to defend yourself? (Compared to a woman who is not pregnant)


----------



## MikaDubbz (Aug 10, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Ok, but please refrain from assuming I want to make an argument about souls.


I was saying that if you want to make that argument, that it's besides the point, I genuinely don't care if you believe they do are not.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> They are not equal. But there is a layer of similarity.


Not enough for me to find logic in thinking that you're a hypocrite if you're in favor of one and not the other.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Are you afraid of answering a hypothetical? I know that you should not punch anyone.
> Let´s say a pregnant woman is attacking you. Would you be just as willing to defend yourself? (Compared to a woman who is not pregnant)


If anyone is attacking me, yes I'll defend myself.  But even if I punch a pregnant woman and she loses the baby in such a situation, nobody is going to consider that an abortion, so I'm really not sure what kind of knowledge you're trying to glean with this hypothetical.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 10, 2020)

MikaDubbz said:


> I was saying that if you want to make that argument, that it's besides the point, I genuinely don't care if you believe they do are not.


If want to say that climate change isn´t real, go ahead...
You see how that sounds? I am telling the audience sth about you that you never claimed. Do not imply I believe in souls when there is no evidence.



MikaDubbz said:


> Not enough for me to find logic in thinking that you're a hypocrite if you're in favor of one and not the other.


I wouldn´t call them hypocrites. A hypocrite is sb who advocates one thing and does the opposite. If sb believe in "my body my choice" for mask-wearing, but not abortion, I would call this person partially inconsistent. At least until this person tells me why. This was the whole point of the thread. It is not about blaming or trolling. I am genuinely curious.



MikaDubbz said:


> If anyone is attacking me, yes I'll defend myself.  But even if I punch a pregnant woman and she loses the baby in such a situation, nobody is going to consider that an abortion, so I'm really not sure what kind of knowledge you're trying to glean with this hypothetical.


That wasn´t my question. Forget about abortions for a second.
Man punches woman in self-defence.
Man punches pregnant woman in self-defence.
Are these two scenarios equal in your view?


----------



## MikaDubbz (Aug 10, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> If want to say that climate change isn´t real, go ahead...


Alright, I will if I want to, but I don't, so I wont.  See how easy that is?



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> You see how that sounds? I am telling the audience sth about you that you never claimed. Do not imply I believe in souls when there is no evidence.


Wait... you were offended because I was putting out a thought that if you (the royal you, not you specifically) want to say something in this situation about this tangentially related topic, then you (royal you again) are free to, but that is beside the point, so let's stay on task?  Sorry that upset you lol, really weird thing to be triggered by, but sorry all the same.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I wouldn´t call them hypocrites. A hypocrite is sb who advocates one thing and does the opposite. If sb believe in "my body my choice" for mask-wearing, but not abortion, I would call this person partially inconistent. At least until this person tells me why. This was the whole point of the thread. It is not about blaming or trolling. I am genuinely curious.


Well the tone of this thread sure reads like it's preposterous if one is on board with one idea and not the other.  So if that was the tone you were going for, I think that's ridiculous.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> That wasn´t my question. Forget about abortions for a second.
> Man punches woman in self-defence.
> Man punches pregnant woman in self-defence.
> Are these two scenarios equal in your view?


Anyone has the right to protect themselves from any assailant regardless of gender or if they are with child.  If you wanna call that equal, then sure.


----------



## SatsuiNoHowdy (Aug 10, 2020)

Yeetus that fetus.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 10, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Where did I ridicule your position? I don´t even know it yet.


I'm with pro-choice and mask wearing.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> People who advocate for mask wearing (including me) do it so that human lives may be saved. There are even people who kill their pets in fear of the virus. I do not see the contradiction.


Again: I see your position. My position is that 'human life' starts at around 3 months after pregnancy. When the foetus is sufficiently more than a sperm cell and an ovary mixing together.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> If you want to force mask wearing for the sake of saving human lives, shouldn´t you at least be neutral on the question of abortion? Unless you do not regard a human fetus as a human life. You can hold this view but it is not scientific. Is it a fish? Is it a bird no? Is it human? Yes. Does it live? Yes. I.e. a human life.


And yet here I am holding that view regardless (see also just above this part of my reply).



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> How is that trolling?
> It would be trolling if I wasn´t interested in your answer or reasons for your views. Or if I held a different view from my stated one.


Okay, perhaps it's not trolling. But the alternative is worse, really. It means you honestly have no idea why your poll question is controversial to begin with. If so, I apologize for that.

Here's why this poll rubs me the wrong way: your question assumes that your view is correct. And it comes back to that "unless you do not regard a human fetus as a human life", which is generally speaking exactly what pro-choice people believe (before the fetus reaches a certain stage, that is). You assume someone/something is human the moment a sperm cell properly settles in the womb, and phrase your question based on that belief. That's why "Are you consistent with regards to abortion and mask-wearing?" is equally a trap and a question, because none of the options defy your view on fetusses. As such, I can't reply. As I mentioned: the option "they're seperate discussions" is missing.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 10, 2020)

MikaDubbz said:


> Anyone has the right to protect themselves from any assailant regardless of gender or if they are with child.  If you wanna call that equal, then sure.


I wouldn´t hit a woman unless really necessary (e.g. she attacks me with a sharp object). And I would also hesitate more if she was pregnant (esp. not go for the stomach).
But I suppose you are the champion of equality. That is alarming.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Aug 10, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I wouldn´t hit a woman unless really necessary (e.g. she attacks me with a sharp object). And I would also hesitate more if she was pregnant (esp. not go for the stomach).
> But I suppose you are the champion of equality. That is alarming.


I wouldn't attack unless necessary either.  I assumed by self-defense, you meant that, you know, your life was genuinely in danger. Love the effort you're going through to try and turn this around on me though lol.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 10, 2020)

MikaDubbz said:


> I wouldn't attack unless necessary either.  I assumed by self-defense, you meant that, you know, your life was genuinely in danger. Love the effort you're going through to try and turn this around on me though lol.


Well, because you are still dodging the question. You absolutely refuse to give an unborn child even the slightest of value.

Does the self-defence against a not-life-threatening attack by a pregnant woman look the same as against a woman who is not pregnant? Do you have any regard for the child?


----------



## SatsuiNoHowdy (Aug 10, 2020)

Wearing a mask is important to the safety of all those around you, especially loved ones, and it should be mandatory to not recklessly endanger the lives of others. However, I believe that it's within our best interest as a society to destroy all children, regardless of age, gender, parents, social standing, or whether or not they are sentient/"alive" yet.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Aug 10, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Well, because you are still dodging the question. You absolutely refuse to give an unborn child even the slightest of value.
> 
> Does the self-defence against a not-life-threatening attack by a pregnant woman look the same as against a woman who is not pregnant? Do you have any regard for the child?


I really haven't dodged any questions, if you don't like my answers, I'm sorry, but they are more than sufficient to the questions you've asked.  I give an unborn child's life value, I just don't think it's value is equal to that of a life with a developed brain that has formed thoughts and memories.  I've already explained this. 

Why would I fight back against a non-life-threatening attack?  That seems incredibly stupid, I'd just peacefully remove myself from that situation.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 10, 2020)

The Real Jdbye said:


> They're not remotely the same thing though. Mask wearing is about protecting other people. Abortion is about protecting yourself.





UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Are you a fellow Jew? It is a very traditional way of thinking... that the child is "yours". Not another person. I respect this perspective. In this sense, you are correct.
> 
> However, I would think that the vast majority of people view it differently. I am torn on this issue, to be honest.


Okay, I know this is aimed at @The Real Jdbye and @DarknessPlay3r but I want to chime in regardless...

You (again) assume that the fetus is already a child at any point during the pregnancy. So this also affects the outcome ("is a child a person?" will always result in a "yes" from everyone, whereas "is an unborn fetus a person?" will wield varying results, and even most pro-choice will reply with something akin to "depends on its age")


On top of that: the "the child is yours (but the vast majority of people view it differently)" is...a weird way of saying. I'm not sure if you've got children, but when they(1) say that children change your life, they aren't kidding. I mean...my girlfriend and me have one of the nicest babies in the world (hardly ever cries, is 100% healthy and smiles at almost everyone), our parents help out a lot, we've got the financial means to support her AND the corona-situation means I get to spend even MORE time with her...but even in that situation there's a lot of things to factor in(2). A child requires A LOT of responsabilities. If you ask me, it just wouldn't be fair to ask this of couples (or even single mothers) who just don't have the capabilities to make the required changes to adjust to catering to a new life for basically the rest of their lives.

But even so...it simply doesn't hold a candle to the mask-wearing situation. No matter how slim the chance is you're infected yourself, it's not worth spreading that chance to others who might become (very) ill or might even die because of that. Those against it are simply gambling with the health of the people around them. It may be a calculated gamble (I trust that my parents-in-law have practiced safety measures - from masks - since last time I saw them, thus making the risk of infection acceptable), but in public that gamble increases exponentially. Perhaps not to a dangerous degree, but that is only because the vast majority still follows the measures. There's a direct inverse correlation between the amount of people practicing social distancing and mask protections and the amount of covid-cases a country has. It's not fun to hear, but that's what it is.

...and I still can't find any connection between those two situations. 




(1): family, friends, colleagues...pretty much anyone who has children
(2): as I'm writing this, I'm playing 8 hours of lullabies because she can't sleep otherwise


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 10, 2020)

MikaDubbz said:


> I really haven't dodged any questions, if you don't like my answers, I'm sorry, but they are more than sufficient to the questions you've asked.


It was a yes/no question and you refused to answer with yes/no (not that you cannot write more after it, of course) thrice or so.


MikaDubbz said:


> I give an unborn child's life value, I just don't think it's value is equal to that of a life with a developed brain that has formed thoughts and memories.


If they have some value to you, I applaud you. Many feminists and their allies are proud of abortions. The more the better. I also do not value a fetus as much due to the "parasitic" nature of pregnancy. However, I can see why some women might even value the fetus more than their own life (e.g. a late pregnancy, last chance of passing on their genes).


----------



## MikaDubbz (Aug 10, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> It was a yes/no question and you refused to answer with yes/no (not that you cannot write more after it, of course) thrice or so.


I explained my stance and explained that if that stance sounds like equality to you, then yes, it's equality.  I don't view it as an issue of equality personally, because in a moment where my life is in danger of ending from some assailant, I literally couldn't care less about their gender, race, pregnancy status, etc. etc.  All that matters to me at that point is survival.  (Hence why you didn't get your simple yes or no, but you did get my stance on the issue all the same.)



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> If they have some value to you, I applaud you. Many feminists and their allies are proud of abortions. The more the better. I also do not value a fetus as much due to the "parasitic" nature of pregnancy. However, I can see why some women might even value the fetus more than their own life (e.g. a late pregnancy, last chance of passing on their genes).


I don't know if I'd consider myself a feminist or ally or not, and frankly i don't care, that is also besides the point.  Frankly, if I'm pro or anti-abortion is also besides the point.  The only point I've been making is that the two scenarios simply do not equate, so to ask the question of "how can you be in favor of one and not the other," holds no real merit and shouldn't be a question to be genuinely considered.


----------



## notimp (Aug 10, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> But most people have contradictory views on this. What about you? (read survey questions carefully)


Most people go through life, following the wonderfull principle of 'follow the leader'. Its more economical. You dont have to waste energy to think on your own, which you could fail at - you know.

Also this isn't just a thing on the politcal right (people dumb doesnt discriminate..  ), the left suffers from it as well.

(Be like - we so liberal and pro free expression, if you are 'minority du jour we put on a podest to feel better and for virtue signaling on insta', but the f*ck submit to our politcal correct speech doctrine, and we all have the same opinion regarding the importance of "something something nature/climate" and will bite you, if you dont.)

If you are looking purely for rationality - wrong planet. 


Another example would be - if a trans person dresses 'sexy' it'll be like 'you go girl, you show em!' if a girl does, its still 'slut - being enslaved by the patriarchy'.
Joe Rogan came up with this one - I'm just reiterating..


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Aug 10, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay, I know this is aimed at @The Real Jdbye and @DarknessPlay3r but I want to chime in regardless...
> 
> You (again) assume that the fetus is already a child at any point during the pregnancy. So this also affects the outcome ("is a child a person?" will always result in a "yes" from everyone, whereas "is an unborn fetus a person?" will wield varying results, and even most pro-choice will reply with something akin to "depends on its age")
> 
> ...


That's essentially what I was getting at. Even if you have the right to choose whether to do things that may be harmful to yourself or your life situation that does not mean you should have that choice when it comes to harming other people.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 10, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> It was a yes/no question and you refused to answer with yes/no (not that you cannot write more after it, of course) thrice or so.
> 
> If they have some value to you, I applaud you. Many feminists and their allies are proud of abortions. The more the better. I also do not value a fetus as much due to the "parasitic" nature of pregnancy. However, I can see why some women might even value the fetus more than their own life (e.g. a late pregnancy, last chance of passing on their genes).




the historical standard is that if a fetus is harmed or killed without the consent of the woman, jail or fines are awarded. hell even the bible states that accidental miscarriage due to beatings or a fight is generally a fine. This follows since the fetus is just an extension of the woman's body. same as if you cut off a toe, finger, or arm/leg.


----------



## notimp (Aug 10, 2020)

The Real Jdbye said:


> That's essentially what I was getting at. Even if you have the right to choose whether to do things that may be harmful to yourself or your life situation that does not mean you should have that choice when it comes to harming other people.


But if you are hinting at mask wearing, you have to make that voluntary (but with social pressure), to increase compliance. (Its a 'my body, my rules' thing, if youd force it (in society, in general), people would revolt.

Apparently you can force it in certain sectors (public transport), or supermarkets, but people then still have some 'freedom to decide' in other aspects of their lives... oh god, I'm arguing for 'why dictatorships work aint I...'  ).

What the US did so horribly wrong (arguably) was to have their political  leaders go on television and be like 'and you also could wear masks, I guess' people pick up on those social cues, and that sets group behavior.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 10, 2020)

notimp said:


> But if you are hinting at mask wearing, you have to make that voluntary (but with social pressure), to increase compliance. (Its a 'my body, my rules' thing).
> 
> What the US did so horribly wrong (arguably) was to have their political  leaders go on television and be like 'and you also could wear masks, I guess' people pick up on those social cues, and that sets group behavior.



sadly we also had to be wishy-washy with masks since there was hoarding in the beginning. even now our doctors and nurses don't have enough PPE. if everyone had enough ppe and our stockpile was filled, we would have told everyone to mask the fuck up on day 1.


----------



## notimp (Aug 10, 2020)

omgcat said:


> sadly we also had to be wishy-washy with masks since there was hoarding in the beginning. even now our doctors and nurses don't have enough PPE


I can see that.


----------



## wiindsurf (Aug 10, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> What if it was your wife? Couldn´t she say "it is my body" both with regards to mask-wearing and abortion?



I was talking about abortion only. But sure, I'd respect her choice on either.
I actually don't have any opinions about masks nor feel the need to have an opinion. I'm not a subject matter expert nor willing to explore the subject philosophically. I'll wear one if required, if I'm asked or if I fel like it.
It seems you heard someone say masks save lives, you chose to accept that premise, and now you are drawing parallels with abortion. Good for you.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 10, 2020)

wiindsurf said:


> I was talking about abortion only. But sure, I'd respect her choice on either.


You must be the most liberal person on earth. Wow.


----------



## wiindsurf (Aug 10, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> You must be the most liberal person on earth. Wow.



Labels... Can we think outside the box?
Laws should be about universal consensus, if there is none, there should be no laws. If there is consensus, then a law will naturally emerge.
Pain and suffering will transcend anyone's particular choice at any moment in life, whether you comprehend that or not.
And while I do have my personal bias I'm happy not to impose them onto others... or label them.


----------



## kaputnik (Aug 10, 2020)

It's a comparison of apples and oranges. How can you even have a consistent view of two questions with completely different sets of input parameters, unless you boil it down to some grossly oversimplified question about the value of human life or something?

To reply to the specific question; got no objections to abortion, and wouldn't mind mandatory mask wearing.


----------



## Youkai (Aug 10, 2020)

Not sure if I get that right but I for one thing everyone should do as they want as long as that doesn't necessarly harm anyone more then "normal" thus said if someone wants to Abort it is their choice, just imagine you got raped and would need to grow the Child of that Rapist and have to life and "love" that child the rest of your life ... I can understand if someone doesn't want that ! and "most" people would probably think long about stuff like this as there is always the chance that you won't be able to get a child anymore if something goes wrong with the abortion.


About Masks, I think it is utter crap forcing anyone to Wear one ! there are illnesses everywhere and usually when you are ill you should stay home but when I am all healthy I won't let anybody force me to wear such a thing -.-

All those people that are crying out right now got influenced to much by media ... even with the "high" ammount of deads in the US and Brazil the Worldwide numbers of people that died are still nothing more than a flys fart compared to lots of other things.

40-50 millions (half of them children) dieing because of starvation ever year but noone cares as its mostly happeneing in those poor countries -.-
8 Million die because of active or passive smoking every year .... 
(look it up these are official numbers)

I am actually more scared to be run over by a Car as I had LOTS of close encounters on my daily way to work, even on the bicycle way sometimes Cars get super close to me when they think it is a good idea to use it as a parking space.

And currently in the Arktis where it should be minus degrees, they hare more then 30°c and everything is burning releasing lots of methane and CO2 as well as potentially frozen Viruses or whatever from ancient times which might be able to kill us all if we won't get killed from the earth warming before anyways.



So people saying we all need to wear masks and everyone who won't is unsocial are just hypocrits


----------



## duwen (Aug 10, 2020)

Abortion correlated with mask wearing is a dumb comparrison...
condom wearing correlated with mask wearing would be a better comparrison.

...And for clarification, I didn't cast a vote as none of those options allow for nuance and common sense.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 10, 2020)

wiindsurf said:


> Labels... Can we think outside the box?


I didn´t mean liberal in terms of political affiliation. I meant it as the opposite of another extreme: men who do not allow their wives to go out except for grocery shopping.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Aug 10, 2020)

*looks up for a Second from playing "The Sims" Original Series*

Is someone still interested today on the "Chernobyl Generation/Childs"....?

*continues playing "The Sims" and searching for the "Best Covid Holiday Places" Download....*


----------



## wiindsurf (Aug 10, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I didn´t mean liberal in terms of political affiliation. I meant it as the opposite of another extreme: men who do not allow their wives to go out except for grocery shopping.



Ah, OK, I'm sorry, I had taken your post as witty sarcasm.

Abortion is a tough subject... I have some indirect experiences, and these things are too personal and hurtful. One lady I know had her mind changed but went on to raise the kid in total neglect. The kid suffers from multiple health and psychological issues, and got rejected by his dad as a weirdo after meeting him for the first time as a teenager, when they were meant to spend a summer break together.
Life is though and complex, and perhaps it is very naive for us to attempt to judge and simplify people's choices like we have all the pieces of the puzzle...


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 11, 2020)

Here's my thoughts.

Masks are unnecessary, as we have Hydroxychloroquine.
There is, however, no cure for being aborted.


----------



## Tomobobo (Aug 11, 2020)

It's definitely interesting to see the different views on the pandemic. Even in my own social circle views are so radically different.  It's as if these issues were created to divide people, to give them something to fight about, to be right and wrong about.


----------



## anhminh (Aug 11, 2020)

I never understand how abortion is anyone damn business except the one who carry the child and their family. Having a child is a very personal business and it should be treat like one. It mean outsider shouldn't stick their nose into it, let alone government dictate it. Just check out "One child policy" from China to see how well did it go.

And I don't even know why wearing mask should be anything to debate about. It just down right stupid no matter how you look at it.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 11, 2020)

I know I mostly already went but

Questions to be asking.

Masks
What are the costs?
Cost of purchase, annoyance of use (they are hardly "just there", usually hot, usually moist, might fog up your glasses), loss of visual signals (can't see you mouth and I can't hear, can't use non verbal communications, hard to see intent in some people -- covering your face is a fun one in a lot of countries/high trust societies), supply issues for those that do benefit from them (does that mean those a few months back claiming they were not necessary were either morons or merely misdirecting people such that the medics could have some), potential infection vector of their own (most are reused and not disposed of, or possibly worn only when "necessary" and be floating in the breeze the rest of the time, so in essence it might harbour some close to your airways)

What are the benefits?
There are two primary things it might do
1) Stop your disgusting fluids from going further into the world, or maybe in as great a volume.
2) Stop disgusting fluids from the world going into you.

There are two main professions that deal with masks. They are medics and those that work with airborne particles (grinding, painting, sanding, inspection work with mould spores, asbestos and what have you). I have trained the latter and spoken to many that trained the former -- despite knowledge of why something needs to be done it is still often something that has to be beaten into them aka it is a hard learned skill.

2) tends to warrant a more specialist type, and probably wants to be combined with eye protection too as that is almost as nice a infection location as inhaling it or shooting it up and also plenty visible. Seriously expensive and in some cases harder to wear.

1) To what degree does this have any effect? To what degree might it matter? Does 1000 particles matter more than 1 million if it is novel and my immune system has never seen it before? Said 1000 vs 1 million also becomes a debate when sneezing through a bit of cloth vs some actually well fabricated and properly worn device -- germs, viruses and airborne particles tending to be rather smaller than the weave of a standard count (or even high count) cotton cloth.
Likewise how far am I to stay away from someone? Varies about the place, and most of them seem far less than I can get if I gob a mouthful of coloured water, stand next to a wall, cough and see the results).

What if most people the people out and about are less likely to have serious negative outcomes where those that are in turn are sitting in their houses? What are said negative outcomes and should people care? Death and serious complication rates among certain groups (that being young and otherwise healthy, which is a sizeable chunk of the population) are rather low it seems (and we have enough numbers to be doing nice sampling on). Calculations are made about such things all the time regardless of what your healthcare payment method of choice is. What is the mutation risk that it becomes something truly fun (more exposure, more mutation)?

Is there a placebo effect? 100 years ago an infection was a serious serious thing. Today we have antibiotics so people can afford to be a lot more cavalier in their approaches, this may change if and when resistance picks up but different discussion there. If wearing a mask then sees many more people go out in the world and frequent shops under the potentially false delusion that they are protected (be it from 2) above or 1) being so widespread) does it mean more in the economy and not collapsing or collapsing as quick -- money may or may not the world go round via a root of all evil but a lack of it directly links to misery, suicide, abuse and neglect (sort yourself before you sort others, basic Maslow's hierarchy of needs there)

Are some of these then like counteracting a hurricane with a choicely aimed fart? Outside my house I don't have, certainly have not had a medic or government that presumably cares tell me to make, a little plastic tarp that I strip my clothes off and chuck into a bucket of bleach upon returning to then proceed for a scrub down, nor do I have an isolation setup in my house. If this was a nice big boy disease you do have such things.

Abortion.
What are the reasons people are against it?
The hand holding logic of some in the thread would be that if they value life (a debatable concept in the case of abortion) that presumably they should also value the lives of others and that a mask might do some good in helping others live.

