Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

[utvolpj]

I understand what you're saying, and it makes sense. BUT, from a pragmatic point of view, what are you going to do? Arrest people for protesting? Insanity. That would have resulted in a HUGE number of very destructive riots IMO.

Conversely, Trump knowingly and willfully flaunts the advice of his own administration. Why? Why would he hold a rally in a closed arena with no social distancing and no masks?

The answer is obvious. And there's a stark difference between the two. If you don't see that, then you're beyond help yourself.

What you're saying is one peaceful assembly is acceptable to you while another is not. Thankfully the Constitution doesn't make that distinction

 

[TrumpedUpVol]

They are likely younger people getting infected. Their hospitalization rate is about a third of older adults and deaths even lower

Oh, definitely; everything points to people in their thirties and twenties comprising the bulk of new cases, which certainly explains why there have been fewer deaths.

To a point you've made numerous times in these threads, this just emphasizes the need to selectively sequester the most vulnerable (extreme pre-existing "comorbidities", the elderly, etc) in society as best we can and just kind of push forward until wide-scale treatment or vaccination exists. I recognize that it's not exactly easy to decrease exposure likelihood for the vulnerable, especially if radical distancing measures are eschewed, but it's the burden of those coming in contact with these people to balance their lives as opposed to negatively impacting the pocketbook and liberties of everyone else.

 

[LouderVol]

I understand what you're saying, and it makes sense. BUT, from a pragmatic point of view, what are you going to do? Arrest people for protesting? Insanity. That would have resulted in a HUGE number of very destructive riots IMO.

Conversely, Trump knowingly and willfully flaunts the advice of his own administration. Why? Why would he hold a rally in a closed arena with no social distancing and no masks?

The answer is obvious. And there's a stark difference between the two. If you don't see that, then you're beyond help yourself.

People, news networks, and politicians were calling for the arrests of protestors. But only when it was the other side doing it in Michigan.

 

[DC_Vol]

I understand what you're saying, and it makes sense. BUT, from a pragmatic point of view, what are you going to do? Arrest people for protesting? Insanity. That would have resulted in a HUGE number of very destructive riots IMO.

Conversely, Trump knowingly and willfully flaunts the advice of his own administration. Why? Why would he hold a rally in a closed arena with no social distancing and no masks?

The answer is obvious. And there's a stark difference between the two. If you don't see that, then you're beyond help yourself.

What point are you trying to make? Flaunting the “experts’” advice is only acceptable if the gathering may get violent? That some causes are more worthy than others in the eyes of the law?

I’m really not sure what you are trying to say.

 

[MontyPython]

What you're saying is one peaceful assembly is acceptable to you while another is not. Thankfully the Constitution doesn't make that distinction

No. That's not what I'm saying, you know that.

 

[McDad]

I understand what you're saying, and it makes sense. BUT, from a pragmatic point of view, what are you going to do? Arrest people for protesting? Insanity. That would have resulted in a HUGE number of very destructive riots IMO.

Conversely, Trump knowingly and willfully flaunts the advice of his own administration. Why? Why would he hold a rally in a closed arena with no social distancing and no masks?

The answer is obvious. And there's a stark difference between the two. If you don't see that, then you're beyond help yourself.

Convoluted justification, imo, MP.

 

[MontyPython]

What point are you trying to make? Flaunting the “experts’” advice is only acceptable if the gathering may get violent? That some causes are more worthy than others in the eyes of the law?

I’m really not sure what you are trying to say.

Fair enough.

My point is this:

(1) Protesters that gathered in anger over the murder of George Floyd had a right to be angry and a right to assemble. Most protesters were smart enough to wear masks, and some tried to maintain social distancing.

compared to

(2) Rally attendees that gathered in support of Trump had a right to be supportive and a right to assemble. Most rally attendees, though, weren't smart enough to wear masks, and basically none tried to maintain social distancing.

In my view, the spontaneous BLM protest is far more important and legitimized than a stupid Trump (or any politician's) rally. I get why people can argue about moral equivalency but, again, our own President effectively told his biggest fans not to take reasonable, easy precautions during a pandemic, put themselves in harm's way and, surprise surprise, sign a liability waiver form that gets Donald a free get out of jail card.

 

[utvolpj]

No. That's not what I'm saying, you know that.

No, I actually don't

 

[McDad]

Fair enough.

