That’s a huge difference, no? @ola

No.

Nudity is rape.., the gems keep coming. *Noted *

No, what the law aims to prevent is rape

The mask laws aim to prevent death. Not murder

Rape is a poor analogy. In fact, I dont think it is one at all tbh.

I didn’t make the analogy

The point is simple. If we can impose force on anyone because walking around means people might die, we can impose force on everyone

It is not a crime to have the flu or to have COVID

And if it is, then we’re all potential criminals, including the ones enforcing the law

Your tyrannical system inevitably ends in war. Start stocking up now

You did make the rape analogy.

What Malachi and I were trying to point out was that laws exist that limit liberties - for good reasons of course. More specifically preventative laws exist that limit liberties. In that way a nudity law and a mask law are the same.

Because I’m an intellectually honest person, or try to be

A better line of argument for you JP would be

That the distinction is not preventative or otherwise. The distinction is limiting freedoms vs FORCING actions ( wearing masks, compelled speech etc)

But then you would have to admit that limiting crowds of 10 is ok while forcing mask wearing is not

Malachi - this was just a counter thought in my mind. Your thoughts @Malachi ?

I think that the distinction here is public spaces. But to be honest our lives are limited in private as well.
To be frank, JP is under some insane 'maximal freedom all the time' type of philosophy that doesn't play out in the real world.

To me he is playing the game of "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you" and he thinks he won't get slugged in the gut anyway. at that point it doesn't matter who is right, it matters what we allow in our society.

Ok. But I’m just wondering if what I said would be a reasonable objection

Nothing about “rape” was an analogy. Rape was the reason I gave for why the analogy was a terrible one.

If you impose one rule to prevent a crime, don’t compare that to imposing a rule that doesn’t.

If carrying viruses is a crime, we can impose all sorts of tyranny on others.

Malachi, I love how “public” means “private” to you.

Public means public. Is there a space I can be free that’s not inside my own home?

Do you agree that there are two spaces, public and private?

Also, I just completed my school work for the week! Woot!

There are public spaces. We can’t commit crimes there, but we are free. All crimes boil down to infringing on someone else’s life or liberty.

You’re literally insane if you think carrying a virus is a crime. Or leads to crime.

And that it somehow justifies using force against non criminal, free, people in a public space.

Tyrant.

Do you agree that all tyrants felt justified in their reasons for tyranny?

Did you know that the word Tyrant only recently became negative.

Also my answer would be yes. People tend to justify their actions.

did you aska question that I missed?

This blew my mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG1YlF8PH9E

Does anybody really believe slip between 0 and 19 years of age there has been only 4 people that have died from covid-19 N20 with pre-existing conditions

> This blew my mind:
@dogbref
It's definitely much more likely to kill those with pre existing illness.

But for some reason people don't like the "fuck your grandpa, I want to go to the beach."

It would be more likely to kill me. I haven't done anything fun for a long time.

I also would like to point out that I am not a virologist. I am also not under the impression that my government wants me afraid of stuff. I'm not under the impression that there is a control feature here.

Virusologists also have split opinions.

It's a weird phenomenon in today's society. I don't argue with my Dentist about flossing. I don't argue with my mechanic about my brake pads. I don't argue with my pot dealer about growing weed (they are better). I don't argue (much) with tax preparers.

For some reason, everyone wants to argue about diseases.

I would like to be like you than.