This is a massive oversimplification from where I sit as there are both many other reasons someone might be against abortion, somewhat popular ones even if we are to go with real world stuff and not just logical debate or oddities, and because the efficacy of masks and the annoyances they could stand to be questioned or their practical efficacy* assessed. Not to mention if one was true then the reverse would presumably be in this case too and it does not seem logically dissonant to operate under the assumption that masks will save us all and still not care if someone scrapes a few cells (cells with no ability to suffer even) out of their womb (or has chemicals do it for them) because their efforts to prevent sperm from meeting egg (not sure why we might choose fertilisation or implantation as the point of no return with things before being just fine but it is a thing that is out there) failed for whatever reason, and in doing so saves themselves $400000 USD or more over the next 20 years (that is a small business, house, retirement fund, investment portfolio, fun hobby, or otherwise pretty decent life) plus a litany of other health, career and social effects that probably make that $400000 seem like small change (certainly the damages in the court case if a medic left a cancer ball or parasite in there because they could not be arsed and caused similar effects would be rather higher).
Equally "no effect on the world at large"... an unwanted child becomes an unwanted adult (not to mention reduces pool of existing adults) and that effects us all -- who do you think does most of the crimes and nastiness, means you can't learn all the fun stuff in schools, and generally means people get to act less openly to mitigate the effects of such things?

*if we are sticking with abortion related stats. Methods of prevention are available. Take a pill every day and you are good, use a condom correctly and also pretty good. Fail to take a pill (and over a population that is a reasonable number, and we know this from any number of drugs -- full course of antibiotics and all that) or fail to know how to use one (all those nice places that do abstinence only probably giving a nice sample) and the population wide efficacy drops quite notably.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 11, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Here's my thoughts.
> 
> Masks are unnecessary, as we have Hydroxychloroquine.
> There is, however, no cure for being aborted.



The preponderance of evidence suggests masks are an effective method of preventing transmission.
The preponderance of evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine is not an effective method of reducing transmission, symptoms, or mortality.
A woman has a right to her bodily autonomy with regard to pregnancy.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 11, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The preponderance of evidence suggests masks are an effective method of preventing transmission.
> The preponderance of evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine is not an effective method of reducing transmission, symptoms, or mortality.
> A woman has a right to her bodily autonomy with regard to pregnancy.


Yes, masks are effective, but they shouldn't be mandatory. Hydroxychloroquine has been supported by many doctors, and the studies that claim it won't work likely don't use zinc, or they use too much, or they give it too late.

As for abortion, a woman has no right to kill a baby.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 11, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Yes, masks are effective, but they shouldn't be mandatory.


Masks should be mandatory is public spaces as a matter of public health. A person's rights stop where another person's rights begin. In other words, your rights don't include the right to get other people sick in public places.

For example, a person has a right to be nude, but those rights stop where another person's right to not have to see you nude in public begins.



UltraSUPRA said:


> Hydroxychloroquine has been supported by many doctors, and the studies that claim it won't work likely don't use zinc, or they use too much, or they give it too late.


The preponderance of evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine is not an effective treatment, and it's not supported by a lot of doctors. One of the doctors you've cited, Harvey Risch, cites problematic studies, including but not limited to the fact that none of the studies he cites are randomized controlled trials.

I brought up in the other thread that you have yet to satisfactorily explain the basis for focusing on a small set of cherry-picked studies that support your position but ignoring the preponderance of studies that contradict your position.



UltraSUPRA said:


> As for abortion, a woman has no right to kill a baby.


Fetuses aren't babies. Embryos aren't babies. A woman has a right to her bodily autonomy regardless of whether or not it's a baby.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 11, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Hydroxychloroquine has been supported by many doctors, and the studies that claim it won't work likely don't use zinc, or they use too much, or they give it too late.
> 
> As for abortion, a woman has no right to kill a baby.


A medication that is still being trialled, has a limited window of effectiveness and the like (not sure it even is but have not kept up, would be amazing though as existing things functioning as anti virals is almost unheard of). See also prevention is better than a cure, not that I am seeing much benefit to the mask lark in a practical reality (if everybody was beardless and time tested medics/grinding mechanics wearing proper gear vs the public being anything but that, to say nothing of the  question of herd immunity).

Equally good thing a foetus is not a baby, and even if that little bit of wordplay is not enough it does seem to be a right possessed in most of the 1st world in both law and medical ethics.


----------



## JaapDaniels (Aug 11, 2020)

actiually i'm against enforced mask wearing


----------



## Lacius (Aug 11, 2020)

JaapDaniels said:


> actiually i'm against enforced mask wearing


On what basis?


----------



## kineticUk (Aug 11, 2020)

I’ve been asked to wear a mask and I’m wearing one more for the safety/sake of others than my own but also because wearing one isn’t a big deal.

And it’s their choice and none of my business or yours.


----------



## Olmectron (Aug 11, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> More and more I question whether I live in a simulation.
> 
> When talking to people it seems I am the only person with consistent views: I am pro-life (except in extreme cases) and for mandatory mask-wearing in public.
> 
> ...


I'm a NPC.


----------



## 1stmoon (Aug 11, 2020)

Infecting others should not be a choice. If you can't even do the bare minimum of putting on a mask then it's quite clear you're incredibly selfish and have a lack of understanding of science.


----------



## th3joker (Aug 11, 2020)

I am anti mask pro abotion and belive in death by firing squad before trial


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 11, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Masks should be mandatory is public spaces as a matter of public health. A person's rights stop where another person's rights begin. In other words, your rights don't include the right to get other people sick in public places.
> 
> For example, a person has a right to be nude, but those rights stop where another person's right to not have to see you nude in public begins.


What about asthmatics?


Lacius said:


> The preponderance of evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine is not an effective treatment, and it's not supported by a lot of doctors. One of the doctors you've cited, Harvey Risch, cites problematic studies, including but not limited to the fact that none of the studies he cites are randomized controlled trials.
> 
> I brought up in the other thread that you have yet to satisfactorily explain the basis for focusing on a small set of cherry-picked studies that support your position but ignoring the preponderance of studies that contradict your position.





Lacius said:


> Fetuses aren't babies. Embryos aren't babies. A woman has a right to her bodily autonomy regardless of whether or not it's a baby.


They have heartbeats, therefore they are living.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 11, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> What about asthmatics?


Asthmatics can and should wear masks.



UltraSUPRA said:


> They have heartbeats, therefore they are living.


I didn't say a fetus/embryo wasn't alive. I said it wasn't a baby. Whether or not something that is violating a woman's right to bodily autonomy is alive is irrelevant to whether or not it's violating the aforementioned right to bodily autonomy.

I don't typically watch videos people post at me. You're free to summarize points from the video, but I doubt they contradict anything I've said on the topic.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 11, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> They have heartbeats, therefore they are living.



First heartbeat is a while into things. Not to mention why would I adopt that as a definition of life, much less a useful benchmark in this scenario (life is one thing, suffering quite another and most medicine is concerned with the latter. Indeed even if it is life then if it can't suffer and pregnancy is a horrible experience and raising a kid not much better causes a person we have already invested years into to suffer for most of the rest of their life...)?


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 11, 2020)

I don't like to wear a mask, but if an establishment requires then I will. Am I in favor of life or abortion? I don't care, the woman who's impregnated needs to figure her life out and what to do with the life growing inside her.

Also, saying "science" doesn't actually prove masks are a reliable tool, but whatever. I'm not interested in getting into an argument, anyway.

A woman whom I speak to was recently sexually harassed and she can't identify the man (doesn't even deserve to be called a man, tbh) because he hid his face behind a mask. Now you don't even know who's about to commit a crime. Great.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 11, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Asthmatics can and should wear masks.


>people with breathing problems wear masks
"Keep it on or you'll kill me!"
>black man gets arrested for drug abuse and counterfeiting
"What the hell are you doing?! He can't even breathe!"


Lacius said:


> I didn't say a fetus/embryo wasn't alive. I said it wasn't a baby. Whether or not something that is violating a woman's right to bodily autonomy is alive is irrelevant to whether or not it's violating the aforementioned right to bodily autonomy.


How is it not a baby, though?


Lacius said:


> I don't typically watch videos people post at me. You're free to summarize points from the video, but I doubt they contradict anything I've said on the topic.


1. Dennis Prager has been taking Hydroxychloroquine himself to avoid getting the Holocough.
2. The Lancet in England and the NE Journal of Medicine here in the US have been forced to take down articles against Hydroxychloroquine because they were based purely on politics.
3. Big Pharma is against Hydroxychloroquine because it's too cheap compared to Remdesivir.
4. Doctors are keeping people in the first stages of the Holocough.
5. Many of the doctors advocating for Hydroxychloroquine are real doctors.
6. People are dying because they're not getting Hydroxychloroquine.
7. Dennis Prager takes Hydroxychloroquine because it works.
8. The studies you believe in don't use zinc, or they use it too late, or they use too much.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 11, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> >people with breathing problems wear masks
> "Keep it on or you'll kill me!"
> >black man gets arrested for drug abuse and counterfeiting
> "What the hell are you doing?! He can't even breathe!"



People with asthma aren't negatively affected by wearing masks, and they can breathe just fine with a mask. COVID-19 can be far worse for an asthmatic person than it might be for someone without asthma.
If you want to talk about a hypothetical person who cannot wear a mask, those people can wait outside stores and have things brought to them, etc. Many businesses offer these types of accomodations, regardless of whether or not they have a medical reason for not wearing a mask. Are you arguing that people should be required to wear masks unless they have a medical excuse? I somehow doubt it.
Kneeling on a person's neck, however, can be fatal. I didn't think I had to explain this, and I have a feeling you're not taking this conversation seriously.



UltraSUPRA said:


> How is it not a baby, though?



There are many physiological differences between the various stages of embryonic and fetal development, including but not limited to when a heartbeat starts, when brain development starts, etc. I'll let you research those differences yourself.
It also doesn't matter. As I said earlier, a woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps whatever lifeform is attempting to violate it. A consistent person cannot argue against legal access to abortion while simultaneously arguing against mandatory organ donation.



UltraSUPRA said:


> 1. Dennis Prager has been taking Hydroxychloroquine himself to avoid getting the Holocough.
> 2. The Lancet in England and the NE Journal of Medicine here in the US have been forced to take down articles against Hydroxychloroquine because they were based purely on politics.
> 3. Big Pharma is against Hydroxychloroquine because it's too cheap compared to Remdesivir.
> 4. Doctors are keeping people in the first stages of the Holocough.
> ...



Your use of the word _Holocough_ is anti-semitic, and I'm not going to respond to any future posts that use it.
Many of these are anecdotes, and the plural of _anecdote_ is not _data_.
Saying things like "people are dying because they aren't getting hydroxychloroquine" or "he takes hydroxychloroquine because it works" when you're defending the claim that hydroxychloroquine works is circular reasoning.
"Many of the doctors advocating for Hydroxychloroquine are real doctors" suggests some of the doctors arguing in favor of hydroxychloroquine are actually fake doctors.
There are studies that show hydroxychloroquine to be ineffective that use zinc. I suggest you do actual research instead of perusing conservative blogs for links to sources that claim to support your preconceived notions motivated by politics, because the "studies aren't using zinc" conspiracy theory is actually a myth.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 11, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> How is it not a baby, though?


Much like a caterpillar is not a butterfly but a developmental stage along the way then a foetus is not a baby but a stage along the way.

The longer you wait the more it resembles a baby, and the more capacity it is assigned but a baby tends to be the thing that happens after it is born alive (whether pushed out or sliced out).

Still though why are we free to use all the contraceptives we like but as soon as either the sperm touches the egg, or maybe the combined thing implants are we looking at drawing a line? Seems pretty arbitrary. As does heartbeats.



Lacius said:


> [*]Your use of the word _Holocough_ is anti-semitic, and I'm not going to respond to any future posts that use it.



How?
Is it not just a funny phrase to refer to an event? See also kung flu, boomer remover, the coof, the rona... 
There are also other mass killings using the phrase holo (see holodomor for one).


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 11, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I have a feeling you're not taking this conversation seriously.


I'm not. I can't take anything seriously when this world has become an Orwellian dystopia where the life of an elder is more important than the life of a baby.


Except Sweden.


Lacius said:


> It also doesn't matter. As I said earlier, a woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps whatever lifeform is attempting to violate it. A consistent person cannot argue against legal access to abortion while simultaneously arguing against mandatory organ donation.


You heard him. Cannibalism is A-OK.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 11, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I'm not [taking this conversation seriously].


Then I don't see why I should respond to you after this.



UltraSUPRA said:


> I can't take anything seriously when this world has become an Orwellian dystopia where the life of an elder is more important than the life of a baby.


A fetus is not a baby. Nobody is talking about the life of an old person being more valuable than the life of a baby. We're talking about minimizing deaths due to COVID-19, regardless of age (COVID-19 can kill young people, too). Also, I'm not sure why people like you are arguing against mandatory masks when the two likely options are either mandatory masks or complete shutdowns like we had before.

The fact that we are in a pandemic doesn't mean it's inconsistent to continue to advocate for a woman's right to bodily autonomy. I find it interesting you didn't address my mandatory organ donor analogy.



UltraSUPRA said:


> You heard him. Cannibalism is A-OK.


When I did bring up or advocate for cannibalism?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 11, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Also, I'm not sure why people like you are arguing against mandatory masks when the two likely options are either mandatory masks or complete shutdowns like we had before.


Have you heard of Sweden?


Lacius said:


> When I did bring up or advocate for cannibalism?


You said it's okay to kill someone if they're inside your body.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 11, 2020)

Lacius said:


> A fetus is not a baby. Nobody is talking about the life of an old person being more valuable than the life of a baby. We're talking about minimizing deaths due to COVID-19


We are, or at least that aside was more looking at the abortion debate (which I might consider going for a separate thread, or brining back one of the more focused ones from more recent times) is.

Equally I would happily state I value the life of an fully grown person over a baby, even more so a foetus that can't think, appreciate pain or particularly be said to have suffered any.
If playing medic give me enough resources to save a 21 year old or a 2 week old and 21 year old, full recovery either way and the 21 year old is my choice in almost every occasion (especially with no additional qualifying information, and I would sleep like a baby that night as well).
Far more resources, time, effort and attachments would have been sunk into the 21 year old.
New babies. Millions of those are made every year. In most cases the same people that made the baby could biologically have a new one in under a year, though it might take a bit more than that.


----------



## smf (Aug 11, 2020)

The poll is a bit dumb, its completely consistent to be pro choice but pro enforced mask wearing.

Mask wearing isn't to protect them, it's to protect me. The embryo isn't a me yet. The mask wearer can do whatever the hell they want on their own time.

Pro choice is a balance, it's not black and white. What a load of pro life people completely miss out on, is if they give people a fair and balanced choice then they may decide more often than not to actually keep it.

But their misguided and blinkered view means that people rush in scared and more abortions happen.

Not that they care, the pro life seems more about trying to exert control over others rather than preventing abortions. Once you realize that religion was purely made up to control people as a form of tribalism then you kinda start looking at morals completely differently.


----------



## GhostLatte (Aug 11, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Yes, masks are effective, but they shouldn't be mandatory. Hydroxychloroquine has been supported by many doctors, and the studies that claim it won't work likely don't use zinc, or they use too much, or they give it too late.
> 
> As for abortion, a woman has no right to kill a baby.


When you’re a woman, you can decide what women can and cannot do with their bodies.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 11, 2020)

GhostLatte said:


> When you’re a woman, you can decide what women can and cannot do with their bodies.


I have never got that line of logic. Do we have to delineate for those that never had the equipment (injury and disease), are too old at this point, are too young (either to have functional equipment or does bleeding once a month despite being 12 confer master moral debate abilities, maybe just for one area, I was not aware of?), and generally we allow people to discuss things and weigh up points from everybody.


----------



## JaapDaniels (Aug 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> On what basis?


1st it's treated not based on statistics that it helps. the logic is like the bible tells me to follow Jesus: if it doesn't kill you why don't you?
so if it's not really based on truth finding it's as good as any religion, and so it should be treated.
2nd yes i do believe the mask could help (so you might missjudged me early), i just don't see it working like it's used now. people use it as an argument to not having to keep thier distance wich will increase the spreading. then comes miss use people are not educated on how to use the mask treat it like a paint/fume mask wich wouldn't hurt if they put it on in one go just only touching the elastics en don't touching the actual filter.
by touching the outside of the filter you could already putting the virus on the outside of a mask, since most masks are not sterelized or anything this will mean this group of the virus will live and spread on the mask, wich will mean you're even worse off then without a mask on.
so unless there's gona be education around the use of a mask it's not of any help.
unless it's treated as an extra procation it's not helping.
the way it's treated around the world now it's not helping us, it's helping the virus.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

JaapDaniels said:


> 1st it's treated not based on statistics that it helps. the logic is like the bible tells me to follow Jesus: if it doesn't kill you why don't you?
> so if it's not really based on truth finding it's as good as any religion, and so it should be treated.
> 2nd yes i do believe the mask could help (so you might missjudged me early), i just don't see it working like it's used now. people use it as an argument to not having to keep thier distance wich will increase the spreading. then comes miss use people are not educated on how to use the mask treat it like a paint/fume mask wich wouldn't hurt if they put it on in one go just only touching the elastics en don't touching the actual filter.
> by touching the outside of the filter you could already putting the virus on the outside of a mask, since most masks are not sterelized or anything this will mean this group of the virus will live and spread on the mask, wich will mean you're even worse off then without a mask on.
> ...


The science is clear that face masks retain most of the respiratory droplets released from the wearer through talking, etc., and this makes them effective at reducing COVID-19 transmission, since SARS-CoV-2 is primarily spread via respiratory droplets. They're effective at preventing the wearer from spreading COVID-19 to other people, and they're somewhat effective at preventing the wearer from contracting COVID-19 from someone else.

This isn't a faith-based belief like religion. Anyone who can wear a mask should wear a mask in public, and governments can and should mandate the use of masks.


----------



## JaapDaniels (Aug 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The science is clear that face masks retain most of the respiratory droplets released from the wearer through talking, etc., and this makes them effective at reducing COVID-19 transmission, since SARS-CoV-2 is primarily spread via respiratory droplets. They're effective at preventing the wearer from spreading COVID-19 to other people, and they're somewhat effective at preventing the wearer from contracting COVID-19 from someone else.
> 
> This isn't a faith-based belief like religion. Anyone who can wear a mask should wear a mask in public, and governments can and should mandate the use of masks.


it still is as long as this is the best defence you got my stand is still the same, i gotta take your word for it is not science.
plus i get it you didn't read it al through for you already made up your mind.
plus ever since we started talking about masks the numbers went up here, not down.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Have you heard of Sweden?


Yes, but we are not Sweden. As of now, there are three options I see in the United States:

Masks
Shutdown
Allow people to get sick and die
I'm not sure what reasonable person would look at this list and say, "Hey, let's pick any option other than masks."



UltraSUPRA said:


> You said it's okay to kill someone if they're inside your body.



That's not what I said.
Person A has a right to bodily autonomy, even if Person B would die without access to Person A's body.
With regard to abortion, we're not even talking about people. We are talking about fetuses and embryos.



JaapDaniels said:


> it still is as long as this is the best defence you got my stand is still the same, i gotta take your word for it is not science.
> plus i get it you didn't read it al through for you already made up your mind.
> plus ever since we started talking about masks the numbers went up here, not down.


With all due respect, this and you're last post aren't very coherent, and I'm having trouble deciphering your point. As a result, I can only respond to the statements I think I can make sense of. For example, you should not "take my word for it that it's not science," because I said it *was* science.

There is no correlation between mask usage and an increase in positive cases. The opposite is true.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 12, 2020)

....What the hell does one thing have to do with the other?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Yes, but we are not Sweden. As of now, there are three options I see in the United States:
> 
> Masks
> Shutdown
> Allow people to get sick and die


If we're at a point where the choice is between freedom and life, then sacrifices are necessary. The Revolutionary War was fought during a smallpox epidemic.


Lacius said:


> Person A has a right to bodily autonomy, even if Person B would die without access to Person A's body.


What happened to "one person's rights end when another begins"?


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If we're at a point where the choice is between freedom and life, then sacrifices are necessary. The Revolutionary War was fought during a smallpox epidemic.


You're arbitrarily ignoring the freedom to not be infected with COVID-19 by a mask denier in the middle of a pandemic.

Also, how physically weak are mask deniers that they compare the oppression fought against in the Revolutionary War with wearing a mask?



UltraSUPRA said:


> What happened to "one person's rights end when another begins"?


It didn't go anywhere. A person has a right to life, but that right to live ends where a person's right to bodily autonomy begins. You have a right to life, but that right to life ends as soon as it becomes contingent upon me being forced to donate a compatible kidney to you. I get to decide if I'm donating my kidney to you, regardless of the consequences of my inaction.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> With regard to abortion, we're not even talking about people. We are talking about fetuses and embryos.


How does someTHING become someBODY/-ONE though?
Is it self-reliance? Than babies aren´t someone.
Is it relatedness? The DNA is there from the beginning.
Is it being alive? Cell division happens very early.

In the end, the value is given by others. But then a person in a coma who has a shot at recovery is "something" if the relatives or the community do not want to invest in the costs. If we cannot force the mother to turn something into someone (i.e. give birth), then how can we force the father to do so (i.e. forced labor to invest in the child*)
*according to my knowledge in many countries the father is forced to pay for child support, even if the child was the product of semen theft by the mother!
*in some cases even the non-biological father is forced into slavery if he was the husband at the time(!)


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> You're arbitrarily ignoring the freedom to not be infected with COVID-19 by a mask denier in the middle of a pandemic.


The wusses can stay home. The rest of us who aren't so scared about getting sick shouldn't have to wear masks.


Lacius said:


> Also, how physically weak are mask deniers that they compare the oppression fought against in the Revolutionary War with wearing a mask?


What? If anything, the problem is that we've been weakened. What I was trying to say is that while our founding fathers, during a pendemic, fought in a *war*, we, as modern Americans (and people from other countries), are too afraid to do so much as socialize without a mattress strapped to our mouths.


Lacius said:


> It didn't go anywhere. A person has a right to life, but that right to live ends where a person's right to bodily autonomy begins. You have a right to life, but that right to life ends as soon as it becomes contingent upon me being forced to donate a compatible kidney to you. I get to decide if I'm donating my kidney to you, regardless of the consequences of my inaction.


The loss of a kidney lasts forever. A pregnancy lasts nowhere near as long, though I don't know how long nor will I ever have any personal experience.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Aug 12, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> (unless it threatens the life of the mother, etc)


The pro-life supporters always add this statement in parenthesis, with a hand-wave: 
(unless she is raped, unless her life is at risk, unless the baby's life is at risk, etc). 
Exactly as you have done here. You gloss over these "exceptions", when they actually _reveal_ the problem with pro-life policy. Namely, that to _enforce _a pro-life policy, we will have to subject woman to a trial/court hearing to be held by some _committee_, in order to prove that the woman had, in fact, been raped, in mortal danger, etc. 

This is a clear violation of the health and privacy of the individual you are interrogating. It is also no place for a government committee. 

The soul, a human life -- where/when it "begins" -- when is consciousness "turned-on"; these are all _philosophical_ discussions with no concrete answer. _However_, the woman you want to interrogate is a_ living _human being, an individual, and that is no longer a _philosophical_ _debate._ That you have government officials peer into her personal medical history and violate her _certain_ human rights for the sake of your _philosophical _argument is questionable, to say the least! 

To stand against abortion is not a problem, to be sure. To live by that code is also not an issue. To draft _legislation, _allowing the_ government_ to prevent _others_ from doing it is your folly.  

Now, how the fuck are we supposed to compare abortion to wearing masks?!


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> How does someTHING become someBODY/-ONE though?