My point is this:

(1) Protesters that gathered in anger over the murder of George Floyd had a right to be angry and a right to assemble. Most protesters were smart enough to wear masks, and some tried to maintain social distancing.

compared to

(2) Rally attendees that gathered in support of Trump had a right to be supportive and a right to assemble. Most rally attendees, though, weren't smart enough to wear masks, and basically none tried to maintain social distancing.

In my view, the spontaneous BLM protest is far more important and legitimized than a stupid Trump (or any politician's) rally. I get why people can argue about moral equivalency but, again, our own President effectively told his biggest fans not to take reasonable, easy precautions during a pandemic, put themselves in harm's way and, surprise surprise, sign a liability waiver form that gets Donald a free get out of jail card.

You've lost your objectivity, here.

 

[mr.checkerboards]

So heres an example of how the media is playing this. Tomorrow my family and I are supposed to go to Orlando tomorrow. My mom goes in to work this morning and a co worker shows her an article thats dated this week that says all of Florida is shutting down again, masks are required, and you will be fined if you go out without one. I tried to find said article on the website I was told it was on and couldn't. So she calls down there to see if we need to change our plans and reschedule again. She was told, that yes some counties surrounding where we are going (Kissimmee) are requiring masks but they are not. She was also told Tampa/St.Pete and Cocoa Beach are wide open. Please do your own research on things and dont just rely on the news, theyre going to tell you what sells, and thats not always the truth or at least the whole truth.

 

[DC_Vol]

Fair enough.

My point is this:

(1) Protesters that gathered in anger over the murder of George Floyd had a right to be angry and a right to assemble. Most protesters were smart enough to wear masks, and some tried to maintain social distancing.

compared to

(2) Rally attendees that gathered in support of Trump had a right to be supportive and a right to assemble. Most rally attendees, though, weren't smart enough to wear masks, and basically none tried to maintain social distancing.

In my view, the spontaneous BLM protest is far more important and legitimized than a stupid Trump (or any politician's) rally. I get why people can argue about moral equivalency but, again, our own President effectively told his biggest fans not to take reasonable, easy precautions during a pandemic, put themselves in harm's way and, surprise surprise, sign a liability waiver form that gets Donald a free get out of jail card.

Instead of looking at it as who is more justified in not following the “expert” advice why not say any peaceful gathering is justified? And people who attend any peaceful gathering are free to wear the appropriate PPE should they fear contracting the virus?

It seems easier that way and avoids the need to twist yourself into a pretzel to semi justify one event while condemning another.

 

[0nelilreb]

Fair enough.

My point is this:

(1) Protesters that gathered in anger over the murder of George Floyd had a right to be angry and a right to assemble. Most protesters were smart enough to wear masks, and some tried to maintain social distancing.



(2) Rally attendees that gathered in support of Trump had a right to be supportive and a right to assemble. Most rally attendees, though, weren't smart enough to wear masks, and basically none tried to maintain social distancing.

In my view, the spontaneous BLM protest is far more important and legitimized than a stupid Trump (or any politician's) rally. I get why people can argue about moral equivalency but, again, our own President effectively told his biggest fans not to take reasonable, easy precautions during a pandemic, put themselves in harm's way and, surprise surprise, sign a liability waiver form that gets Donald a free get out of jail card.

BLM rallies , marches , protests are not “ Spontaneous “ they are organized locally and nationally .

 

[MontyPython]

You've lost your objectivity, here.

Go to google. Search "blm protestors". Look at the various images.

You tell me what percentage of people wore masks. I'd say 80%.

Go to google. Search "trump tulsa rally". Look at the various images.

You tell me what percentage of people wore masks. I'd say 5%.

I rest my case.

 

[McDad]

Go to google. Search "blm protestors". Look at the various images.

You tell me what percentage of people wore masks. I'd say 80%.

Go to google. Search "trump tulsa rally". Look at the various images.

You tell me what percentage of people wore masks. I'd say 5%.

I rest my case.

What do you see here?

 

[DC_Vol]

Go to google. Search "blm protestors". Look at the various images.

You tell me what percentage of people wore masks. I'd say 80%.

Go to google. Search "trump tulsa rally". Look at the various images.

You tell me what percentage of people wore masks. I'd say 5%.

I rest my case.

So the Floyd protesters are more virtuous because more of them had masks??

Serious question here because I only know the onerous requirements of the Maryland. Did Oklahoma have a ban on large gatherings, a social distancing requirement, and/or a mask requirement at the time of the rally?