When I talk about personhood, I typically refer to one's sapience and sentience, as well as the legal rights we grant them.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> In the end, the value is given by others. But then a person in a coma who has a shot at recovery is "something" if the relatives or the community do not want to invest in the costs. If we cannot force the mother to turn something into someone (i.e. give birth), then how can we force the father to do so (i.e. forced labor to invest in the child*)
> *according to my knowledge in many countries the father is forced to pay for child support, even if the child was the product of semen theft by the mother!
> *in some cases even the non-biological father is forced into slavery if he was the husband at the time(!)


A man isn't having his rights to bodily autonomy violated when he's designated partially responsible for the baby he helped create. Child support also isn't slavery. That's hyperbolic nonsense.



UltraSUPRA said:


> The wusses can stay home. The rest of us who aren't so scared about getting sick shouldn't have to wear masks.


If someone were to argue against laws against public nudity, would you say the same thing?
_The wusses can stay home. The rest of us who aren't so scared about seeing other people's genitals shouldn't have to wear clothes._



UltraSUPRA said:


> What? If anything, the problem is that we've been weakened. What I was trying to say is that while our founding fathers, during a pendemic, fought in a *war*, we, as modern Americans (and people from other countries), are too afraid to do so much as socialize without a mattress strapped to our mouths.


You do know that social distancing and quarantining occurred during the epidemic you're speaking of, yes?



UltraSUPRA said:


> The loss of a kidney lasts forever. A pregnancy lasts nowhere near as long, though I don't know how long nor will I ever have any personal experience.


First, the duration of a violation of one's bodily autonomy is irrelevant. Second, the effects of a pregnancy, solely with regard to a woman's body, can absolutely be lifelong.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 12, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> The pro-life supporters always add this statement in parenthesis, with a hand-wave:
> (unless she is raped, unless her life is at risk, unless the baby's life is at risk, etc).
> Exactly as you have done here. You gloss over these "exceptions", when they actually _reveal_ the problem with pro-life policy. Namely, that to _enforce _a pro-life policy, we will have to subject woman to a trial/court hearing to be held by some _committee_, in order to prove that the woman had, in fact, been raped, in mortal danger, etc.
> 
> ...


Pls turn this statement around and ask the exact same thing about fathers.
We cannot force a father to work for a child.
We cannot force a mother to go into labor.
See the pun here? Actually it isn´t a pun. The male body is "made" for work, just as the female one is "made" for giving birth. This obvious thruth (which will surely by questioned by some; I will give response later) is even represented by chinese characters for female and male: 女 and 男.

I would say, we can indeed force the father into slavery (for sustaining the life of the baby) unless he was "raped" (or his semen stolen). But pro-choice advocates only want rights for women, no obligations. I would also (and here I am an exception) force parents to donate blood, a kidney (or sth else that is reasonable; though some would disagree that a kidney is reasonable).




0x3000027E said:


> Now, how the fuck are we supposed to compare abortion to wearing masks?!


Obviously, the investment is drastically different in scope. But the enforcement of it and the justification are similar.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Pls turn this statement around and ask the exact same thing about fathers.
> We cannot force a father to work for a child.
> We cannot force a mother to go into labor.
> See the pun here? Actually it isn´t a pun. The male body is "made" for work, just as the female one is "made" for giving birth. This obvious thruth (which will surely by questioned by some; I will give response later) is even represented by chinese characters for female and male: 女 and 男.
> ...


Child support isn't a violation of one's bodily autonomy.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> A man isn't having his rights to bodily autonomy violated


Work requires the deployment of bodily resources (even if it is just the brain for an office job). Just image an African-American whose job is to work in the field at this time of the year. The owner of his body, in this case, is the state and/or the woman.



Lacius said:


> when he's designated partially responsible for the baby he helped create. Child support also isn't slavery. That's hyperbolic nonsense.


The woman is also partially responsible for the baby. Unless it is e.g. rape.
Child support isn´t slavery, I agree. And abortion isn´t bodily autonomy.
If it is, then I will indeed use hyberbolic language (to lend a mirror of knowledge to you).


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Work requires the deployment of bodily resources (even if it is just the brain for an office job).


That's good and all, but none of this is a violation of bodily autonomy.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Just image an African-American whose job is to work in the field at this time of the year. The owner of his body, in this case, is the state and/or the woman.


Slavery is not, by itself, a violation of bodily autonomy; it's the ownership of a person as property. Regardless, child support is not slavery.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The woman is also partially responsible for the baby. Unless it is e.g. rape.


You do not think a mother is responsible for a baby born of rape?



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Child support isn´t slavery, I agree. And abortion isn´t bodily autonomy.


Being forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy is a violation of a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Abortion is an enforcement of one's right to bodily autonomy.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> If it is, then I will indeed use hyberbolic language (to lend a mirror of knowledge to you).


This sentence isn't particularly coherent, which is why it isn't getting another response.


----------



## mikefor20 (Aug 12, 2020)

When I started the thread I was mad.  The more I read through it I feel sorry for so many of you.  Mask wearing is not a choice.  It's an obligation. You jack asses who politicize masks are truly selfish assholes. If I was carrying around a dangerous chemical it's up to me to protect others around me. Put a cap on the bottle moron. WTF? How is this an issue?  Your stance is "I wanna shit where YOU eat. It's my right!"

RETARDED. 

 I don't like abortion as birth control. In reality, abortion is a WOMEN"S rights issue . 100%...  Most of you have *no right at all to say anything*.  Just because you guys act like girls doesn't give you a right to tell someone "You must grow this being inside of you that you REALLY want out of YOUR BODY"  It won't work.  At best you'll have millions of unwanted mistreated babies and piles of bodies from botched abortions. That's NOT compassion.  _*We already did this in MANY countries in the past.*_  Including USA. But some Congressman, Priest, Virgin (Gamer) or some other NOT A WOMAN says they have  rules for all the Uteri in the world!!.  IF IT"S NOT YOUR BODY YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO IT!. If that's the case I_* claim rights on all hands*_.

That way you'll all have to do my bidding!!! No touching yourself with my hands!






_* Seems THEY have decided what's in YOUR best interest.  *_

 What does Susie Nobody's uterus have to do with Senator Old fuck, the pharmaceutically addicted corpse who is jealous that someone even gets laid in the first place?!??!  A lot of people here fall in that boat. They haven' t been touched in decades, or possibly at all, but they think they have a right to your junk??!?!  Then they bring GOD into it??!!??! . Shit, every religion frowns on masturbation but still many of you have your little pud in your hand right now.  Anyone who says restricting someone else body is an act of compassion is a diluted liar.

 If you can't comprehend that wearing a mask and pro-choice policies are BOTH acts of compassion and are in no way an erosion of YOUR rights you probably should not speak, reproduce or interact with anybody in general. Too many people are on the fence IQ wise and your stupidity is contagious. And don't bring religion in to it.  Religion is far too complicated for your tiny minds.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> That's good and all, but none of this is a violation of bodily autonomy.


Then forcing a woman to let a pregnancy come to turn isn´t either.



Lacius said:


> Slavery is not, by itself, a violation of bodily autonomy; it's the ownership of a person as property. Regardless, child support is not slavery.


A distinction without a difference. If I can force you to do sth, then it is ownership. Let´s try one more time. Maybe it will click with you: Imagine a white woman who tricked an African-American into a pregnancy by stealing his semen after sex. He is currently working on a field at 36°C. If he does not work, the state is going to put him in prison for failing to give child support. 



Lacius said:


> You do not think a mother is responsible for a baby born of rape?


I specifically stated a pregnancy which is the product of a rape is not the responsibilty of the woman. (100% responsibility of the man; normal sex: 50-50)
If the mother has 50% responsibilty she still has the bodily autonomy to end the pregnancy - even against the wishes of the father.
If the father has 0% responsibility (semen theft) he is still forced into slavery by the woman at the hands of the state (other example: a cucked husband who did not even father the child).




Lacius said:


> Being forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy is a violation of a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Abortion is an enforcement of one's right to bodily autonomy.


Then the logic follows: Not paying child support is the enforcement of bodily autonomy (even at 50% responsibilty).



Lacius said:


> This sentence isn't particularly coherent, which is why it isn't getting another response.


I challenge your terminology "bodily autonomy" because it perpetuates the "rights for me, obligations for thee" kind of mindset.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Then forcing a woman to let a pregnancy come to turn isn´t either.


Yes, it is. Do you know what bodily autonomy is? None of your examples involve doing anything to someone's body against their will. Forcing a woman to allow a fetus to feed off her body is a violation of bodily autonomy. Child support isn't a violation of bodily autonomy anymore than a traffic ticket is.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> A distinction without a difference. If I can force you to do sth, then it is ownership. Let´s try one more time. Maybe it will click with you: Imagine a white woman who tricked an African-American into a pregnancy by stealing his semen after sex. He is currently working on a field at 36°C. If he does not work, the state is going to put him in prison for failing to give child support.



I don't know why you're unnecessarily bringing race into this. I'm unlikely to respond to posts that continue to do this.
A man whose semen was stolen isn't going to have to pay child support towards a baby born from that theft.
If a man who had consensual sex impregnates a woman but wants nothing to do with the child after it is born, the state may designate him partially responsible for the child. It is up to the man to decide how he is going to pay child support. Nobody owns him anymore than the government "owns" a person who gets a traffic ticket. In other words, there's no slavery, and there's also no violation of bodily autonomy in requiring child support. As a society, we decided that a child has the right to be supported, and those responsible for bringing the child into existence are to be the stewards of that child. If a parent isn't going to parent the child, then that parent must at least support the child financially. If you're going to argue that forcing a man to pay child support is bad, then you of all people should be pro-choice.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I specifically stated a pregnancy which is the product of a rape is not the responsibility of the woman. (100% responsibility of the man; normal sex: 50-50)


If a woman carries a pregnancy to term that was the result of a rape, she will be at least 50% responsible for that child. That's the way the law works. If she doesn't consent to that, she should terminate the pregnancy.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> If the mother has 50% responsibilty she still has the bodily autonomy to end the pregnancy - even against the wishes of the father.


The ratio of responsibility for a hypothetical child is irrelevant when talking about the bodily autonomy of the pregnant woman. It is her body and her choice, 100%.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> If the father has 0% responsibility (semen theft) he is still forced into slavery by the woman at the hands of the state (other example: a cucked husband who did not even father the child).


A man who had his semen stolen has no say over whether or not a woman has an abortion. It's her body and her choice, since the pregnancy is not a violation of the man's bodily autonomy. That being said, the government is not going to require child support from the man, so it's doubly irrelevant.

As for the husband of a woman who is pregnant with a child that is unrelated to the aforementioned husband, the financial responsibly toward that child is his decision.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Then the logic follows: Not paying child support is the enforcement of bodily autonomy (even at 50% responsibilty).


Being required to pay child support is not a violation of one's bodily autonomy anymore than paying a ticket is. Nothing is being done against your will to your body, you have choices with regard to how you're going to earn money, and you are not property.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I challenge your terminology "bodily autonomy" because it perpetuates the "rights for me, obligations for thee" kind of mindset.


A right to bodily autonomy means a right to do with your body what you wish and not having anything forcibly done to your body you don't want. Violations include but aren't limited to:

Being forced to carry a pregnancy to term
Rape
Forced removal of organs
Violations do not include:

Fines
Tickets
Child support
Careers
Respectfully, please make sure your next post has new points if you want me to respond to it. The posts are getting long, and I don't want to repeat myself more than I already have.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Yes, it is. Do you know what bodily autonomy is?


In your own words:
"A right to bodily autonomy means a right to do with your body what you wish and not having anything forcibly done to your body you don't want."
I agree. And what if the husband does not want to work? Maybe he wants to relax instead. Or work for himself rather than his owners - the mother and state.



Lacius said:


> Child support isn't a violation of bodily autonomy anymore than a traffic ticket is.


A traffic ticket can result in the violation of bodily autonomy if it puts you in prison (for not paying) or removes your ability to drive. I do not have a problem with it though because it is applied equally to men and women. If you have a problem with the term bodily autonomy, we could speak of deprivation of liberty - like forcing a child to go to school or forcing a wife to stay at home and do chores (though the latter is only enforced in certain countries, I imagine).



Lacius said:


> A man whose semen was stolen isn't going to have to pay child support towards a baby born from that theft.


That is incorrect.
1) A man in the USA was forced to pay child support after the woman secretely kept his semen after oral sex.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7024930/ns/health-sexual_health/t/sperm-gift-keeps-giving/#.XzRk3nvLfVM
2) In another case a woman stole the semen without having had sex with the man. https://www.vanguardngr.com/2019/11...n-from-billionaire-wins-child-support-battle/



Lacius said:


> If a woman carries a pregnancy to term that was the result of a rape, she will be at least 50% responsible for that child. That's the way the law works. If she doesn't consent to that, she should terminate the pregnancy.


I disagree with this law as well. If it was really rape, she has 0% responsibilty in my view. A rape remains a rape, even if the woman later finds out George Clooney raped her (btw the same way consentual sex does not become rape even if the woman later regrets it). She could still have her reasons for bringing the pregnancy to term (though I would absolutely not fault her for having an abortion) like religious reasons (which I do not share) or fear of injury during the abortion.



Lacius said:


> The ratio of responsibility for a hypothetical child is irrelevant when talking about the bodily autonomy of the pregnant woman. It is her body and her choice, 100%.


The ratio of responsibility for a hypothetical child is irrelevant when talking about the bodily autonomy of a father to-be. It is his body and his choice not to work. 100%.




Lacius said:


> A man who had his semen stolen has no say over whether or not a woman has an abortion. It's her body and her choice, since the pregnancy is not a violation of the man's bodily autonomy. That being said, the government is not going to require child support from the man, so it's doubly irrelevant.


Wow, you advocate for the legalisation of theft. Well, actually it is already legal as it has been shown in US courts. Could I also steal your hair or blood for testing purposes, my personal DNA database or cloning projects for example (if I come across it in a hospital, let´s say)? That´s some crazy viewpoint, man.
The last part: see the links above.




Lacius said:


> As for the husband of a woman who is pregnant with a child that is unrelated to the aforementioned husband, the financial responsibly toward that child is his decision.


Not true, see the case in the US:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...child-support-DNA-test-proves-not-father.html


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> In your own words:
> "A right to bodily autonomy means a right to do with your body what you wish and not having anything forcibly done to your body you don't want."
> I agree. And what if the husband does not want to work? Maybe he wants to relax instead. Or work for himself rather than his owners - the mother and state.
> 
> ...


It took me less than a minute to debunk one of your links, and in the other one, the child support ruling was based on the claim and the evidence that the child resulted from conventional sex.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hotel-cleaner-used-condom/

As for the link about the husband, he signed the birth certificate, and he was only ordered to support the child until everything was resolved legally. Regardless, if a man is forced to support a child he had nothing to do with creating, that's immoral, but it isn't a violation of one's rights to bodily autonomy.

I've also said just about everything I have to say on the topic of bodily autonomy.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> How does someTHING become someBODY/-ONE though?


Congratulations, you discovered the main reason of why abort is such a polemic topic. In my opinion, I'm a men of science. Always have been. So, well, I'm gonna stick with what science says.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 13, 2020)

mikefor20 said:


> When I started the thread I was mad.  The more I read through it I feel sorry for so many of you.  Mask wearing is not a choice.  It's an obligation. You jack asses who politicize masks are truly selfish assholes. If I was carrying around a dangerous chemical it's up to me to protect others around me. Put a cap on the bottle moron. WTF? How is this an issue?  Your stance is "I wanna shit where YOU eat. It's my right!"



We could contemplate rights of things and what trumps what there -- give me convenience or give me death and all that.

I however here am going for a cost-benefit analysis.

Mask use is anything but free and trivial, there are other costs in society in general, the benefits relative to those as it shakes out in the real world I intend to question and then ponder whether it is a net positive or if whatever positives there are find themselves less than the aggravation of wearing them. Cost-benefit was done for keeping people at home (and even then it was a fairly weak stay at home) and that seems to no longer be a thing despite it being far better (can't spread it beyond your building's shared air or household if everybody is at home, however the cost of that might have been too high).

From where I sit I would have to question the population wide efficacy -- it is a skill which the population as a whole sucks at (which should surprise nobody that has to have it as a skill for their jobs, hobbies and the like, or as trained people to use them), compliance rates (which we have to consider in everything else from antibiotics to transplants to contraceptives to laws in general), increased infection potential (be it with the masks themselves acting to harbour things or people fiddling with it because they are not used to it and got a cheap one, the options chosen for it (they are hardly all high grade bidirectional filters, including eye protection, or even full isolated rebreather type setups, as much as a cheap rag barely fit to stop a marble from going through and still worn improperly), what the latent infectious population count is to merit such things, what the mortality and serious negative outcomes rate is among the various delineations you might care about, what the psychological impact is (covering your face is a fun one in a lot of places and has been for millennia, to say nothing of it being a "I am invincible" type potential, though a bit of security theatre to get people out and spending could be interesting), what the societal implications are (I assume we have all seen the amusing videos of people flying off the handle from one way or the other) and this goes on for a while.

Is it a hill I wish to die on? Not really as I already know how to wear a mask, beyond that most people seem to be placated by me wearing a scarf anyway (I will save my fancy masks for my next grinding job, not to mention my scarf is probably better than most masks), I might have already had it anyway (timeframe and symptoms match, can't be bothered with an antibody test though) and it would likely pass me and those I live with/see by as more annoying than deadly, and security theatre is amusing (I do the same in airports where I figure out what nasty things I could make from a trip to duty free, some innocuous stuff I have and some fixtures I might rob from the place). As a question or policy debate on the internet though... I could stand to have it as the answer does not seem clear cut.


----------



## mikefor20 (Aug 13, 2020)

I dont see how a bunch of guys or gays have a right to a bunch of gals rights.  If you've never even seen a vagina your opinion is probably moot.  If you don't have to carry a bastard that a bastard put in you to term because of a bad decision then your opinion is moot.

You'll  never know what it's like to have to choose.





FAST6191 said:


> We could contemplate rights of things and what trumps what there -- give me convenience or give me death and all that.
> 
> I however here am going for a cost-benefit analysis.
> 
> ...



Scarfs, neck gaiters  and fleece masks cause the water droplets to become smaller and more dangerous. Get a proper mask. Aggravation? Big babies. Selfish bastards. Probably don't wash their hands. Clear cut answer is wear a mask. No drawback except your pride for some perverse reason. Stop. You save 1 grandma then it's all worth it. Don't a selfish covidiot. Its not a seat belt. You are putting others at risk. I hope it's your loved one that gets sick from you. Cost is lives  dude.

They're coming for you too Malachi


----------



## pustal (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> How is pro-choice a scientific question? It is a moral one.





Xzi said:


> People have been performing abortions since long before the birth of Jesus, it was only ever a matter of medical science catching up to the point where abortions could be performed *safely*.  Limiting or removing access to safe abortion now would not stop people from having them done, it would just mean going back to back-alley abortions using coat hangers instead.



I'm just gonna weight in and remind you that the abortion period in which is safe for the mother to do so, and mostly legal around the world is coincident with the time that the fetus have no brain activity. The science of the matter lies in that a fetus is not a sentient being alongside not being a being on its own yet, where most discussion regards the comparison of between interrupting a pregnancy and killing a human being, while it is not an entity yet. All belief otherwise mostly derives from religion.

As for consistency. Wearing a mask keeps you safer, and others safer. Providing an abortion may mean keeping a mother safe and preventing a sentient life from ever come to be that could live in danger. Both situations prevent potential pain and suffering, and in some cases even death, so there's a consistency.


----------



## mikefor20 (Aug 13, 2020)

pustal said:


> I'm just gonna weight in and remind you that the abortion period in which is safe for the mother to do so, and mostly legal around the world is coincident with the time that the fetus have no brain activity. The science of the matter lies in that a fetus is not a sentient being alongside not being a being on its own yet, where most discussion regards the comparison of between interrupting a pregnancy and killing a human being, while it is not an entity yet. All belief otherwise mostly derives from religion.
> 
> As for consistency. Wearing a mask keeps you safer, and others safer. Providing an abortion may mean keeping a mother safe and preventing a sentient life from ever come to be that could live in danger. Both situations prevent potential pain and suffering, and in some cases even death, so there's a consistency.



This.  Except abortion rights are about more than a fetus.  It's about the rights of women. Abortion will happen. Laws stop nothing. It's just a question of safety. We dont need all the consequences that come with banning abortion.  Laws against abortion are anti woman laws.  It's not you're rights being infringed on. It's not even the duty of the law to protect the fetus. The law wont help that dumpster baby from it's destiny either.  Wtf?


----------



## mikefor20 (Aug 13, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> We could contemplate rights of things and what trumps what there -- give me convenience or give me death and all that.
> 
> I however here am going for a cost-benefit analysis.
> 
> ...



https://abc7news.com/duke-mask-study-effectiveness-covid-19-neck-gaiter-covid-19/6364640/


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 13, 2020)

mikefor20 said:


> I dont see how a bunch of guys or gays have a right to a bunch of gals rights.  If you've never even seen a vagina your opinion is probably moot.  If you don't have to carry a bastard that a bastard put in you to term because of a bad decision then your opinion is moot.
> 
> You'll  never know what it's like to have to choose.
> 
> ...



If it is to be a moral question then it is generally held anybody of sufficient capacity can have some input on the matter. In this case I fail to see how someone can't weigh up merits of what bodily autonomy is, what changes happen because of pregnancy, what rights should be accorded to what stage of development (there are those that would oppose contraception the same as they oppose masturbation, some that would oppose letting eggs slip away unused, some that would only care about implantation and on and on until practically birth) and what modifiers they might have for other conditions, what the aggregate outcomes are, what the extreme case outcomes are, and what techniques might be pursued to change things and possibly future modifiers (we have mammalian life grown in artificial wombs, and it has serious money pursuing it).
I don't need to have cancer to read data, study things and have input on what might want be pursued. More knowledge probably makes for a debate partner but having a vagina affords about as much knowledge as someone owing a car makes them an engine designer.

Forcing everybody into their house, closing borders and saying we see you on the streets we put two in your head would save a few thousand grandmas (probably way more than masks for the general public ever will) and end it in about two weeks and result in a small enough infection rate that tracking is viable (tracking could also be mandated I guess). Maybe cancel the two weeks and instead "until we get a fully tested vaccine". We don't however do that because the cost is too high for the benefits.
Similarly by knowing the efficacy rather than operating on blind faith we also get some idea of when it might want to be ended, relaxed or altered, even if right now could make a net positive for the negatives.

Speaking of negatives I elaborated upon several drawbacks in the earlier post. For the sake of an even simpler one though then monetary cost, increased waste/litter, discomfort, fogged glasses, potentially increased infection rate in some scenarios (the mask itself being reused and harbouring things, people fumbling with their face), if you reckon improper masks (which are common) atomise things better then I'll take it as read for this little list, social norms altered, people less able to lip read, undue bravado due to misplaced notions of protection... You seem content in some cases to dismiss those, why might I adopt your valuations and weightings of the factors here?

Likewise not wearing a seatbelt still means someone has to come squirt/scrape you out of the wreck, to say nothing of you maybe depriving those in your life of your presence that they might value.
Plenty of other things have a cost in lives as well, often similar "simple" solutions (ones that are completely and utterly uncontested even) and maybe even greater effects but we don't do them either or mandate them either.

Anyway you appear to just be on rant. Hopefully you can stop being scared of the world one day; seen it a few times in others and it looks truly exhausting.

Mind you I am curious to see what effects this mask lark has for other diseases. Summer colds are less of a thing, though still one, but it is winter in some places. Controlling it for decreased interactions, distancing, schools being out of session and the like might get fun but can probably still be done.


----------



## mikefor20 (Aug 13, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> If it is to be a moral question then it is generally held anybody of sufficient capacity can have some input on the matter. In this case I fail to see how someone can't weigh up merits of what bodily autonomy is, what changes happen because of pregnancy, what rights should be accorded to what stage of development (there are those that would oppose contraception the same as they oppose masturbation, some that would oppose letting eggs slip away unused, some that would only care about implantation and on and on until practically birth) and what modifiers they might have for other conditions, what the aggregate outcomes are, what the extreme case outcomes are, and what techniques might be pursued to change things and possibly future modifiers (we have mammalian life grown in artificial wombs, and it has serious money pursuing it).
> I don't need to have cancer to read data, study things and have input on what might want be pursued. More knowledge probably makes for a debate partner but having a vagina affords about as much knowledge as someone owing a car makes them an engine designer.
> 
> Forcing everybody into their house, closing borders and saying we see you on the streets we put two in your head would save a few thousand grandmas (probably way more than masks for the general public ever will) and end it in about two weeks and result in a small enough infection rate that tracking is viable (tracking could also be mandated I guess). Maybe cancel the two weeks and instead "until we get a fully tested vaccine". We don't however do that because the cost is too high for the benefits.
> ...



Dude, your opinion doesn't matter on abortion.  My opinion doesn't matter on your masturbation.  You don't have a right to tell anybody what to do with their body. I am sure you do plenty with yours others would find disturbing.

You have no right to go in to public and not wear a mask. Bottom line. No grey area.  You are potentially infectious. As am I .  The only SANE thing to do is to take precautions.  For everyone.  Any argument against masks is just an attempt to wag the dog and confuse the issue.  There is no debate. Just intelligence vs stupidity.  Say what you want but get the fuck away from me you selfish grandma killer.

The seat belt analogy is perfect.  If you refuse to wear one you are risking your own life mainly.  You might destroy someone else's fragile egg shell mind.  How is watching Grammy die a painful death not scarring? You are so fragile you loose sleep over what other people do with their wombs.

 I think it's people like that who hate vaginas. I think vaginas hate those people too. I for one love vaginas and I prefer to let the woman decide what's best for her and her uterus. I am sure you can find a woman who shares your views and when you knock her up and it has downs you can decide too. WTF How can you not realize that you will never know where people are coming from. Freedom is the only choice.  Make your own boundaries but don't inflict them on me.

WEAR A MASK AND MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS!!!

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO WILLFULLY INFECT PEOPLE OR TO CONTROL OTHER PEOPLES BODIES.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 13, 2020)

mikefor20 said:


> Dude, your opinion doesn't matter on abortion.  My opinion doesn't matter on your masturbation.  You don't have a right to tell anybody what to do with their body. I am sure you do plenty with yours others would find disturbing.
> 
> You have no right to go in to public and not wear a mask. Bottom line. No grey area.  You are potentially infectious. As am I .  The only SANE thing to do is to take precautions.  For everyone.  Any argument against masks is just an attempt to wag the dog and confuse the issue.  There is no debate. Just intelligence vs stupidity.  Say what you want but get the fuck away from me you selfish grandma killer.
> 
> ...


So just because I'm a dude, I can't say that killing babies is wrong.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 13, 2020)

mikefor20 said:


> It's about the rights of women.


Have you ever stopped to think about the rights of men? Your passionate responses do have some validity. However, there are women who have not worked a day in their life, got children from different men and live a life of child support. By your logic, they should not have a say about the topic child support.
From a female perspective it is better to have 3 children from 3 different men than from the same one: 3 cash cows to milk instead of one. I would accept abortion rights (including 2 years after birth if desired) if there was no child support. This would make both genders think about mating choices more carefully.
However, in a system that disadvantages males (child support, i.e. forced labor) I cannot support abortion.

You brought up the argument that abortion will happen anyway. You are correct, but the threshold is higher. You also cannot prevent that men will try everything they can to avoid child support (including lying, hiding their money etc). Should we therefore give it up?

I can talk about these things even though I do not have children. Nor would I choose a woman who would abuse the system like that. Religious women can be a somewhat good filter btw.

Bottom line: We can choose to live in a social society (no abortion rights, but possibilty, esp. if the father agrees + child support) or in a wild west society (abortion rights, no child support), but we shouldn´t live in an unfair society.


----------



## mikefor20 (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So just because I'm a dude, I can't say that killing babies is wrong.



It's not up to you.  It's not your life.  I am positive you do things that in other countries would be enough to have you locked up forever.  Who are you to judge a 14 year old who got sweet talked because shes a 14 year old!!!  Or a prom queen who gets drunk and wakes up in a hotel. Or any other honest mistakes that human beings make.  Most you would worry about is a disease from that 1 night stand and when you'll walk straight again but she might have real life changing consequences.  If men could get pregnant too this debate wouldn't happen.  I think having unwanted rape spawned orphan dumpster babies are a tragedy right up there with an abortion.  I don't condone abortion. Especially for birth control.  But I don't think it's my right to tell you what to do.  Mind your own business Adolf. Freedom is important.  You never had to walk in their shoes.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 13, 2020)

mikefor20 said:


> \
> 
> Dude, your opinion doesn't matter on abortion.  My opinion doesn't matter on your masturbation.  You don't have a right to tell anybody what to do with their body. I am sure you do plenty with yours others would find disturbing.
> 
> ...


Saving those cases where I am a medical proxy in which case you do. Similarly the law would seem to say some people are not allowed to imbibe certain substances, put ink under the skin, and limits what procedures can be done by whom and in what state of mind the person has to be to make it.

Anyway it is potentially a moral issue (one with parallels in many other aspects of law), as well as a medical one. That means people do get to explore it, figure out where lines might be drawn, what might be invested in, what training might be needed, what additional services might be needed and so on. I thought that is generally how society works.
I would also note you presume much on my opinion of matters here, indeed you need not even go into the extensive other threads on the site discussing the same topic to see it.

Rights is not my problem. My problem is merit of the action in terms of cost-benefit. There are costs, there are benefits. The costs are non trivial and the benefits, especially when the practical reality vs ideal implementation is looked at, far from so massively outweighing those that I dismiss the costs, not to mention I want to know when it ends or gets relaxed rather than blindly trusting someone to tell me when it is safe to venture out from my house.
This mandated mask lark is also a novel invention despite similar potential for damage from other things (you try to tug on heart strings with dead grandmas -- I have been in nursing homes when a regular flu is ripping through them faster than I can update my spreadsheet and get the rooms turned around, spread via similar vectors and similar spread rates from what I see too). I would ask why now or what makes this a special case?


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 13, 2020)

You get a like just for the intelligent use of Adolf, Mike.

I hope you respond to what I wrote. However, I want to add a question: Are you of the opinion that abortions should be paid for by society? When I speak of child support I indirectly mean society (I didn´t want to make the argument too complex). If society can get off cheaper by finding the biological father, I am actually all for it.


----------



## Ibcap (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So just because I'm a dude, I can't say that killing babies is wrong.


You can say killing babies is wrong. Abortion generally doesnt kill babies though, and if you use the "potential child" argument then following that to the logical conclusion, not pro creating at every possible opportunity is also killing children by denying a potential child life.


----------



## mikefor20 (Aug 13, 2020)

Ibcap said:


> You can say killing babies is wrong. Abortion generally doesnt kill babies though, and if you use the "potential child" argument then following that to the logical conclusion, not pro creating at every possible opportunity is also killing children by denying a potential child life.



By that token, constant fapping kills millions of kids.   UltraSUPRA!! Shame


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraSUPRA used the wrong word. "Killing babies" is incorrect. However "killing children" is correct. The word child does not have to refer to offspring between the ages e.g. 3-12. It can just describe the generational relationship, e.g. you will always be the child of your parents.
Masturbating does not kill offspring, abortion does.


----------



## Ibcap (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> UltraSUPRA used the wrong word. "Killing babies" is incorrect. However "killing children" is correct. The word child does not have to refer to offspring between the ages e.g. 3-12. It can just describe the generational relationship, e.g. you will always be the child of your parents.
> Masturbating does not kill offspring, abortion does.


A fetus is not a child by the definition of the word. A fetus is not sentient and i dont see any argument you could make for it being special outside of the "potential to be a child" argument which i already responded to.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 13, 2020)

Ibcap said:


> A fetus is not a child by the definition of the word. A fetus is not sentient and i dont see any argument you could make for it being special outside of the "potential to be a child" argument which i already responded to.



Bing shows me (among others) these definitions of "child":
_
-the descendants of a family or people.
-a son or daughter of any age.
_


----------



## Ibcap (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Bing shows me (among others) these definitions of "child":
> _
> -the descendants of a family or people.
> -a son or daughter of any age._


The terms descendant or son/daughter are generally not used for fetuses. If a woman had a miscarriage they wouldnt put the fetus on a family tree or count it among their children unless theyre insane.


----------



## mikefor20 (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> You get a like just for the intelligent use of Adolf, Mike.
> 
> I hope you respond to what I wrote. However, I want to add a question: Are you of the opinion that abortions should be paid for by society? When I speak of child support I indirectly mean society (I didn´t want to make the argument too complex). If society can get off cheaper by finding the biological father, I am actually all for it.



Well, I don't really care who pays.  The medical profession is a racket anyway. They can't tell you what it costs until it's done??!  Fuck em.  I like doctors but the rest of it is shit. I am all for what's best for the child but it's not my child. Or my decision.  Nor is it yours.  The cost is irrelevant.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 13, 2020)

Ibcap said:


> The terms descendant or son/daughter are generally not used for fetuses. If a woman had a miscarriage they wouldnt put the fetus on a family tree or count it among their children unless theyre insane.


Because it would hurt. Children who die at birth are also sometimes missing from a family tree.
However, there are millions of women who call their children during pregnancy "my son" or "my daughter". Crazy, right?

You want to exclude the meaning of a word to validate your own view. Fine. Then just say "abortion kills offspring". Masturbation does not. You can only kill that which is alive.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> UltraSUPRA used the wrong word. "Killing babies" is incorrect. However "killing children" is correct. The word child does not have to refer to offspring between the ages e.g. 3-12. It can just describe the generational relationship, e.g. you will always be the child of your parents.
> Masturbating does not kill offspring, abortion does.


So it is a pointlessly broad term just like eating meat can mean the delicious leg of lamb I got from my neighbour's farm shop or, might as well bring back a thread favourite, the person I just sliced a chunk off? One that fails to fully describe a situation and it might even be said to potentially cause considerable confusion and invoke passions.

Looks like we need to get some more specific terminology involved, fortunately it looks like there is already some.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 13, 2020)

Dunno u talkin about. Lamb is meat. Human flesh is also meat.


----------



## mikefor20 (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Have you ever stopped to think about the rights of men? Your passionate responses do have some validity. However, there are women who have not worked a day in their life, got children from different men and live a life of child support. By your logic, they should not have a say about the topic child support.
> From a female perspective it is better to have 3 children from 3 different men than from the same one: 3 cash cows to milk instead of one. I would accept abortion rights (including 2 years after birth if desired) if there was no child support. This would make both genders think about mating choices more carefully.
> However, in a system that disadvantages males (child support, i.e. forced labor) I cannot support abortion.
> 
> ...




You wanted a response to this??  The money has nothing to do with it and the father's rights? LOL When the father can get knocked up the father can have a say.  Rapists try to get custody with that bullshit.   Anti abortion laws have resulted in disaster in the past.  Learn damn it!


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 13, 2020)

mikefor20 said:


> You wanted a response to this??  The money has nothing to do with it and the father's rights? LOL When the father can get knocked up the father can have a say.  Rapists try to get custody with that bullshit.   Anti abortion laws have resulted in disaster in the past.  Learn damn it!


Once women start paying child support they can have a say. [I know it exists, but it is extremely rare]
Child support and single-mother benefits have resulted in disaster. Learn damn it!


----------



## Ibcap (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Because it would hurt. Children who die at birth are also sometimes missing from a family tree.
> However, there are millions of women who call their children during pregnancy "my son" or "my daughter". Crazy, right?
> 
> You want to exclude the meaning of a word to validate your own view. Fine. Then just say "abortion kills offspring". Masturbation does not. You can only kill that which is alive.


No, im not excluding the meaning. Im using the commonly used definition of the word. I never brought up masturbation. The word child simply does not include fetuses. You can think that a fetus shouldnt be killed and thats an opinion, but if you say a fetus is a child thats factually untrue.

Oh btw, sperm is alive


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 13, 2020)

Ibcap said:


> No, im not excluding the meaning. Im using the commonly used definition of the word. I never brought up masturbation. The word child simply does not include fetuses. You can think that a fetus shouldnt be killed and thats an opinion, but if you say a fetus is a child thats factually untrue.


No, it is actually true. This definition exists and is common (millions of pregnant women use it for example). I showed you two definitions. One of them can be found in the common term "unborn child". Anyway I don´t want to discuss semantics. I already provided an alternative and explained why the equation with masturbation is incorrect.


----------



## mikefor20 (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Once women start paying child support they can have a say. [I know it exists, but it is extremely rare]
> Child support and single-mother benefits have resulted in disaster. Learn damn it!



Wow. This speaks volumes to your creed and character.  Women need to pay to have reproductive rights? Wow!  I understand. Those damn uppity women and thinking they matter! Bitch better have your money. Wow,  It's not common a man gets sole custody. They do if it's in the child's best interest. I know a few.  And you better believe the mom is on the hook for child support.


----------



## Ibcap (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> No, it is actually true. This definition exists and is common (millions of pregnant women use it for example). I showed you two definitions. One of them can be found in the common term "unborn child". Anyway I don´t want to discuss semantics. I already provided an alternative and explained why the equation with masturbation is incorrect.


No, you claimed i was excluding a meaning when I was using the common definition. Also your argument against masturbation (which btw again I never mentioned to begin with) is factually incorrect, sperm is alive.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 13, 2020)

Our ancestors stopped being single-cell organisms long time ago. At least mine did. Living things can reproduce (can make copies of themselves). Sperm needs an egg to reproduce though. It is partially alive.


----------



## Ibcap (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Our ancestors stopped being single-cell organisms long time ago. At least mine did. Living things can reproduce (can make copies of themselves). Sperm needs an egg to reproduce though. It is partially alive.


https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/are-sperm-alive/
"Since it can have a life of its own outside the body, each sperm is really an independent single-celled organism – like a living amoeba, but differing in locomotion and lifestyle."


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 13, 2020)

How long until a sperm turns into a reproduced version of yourself? Because it is a matter of months for an unborn child.

But sure, masturbation is mass murder. Than it is worse than COVID19. Ban porn! Mask refusal suddenly appears to be no big deal. The mostly old people would not have reproduced anyway. But man, those millions of sperm cell could potentially all reproduce.


----------



## Ibcap (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> How long until a sperm turns into a reproduced version of yourself? Because it is a matter of months for an unborn child.
> 
> But sure, masturbation is mass murder. Than it is worse than COVID19. Ban porn! Mask refusal suddenly appears to be no big deal. The mostly old people would not have reproduced anyway. But man, those millions of sperm cell could potentially all reproduce.


Like I said, the only argument is the "potential child" argument which you ended up shifting towards. Heres why that argument doesnt work, you have potential to create dozens of children but choose not to. I could argue that if you arent having a child right now youre depriving a potential kid of life exactly the same as you would aborting a fetus and it would be a logically consistent view.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 13, 2020)

Except that in one case the offspring is killed and in the other case the offspring does not exist.

By that logic Adolf killed at least 100mio of my people.

An unborn child is not a potential child. A potential child is a mental construct. An unborn child is a living, growing being with your DNA and the DNA of your spouse or significant other.


----------



## wiindsurf (Aug 13, 2020)

Baby and mother have a symbiotic relationship. The baby depends on the mother for survival. If she is not allowed to kill the baby, is she allowed to kill herself?
The baby will not become an independent unit of life until the mother goes through a lenghty process of nurturing, both biological and psycological, which culminates on the life threatening event that is delivery.
A woman must confront many challenges, and be confident in her physical and psychological abilities, as well as in her environment and support systems, before the process and outcome can be deemed desirable or even likely to be successful.
If there is a call for challenge, who are we to make these decisions on one's behalf? And isn't this call for challenge a form of natural selection?
There are many inherent risks that a woman must willingly accept before taking on such selfless challenge.
If you are willing to force a woman to deliver a baby against her will, and she dies in the process, are you prepared to take your own life as to answer in kind? If you say the odds are low for her to die, then the odds are low for you to die as well. Will you rise to that challenge?


----------



## Ibcap (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Except that in one case the offspring is killed and in the other case the offspring does not exist.
> 
> By that logic Adolf killed at least 100mio of my people.
> 
> An unborn child is not a potential child. A potential child is a mental construct. An unborn child is a living, growing being with your DNA and the DNA of your spouse or significant other.


In both the case of the potential child you could create but havent and the case of the fetus this potential child is currently non sentient, in one case because theyre a fetus and in the other because they havent been conceived. I would argue that is the single most important factor. A fetus isnt sentient so killing it isnt different from killing living sperm which could also become a child.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 13, 2020)

An unborn child is sentient. It depends what week we are talking about. Some pro-choice people advocate for the right to abortion until delivery. A person in a coma is also non-sentient or at least restricted in this aspect. But if we knew this person would wake up, we could not pull the plug. An unborn child usually will wake up, it is called being born.

Killing sperm is not the same as killing an unborn child. The unborn child (even in the earliest stages) has a unique DNA. It is a new life. Your sperm only carries your DNA and your DNA is only out of the race for existence once you do not reproduce and had your last ejaculation. The unborn child´s DNA is out of the race once you decide to abort it.

@wiindsurf: Is a single-mother on child support ready to die if her (or one of her) cash cows dies at work?
If a pregnant woman has an increased risk of dying from the pregnancy, abortion is usually the best choice.


----------



## wiindsurf (Aug 13, 2020)

Best choice? It sounds like you really know what's best for everyone.
Humans have been given two eyes, two ears and one mouth.
That may suggest one should observe more, listen more and perhaps talk less...
I will do so myself...


----------



## Ibcap (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> An unborn child is sentient. It depends what week we are talking about. Some pro-choice people advocate for the right to abortion until delivery. A person in a coma is also non-sentient or at least restricted in this aspect. But if we knew this person would wake up, we could not pull the plug. An unborn child usually will wake up, it is called being born.
> 
> Killing sperm is not the same as killing an unborn child. The unborn child (even in the earliest stages) has a unique DNA. It is a new life. Your sperm only carries your DNA and your DNA is only out of the race for existence once you do not reproduce and had your last ejaculation. The unborn child´s DNA is out of the race once you decide to abort it.


Your title had no stipulations about the week in which youre getting the abortion. I am pro choice but if you can provide me proof of a fetus being sentient at a specific week I would be against abortions at that point.

For people in a coma its a more complicated issue, if someone was in a coma and needed external help from someone else such as a lung transplant to survive it would absolutely be legal to not give them that lung and let them die in the same way it is legal for a woman to stop supporting a fetus that is relying on her. It would arguably be a dick move but no one is out protesting that it would be illegal to do so.

I fundamentally think your DNA rant is irrelevant. Heres an example, you say killing sperm isnt wrong because it has the same DNA as you but if you kill a fetus it has unique DNA. Lets focus on how you say the childs DNA is lost when its aborted. What if you had twins, is it ok to kill one of them because the other has the same DNA? Since you say sperm isnt special since it doesnt have unique DNA, those twins must not be either.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 13, 2020)

I am not saying killing sperm isn´t wrong. You cannot kill nor preserve it. Except freezing but then it is no longer alive (during that time).

I am fundamentally a person with libertarian views. If you want to kill your offspring, go ahead. If you are proud doing it, good for you. But in many current societies there is injustice in terms of rights between the sexes. In this situation I cannot be supportive of abortion as a "right" (just as men do not have the right to evade responsibility, even if they do not want the child). I just perceived an inconsistency when "conservatives" care so much about the unborn but very little about death resulting from not wearing a mask (and the other way around for "progressives"). I found that interesting. That´s all.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> An unborn child is sentient. It depends what week we are talking about. Some pro-choice people advocate for the right to abortion until delivery. A person in a coma is also non-sentient or at least restricted in this aspect. But if we knew this person would wake up, we could not pull the plug. An unborn child usually will wake up, it is called being born.
> 
> Killing sperm is not the same as killing an unborn child. The unborn child (even in the earliest stages) has a unique DNA. It is a new life. Your sperm only carries your DNA and your DNA is only out of the race for existence once you do not reproduce and had your last ejaculation. The unborn child´s DNA is out of the race once you decide to abort it.
> 
> ...


I am pro choice, along with finding it mandatory for mask. My reason?
It's for sake of humanity, for both the child, and the mother, regardless of the mother's health.
allow me to explain, if a women were to become pregnant, and fully aware that they cannot support the child, or that child would be miserable, that would be inhuman to bring that child into existence. You are guaranteeing it's circumstances to be horrid. Also what if a girl get's knocked up on accident (birth control failing or male protection failing), or raped? I honestly couldn't say with good faith that would be okay for that mother, Or child.
third reason is if they already know they are incapable of being a parent, and lack responsibility. There are people out there who just genuinely can't no matter how hard they try. they know their own limits, and a child could be one outside of it. Those individuals are trying to be responsible. There's a time and place for things, and conveniently the world likes bringing stuff at the wrong time and or place.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> An unborn child is sentient. It depends what week we are talking about. Some pro-choice people advocate for the right to abortion until delivery. A person in a coma is also non-sentient or at least restricted in this aspect. But if we knew this person would wake up, we could not pull the plug. An unborn child usually will wake up, it is called being born.
> 
> Killing sperm is not the same as killing an unborn child. The unborn child (even in the earliest stages) has a unique DNA. It is a new life. Your sperm only carries your DNA and your DNA is only out of the race for existence once you do not reproduce and had your last ejaculation. The unborn child´s DNA is out of the race once you decide to abort it.



So now we have gone from no way, to no way saving rape/incest, to presumably in case of serious risk to the host (ectopic pregnancy and the like), to the magic happens when the sperm meets the egg (unsure what goes for implantation, which is important as various contraceptives act after this point or could act after this point, to say nothing of implantation not happening every time anyway) but before that it is just chemicals, to until it is sentient (whatever that might be or whatever timeframe that is), do we have further modifiers for serious risk at later points?
Interesting.
Some advocates for abortion options do indeed presumably allow for it to be spiked while dilated and crowning, sliced up and vacuumed out, however is that likely to be anything other than a strawman argument or something worth specifying when discussing it? Generally accepted standards and practices in the places we are at is the order of the day.

That said so it is new life... why should I deem that inherently valuable (and presumably worth protecting, or otherwise objecting to the destruction of) and not just subjectively valuable depending upon context?

As far as a coma. One never really knows, however if it does not happen after so many [insert period] (will have to look it up, but hours is good, weeks is not but doable, months is very bad indeed. Percentages and outcomes all being very well documented) it tends not to and those vanishingly rare cases it does happen in they tend to be seriously brain damaged rather than just "needs to get a bit of muscle tone back and can't remember the events of the day".

"there is injustice in terms of rights between the sexes"
Certainly is, hope they get resolved. However to deny someone a right because of a legal inconsistency seems much akin to "someone robbed me so I shot someone else". One does not negate the other, and advocating as such does rather stand at odds with claims of being a libertarian (abridging someone else's rights tending to not go down so well in such circles).