 

[MontyPython]

What do you see here?View attachment 288601

A Boston "Hello!"

 

[0nelilreb]

Go to google. Search "blm protestors". Look at the various images.

You tell me what percentage of people wore masks. I'd say 80%.

Go to google. Search "trump tulsa rally". Look at the various images.

You tell me what percentage of people wore masks. I'd say 5%.

I rest my case.

Dude you really want us to post pics of these protestors and people in the riots without masks or are you just specifically singling out BLM protestors ? Again a virus doesn’t care about your cause . It’s either dangerous or it’s not . There’s no well buts . The politicians and media have been hypocrites on the matter .

 

[McDad]

A Boston "Hello!"

What about now?

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

What about now?
View attachment 288606

Uh oh........it's that white supremacy sign that the left totally made up out of thin air to fuel racism.

 

[MontyPython]

What about now?
View attachment 288606

The number of Trump Tulsa rally attendees?

 

[McDad]

The number of Trump Tulsa rally attendees?

LOL. Funny.

The point is self evident. Your google images on which you rest your case are not necessarily factual. Images are manipulated, chosen, culled, because there is someone trying to convey a message.

And since I am rejecting your case for flimsy evidence, my position you've lost your objectivity remains.

 

[MontyPython]

LOL. Funny.

The point is self evident. Your google images on which you rest your case are not necessarily factual. Images are manipulated, chosen, culled, because there is someone trying to convey a message.

And since I am rejecting your case for flimsy evidence, my position you've lost your objectivity remains.

Didn't want to have to pull this card, but desperate times...

 

[lawgator1]

So heres an example of how the media is playing this. Tomorrow my family and I are supposed to go to Orlando tomorrow. My mom goes in to work this morning and a co worker shows her an article thats dated this week that says all of Florida is shutting down again, masks are required, and you will be fined if you go out without one. I tried to find said article on the website I was told it was on and couldn't. So she calls down there to see if we need to change our plans and reschedule again. She was told, that yes some counties surrounding where we are going (Kissimmee) are requiring masks but they are not. She was also told Tampa/St.Pete and Cocoa Beach are wide open. Please do your own research on things and dont just rely on the news, theyre going to tell you what sells, and thats not always the truth or at least the whole truth.

Orlando does require masks. It is in Orange County.

Orange County residents will be required to wear face masks under new executive order

Parts of Disney are in Orange County, some parts in Osceola County.

Osceola County mask mandate still in effect


I believe that in both, there is no penalty. However, what you will find in some cases, like restaurants, is that if you don't wear one you will be asked to and if you do not you will be asked to leave.

 

[mr.checkerboards]

Orlando does require masks. It is in Orange County.

Orange County residents will be required to wear face masks under new executive order

Parts of Disney are in Orange County, some parts in Osceola County.

Osceola County mask mandate still in effect


I believe that in both, there is no penalty. However, what you will find in some cases, like restaurants, is that if you don't wear one you will be asked to and if you do not you will be asked to leave.

I know some places are still requiring it. As I stated I have not seen said article because I couldn't find it, but my mother has. From what she said the article was basically saying Florida is shutting down again and going into lockdown mode. That restuarants and beaches were closing and you couldn't not wear a mask without getting fined

 

[37L1]

So... you don't support people rising up in anger because a black man was murdered in plain view in public? SMH.

You'll notice, btw, that many if not most people at the BLM rallies wore masks. Meanwhile, back in the White House...

So you don't support people exercising their First Amendment right to worship that many died to make possible? SMDH. That's your stupid argument turned right back on you since you appear to be logically challenged.

You know, right now, this all appears as glorified , warmed over BS.

So, it's OK to be exposed to COVID just as long as your cause fits your paradigm? As if the virus knows the difference regarding just cause protests and those just going about their lives as usual.

You know those masks don't do jack, right? Look at the pictures, a lot without masks, some wearing the masks half-assed, over mouth not nose, or under their chin. How's that supposed to work? And what about that 6' social distancing? If this is allowed, why can't people attend church services outside wearing masks? The standard has been set by these protests. I think if people want to go to church, restaurants, plant gardens, etc., etc., etc., they ought to be allowed to do so. If they aren't allowed to do so, it's only because they are willfully complying because mass civil disobedience obviously works.

We are on the road to that if they try to re-institute a total lock down.