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 13, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> So now we have gone from no way, to no way saving rape/incest[...]


Are you talking about me? I have not changed my position.
I maintain that I am against abortion rights in a world of forced child support. In an ideal society the government would leave both parents alone - even if the outcome is cruel. It would make for a better society (and for extreme cases religion kicks in, however, religious communities tend to shame unethical behavior more so than the state, which is good)


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Are you talking about me? I have not changed my position.
> I maintain that I am against abortion rights in a world of forced child support. In an ideal society the government would leave both parents alone - even if the outcome is cruel. It would make for a better society (and for extreme cases religion kicks in, however, religious communities tend to shame unethical behavior more so than the state, which is good)


Fair enough, however to in turn claim such a thing is a libertarian position does rather seem at odds with the general notions underpinning that -- abridging someone's rights as a kind of protest does rather seem to go against the value placed on rights in general, and if not advocating for then condoning religious interference (which is presumably acting as a state or something very akin to it in this scenario) is also on the more dubious side, the use of shame is an interesting one as well.


----------



## dAVID_ (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> More and more I question whether I live in a simulation.
> 
> When talking to people it seems I am the only person with consistent views: I am pro-life (except in extreme cases) and for mandatory mask-wearing in public.
> 
> ...


Consistency means different things for different people.

But oh well, I guess this is another abortion debate thread.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 14, 2020)

This is why I'm glad I don't live in Wisconsin, or use Zoom. This is also proof that the whole mask thing is a bunch of crap.


----------



## Seliph (Aug 14, 2020)

There is little to no correlation between abortion and wearing a mask. Odd connection to make.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 14, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> This is why I'm glad I don't live in Wisconsin, or use Zoom. This is also proof that the whole mask thing is a bunch of crap.


How does this demonstrate that mask usage is "a bunch of crap"?


----------



## omgcat (Aug 14, 2020)

Seliph said:


> There is little to no correlation between abortion and wearing a mask. Odd connection to make.




I'd abandon this thread, the creators are just sealioning. 
*
"Sealioning* (also spelled *sea-lioning* and *sea lioning*) is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of 'incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate' ". waaaaaay too much shift of goal posts and "but muh hypothetical". it's obvious the OP never intended on even thinking about shifting their opinion or worldview. it's just a thinly veiled attempt at pushing wedge issues to try to radicalize the forum.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 14, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> This is why I'm glad I don't live in Wisconsin, or use Zoom. This is also proof that the whole mask thing is a bunch of crap.


are... are you actually making mask political? (I prayed to god those kind of people didn't exist. oh no they do. then again thread op, so I already knew ig) but holy fuck, those kinds of people actually exist.
So doing a little digging, here lies the reason for the move. Since many people are not following wearing a mask, they have to be like adults and tell the children (public) to follow the example as a kneejerk move since a lot of states are going back up in cases for those that either didn't listen, or reopened too soon. Masks save lives, and they do help. It's not bullshit. They do work. But since a some percent of people are morons and not following procedures to prevent spread, we need to be treated like children and see an example. Is it stupid? kinda. can it work? if done correctly, this move can help.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 14, 2020)

I'm just gonna take one part of this.





monkeyman4412 said:


> Masks save lives, and they do help. It's not bullshit. They do work.


Hydroxychloroquine saves lives, and it does help. It's not bullcrap. It does work.


----------



## Ibcap (Aug 14, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I'm just gonna take one part of this.
> Hydroxychloroquine saves lives, and it does help. It's not bullcrap. It does work.


Lets say thats true. Unless you think it has a 100% success rate and theres never any permanent damage, wouldnt it be beneficial to ALSO wear masks? Or are masks a liberal conspiracy to brainwash you.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 14, 2020)

Ibcap said:


> Lets say thats true. Unless you think it has a 100% success rate and theres never any permanent damage, wouldnt it be beneficial to ALSO wear masks? Or are masks a liberal conspiracy to brainwash you.


Both.

I'm not denying that masks help. I'm saying that they shouldn't be mandatory. Everybody is going to get the Coronavirus, anyway.

As for the conspiracy part, did you see the thing that Biden said about how he wants a country-wide mask mandate that lasts until the election? Quite interesting, isn't it? Clearly, he wants us to continue living in this dystopia until then so that everyone will blame Trump for it and vote for the guy that wasn't the president during China's subtle reign of terror.


----------



## Ibcap (Aug 14, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Both.
> 
> I'm not denying that masks help. I'm saying that they shouldn't be mandatory. Everybody is going to get the Coronavirus, anyway.
> 
> As for the conspiracy part, did you see the thing that Biden said about how he wants a country-wide mask mandate that lasts until the election? Quite interesting, isn't it? Clearly, he wants us to continue living in this dystopia until then so that everyone will blame Trump for it and vote for the guy that wasn't the president during China's subtle reign of terror.


How is everyone wearing masks a dystopia? In Japan everyone is wearing a mask and they have a tiny fraction of the amount of deaths we have per capita despite being a much denser population. If everyone in the US was wearing them it would probably help Trump, because part of the reason his support is tanking is that the US is failing in its response to the virus. Masks would prevent that.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 14, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I'm just gonna take one part of this.
> Hydroxychloroquine saves lives, and it does help. It's not bullcrap. It does work.


evidence /reality says it doesn't. Multiple studies have come inconclusive (aka does nothing) and or, actually makes it worse for the person in some instances. Science is fact, if it can't be replicated (aka hydroxcy's supposed effect that it helps with corona virus), then it's not a fact. Masks are scientifically proven to work. it's possible to replicate and have the same outcome, depending on the mask type, it either prevents spread getting into the air (surgical masks, aka what most people use) or filters the air. hydroxy in so many tests doesn't meet that bar, it's completely inconsistent, most of the time doing nothing, and that's what most studies say it does, it does nothing or makes it worse. So we can say it's a fact that it doesn't work. No discussion on this. either your a moron for throwing out the mass volume of it from sources most people trust and have a strong history of accurate studies, effectively ignoring reality. Or your a sane person, realizing what actually is fact. (which is hydroxy is bullshit)
the fact I have to argue this is beyond retarded


----------



## JaapDaniels (Aug 14, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Yes, but we are not Sweden. As of now, there are three options I see in the United States:
> 
> Masks
> Shutdown
> ...


well i don't see any correlation to it helping the numbers either, at best it's doing excactly nothing so far.
that's what i tried telling you.
it's a hoax that it's helping, it might though being able to help if people start understanding how it really works.
i see you've missed the point there aswell: it's not designed to protect the wearer, it's designed to protect everyone else.
since the only proof ever came from a study in a fake setting to show there were less dropples passing the mask it only ever showed that only not while wearing but by using a setup to simulate it.
there is not ever been any real proof of it actually stopping spreading of the virus, not by any research based on science.
it's like a religion: you either on the believers side and stick to that, or you don't.
that being said i say it shouldn't be pushed on enforced, just like i don't like any other religion being forced on me.
no proof means no reason to enforce get your proof first!
it's about half a year in and there is still not done any real research in what helped and what not.
we are all screaming in fear of this deadly virus telling each other empty storier about how we could do more to stop the virus.
it's about time we start looking deeper in the statistics on what helped and what not, there is enough shit used around the world now to be able to see what helped, and masks were no answer that showed any positive numbers so far.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 14, 2020)

JaapDaniels said:


> well i don't see any correlation to it helping the numbers either, at best it's doing excactly nothing so far.
> that's what i tried telling you.
> it's a hoax that it's helping, it might though being able to help if people start understanding how it really works.
> i see you've missed the point there aswell: it's not designed to protect the wearer, it's designed to protect everyone else.
> ...


https://www.healthline.com/health/cold-flu/mask
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/4...s-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent
religion. Are really going to call it religion. I guess gravity is a religion, I guess entropy is also a religion, just like how that same "religion" proved that dna exists. Hell I guess the earth is definitely not round if your going to call this a "religion" vs religion. Oh wait, no, it's not a religion, it's called fucking science.
ALSO did I forget to mention that the corona-virus alone has killed more than 50,000 thousand people?!
to put that into perspective that's about 50 9/11s
but suuuure, keep ignoring it, just let the death toll and case count go up


----------



## JaapDaniels (Aug 15, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> https://www.healthline.com/health/cold-flu/mask
> https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/4...s-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent
> religion. Are really going to call it religion. I guess gravity is a religion, I guess entropy is also a religion, just like how that same "religion" proved that dna exists. Hell I guess the earth is definitely not round if your going to call this a "religion" vs religion. Oh wait, no, it's not a religion, it's called fucking science.
> ALSO did I forget to mention that the corona-virus alone has killed more than 50,000 thousand people?!
> ...


Studies show masks may help in some cases, doesn't sound really like a peptalk.
yes i see there's science proofing a mask may help. there is also science it might not.
the science you see as science here is no more than marketing science.
it's no more science then those nightcreme's that help you get less rimples, feel youthfull.
proof is supposed to mean numbers, and the numbers say maybe, maybe not.
you say opinion is science but it ain't it's no more the speculations no mather who's telling.
i see the fucking deathrate, screaming that over and over again in my face doesn't change a thing.
i want proof of the fucking mask changing the numbers of deathrates by the virus , no proof in the numbers that it changes things is like ernie talking about the banana in ear helps against crocodiles.
i hear doctors and virus experts contradict each other over and over again, come with proof, you should fucking have it by now.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 15, 2020)

JaapDaniels said:


> Studies show masks may help in some cases, doesn't sound really like a peptalk.
> yes i see there's science proofing a mask may help. there is also science it might not..


Going to cut through your bullshit since clearly you want a dishonest discussion. Let me ask you a fundamental question, how many of those studies say that mask help, and how many of them say they don't? Second, what is the sources of those studies that say masks don't work. Is it from someone who has a interest and control over that study? Or does that source have a history of accurate reporting
Until you answer those questions, I'm not going to discuss this any further. As I am already beginning to believe you must of skipped science class in high school.


----------



## JaapDaniels (Aug 15, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Going to cut through your bullshit since clearly you want a dishonest discussion. Let me ask you a fundamental question, how many of those studies say that mask help, and how many of them say they don't? Second, what is the sources of those studies that say masks don't work. Is it from someone who has a interest and control over that study? Or does that source have a history of accurate reporting
> Until you answer those questions, I'm not going to discuss this any further. As I am already beginning to believe you must of skipped science class in high school.


i did ask for your numbers first, as far as i see it now the so called "doctor might get money back for his stock in masks. i want proof, and proof will not ever be in context with "i believe that in same (extreme rare) cases this could ectually help"
if your mechanic in the village sells this cheap renault for $3000,-  saying: i believe that in some cases this car might actually run, would you still buy that car?


----------



## andeers (Aug 15, 2020)

I think you are trying to force answers by calling 'consistent' people that thinks like you, and giving consistency a good meaning. A person can be very consistent about bad stuff too. In my case, I'm with the pro choice line of thoughts, and also think you should wear a mask to prevent the projection of what you cough and sneeze and also protect you.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 15, 2020)

There is a logical consistency to most things people do, if you can find the level on which they are consistent.

Most of the hysteria around the virus, masks, and comparing these two things to other things is an attempt to harm one's enemies, or aid one's friends. Attributions of hypocrisy (which is synonymous with evil these days), holiness, correctness, cleanliness, or what have you is an attempt to create a doctrine or system of logic where one's side can only win, and the enemy's side can only lose.

Consistency in the realm of the purely physical, objective reality (provided you don't doubt the existence of it, or one's ability to accurately and precisely perceive it) is not a factor in most people's behaviors regarding the subject. However they aren't irrational; they're rational - or rather, optimized - on the political and social levels, rather than the physical one.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 15, 2020)




----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 22, 2020)

The WHO said that a working vaccine won't be enough and we can never go back to normal. Thoughts?


----------



## notimp (Aug 22, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


>


Corona gets spread if you are in close proximity to someone who has it, for about 15 minutes (at that mark transmission chance becomes high), more so if you arent outside (wind).

Most corona infections (again to have it go exponential its enough if one person infects three others) are transmitted within families.

While this is the first time I'm hearing that large protests with people not wearing masks statistically are not shown to spread the virus ( https://www.latimes.com/science/sto...tle-evidence-that-protests-spread-coronavirus ) you making this a 'conspiracy' is unresponsible.

In church the entire experience is centered around you singing, embracing the person next to you, staying at the same place for an hour, indoors, eating something the priest touched with his bare hands, ... and people reacting very emotional, when you try to change any of that.

The other story is a tentative 'it is strange, but we didn't see spikes in new infections after mass protests, we have to look into it'.


> In what’s considered the first systematic look at the question, a team of economists determined that only one of 13 cities involved in the earliest wave of protests after Memorial Day had an increase that would fit the pattern.



Complain to god, that this is the way it is - dont blame a conspiracy.


----------



## Coto (Aug 22, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The WHO said that a working vaccine won't be enough and we can never go back to normal. Thoughts?



WHO (OMS here in Chile) is known to be a terrorist organization over here. They declared a day earlier along HRW, a Human Rights violation in Beirut, Lebanon, then a day after the bombing took place. If you check the dates (October 17th), a year before, 2019 they tried to declare the same thing on said city. Chile, October 18th of 2019 was the target of the same WHO / HRW accusations when we militia went onto fight back the, back then Antifa- Sao Paulo Forum people in disguise people taking over (through hate speech and death treats anybody opposing them) the entire chilean country.

A year later, Chile is moving towards a new constitution (new country, Venezuela-like tactic) and these terrorists have taken an entire region (Región de la Araucanía), the government is working over for them and we will have to take over Chile once again.

The problem? HRW soldiers, most of them Chinese, are hidden in Argentinian bases. Not to mention the economy here and an absurd amount of foreigners have over-saturated Chile's economy and means to recover from it. Also it's known the entire foreigner's population (HRW enabled human trafficking laws) to vote in favor of said new constitution.

So yeah, a civil war is on it's way here, and we've got the Latin America communist party (something like the entire latin american terrorists) and the HRW soldiers taking over Chile. But you will never hear anything about that.

Oh also our terrorist president made Chile to go against USA in the latest IDB meeting:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-latam-usa-bank-idUSKCN2572P5

So yeah at this point I would rather kick some asses and then ask USA for cooperation. Because our president is hot garbage and a traitor to us.

Apologies if it's a bit off-topic.


----------



## Viri (Aug 22, 2020)

I'll still never forget how when that black guy got killed, the media all but dropped the COV-19 pandemic from the news. It's like it was completely forgotten about. I was laughing about it with my friends how they just stopped talking about it. Then a few weeks later, after the riots died down, and the second wave hit, BAM suddenly everyone in the media spoke about COV-19.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 22, 2020)

+1 for safe behaviors or environments
-1 for the opposite

0 means average risk lower numbers = higher risk, larger numbers = lower risk

Protests outside:
Large gatherings -1
Wind and large airflow/air volume +1
people wearing masks some times -.5
marches moving people miles +1
it's a march/protest so no shared surfaces +1
total: 1.5

worship inside:
large gatherings -1
singing in enclosed spaces -1
lack of large airflow or air volume moving -1
people who go out of there way to worship during a ban probably only wear masks sometimes -.5
recycled air from AC without medical grade filters -1
spending potentially HOURS in the same enclosed area -1
shared touched surfaces such as door knobs, tithing plates, benches/pews -1

total: -6.5

like how is this even a comparison?


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 22, 2020)

There are Chinese soldiers in Argentina?




Viri said:


> I'll still never forget how when that black guy got killed, the media all but dropped the COV-19 pandemic from the news.


An incredible amount of doctors and virologists suddenly showed empathy for gatherings.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 22, 2020)

omgcat said:


> +1 for safe behaviors or environments
> -1 for the opposite
> 
> 0 means average risk lower numbers = higher risk, larger numbers = lower risk
> ...


The first amendment gives us the right to freedom of religious expression.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 22, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The first amendment gives us the right to freedom of religious expression.



except for the 100+ years of case law saying otherwise. it's why churches have to follow fire codes and other health safety codes. the law is not on your side in this.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 22, 2020)

omgcat said:


> except for the 100+ years of case law saying otherwise. it's why churches have to follow fire codes and other health safety codes. the law is not on your side in this.


Constitutional violations?
I mean, I get the fire codes, but everybody gets sick. That shouldn't stop people from worshipping God.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 22, 2020)

it is not a constitutional violation, the supreme court has already ruled on it in the past. worship god from home.

It is legal on the grounds that it is temporary and does not single out any single religion or place of worship.

my local church down the street is doing zoom meetings just fine.


----------



## TimPV3 (Aug 22, 2020)

I'm so proud of everyone for not falling for OPs bullshit. Trying to compare wearing a mask over your mouth and nose while in public, to getting an unwanted lifelong commitment and 9-month tumor removed from your body is hilarious. Let's compare farting in an elevator to burning down a building because they both make you a big meanie head.

Nobody here watches cable news, let alone gives a shit about the media reporting on Covid. The data is easily and freely available online without any spin that CNN or Fox News want to throw on it.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 22, 2020)

TimPV3 said:


> I'm so proud of everyone for not falling for OPs bullshit. Trying to compare wearing a mask over your mouth and nose while in public, to getting an unwanted lifelong commitment and 9-month tumor removed from your body is hilarious. Let's compare farting in an elevator to burning down a building because they both make you a big meanie head.


I was not making a comparison of quantity/intensity but of quality/morality.
Ask your mother when you stopped being a tumor. I could call this comparison of yours bullshit as well, but on some level you are correct. 

@Mods: I think all positions have been exchanged. The thread can be closed, but I also don´t mind if it continues as a general COVID19 thread for a while. Up to you [plural].


----------



## Viri (Aug 22, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> An incredible amount of doctors and virologists suddenly showed empathy for gatherings.


I pretty much threw my hands on the air saying to my self "What the fuck?!" we were told for months, NO SOCIAL GATHERINGS, and suddenly a bunch of people and the media threw that shit out the window. It was pretty surreal and funny.


----------



## notimp (Aug 22, 2020)

Viri said:


> I pretty much threw my hands on the air saying to my self "What the fuck?!" we were told for months, NO SOCIAL GATHERINGS, and suddenly a bunch of people and the media threw that shit out the window. It was pretty surreal and funny.



Funny is code for 'we can hate on it'.

But is it really that hard to understand?

- No mass social gatherings is a top down societal demand. Its anti social in some cases its dehumanizing, but you do it for a bigger goal (not to have Covid-19 spread exponentially).

Then societal pressures build. Then an event happens where all of the pent up anger erupts, people go out on the street and just 'discharge' (no work, increasing worries, no clear image about the future, ...)

- Protests happen.

And you bunch of three heckling rabbits have nothing better to do than to pepe the frog meme "find it funny" how first, authority figures said one thing, but then they also had to acknowledge how not everyone was doing what they were demanding?

And you freaking nit a 'unfair' conspiracy against us story out of it, because both events show incongruency of some power you seem to wanna fight, even though your political fraction is in power right now.
--

Lets give you some perspective. In my country we didn't have Jim Crow rememberence demonstrations, because our police doesnt regularly kill people by stomping on them.

We also had demonstrations, but the only ones demonstrating were extreme right nutters, that were protesting the end of democracy, while babling something about, the economy was supposed to collapse five years ago into camera, and warning people not to take vaccinations.

The reaction was the same muted empathy for those gatherings. Although most people rolled their eyes, we didnt say sh*t because it was understood, that this were people venting frustrations.

The same concept I can see every day when I use public transport. People there are 'forced' to wear masks. If they don't you get kicked out. Some people made it a custom to wear them with their noses hanging out - either because they are utter morons believing in the same nonsense you are spewing all day, or because they were fed up and used that to show it.

Societal reaction was - to do nothing about it. Dont talk to those people, dont remind them to wear their masks normally, nothing. About four months in the public transport company made a PR tape (audio) to remind people, to also keep their noses in, but we didnt say anything - because we understood - that those actions symbolized either stupidity or frustration.

But NEVER - did any of the people I've seen throughout it sink to the lows of classifying this as

surreal and funny.

Because it isnt. And if you make it out to be, just to have another vehicle to knife against public action that forced another result that didnt match. I suggest you stop laughing and start thinking about not everyone seeing it as a 'failure of government' if resentment against restricting demands is voiced after a while.

If in the US the only people that did that were the same far right nut jobs as in my country - you wouldnt have found it funny, you would have protected those people in argument.

So can we please just have a moment to acknowledge, that such a public reaction is expected and met with understanding and even empathy. And that this is not a thing to draw party lines through.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 22, 2020)




----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 22, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The WHO said that a working vaccine won't be enough and we can never go back to normal. Thoughts?


I can't be bothered to verify that or not but assuming it is the case

I would want numbers on what goes, as I do with everything, before going further there.

I imagine by now we have at least reasonable estimates for infection rates, infectiousness and outcomes (death, serious and otherwise) at various ages and comorbidities (seemingly unhealthy people, immunocompromised, fat people and old people, haven't seen much more on young via cytokine storm though some mentioned it, and obviously we don't know what late stage things there might be a la those fun cancers in late life for one time polio patients), 
We have reasonable economic impact estimates for various things, and cost of implementation of measures, and economics cuts the other way too -- bad economy, more people dining upon a bullet, more people knocking their partner/kids around, different seeking of services...
We have something like an estimate for what mitigation methods have. Probably also what tracking options there might be in some places (South Korea having some fun stuff where luddites in the rest of the world have a harder time before the chains become too long)
Vaccine efficacy rate. Production rate (some vaccines are harder to produce than others, even more so if you skip eggs and the like and have to go for harder). Deployment rate and likely deployment percentages (watching all the usual suspects the anti vax set have laid the groundwork for a while now, plus you will have the random religious groups and I don't see them doing something like they did for the other ones they wiped out in deepest, darkest Africa and Asia).
How mutation prone the virus appears to be. Anything can mutate but I have not seen anything yet saying this is like HIV, the common cold or even the flu where annual strains is a thing.
Whether herd immunity or transmission rate will drop when infected percentage (assuming the few months and your antibodies are gone is not in play like some suspected) and vaccinated percentage reaches critical levels such that average number of infected by each patient drops to near 0, and what costs will be to get there.

Acceptable rates of death and serious infection relative to freedoms and economics and risk then becomes the order of the day.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 23, 2020)




----------



## notimp (Aug 23, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> View attachment 222468 View attachment 222469
> 
> "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."


Tryhard.. 

But yes, in a sense... 



UltraSUPRA said:


>


Issue with that philosophy is, that if everyone does it in aggregate you get exponential spreading again. As individual philosophy: fine - as blueprint for general behavior: not.


----------



## RandomUser (Aug 23, 2020)

omgcat said:


> it's a march/protest so no shared surfaces +1


That is wrong, everyone in the protest that marches has to walk on the same ground that the people in front of them walked on, so yes it is shared surface


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 24, 2020)




----------



## notimp (Aug 24, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> View attachment 222633


Where?

Economy is dead after three, four months of lockdown. Thats a pretty sure indicator that whatever that guy phantasizes doest come into existence.

That said looking at how the entire propagation in the US is entirely out of control 'some' sort of measures in the US will be likely in highly affected areas (i.e. cities), until the vaccine arrives. But curfews dont qualify as that.

Could you think before posting flipping twitter agitations without context, and without link? WIthout date.

You even found a way to trick this forum. We cant respond to your nonsense easily, because you will only use attachments, that dont show up in quotes. (Post images in imgur, then link them, then they do show up.)


Here, as late response to your 'its so unfair' protests are allowed, but church congregations are not posting:
https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-study-reveals-how-most-germans-get-infected/a-54659651


----------



## omgcat (Aug 25, 2020)

locking down would have worked if our country wasn't full of mouth breathing knuckle draggers who don't follow basic protocols. all because wearing a mask is to hard i guess. other countries have been handling this just fine, and their economies are much better. the anti-intellectualism has gotten so far out of control.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 25, 2020)

omgcat said:


> locking down would have worked if our country wasn't full of mouth breathing knuckle draggers who don't follow basic protocols. all because wearing a mask is to hard i guess. other countries have been handling this just fine, and their economies are much better. the anti-intellectualism has gotten so far out of control.


Sweden did nothing.

Also, most states with high rates are left states.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 26, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Also, most states with high rates are left states.


ah yes, the blue state of Texas Florida and Arizona and Georgia, and Oklahoma, and Tennessee , who definitely aren't have a total case count higher or equal to the case count of  other democratic states. That ain't looking so good chief.
And as a state governor you can only do so much until you ask the federal government for help...
which the president said f you for about 4 months and then only cared when it started hitting actual red states.
Sweden doesn't matter, sweeden is not the united states. And most other countries handled it better and already normally running. We, are not, if you want further evidence, look to the EU ban on the United States regarding flights.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 26, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Sweden did nothing.
> 
> Also, most states with high rates are left states.



sweden's death rate per 100k people is worse than ours. their case fatality rate is 6%. so if everyone in sweden caught the virus, 6% will die at this rate. the USA's rate is 3.1%, but sure lets open up fully and double our death rate.

The stats are skewed, places with higher population density and international travel hubs got hit hard early (left states).

remember when there was going to be a coronavirus task force lead by jared kushner, who decided to do nothing because it was only blue states that were getting fucked in the beginning? I remember.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 26, 2020)

omgcat said:


> sweden's death rate per 100k people is worse than ours. their case fatality rate is 6%. so if everyone in sweden caught the virus, 6% will die at this rate. the USA's rate is 3.1%, but sure lets open up fully and double our death rate.


You've gotta crack a few eggs to make a giant freedom omelet.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 26, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> You've gotta crack a few eggs to make a giant freedom omelet.



those eggs are peoples lives, what the fuck. wasn't this whole thread started with the argument that pre-born lives are important and shouldn't be destroyed; but regular lives are ok to just throw away like trash?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 26, 2020)

omgcat said:


> those eggs are peoples lives, what the fuck.


At this point, no lives can be saved.
Besides, when it comes down to it, you're either picking the side that risks the lives of old people in exchange for freedom...or the side that massacred old people while stripping away our freedoms.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 26, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> At this point, no lives can be saved.
> Besides, when it comes down to it, you're either picking the side that risks the lives of old people in exchange for freedom...or the side that massacred old people while stripping away our freedoms.



OR we listen to fucking science and don't needlessly throw away lives.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 26, 2020)

omgcat said:


> OR we listen to fucking science and don't needlessly throw away lives.


Why don't you list off some of those potential cures that you were talking about in the Hydroxychloroquine thread?


----------



## omgcat (Aug 26, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Why don't you list off some of those potential cures that you were talking about in the Hydroxychloroquine thread?



it's not worth the time, you will move the goal post and refuse sources because they don't back up your worldview. you are clearly sea-lioning, asking for info and then ignoring it when presented. you argue in bad faith. there is no point.

the definition of sea-lioning: A subtle form of trolling involving "bad-faith" questions. You disingenuously frame your conversation as a sincere request to be enlightened, placing the burden of educating you entirely on the other party. If your bait is successful, the other party may engage, painstakingly laying out their logic and evidence in the false hope of helping someone learn. In fact you are attempting to harass or waste the time of the other party, and have no intention of truly entertaining their point of view. Instead, you react to each piece of information by misinterpreting it or requesting further clarification, ad nauseum.


----------



## nashismo (Aug 26, 2020)

Pro abortion say: is my body! I do "whatever I want with my body".

Then I say, then I could simply take your heart out with my bare hands ala Kano, because you know I can do "whatever I want with my body".

Argument is demolished, you can do whatever you want in life and with your body, but the consecuences are real and you cannot escape them, specially when you murder/abort someone.

Covid19 is a fake virus, see my post on exosomes.

The end. Do not discuss me, I am like God, I do not change my "opinion".

Also, poll is ridiculous.


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 26, 2020)

nashismo said:


> Covid19 is a fake virus,


Lol what? How is it fake?


----------



## omgcat (Aug 27, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> Lol what? How is it fake?



imagine thinking that a virus whose genome has been independently sequenced by over 50 countries is fake. he should probably lay off the crack pipe.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 27, 2020)

nashismo said:


> Pro abortion say: is my body! I do "whatever I want with my body".
> 
> Then I say, then I could simply take your heart out with my bare hands ala Kano, because you know I can do "whatever I want with my body".
> 
> ...


While this is obviously satire, I actually do agree with the part on abortion. It's an argument that I would never have thought of, and perhaps it's a bit ridiculous, but it works.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 27, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> While this is obviously satire, I actually do agree with the part on abortion. It's an argument that I would never have thought of, and perhaps it's a bit ridiculous, but it works.



That argument presupposes that a fetus is a person, legally they are not. the 14th amendment states "the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "*right to privacy*" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether or not to have an *abortion*.". this means that any leaking of information that someone is even getting an abortion is a privacy issue. although i would be OK with making *everyone*'s medical records public if the anti-abortionists want to move that way.

Abortion is also protected by the religious freedom act as it is part of a religious ritual. https://announcement.thesatanictemple.com/rrr-campaign41280784

The government does not get to pick and choose which religions are "real" or "fake" because of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.


*The First Amendment and RFRA:*
*The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause and several state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA) “protects religious practices and beliefs from government interference.”*

*State Law:*
*State laws governing abortions commonly serve no medical purpose and *
*do not result in better health outcomes. Therefore, they unlawfully hinder access to the Satanic abortion ritual.*


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 27, 2020)

omgcat said:


> That argument presupposes that a fetus is a person, legally they are not. the 14th amendment states "the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "*right to privacy*" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether or not to have an *abortion*.". this means that any leaking of information that someone is even getting an abortion is a privacy issue. although i would be OK with making *everyone*'s medical records public if the anti-abortionists want to move that way.
> 
> Abortion is also protected by the religious freedom act as it is part of a religious ritual. https://announcement.thesatanictemple.com/rrr-campaign41280784
> 
> ...


Except Satanism is a cult, not a religion.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 27, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Except Satanism is a cult, not a religion.



The government does not get to make that distinction, we don't call Mormons or Jehova's witnesses a cult. This was already tested in court. The right to the abortion ritual *CANNOT* be infringed, it is protected by the constitution.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 27, 2020)

omgcat said:


> The government does not get to make that distinction, we don't call Mormons or Jehova's witnesses a cult. This was already tested in court. The right to the abortion ritual *CANNOT* be infringed, it is protected by the constitution.


So Muslims can kill us?


----------



## omgcat (Aug 27, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So Muslims can kill us?



why would Muslims kill us?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 27, 2020)

omgcat said:


> why would Muslims kill us?


Jihad.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 27, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Jihad.



where in the Quran does it say that killing Americans is a ritual?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 27, 2020)

omgcat said:


> where in the Quran does it say that killing Americans is a ritual?


Not Americans, Christians.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 27, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Not Americans, Christians.



where in the Quran does it say that killing Christians is a ritual?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 27, 2020)

omgcat said:


> where in the Quran does it say that killing Christians is a ritual?


I'll need an actual Muslim to take over for me.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 27, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I'll need an actual Muslim to take over for me.



It's obvious you know just as much about the bible and Christianity as you do the Quran and Muslims. Maybe don't shoot bullshit out of your mouth. If you are going to make a claim, back it up, don't slander entire fucking religious groups by claiming they are murderers.


----------



## Haloman800 (Aug 27, 2020)

Abortion is the killing of an unborn, healthy, human child. In some jurisdictions (New York State), you can kill this child up until the moment of birth (when they are fully viable and able to survive outside of the mother's body).

Abortion _is_ murder, there's no way around this.

Regarding masks, I'm totally fine with property owners (businesses or individuals) mandating it, but government shouldn't.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 27, 2020)

Haloman800 said:


> Abortion is the killing of an unborn, healthy, human child. In some jurisdictions (New York State), you can kill this child up until the moment of birth (when they are fully viable and able to survive outside of the mother's body).
> 
> Abortion _is_ murder, there's no way around this.
> 
> Regarding masks, I'm totally fine with property owners (businesses or individuals) mandating it, but government shouldn't.



Where in the US legal code is abortion murder? what clause or article do you have to back up your claim?

also, when someone undergoes IVF, they normally fertilize 10+ eggs which are then discarded when not needed. is that murder as well?


----------



## Haloman800 (Aug 27, 2020)

omgcat said:


> Where in the US legal code is abortion murder? what clause or article do you have to back up your claim?


Murder in the moral and in the factual sense, not in the legal sense. Slavery was also legal, it doesn't make it morally correct.

In addition, legally it's murder because if a person kills a pregnant woman, it's a double homicide.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 27, 2020)

Haloman800 said:


> Murder in the moral and in the factual sense, not in the legal sense. Slavery was also legal, it doesn't make it morally correct.
> 
> In addition, legally it's murder because if a person kills a pregnant woman, it's a double homicide.


so we moved the goal-post again. using ambiguous language is disingenuous and a bad argument. Slavery is still legal in the united states by the way, because of the 13th amendment. maybe we should be focusing on people who are alive, instead of people who are only semi-alive. “Neither *slavery* nor involuntary servitude, *except as a punishment for crime* whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” makes you wonder why we have a school to prison pipeline in the USA for blacks.


----------



## Haloman800 (Aug 27, 2020)

omgcat said:


> so we moved the goal-post again. using ambiguous language is disingenuous and a bad argument. Slavery is still legal in the united states by the way, because of the 13th amendment. maybe we should be focusing on people who are alive, instead of people who are only semi-alive. “Neither *slavery* nor involuntary servitude, *except as a punishment for crime* whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” makes you wonder why we have a school to prison pipeline in the USA for blacks.



The government doesn't define what is moral, they only define what you can and cannot do in society. Even by your own faulty definition, I gave you a clear example of how abortion is murder.

Tell me why you think it's OK to kill innocent children?


----------



## omgcat (Aug 27, 2020)

Haloman800 said:


> The government doesn't define what is moral, they only define what you can and cannot do in society. Even by your own faulty definition, I gave you a clear example of how abortion is murder.
> 
> Tell me why you think it's OK to kill innocent children?



YOU think it is a child. I do not think it is a child until born. what gives you the right to make that distinction? My wife almost died to an ectopic pregnancy a couple years ago. we were using both a condom and the IUD, but got unlucky. some states are trying to pass laws that would deem my wife and her doctor a murderer. Even if she wasn't going to die, she gets to decide what happens with her body, NO ONE ELSE DOES, not me, not the government. 

Everyone is so concerned about the child's life until it's born, then it's "lets send them to fucking school so they can get sick and die in a hospital of a preventable infection." or "fuck those people who need food stamps to feed their child, the children deserve to starve because they shouldn't have had kids, but are not allowed to abort."


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 27, 2020)

omgcat said:


> YOU think it is a child. I do not think it is a child until born. what gives you the right to make that distinction?


Child or not, it's still a human.


----------



## Haloman800 (Aug 27, 2020)

omgcat said:


> YOU think it is a child. I do not think it is a child until born. what gives you the right to make that distinction?


In your opinion, at what point does the unborn human become a child?


----------



## omgcat (Aug 27, 2020)

Haloman800 said:


> In your opinion, at what point does the unborn human become a child?



Once it survives the birth unaided. remember that child that was born without 95% of it's brain and needed to be on life support? not a child. Do you support universal care for children, and guaranteed food? if not you are a hypocrite that is trying to control women's bodies, you do not actually care for the children.


----------



## Haloman800 (Aug 27, 2020)

omgcat said:


> Once it survives the birth unaided. remember that child that was born without 95% of it's brain and needed to be on life support? not a child. Do you support universal care for children, and guaranteed food? if not you are a hypocrite that is trying to control women's bodies, you do not actually care for the children.


Therefore, according to your logic, after 6-7 months, if an abortion is performed, it's murder. Do you agree then, that laws in New York State which allow abortions at 9 months should be overturned?


----------



## omgcat (Aug 27, 2020)

Haloman800 said:


> Therefore, according to your logic, after 6-7 months, if an abortion is performed, it's murder. Do you agree then, that laws in New York State which allow abortions at 9 months should be overturned?



Did the fetus make it out of the woman's body and survive unaided? if yes, it is. I support late term abortions because the VAST majority are for still-births and significant complications. according to the CDC less than 1.3% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks. 9 months is 39+ weeks.
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

but sure, go ahead and keep arguing without backing anything with stats or references.


----------



## Haloman800 (Aug 27, 2020)

omgcat said:


> Did the fetus make it out of the woman's body and survive unaided? if yes, it is. I support late term abortions because the VAST majority are for still-births and significant complications. according to the CDC less than 1.3% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks. 9 months is 39+ weeks.
> https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm


Again, nothing magical happens when the fetus passes the birth canal. The child is human, and alive, before birth and after birth.

"Unaided". By your logic, a human born via cesarean section can be killed because it wasn't born "unaided".


----------



## omgcat (Aug 27, 2020)

Haloman800 said:


> Again, nothing magical happens when the fetus passes the birth canal. The child is human, and alive, before birth and after birth.
> 
> "Unaided". By your logic, a human born via cesarean section can be killed because it wasn't born "unaided".



"Did the fetus *make it out of the woman's body and survive unaided*?"

work on your reading comprehension, nowhere did i state birth canal.

is the fetus inside the woman? abortion A'ok

is the fetus braindead, already dead, or SIGNIFICANTLY malformed? Abortion A'ok

has the child exited the woman's body through vaginal birth or C-section and is responding normally? Abortion not ok.


----------



## Haloman800 (Aug 27, 2020)

omgcat said:


> "Did the fetus make it out of the woman's body and survive *unaided*?"
> 
> work on your reading comprehension, nowhere did i state birth canal.


"UNAIDED"
You cannot exit through cesarean section unaided. By your logic, they aren't human and can be dismembered, skulls crushed and ripped apart.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 27, 2020)

Haloman800 said:


> "UNAIDED"
> You cannot exit through cesarean section unaided. By your logic, they aren't human and can be dismembered, skulls crushed and ripped apart.



unaided indicates breathing machines, dialysis, heart pumps, ect. My opinion is that this follows the same logic as an incapacitated adult that has no chance of recovering, for example terri schiavo. like imagine your wife gives birth to a brain dead  child, and you are not allowed to end its life. you MUST pay for its eternal life support. i'm sure you would be ok with that though.


----------



## Haloman800 (Aug 27, 2020)

omgcat said:


> unaided indicates breathing machines, dialysis, heart pumps, ect.


Therefore we can kill humans in a coma because they're being aided?


----------



## omgcat (Aug 27, 2020)

Haloman800 said:


> Therefore we can kill humans in a coma because they're being aided?



If the family decides so, yes. the supreme court already ruled on this.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

you guys have literally no standing, legally or historically. you go based on your feelings rather than logic.

"I feel that the fetus is a human child"

"I feel that abortion is murder"


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 27, 2020)

omgcat said:


> you guys have literally no standing, legally or historically. you go based on your feelings rather than logic.


I didn't know that abortion was opposed by the left.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 27, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I didn't know that abortion was opposed by the left.



non-sequitur?

seems right, can't make a logical argument to save your life.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 27, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I didn't know that abortion was opposed by the left.


Hello?!
That came out of well, excuse the pun
left field
seriously that does not make any sense.
Like... never brought up the idea, never said it, and then you just said that...
it's a blanket statement your trying to put a person into a box so you can continue to refute yourself.
stop that, get some help.
Anyways seeing this delve into a shitshow... again, might as well cut through the bs for the last couple of lines, because holy crap is all backwards.


Haloman800 said:


> Therefore we can kill humans in a coma because they're being aided?


Yes, but only their family can choose so. Reasoning is because if they are that long into a coma or sedated state, the less of chance them really coming back every hour they are like that, and instead you kinda just have a zombie. And because well someone has to pay the bills, and it's obviously not the person who is sedated. that situation is really not fair for the supporting party to be forced to keep someone who, without the extreme help would die, who, and this is important, lacks consciousness for a overextended period of time and seemingly will not be able to comeback.
The supreme court did rule on this (reasoning I provided is what I am assuming the reason was. Makes the most logical sense to me.)


UltraSUPRA said:


> Child or not, it's still a human.


It is human, but is it right? If someone was born lacking consciousness/sedated and needed extreme additional support (heart pumps, or air tubes) and if they were going to need it for the rest of their lives and may not even come out of the sedated state, or if the doctor is unable to figure out how long they would be like that. Or if the conditioning is constantly worsening, it's completely valid, as I would argue it's inhuman to keep them like that. That's constant suffering for both the mother, and if the child could think or feel, suffering for it. If however child is born (C-section or vaginal birth) is reacting normally (including no extreme support) to stimuli and clearly without a doubt conscious. Then no it's not okay, because we can argue it is it's own person. While say if it's still in the mother, yet to fully become conscious and developed enough that it can support itself (which we know most of the time since there is signs when that progresses), as in eating breathing, drinking. Then at any moment before that point, I would argue the child is apart of the mother, and the mother retains the right to do what she wants with her body, and since the child is being born in it, she has the right to abort. Regardless of circumstance, moment the child is outside the mother, and meets the requirements, that child is a person. therefore the mother is now responsible for keeping that child alive/cannot kill it, unless of course, the child becomes apart of a sedated state and requires additional help, and some others. (see response 2 of this message)


----------



## Haloman800 (Aug 27, 2020)

omgcat said:


> If the family decides so, yes. the supreme court already ruled on this.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


"I feel that passing through the vaginal canal makes this human life valuable".

You have your personal feelings, but none of your positions are based on scientific fact.
1. The fetus is human
2. The fetus is alive
3. Abortion is killing a healthy, human fetus.

Also, abortion clinics in the US are specifically placed in black/low income areas to cull the minority population. Why do you hate black people?


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 27, 2020)

You generally put a service where the need is greatest.

The foetus will eventually become a human if all else goes right.

Alive after a fashion.

There are unhealthy foetuses that get removed but yeah, your point? Do it right and nothing ever suffers, and suffering is prevented in others. Seems like a pretty good option to have.
If you want to arbitrarily declare it (I don't know if this is to be a just fertilised or actually implanted embryo but whatever) valuable and thus not to be messed with then OK. Why would I follow you in that logic? Indeed forcing someone to go through pregnancy (never mind one that is actually truly dangerous or unlikely to result in the baby having a meaningful quality of life) and then having an unwanted child in the world seems to add quite a bit to suffering of people and if you can prevent it then why wouldn't (aka the general approach taken by medics and ethicists of that field, as well as the laws of most places anyone would want to live).


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 27, 2020)




----------



## Deleted User (Aug 27, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> View attachment 222931


no. not accurate. It's like having nonconsented sex with while having hiv. Your forcing someone else into the matter, and I'm pretty sure most people don't want that forced upon them. it is not comparable to cookie dough


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 28, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> no. not accurate. It's like having nonconsented sex with while having hiv. Your forcing someone else into the matter, and I'm pretty sure most people don't want that forced upon them. it is not comparable to cookie dough


Except the people who are scared of the Holocough can just stay home and not have to worry about it. Our rights don't end where your fear begins.


----------



## RandomUser (Aug 28, 2020)

omgcat said:


> unaided indicates breathing machines, dialysis, heart pumps, ect.


By that definition even the disabled should be murdered. As an example, people that are born hearing impaired, thus needing hearing *aid* should be murdered. Wouldn't it be easier or more cost effective to sterilize both the women and men so that they cannot reproduce? Especially when they very well know that the offspring that they produce is going to be disabled in some way?
I don't think you actually meant this, however some people could take it that way.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 28, 2020)

unaided is probably the wrong term.
Most medical ethics discussions usually involve terms like extreme measures, and contemplate how likely things are to achieve a positive outcome. The line gets very blurry, may even change with time, and when playing medic you might well fight incredibly hard to give a single digits chance to save someone before going next door and watching someone die that measures half as potent would in all likelihood save.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 28, 2020)

RandomUser said:


> By that definition even the disabled should be murdered. As an example, people that are born hearing impaired, thus needing hearing *aid* should be murdered. Wouldn't it be easier or more cost effective to sterilize both the women and men so that they cannot reproduce? Especially when they very well know that the offspring that they produce is going to be disabled in some way?
> I don't think you actually meant this, however some people could take it that way.



does your hearing aid keep you from actively dying? why are people so obtuse. the only people who would take it that way are purposefully trying to take it out of context.


----------



## osaka35 (Aug 28, 2020)

if you view everything through the lens of
fertilized cells=adult human
then yeah, you'll see "contradiction". but that's only because reality doesn't really agree with that lens. So when you judge things by something other than reality, reality looks skewed or incoherent.

Let's phrase it like this. say...you're dying of blood loss. I'm the only compatible blood donor around. no other way for you to live, other than me to give you my blood. You cannot violate my bodily autonomy to take my blood and save your life. You have to get permission. To take my blood would be a crime, and a violation of my bodily autonomy.

In the case of a pregnancy, no matter the stage, if the woman's life must be sacrificed in order for the fetus to continue maturation into a person, then you can't force her. It doesn't matter she's the only way for survival. you can't force her to give up her life. It's morally wrong to trade one life for another.


as far as mask go...wear a mask and reduce the spreading a deadly disease that doesn't show symptoms while contagious in the early phases. That's like...ethics 101. that's common denominator basic "how not to be a terribly person" type stuff. And it only reduces, so please stay home as often as possible and wash your hands. Seriously. These two things don't relate at all. One is about bodily autonomy, the other is about how not to recklessly endanger people's lives. If you want to see how silly the argument is against wearing mask, just replace it with those who argue against seat-belts. Seat-belts are even further removed from the "harm to others" argument, as that's just about no harm to you (and sometimes others if you become a ballistic weapon). Surely we can agree seat-belts are okay?


----------



## omgcat (Aug 28, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Except the people who are scared of the Holocough can just stay home and not have to worry about it. Our rights don't end where your fear begins.



you're really pushing that antisemitism aren't you?

I can see the out of context "all Muslims want to kill Christians" comment you made with more context.

more information about antisemitism and COVID19

https://cst.org.uk/data/file/d/9/Coronavirus and the plague of antisemitism.1586276450.pdf


----------



## RandomUser (Aug 28, 2020)

omgcat said:


> does your hearing aid keep you from actively dying? why are people so obtuse. the only people who would take it that way are purposefully trying to take it out of context.


Who said I wear hearing aid? You shouldn't be surprise by some people being obtuse. Hearing aids doesn't preserve life so no it doesn't keep you from actively dying. There is some medical devices that does and people can still live a full and healthy life.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 28, 2020)

omgcat said:


> you're really pushing that antisemitism aren't you?
> 
> I can see the out of context "all Muslims want to kill Christians" comment you made with more context.
> 
> ...


tmw you make a joke and get called a Nazi


----------



## omgcat (Aug 28, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> tmw you make a joke and get called a Nazi


who said anything about being called a Nazi, that word never showed up in my post. I'm just pointing out known antisemitic language. the fact that you know someone would call you a Nazi for making that joke should be a red flag that maybe it's not a good joke at all.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 28, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> tmw you make a joke and get called a Nazi


You're not being called a Nazi, but your previous comment is anti-semitic.

If you're going to make light of COVID-19, it would be more appropriate to call it the Trump Mumps.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 28, 2020)

Lacius said:


> You're not being called a Nazi, but your previous comment is anti-semitic.
> 
> If you're going to make light of COVID-19, it would be more appropriate to call it the Trump Mumps.


1. Trump didn't create the virus.
2. Nobody called Swine Flu Obamascare.(Then again, nobody ever did anything about it, either.)


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 28, 2020)

Wait what happened here? Was it the phrase holocough that people are objecting to?

Leaving aside we have several phrases for mass death with holo in it (see holodomor for a big one) is it in and of itself an anti semitic or whatever term even without that? Is it any more of a play on words than a favourite game from my youth Carmageddon 2 Carpocalypse now being corruptions of the words armageddon and apocalypse?
The word holocaust has also been used as a shorthand for a mass death in general. Think my favourite was from a now little remembered 2000s (really last of the 90s) horror film in Cherry Falls which featured the phrase hymen holocaust (spoilers, the killer was targetting the virgins of a school so the kids planned an orgy to count it).

Personally I quite like kung flu as a term -- present death rates and percentages have nothing anywhere near comparison with anything holo really, though I suppose if you are going for an overblown play then maybe.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 28, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> 1. Trump didn't create the virus.
> 2. Nobody called Swine Flu Obamascare.(Then again, nobody ever did anything about it, either.)



No, but Trump blatantly ignored and mishandled the virus to the point that the United States, with 4% of the world's population, became 25% of the world's COVID-19 cases and 25% of the world's COVID-19 deaths. Aside from Trump's objective failings, there is nothing about the United States that explains this disparity. There was no federal response to the virus, particularly at the beginning when it mattered most. Edit: Oh, and let's not forget that, long before Trump was downplaying the virus and pretending it wasn't a serious issue, he fired the pandemic response team in the US.
The Obama administration handled the swine flu, as well as ebola, properly, so there wasn't any reason to give it a stupid nickname.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 28, 2020)

I am curious about relative case numbers, estimates, testing rates and whatnot for that supposition (or do we believe China, Italy, UK and all that and their particular rates).

As far as "proper" handling though. Are the situations really that comparable? Neither were particularly transmissible (this being airborne as well as other fluids) with longer than some transmissible but asymptomatic phase diseases.
One also asks what is the goal in handling things? Herd immunity, delay for response mobilisation (arguably what flatten the curve might be), delay for understanding (China's data on things being of dubious merit and outside categorisation then needing a reasonable number of cases to look at + data on them), delay for vaccine (or maybe treatment protocol), isolate likely serious consequences types (seemingly in this case old and infirm) and let the rest of the population burn it out to in turn reduce transmission paths... is cases and deaths in such scenarios not an acceptable cost (or indeed what is an acceptable cost there)?

Is swine flu itself not a nickname of sorts?

Anyway I am still unsure what the great objection to giving something a nickname, or indeed just this one, is.


----------



## notimp (Aug 29, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Wait what happened here? Was it the phrase holocough that people are objecting to?
> 
> Leaving aside we have several phrases for mass death with holo in it (see holodomor for a big one) is it in and of itself an anti semitic or whatever term even without that? Is it any more of a play on words than a favourite game from my youth Carmageddon 2 Carpocalypse now being corruptions of the words armageddon and apocalypse?
> The word holocaust has also been used as a shorthand for a mass death in general. Think my favourite was from a now little remembered 2000s (really last of the 90s) horror film in Cherry Falls which featured the phrase hymen holocaust (spoilers, the killer was targetting the virgins of a school so the kids planned an orgy to count it).
> ...


Ehm, so you dont see the demeaning quality in the invented term 'Holocough'? Without having read the previous pages. Thats a wordplay I'd let slide in the case a comedian uses it, but knowing our comedians in this forum this probably is a pepe-ism again. (Attacking a taboo, then saying - it was just a joke...).

Get with it.. 


Good comedian serves function to highlight things that are not working within society, so there is an educational component to it, or at least to be funny. But what the heck is Holocough?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 29, 2020)




----------



## Sapphire01 (Aug 29, 2020)

I've never seen a goalpost move so many times in life.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 30, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Except the people who are scared of the Holocough can just stay home and not have to worry about it. Our rights don't end where your fear begins.


Again. NO
People need to go places, people have jobs, people have to get food. People have to move around. That's a pathetic excuse to say
"Well just don't go out, respect us for being idiots, loose your rights to happiness"
You want to know what I say?
Fuck your idiocy. Because that's essentially all it comes down to.


UltraSUPRA said:


> View attachment 223117



HELLO? Are we really talking this. holy crap.
I honestly barely even take you seriously. Christ. Again here comes the circus music and the world is going round and round.
I'll just state this since clearly you have no grasp of history.
and I'll bold it too
*this has nothing to do with gun rights*
second, a lot of people agreed this was what had to be done, sorry if your opinion was trampled over, but it's not facts nor is it a majority opinion. And the facts are that if we followed the plan correctly (see section of president being a idiot, and congress squandering. while massive conglomerates get bailouts while they don't prioritize the working class, along with reopening too early, and a lot of idiotic blame shifting) we would of been back to normalcy by now.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 30, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Again. NO
> People need to go places, people have jobs, people have to get food. People have to move around. That's a pathetic excuse to say
> "Well just don't go out, respect us for being idiots, loose your rights to happiness"


What did we do during the shutdown, then?


monkeyman4412 said:


> You want to know what I say?
> Fuck your idiocy. Because that's essentially all it comes down to.


It's not stupid to believe that the hivemind is a fate worse than death.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 30, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> What did we do during the shutdown, then?


Practically nothing. The small business program? most of the big businesses ran off the with the money. We also bailed out banks, when we should of bailed out people... for covid reasons.. We "tried" to give covid relief (through stimulus checks). Which didn't really last long enough for anyone to get through.. And nor did it fix the eviction crisis. It only delayed the evictions. And that is literately it. again squandered.


UltraSUPRA said:


> It's not stupid to believe that the hivemind is a fate worse than death


Ah yes, I don't need seatbelts in a car, it's too much of a hivemind idea to protect myself and others, don't mind me just going to bounce around and kill the people around me in the car as I crash(yes that does happen. if you think seatbelts only effect you, your sadly mistaken, replace not wearing a seat belt with a mask, and the car with covid. same result. people die)


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 30, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Ah yes, I don't need seatbelts in a car, it's too much of a hivemind idea.


1. The seatbelt mandate was enacted before I was born.
2. Not wearing a seatbelt provides a very dangerous risk to that person specifically. Therefore, it's a basic survival instinct to wear your seatbelt.
3. Yes.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 30, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> 2. Not wearing a seatbelt provides a very dangerous risk* to that person specifically.* Therefore, it's a basic survival instinct to wear your seatbelt.





monkeyman4412 said:


> Ah yes, I don't need seatbelts in a car, it's too much of a hivemind idea *to protect myself and others,* don't mind me just going to bounce around and kill the people around me in the car as I crash(yes that does happen. if you think seat belts only effect you, your sadly mistaken, replace not wearing a seat belt with a mask, and the car with covid. same result. people die)


point 1 and 3 has no substance to the argument. point 2 is blatant attempt to change narrative and refute an argument that i wasn't making, as you refused to respond to it proper.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 30, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> point 1 and 3 has no substance to the argument. point 2 is blatant attempt to change narrative and refute an argument that i wasn't making, as you refused to respond to it proper.


There was a time when cars didn't have seatbelts.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 30, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> There was a time when cars didn't have seatbelts.


attempting to move the goal post of this conversation?
Yeah no I'll pass, come up with a better argument.
or add on to explain your "point"


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 30, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> attempting to move the goal post of this conversation?
> Yeah no I'll pass, come up with a better argument.
> or add on to explain your "point"


Gladly.
You see, cars used to not have seatbelts. We used to not have to wear masks.
Cars got faster, and then seatbelts became law. The flu got deadlier, and then muzzles became law.
However, while car accidents have still run rampant despite (or perhaps because of) the airbags and mandatory seatbelts, Coronavirus deaths have gone down while we've been wearing muzzles. Every Monday and Tuesday, the death rate is below a thousand.
Perhaps you see it as the masks working, meaning we should keep doing it and watch the death rate go even lower. But I think that this means we don't have to because the dearh rate is so low. Even if the death rate was as bad as it was in April or May, no price is too great for freedom.
Besides, you can't make a vaccine for a living thing like a virus.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 30, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Gladly.
> You see, cars used to not have seatbelts. We used to not have to wear masks.
> Cars got faster, and then seatbelts became law. The flu got deadlier, and then muzzles became law.


Yes and? How is this a point?



UltraSUPRA said:


> However, while car accidents have still run rampant despite (or perhaps because of) the airbags and mandatory seatbelts,


human beings not meant to move at 80 miles per hour? Who could of thunk? My point being that cars are a man made invention, with the needs of something people often struggle to be perfect with. High moving speeds plus human flesh contained will always result in problems. We aren't designed to handle them. So of course it's going to be high.


UltraSUPRA said:


> Coronavirus deaths have gone down while we've been wearing muzzles. Every Monday and Tuesday, the death rate is below a thousand.


Unlike most things that can kill us. Viruses ability to transmit is incredibly dangerous, we've seen that at full force with the black plague when man kind didn't have proper doctors, when we didn't even know what a virus was. And any virus that has the potential to spread extremely fast and have possible long term results is deemed to dangerous to not act on. And ontop of that, viruses are exponential , not linear, which is why your supposed to take them seriously if their spread and total deaths is high.



UltraSUPRA said:


> Perhaps you see it as the masks working, meaning we should keep doing it and watch the death rate go even lower. But I think that this means we don't have to because the death rate is so low. Even if the death rate was as bad as it was in April or May, no price is too great for freedom.


No, I see masks as preventive measure until we have a vaccine. If however, we did follow protocol the spread of it would be far more evenly, preventing a overload in the health care system... which is exactly what has begun in certain states.
Second, your idea of freedom is bull shit. If it means I have the right to pull out a gun and shoot you, then I don't want any of that damn freedom you speak of. Because that's not freedom, that's blatant carelessness for others. You speak of freedom, but you don't act like you care about others either.


UltraSUPRA said:


> Besides, you can't make a vaccine for a living thing like a virus.


....
....
*breaks out into hysterical laughing*
holy shit. Holy fucking shit.
I can't take this, holy fucking crap. You transcend darwinism, I think your the proof that evolution can indeed go backwards.
Moving on, from my temporary break from sanitiy as you just refuted science that we've known for the last, at least 20 years minimum.
NO THAT'S NOT HOW THAT WORKS HOLY JESUS FUCKING CHRIST
I'm really beginning to question your education, because that was taught in about 6-8 grade. Viruses are not living, they are in a bizzar situation between needing a host to replicate, and not having all the function to need to replicate (specifically means of getting energy) however they are made up of genetic material. The human body has response to viruses, just like it has a response to any bacteria infection. In this case, the body remembers identifiers of that virus. This is why most commonly if you get the flu... which is a virus. you can't get it again, unless it's a different one.

now again, how does this refute my point I stated that you are being careless of others health by not wearing a mask.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 30, 2020)

definitely doesn't seem to have a college education for sure.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> definitely doesn't seem to have a college education for sure.


beginning to think he didn't complete high school either


----------



## omgcat (Aug 30, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Besides, you can't make a vaccine for a living thing like a virus.



idk measles, mumps, polio, hepatitis a/b/c, tetanus, rubella, Hib, pertussis, Pneumococcal meningitis, Rotavirus, Diphtheria (remember balto?). seriously anyone who was educated in a public school and made it past 8th grade should know about these.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 30, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> beginning to think he didn't complete high school either


I'm 15.


omgcat said:


> idk measles, mumps, polio, hepatitis a/b/c, tetanus, rubella, Hib, pertussis, Pneumococcal meningitis, Rotavirus, Diphtheria (remember balto?). seriously anyone who was educated in a public school and made it past 8th grade should know about these.


Not all diseases are viruses.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 30, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I'm 15.
> 
> Not all diseases are viruses.


all of those diseases are viruses.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> all of those diseases are viruses.


Either way, those are diseases where antibodies work.
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-first-reinfection-man-hong-kong


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 30, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Either way, those are diseases where antibodies work.
> https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-first-reinfection-man-hong-kong


oh no no your not getting out of that so easily.
answer my question  how does this refute my point I stated that you are being careless of others health by not wearing a mask.
also... the human body creates antibodies...
Which are created from the immune response... which the immune system responds to viruses. Which how we create vaccines by using the knowledge that we have of the immune system to create antibodies prepared to fight a virus.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 30, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> oh no no your not getting out of that so easily.
> answer my question  how does this refute my point I stated that you are being careless of others health by not wearing a mask.


It's not careless if everybody is going to get infected anyway.


monkeyman4412 said:


> also... the human body creates antibodies...
> Which are created from the immune response... which the immune system responds to viruses. Which how we create vaccines by using the knowledge that we have of the immune system.


Explain how we don't have an end-all vaccine for the flu.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 30, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It's not careless if everybody is going to get infected anyway.


unsatisfactory answer try again. look below



UltraSUPRA said:


> Explain how we don't have an end-all vaccine for the flu.


you should know it.
And after I answer this, answer my question you have ignored for the last time.
tl;dr
viruses overtime can change. Due to a whole lot of shit that can happen that I don't want to go explaining. Our bodies are good at fighting one specific strain, and only one specific strain. meaning that if the virus changes enough, we catch that variant. That is why the flu comes back every "flu" season. It's because it's not the same flu, but a very similar version of it.
now... answer my question
how does this refute my point I stated that you are being careless of others health by not wearing a mask.



as a fyi, the reason we have vaccines is to help protect people, in 2 ways. 1 just for those who actually got it. and 2 for those who cannot get a vaccine, as their immune systems for some of these people are shot. Through vaccines this creates herd immunity, which tl;dr protects those people from getting it.In other words, not everyone is guaranteed to have it. Hence why as I stated above your response is absolutely unsatisfactory


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 30, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> you should know it.
> And after I answer this, answer my question you have ignored for the last time.
> tl;dr
> viruses overtime can change. Due to a whole lot of shit that can happen that I don't want to go explaining. Our bodies are good at fighting one specific strain, and only one specific strain. meaning that if the virus changes enough, we catch that variant. That is why the flu comes back every "flu" season. It's because it's not the same flu, but a very similar version of it.


The Coronavirus is also mutating.


monkeyman4412 said:


> now... answer my question
> how does this refute my point I stated that you are being careless of others health by not wearing a mask.


How can you avoid a mutating virus? If it mutates, you can't make a vaccine for it. If you can't make a vaccine for it, and you can get it twice, you can't avoid it. If you can't avoid the virus, it's not careless to spread it, it's just...natural.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 30, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The Coronavirus is also mutating.
> 
> How can you avoid a mutating virus? If it mutates, you can't make a vaccine for it. If you can't make a vaccine for it, and you can get it twice, you can't avoid it. If you can't avoid the virus, it's not careless to spread it, it's just...natural.



the mutation is not in the spike protein region, there is no reason to think that vaccines currently being produced will not work, and even if they are not 100% effective, partial matches work as well. look at the yearly flu vaccine, even if the panel is not a 100% match it significantly reduces symptoms and chances of death. you will also notice that people who have been reinfected have less symptoms, just are just as infectious.

My parent's were alive when a good chunk of people were getting fucked up by polio. go ask people from that time period if vaccines are worth it.

and one last point, seat belts protect others, not just yourself. if the car rolls and a person is not belted, they get thrown around the car cabin, potentially bludgeoning people with weight up to 200+ pounds. seat belts saves your life, and others around you, just like masks.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 30, 2020)

stripped better answer above


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> the mutation is not in the spike protein region, there is no reason to think that vaccines currently being produced will not work, and even if they are not 100% effective, partial matches work as well. look at the yearly flu vaccine, even if the panel is not a 100% match it significantly reduces symptoms and chances of death. you will also notice that people who have been reinfected have less symptoms, just are just as infectious.


So just import Sputnik V.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 30, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So just import Sputnik V.



sure, as well as the oxford vaccine, and multiple others. this is all about biding time until we know they are safe and effective.

it honestly must suck being 15 in this pandemic because of the unfettered misinformation and a huge shift in your life on top of already crazy changes. I'm sure you'll get through it. i was 16 when 2008 happened.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> sure, as well as the oxford vaccine, and multiple others. this is all about biding time until we know they are safe and effective.


Before the end of this year, right?


----------



## omgcat (Aug 30, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Before the end of this year, right?



hopefully, depends on phase III trials and production capacity.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 31, 2020)

If you're healthy, you don't need a mask. This is my thought.


----------



## notimp (Aug 31, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If you're healthy, you don't need a mask. This is my thought.


*sigh* First concept to understand is, that the cloth/surgical masks most people are wearing (because of cost/production capacity), raise your own protection to about 5% (at most), but that of everyone around you by 70-95%.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 31, 2020)

notimp said:


> *sigh* First concept is to understand is, that the cloth/surgical mask most people are wearing (because of cost/production capacity), raise your own protection by about 5% (at most), but that of everyone around you by 95%.


But if you're healthy, 5% isn't much protection.


----------



## notimp (Aug 31, 2020)

Yay, games with inverse logic, that doesnt make any sense!

But if you are not healthy, 5% is much protection?
-

If you meant to say, that if you are healthy 5% is enough protection... rlly?

The argument is, that you are not wearing those masks for you, but for everyone around you. That the system set up only works if you, and everyone else doesnt always think about personal benefit, but about societys as well.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 31, 2020)

notimp said:


> Yay, games with inverse logic, that doesnt make any sense!
> 
> But if you are not healthy, 5% is much protection?
> -
> ...


You only spread it if you have it.


----------



## AmandaRose (Aug 31, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> You only spread it if you have it.


And you can have it with zero symptoms so you don't even know you have it so your statement about not wearing a mask is ridiculous.

https://patient.info/news-and-features/coronavirus-what-are-asymptomatic-and-mild-covid-19


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 31, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> And you can have it with zero symptoms so you don't even know you have it so your statement about not wearing a mask is ridiculous.
> 
> https://patient.info/news-and-features/coronavirus-what-are-asymptomatic-and-mild-covid-19


What about the saliva tests?


----------



## AmandaRose (Aug 31, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> What about the saliva tests?


You can get tested and be clear and catch covid an hour later without knowing. Not wearing a mask for your own safety and more importantly your loved ones and everyone else's safety is a fucking dick move.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 31, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> You can get tested and be clear and catch covid an hour later without knowing.


From who? Somebody who wasn't tested?


----------



## AmandaRose (Aug 31, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> From who? Somebody who wasn't tested?


Are you really that silly do you not even realize covid survives on surfaces/clothes/cardboard ect ect for up to 48 hours. So it doesn't matter if you are in a room full of people who have been tested and are virus free when someone comes along with it before the test or whatever and coughs on something you then touch.


----------



## mikefor20 (Aug 31, 2020)

omgcat said:


> those eggs are peoples lives, what the fuck. wasn't this whole thread started with the argument that pre-born lives are important and shouldn't be destroyed; but regular lives are ok to just throw away like trash?



This thread was started to cause arguments and somehow validate the OP's weird association between masks and Abortions.  The old life of the unborn zygote vs the life of a woman.  The OP thinks these things are optional apparently. Also HE thinks it's HIS business what SHE does with HER body. Something tells me that this is a bit more poignant to the OP. I can't think of a woman who would want someone like that to have a baby go full term in HER uterus. Maybe she didn't.  Maybe that's where HIS hangup began.  Masks are not a choice.  _*STOP POLITICIZING MASKS AND GOOD HYGIENE! *_ What the fuck is wrong with you? Your mask could potentially save thousands of lives.  And even if it just saves 1 life,wear it you selfish prick. What if another moron reads this and stops wearing their mask??!?  Stupidity is contagious. Stop it.

So the true consistency in the OPS views is that HE thinks HE deserves control of HER body.  Because it's HIS choice. Somehow wearing a mask to protect his Grandma and society at large is also his prerogative. These two issues are not choices and he thinks he has a right to choose.  Masks are mandatory for a reason. Because we can't rely on the dullards to do what's right! It only take one to spoil the bunch. Not a choice, it's your duty. Abortion is a WOMAN'S RIGHTS issue.  Also not a choice for the OP. There's your consistency.

I got a Trump supporting, quarantine breaking friend.  Anti-abortion too. Total prick.  Should have seen the look on his face  when his sister got sick and I pointed out HE is the only one going in and out of her house.  Wasn't COVID thank god.  She's so sweet.  But the thought of him infecting his family changed his tune on masks. I didn't think he had a soul/brain.  It was buried under so much stupidity.

These threads must stop.  Politicizing COVID prevention is so fucking stupid.  Ruin lives through your moronic voting. Leave Grandma out of it, she never did anything to you. Protect your loved ones. Complain all you want. Masks are not a political issue. The only real issue is your politics and IQ. Stop it. You're hurting us.

If you wanna make COVID political start a campaign to put the burden back on the responsible party.  Say fuck you to the bastards that started it all.  I say we owe China nothing. Our debt is *clear. China cost the world it's lively hood. Time to turn our backs financially and collectively and.......*

BILL CHINA FOR COVID-19 COSTS.  

Much better goal than killing Grandmas and making unwed ill equipped teenage mothers ditch their baby in a dumpster on prom night just so you can exercise your privilege and control. It still fits in to your (racist selfish rich) America first narrative. Concentrate on that and wear your masks. It's your duty, And leave the uteri alone. They don't like you anyway.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 31, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> Are you really that silly do you not even realize covid survives on surfaces/clothes/cardboard ect ect for up to 48 hours. So it doesn't matter if you are in a room full of people who have been tested and are virus free when someone comes along with it before the test or whatever and coughs on something you then touch.


So use hand sanitizer.


mikefor20 said:


> And even if it just saves 1 life,wear it you selfish prick.


Even if Hydroxychloroquine or Sputnik V saves one life, give it, you selfish prick.


----------



## mikefor20 (Aug 31, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So use hand sanitizer.
> 
> Even if Hydroxychloroquine or Sputnik V saves one life, give it, you selfish prick.



Wearing a mask while in public is a far cry from injecting people with poisons and unneeded medications.  Why don't you go drink some bleach?  Leave everyone else alone. 

So stupid.
Make sure you cover your upper anus while in public.  It's will spare us all the COVID, the sight and the smell.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 31, 2020)

mikefor20 said:


> So stupid.
> Make sure you cover your upper anus while in public.  It's will spare us all the COVID, the sight and the smell.


The difference between wearing a mask and wearing clothes is that covering extremities has been a natural human instinct ever since Eve ate the apple.


----------



## mikefor20 (Aug 31, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The difference between wearing a mask and wearing clothes is that covering extremities has been a natural human instinct ever since Eve ate the apple.



You use a mask to cover your ANUS was the point. Your upper anus. The one with COVID and possibly teeth.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 31, 2020)

mikefor20 said:


> You use a mask to cover your ANUS was the point. Your upper anus. The one with COVID and possibly teeth.


What, do you shove food up your butt?


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 1, 2020)

mikefor20 said:


> This thread was started to cause arguments and somehow validate the OP's weird association between masks and Abortions.  The old life of the unborn zygote vs the life of a woman.  The OP thinks these things are optional apparently. Also HE thinks it's HIS business what SHE does with HER body. Something tells me that this is a bit more poignant to the OP. I can't think of a woman who would want someone like that to have a baby go full term in HER uterus. Maybe she didn't.  Maybe that's where HIS hangup began.  Masks are not a choice.  _*STOP POLITICIZING MASKS AND GOOD HYGIENE! *_ What the fuck is wrong with you? Your mask could potentially save thousands of lives.  And even if it just saves 1 life,wear it you selfish prick. What if another moron reads this and stops wearing their mask??!?  Stupidity is contagious. Stop it.
> 
> So the true consistency in the OPS views is that HE thinks HE deserves control of HER body.  Because it's HIS choice. Somehow wearing a mask to protect his Grandma and society at large is also his prerogative. These two issues are not choices and he thinks he has a right to choose.  Masks are mandatory for a reason. Because we can't rely on the dullards to do what's right! It only take one to spoil the bunch. Not a choice, it's your duty. Abortion is a WOMAN'S RIGHTS issue.  Also not a choice for the OP. There's your consistency.



Some of that is not as sound from where I sit.

I can't get to the OP's logic by any means but to pick up a few things there

I probably would go with why do I care what happens to an unthinking, unfeeling bundle of cells that if left unchecked would grow and consume the life/wellbeing of a person, one that likely has had thousands of hours invested in them and untold societal connections.

If however you do go with the line of logic that says it is or as near as does not matter is a life (few have ever really managed to qualify that in anything close to something I would want to roll with, never mind answered any counters like why that point/delineation) then destroying it is functionally that and would in turn be a moral question.
If it is a moral question, and even with the cells things above it eventually becomes one as time goes on and edge cases happen, then most such things do become a societal moral question.


Mask wise. There are costs associated with every action. One then gets to do a cost-benefit analysis. There are some far from insubstantial costs in enforcing some kind of mask use (monetary/resources, societal, waste), and perks are not universal and massive (even more so if we consider practical efficacy vs ideal and wind in people thinking a mask actually does something for them and in turn risk themselves and others).
What would save more people in the world, even more so if this little virus lark gets put to bed before long and we look long term, is if everybody (or near enough) had paramedic training and mandatory first aid kids not unlike people basically get to carry ID around the place. We don't however do that. Said hypothetical grandma can also be a morbidly obese alcoholic opiate addled chainsmoker too and society generally can't or won't do much, and there is also a limit to how much gets paid to help the medical issues that sort as a result. Are we failing as a society for not handing over a blank cheque to fix them?
If we constrain ourselves to this present virus lark there are plenty of measures beyond masks that would have even more effect than trying to get untrained people to wear a mediocre mask in a useful manner, for instance the whole stay in your house there citizen lark (no contact, maybe even actual no contact rather than "daily act of exercise", is a remarkably effective way of reducing transmission, even more so than masks and maybe distance and maybe gloves and maybe hoping people can use proper sanitiser effectively and have all the best will in the world).
Even if the question becomes when do masks no longer find themselves needed, what measures should be in place to encourage their use (laws, social stigma, what do businesses get to say) and what exemptions might there be then it can stand to be debated. If they say jump then best to ask why rather than how high...


----------



## vincentx77 (Sep 1, 2020)

"Virus lark"? Really? That's just plain reductive, idiotic, and frankly terrifying when you're talking about a deadly, highly transmissible virus. Apparently it just doesn't click for you because you can't see it. I distinctly remember when pretty much everyone started allowing themselves to be anally fucked (pretty much literally) every time they got on a plane because of the 9/11 attacks. Now you're bitching because basically cops would have to arrest people who didn't comply with mask ordeniences in public (that's the money that would be spent, btw). Get real.

I also love how you've made this hypothetical grandmother a fat heroin addict. Oh, that chain smokes. Even if that were the case (which most of the time, isn't bloody likely), she's still alive, she's still someone's loved one, and has at least as much worth as that clump of cells you go on and on about defending. You'll spend endless money on a fetus until it gets here, and once it's born, fuck it. Everyone deserves health care, even if they've made poor choices along the way. If the procedures drug-addict granny would need are too expensive, maybe we should start by actually getting the price of these services down to a reasonable price in the first place.

The whole point of getting proper protocols in place is so we'll have them in case another pandemic occurs. Hell, even if a city were to have a localized outbreak of something nasty, measures like these enacted swiftly could stop it from becoming something bigger, like perhaps another covid-19.


----------



## mikefor20 (Sep 1, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Some of that is not as sound from where I sit.
> 
> I can't get to the OP's logic by any means but to pick up a few things there
> 
> ...



 This is hilarious. Even entertaining the idea that you shouldn't be wearing a mask is dangerous.  Stop telling other morons this stuff. It's getting out of hand. Masks are the only realistic way I can be sure YOU are doing your share.  I can't tell if you washed your hands necessarily. I don't care anyway, you are filthy.  If it's not something I am already exposed to I don't want it. That it the safest way.  Everyone won't stay inside forever.  I don't mind staying inside personally.. If I never had to go outside I would be okay with that. But realistically? Masks are the best solution. Sanitize too. Sanitizer is for YOU.  Masks are for EVERYONE ELSE. WEAR IT!  If I can get verbal assault for screaming "put on a FUCKING MASK YOU PIECE OF SHIT AND STOP SPREADING YOUR DISEASES! BOTH POLITICAL AND LITERAL" then you should get an assault charge for actually risking my life and not wearing a mask.

Picking and choosing who we protect as a society? Let the chain smokers etc etc.. total BS. Who are you to decide?  Same person who thinks it's their right to dictate someone else does with their body. What a joke. I bet a few loved ones fall in those categories too. What a selfish thing to say. Let's just get rid of anyone stupid.  Anyone who can't wear a mask or wear it correctly will be a good place to start. And back to YOUR reproductive rights, how about we revoke those as well. No more mask deniers,flat earthers,Nazis or Trump supporters. What a wonderful world it would be.




vincentx77 said:


> "Virus lark"? Really? That's just plain reductive, idiotic, and frankly terrifying when you're talking about a deadly, highly transmissible virus. Apparently it just doesn't click for you because you can't see it. I distinctly remember when pretty much everyone started allowing themselves to be anally fucked (pretty much literally) every time they got on a plane because of the 9/11 attacks. Now you're bitching because basically cops would have to arrest people who didn't comply with mask ordeniences in public (that's the money that would be spent, btw). Get real.
> 
> I also love how you've made this hypothetical grandmother a fat heroin addict. Oh, that chain smokes. Even if that were the case (which most of the time, isn't bloody likely), she's still alive, she's still someone's loved one, and has at least as much worth as that clump of cells you go on and on about defending. You'll spend endless money on a fetus until it gets here, and once it's born, fuck it. Everyone deserves health care, even if they've made poor choices along the way. If the procedures drug-addict granny would need are too expensive, maybe we should start by actually getting the price of these services down to a reasonable price in the first place.
> 
> The whole point of getting proper protocols in place is so we'll have them in case another pandemic occurs. Hell, even if a city were to have a localized outbreak of something nasty, measures like these enacted swiftly could stop it from becoming something bigger, like perhaps another covid-19.




WOAH, a brain! Thank you for restoring my faith, ever so slightly, in the human species.  Bravo.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 1, 2020)

mikefor20 said:


> This is hilarious. Even entertaining the idea that you shouldn't be wearing a mask is dangerous.  Stop telling other morons this stuff. It's getting out of hand.Masks are the only realistic way I can be sure YOU are doing your share.  I can't tell if you washed your hands necessarily. I don't care anyway, you are filthy.  If it's not something I am already exposed to I don't want it. That it the safest way.  Everyone won't stay inside forever.  I don't mind staying inside personally.. If I never had to go outside I would be okay with that. But realistically? Masks are the best solution. Sanitize too. Sanitizer is for YOU.  Masks are for EVERYONE ELSE. WEAR IT!  If I can get verbal assault for screaming "put on a FUCKING MASK YOU PIECE OF SHIT AND STOP SPREADING YOUR DISEASES! BOTH POLITICAL AND LITERAL" then you should get an assault charge for actually risking my life and not wearing a mask.
> 
> Picking and choosing who we protect as a society? Let the chainsmokers etc etc.. total BS. Who are you to decide?  Same person who thinks it's their right to dictate someone else does with their body. What a joke. I bet a few loved ones fall in those categories too. What a selfish thing to say. Let's just get rid of anyone stupid.  Anyone who can't wear a mask or wear it correctly will be a good place to start. And back to YOUR reproductive rights, how about we revoke those as well. No more mask deniers,flat earthers,nazis or trump supporters. What a wonderful world it would be.


My my we appear to have hit a nerve, indeed with the vehemence of such a reaction I can only assume it is a religious directive as that is the only thing that comes close in my past experience.

"realistic"
"realistically"
"are the best solution"
So this would seem there is scope for a debate as to the measures that can be taken.
Masks are not 100% effective, even less so when bad ones are attempted to be used by untrained people (training itself is something considerable -- I have trained grinding room types and spoken to those that do medics, despite both being reasonably aware of the consequences of improper protocol they still have to have it beaten into them).

Are the costs (one has to buy them, endure their use, be unable to lip read, be unable to see faces, false sense of bravado/immunity) worth the benefit (less spread of kung flu and other airborne diseases, which current infection/infectious counts are likely in the pretty low range), and to what degree should mask use be enforced? I live in the middle of the countryside and can walk around for hours without seeing anybody. Should... a police helicopter or something fly over and see me walking the dog around in a field send me a ticket despite nobody other than them being anywhere around? Should I need one from the moment I leave the house (if not before the door is open)? Just when going into enclosed spaces? Rather hard to eat food with one (though not impossible) so what do we do about restaurants? If no restaurants then what other businesses get shuttered? At what point does the cost to the economy? Do we allow gatherings of "non household" groups (and are masks mandatory in those scenarios?)?
Is there a timeframe for all this? Until infection counts drop below certain amounts? Until a vaccine gets made/viable? Said vaccine actually gets widely deployed? Until case count is such that herd immunity is plausibly a thing? Better treatment protocols such that it might be serious but not that much more than breaking a leg?
Even if for now mask wearing is deemed a cost worth bearing then I want to know the future plans and likely wind down to it.

Who am I to decide?
Just a person on the internet, same as the others here. Nothing much will probably come of it but it is an amusing distraction as I wait for death.
I equally never said anything about picking and choosing. I asked if one life is so valuable then why do we allow those to waste it (it appears personal choice is a greater ideal if you do allow it), and why don't we do more even for those that do such things. Even in places with nice healthcare systems they don't turn over the treasury when someone stubs their toe.

My reproductive rights? If that is a free vasectomy then yes please. I can continue enjoying a nice life of peace and quiet with no risk of kids. It was always the plan anyway.

Edit. Appears another reply possibly to me happened.


vincentx77 said:


> "Virus lark"? Really? That's just plain reductive, idiotic, and frankly terrifying when you're talking about a deadly, highly transmissible virus. Apparently it just doesn't click for you because you can't see it. I distinctly remember when pretty much everyone started allowing themselves to be anally fucked (pretty much literally) every time they got on a plane because of the 9/11 attacks. Now you're bitching because basically cops would have to arrest people who didn't comply with mask ordeniences in public (that's the money that would be spent, btw). Get real.
> 
> I also love how you've made this hypothetical grandmother a fat heroin addict. Oh, that chain smokes. Even if that were the case (which most of the time, isn't bloody likely), she's still alive, she's still someone's loved one, and has at least as much worth as that clump of cells you go on and on about defending. You'll spend endless money on a fetus until it gets here, and once it's born, fuck it. Everyone deserves health care, even if they've made poor choices along the way. If the procedures drug-addict granny would need are too expensive, maybe we should start by actually getting the price of these services down to a reasonable price in the first place.
> 
> The whole point of getting proper protocols in place is so we'll have them in case another pandemic occurs. Hell, even if a city were to have a localized outbreak of something nasty, measures like these enacted swiftly could stop it from becoming something bigger, like perhaps another covid-19.


Did you read my reply or attempt to understand my examples?
I literally said in the first proper paragraph (and you can find any number of posts in various abortion discussions around here with me espousing similar reasoning) that I would go with the bundle of cells approach. Lines get fuzzy when the potential for suffering happens (various numbers of weeks but it is up there at the several months line) and you want to have something like a good reason.

The fat chain smoking old opiates gobbler was not there to denigrate any potential candidate as much as pose a hypothetical about personal choice (they are allowed to be that). The second part of that was even so there are limits to what measures are taken, even for the 21 year old phd holding marathon runner if somehow we care about such things in these examples (though with the harping on about people being people then that would be odd) rather than every effort made to save everybody -- costs get weighed up, options picked or dismissed based upon them and somehow society is not in tatters and decried as awful. This is to say cost-benefit analysis was done and found that some costs are too steep for the results they produce.

High transmissible? I have not seen the current estimates for number of people on average transmitted to. Was about 1.6 last I looked. Enough for a nice exponential if you wanted but way short of some of the big boys there.
Deadly. Depends upon your age range and other morbidities it seems. Many things are deadly but we don't take extreme measures and adopt proportional ones to their relative threat. I would also hope data gets derived from this and used to influence future policies.

I am also failing to see the connection between security theatre at airports (give me £500 in the average duty free area of an airport and I will give you some horrible stuff that will bring airports to their knees, I have a few more skills than some in areas useful to that hobby but nothing they don't train tens of thousands of people a year in) and your bit there.


----------



## notimp (Sep 1, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> You only spread it if you have it.


But in 50% of people it is asymptomatic (you dont know that you have it), while you are most contagious. So those dont self isolate.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 1, 2020)

notimp said:


> But in 50% of people it is asymptomatic (you dont know that you have it), while you are most contagious. So those dont self isolate.


I'll be honest, that just sounds like a reason to face it head-on, if half of everybody who gets it feel nothing from it.


----------



## notimp (Sep 1, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I'll be honest, that just sounds like a reason to face it head-on, if half of everybody who gets it feel nothing from it.


But then your hospitals get overrun and more people die. Because of characteristics of how fast it spreads (if you dont try to mitigate it somehow (do nothing)).

If you are thinking from the end (this gets stopped, when 60-70% of your population had it, or have been vaccinated, 'forcing' a higher spread rate would not be wrong.) As long as hospitals arent over capacity "you dont have to think so much about mask wearing". Statistically.

On the personal level is a little bit different, because even if you don't die from it, it actually doesnt make you stronger to have had it, it makes you weaker.  (Lower lung capacity, inflamatory heart diseases as a secondary illness, ...) So there is a difference between getting immunity through infection, or through vaccination. Even as a young person. Statistically thats not as relevant ("not many more people die"), but for the individual it might be.

Also if you look at risk groups (f.e. homes for the elderly) you really, really have to do something there (mask wearing). And then it becomes an issue of 'do you isolate them from the rest of society?'. Thats also part of the "you do it for society" argument.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Sep 1, 2020)

I regret having opened this thread. So much negative tension.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 4, 2020)




----------



## notimp (Sep 6, 2020)

Flu is coming leads to one direct issue - more people with covid like symptoms, meaning, more testing required for which of them should self quarantine.

And one indirect issue in the same time window - as weather gets colder, and more people spend their days inside - Covid-19 will spread faster again.
-

Apart from that - no flu related anything, as far as I'm aware of.
-

Also, stop reading aggitation bullsh*t, whose only claim to fame is 'glass ball reading'. If all you are doing on twitter is to make predictions without any reasoning - wait for a guy as dumb as UltraSUPRA to fall for it I guess.

Twitter predictions, without reasoning are useless. And it doesnt help if you put in two hateful nonsensical vitriol nonsequitors after it, because you still had a few characters left.

Again, how dumb do you have to be to repost this? You could literally have two accounts posting slightly the opposite, but because you dont have to provide reasoning - at least one hits, and then you refer to 'I've always said it, ...'.


And on a sidenote - its really, really much too late to be the Trump bootlicker for Covid-19 not problematic at all.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Sep 7, 2020)

The flu and COVID19 compete for hosts. A person who is currently the host for a flu virus cannot be a host for another virus, right?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 7, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The flu and COVID19 compete for hosts. A person who is currently the host for a flu virus cannot be a host for another virus, right?


No, coinfection isn't only possible: It's apparently common.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 7, 2020)




----------



## Lacius (Sep 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> View attachment 224084


That's not what happened at all.


----------



## TajMacartney (Nov 9, 2020)

No, I am pro-choice [abortion], but for enforced mask-wearing in public.


----------



## jimbo13 (Nov 9, 2020)

I am against mandatory declarations over my body for any reason, at anytime. You can't/wont force me to wear a mask, goldstar or a big floppy purple phallus on my head because you think it is necessary.   I reject any coerced collective responsibility, I am a sovereign living creature separate from you. You aren't going to tell me I can't ingest psilocybin or DMT on a daily basis as I choose to do, if I want to drink raw milk I am going to drink it.

I can't really equate it that position to abortion being a moderate.  I don't believe in life at conception, I have no objections to early term & medically reasonable abortions but you also can't stab a living baby in the head because it happens to be in your uterus. There is a black, white and grey area during 9 months of gestation.   

I think your better off with a mask vs drug use argument because you negate the possibility of a third party in this equation.


----------



## mikefor20 (Nov 9, 2020)

So many stupid and selfish people. Stop spreading your diseases and your stupidity. WEAR A MASK. if you don't I hope your loved ones all get COVID and suffer. While you watch.. I hope you were the cause. Think of all the people your non mask wearing COVID spewing upper anus possibly infected. You could be responsible for thousands of deaths. Who the hell are you to decide not to wear a mask. Selfish and stupid. Hope it's your Grandma who dies.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 10, 2020)

mikefor20 said:


> So many stupid and selfish people. Stop spreading your diseases and your stupidity. WEAR A MASK. if you don't I hope your loved ones all get COVID and suffer. While you watch.. I hope you were the cause. Think of all the people your non mask wearing COVID spewing upper anus possibly infected. You could be responsible for thousands of deaths. Who the hell are you to decide not to wear a mask. Selfish and stupid. Hope it's your Grandma who dies.


"The Left advocates for peace and life."


----------



## mikefor20 (Nov 10, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> "The Left advocates for peace and life."



I don't. I advocate for logic. And you bastards who put everyone at risk for your tribal stupidity bullshit need to go. I don't care if you live or die. Go to some island. Go to hell. Whatever. We voted out President Cammacho. Let's stop idiocracy from happening and get rid of all the non vaxxers, non maskers, people who eat raw bats, people who won't cover their mouths or don't wash their hands after they shit. Let them all go to hell. They deserve it for infecting everyone with ever disease ever.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 10, 2020)

mikefor20 said:


> I don't. I advocate for logic. And you bastards who put everyone at risk for your tribal stupidity bullshit need to go. I don't care if you live or die. Go to some island. Go to hell. Whatever. We voted out President Cammacho. Let's stop idiocracy from happening and get rid of all the non vaxxers, non maskers, people who eat raw bats, people who won't cover their mouths or don't wash their hands after they shit. Let them all go to hell. They deserve it for infecting everyone with ever disease ever.


A world without faces isn't a world worth living in.


----------



## mikefor20 (Nov 10, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> A world without faces isn't a world worth living in.



So selfish. You want to see faces. Ohhh. We all should just forget it and let it kill all the old and sick immediately and then wait for your immune system to fail and it takes you too. Great idea just so you can look it some mandibles. Feelings have nothing to do with this.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 10, 2020)

mikefor20 said:


> So selfish. You want to see faces. Ohhh. We all should just forget it and let it kill all the old and sick immediately and then wait for your immune system to fail and it takes you too. Great idea just so you can look it some mandibles. Feelings have nothing to do with this.


The alternative is to destroy everyone's mental health, causing a mass uptick in suicide rates. We're screwed either way.


----------



## mikefor20 (Nov 10, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The alternative is to destroy everyone's mental health, causing a mass uptick in suicide rates. We're screwed either way.



No. You find a way to protect who you love. Protect your community. Protect humanity. That way is WEAR A FUCKING MASK! DISTANCE!  Your MENTAL HEALTH?? A high death count isn't DAMAGING???!? We're far less screwed without idiots and their feelings. WEAR A MASK. if you don't YOU ARE A MURDER!.. potentially. ISN'T THAT A REASON? Doesn't that make you feel better about yourself when you wear a mask. A little compassion and action? How SELFISH can you possibly be? Feelings... Don't be so stupid. Come on. Suicide??!? Please LOL ROFL LOL


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 10, 2020)

mikefor20 said:


> No. You find a way to protect who you love. Protect your community. Protect humanity. That way it WEAR A FUCKING MASK! DISTANCE!  Your MENTAL HEALTH?? A high death count isn't DAMAGING???!? We're far less screwed without idiots and their feelings. WEAR A MASK. if you don't YOU ARE A MURDER!.. potentially. ISN'T THAT A REASON? Doesn't that make you feel better about yourself when you wear a mask. A little compassion and action? How SELFISH can you possibly be? Feelings... Don't be so stupid. Come on. Suicide??!? Please LOL ROFL LOL


Freedom is not selfish.
Freedom is not without sacrifice.
Freedom is far more important than safety.


----------



## jimbo13 (Nov 10, 2020)

mikefor20 said:


> I don't. I advocate for logic. And you bastards who put everyone at risk for your tribal stupidity bullshit need to go. I don't care if you live or die. Go to some island. Go to hell. Whatever. We voted out President Cammacho. Let's stop idiocracy from happening and get rid of all the non vaxxers, non maskers, people who eat raw bats, people who won't cover their mouths or don't wash their hands after they shit. Let them all go to hell. They deserve it for infecting everyone with ever disease ever.



I value enraging you more than security, still not wearing a mask.   See how that works?


----------



## djpannda (Nov 10, 2020)

@UltraSUPRA @jimbo13
Here you guys are, I can't wait to spread our  Xenophobic views to the rest of the Forum.
Have you guy already talked bout the "Great medical deaths of 1993".. where hundreds of doctors and nurses sufficated because of wearing a mask.. and led to the medical field banning masks..
 its true!!


----------



## mikefor20 (Nov 10, 2020)

You are all retarded


UltraSUPRA said:


> Freedom is not selfish.
> Freedom is not without sacrifice.
> Freedom is far more important than safety.



Freedom from masks? LOL You are selfish, sacrafice yourself, Go play russian roulette with your family.



jimbo13 said:


> I value enraging you more than security, still not wearing a mask.   See how that works?



Your Cammacho avatar. I thought you understood that movie. You are the future... Selfish and retarded.


----------



## djpannda (Nov 10, 2020)

the party moved to Joe Biden win thread, we are talking bout how only white male land owners have rights.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 10, 2020)

mikefor20 said:


> Freedom from masks? LOL You are selfish, sacrafice yourself, Go play russian roulette with your family.


How do you boil a frog?


----------



## 0x3000027E (Nov 10, 2020)

djpannda said:


> white male land owners have rights.


Hmph. Sounds like the thread has decomposed into "flavor of the month" arguments and viewpoints again.... The election thread suffered from the same problem from time to time...and ultimately we_ all _suffer when the conversation becomes limited to a series of broad and uninsteresting mainstream comments that have been floating around social media.(You surely remember the "you are racist but you don't know it" fad....what did they call that...unconscious bias?) The thread is in need of some spark, perhaps I will go and interject.


----------

