Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#25,751
#25,751
Pepe_Silvia said:
There you go! Every individual owns their own body and is responsible for their own health. Mitigate your risk or don't. Its every individuals choice.
Click to expand...
I agree in principle. Problem is that if somebody picks up the virus at a gathering and then leaves, those they may come in indirect contact with afterwards aren’t given a choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan, Hunerwadel and 05_never_again
#25,753
#25,753
05_never_again said:
The point of staying at home isn't to get your risk down to zero. It's to lower your risk.

If you define "safe" as "zero risk,' then absolutely nothing is safe.
Click to expand...
So, you're infringing personal liberties on a slippery slope. Piss off.

If you are afraid of the virus, stay home, bar the door, and hope you haven't been enough of a douche to alienate anyone who may deliver food to your paranoid ... You won't come into contact with the evil idiots that get together to pray, drink, play cornhole, go to the beach, or have orgies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pepe_Silvia
#25,754
#25,754
Orange_Crush said:
So, you're infringing personal liberties on a slippery slope. Piss off.

If you are afraid of the virus, stay home, bar the door, and hope you haven't been enough of a douche to alienate anyone who may deliver food to your paranoid ... You won't come into contact with the evil idiots that get together to pray, drink, play cornhole, go to the beach, or have orgies.
Click to expand...
Your logical fallacy is slippery slope
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#25,755
#25,755
Dr Dread said:
If a President states in an interview that he believes the amount of equipment a state is saying they need is inflated, that he believes what they actually need for their state is much lower, how is it an unfair question to ask him how this will affect the way he allocates those needed resources?
Click to expand...

Perhaps he knew of the on hand supply and hospital capacity numbers before taking the stupid question?
 
#25,757
#25,757
Hunerwadel said:
You can't yell "fire" in a crowded building because people may get hurt in the stampede. Likewise you may not be allowed to assemble large crowds when a known highly communicable pathogen is spreading through the population. May be something SCOTUS eventually looks at.
Click to expand...

And toss out on 1st amendment reasons. Nothing in the 1st amendment putting it on hold at anytime. Not saying that I agree with what the pastor did under the circumstances. But this is a slam dunk imo
 
#25,760
#25,760
Orange_Crush said:
The free exercise of religion shall not be infringed, unless we infringe a lot of other stuff too... When have I ever said that he is being singled out? I've pointed out that the Constitution doesn't insert the "unless" that you are.
Click to expand...

Ok. You are bringing up religion though. I fail to see what that has to do with this instance.

Is the right to exercise religion being infringed or is right to assembly being infringed here? I don’t think anybody is saying he can’t practice his religion....or even hold service for that matter. Other avenues of online streaming or TV are still available. This has to do with organizing a large gathering against current public ordinance. And again, not saying I agree with said ordinance.
 
#25,762
#25,762
rjd970 said:
Ok. You are bringing up religion though. I fail to see what that has to do with this instance.

Is the right to exercise religion being infringed or is right to assembly being infringed here? I don’t think anybody is saying he can’t practice his religion....or even hold service for that matter. Other avenues of online streaming or TV are still available. This has to do with organizing a large gathering against current public ordinance. And again, not saying I agree with said ordinance.
Click to expand...

Nice try splitting hairs but no way the SC rules against this pastor
 
  • Like
Reactions: 508mikey
#25,763
#25,763
rjd970 said:
Ok. You are bringing up religion though. I fail to see what that has to do with this instance.

Is the right to exercise religion being infringed or is right to assembly being infringed here? I don’t think anybody is saying he can’t practice his religion....or even hold service for that matter. Other avenues of online streaming or TV are still available. This has to do with organizing a large gathering against current public ordinance. And again, not saying I agree with said ordinance.
Click to expand...
You're telling them how to exercise their religion?

Hebrews 10:25 -- And let us not neglect our meeting together, as some people do, but encourage one another, especially now that the day of his return is drawing near.
Click to expand...

Again... The free exercise of religion shall not be infringed...
 
#25,765
#25,765
vols40 said:
And toss out on 1st amendment reasons. Nothing in the 1st amendment putting it on hold at anytime. Not saying that I agree with what the pastor did under the circumstances. But this is a slam dunk imo
Click to expand...

Man, I have no quarrel with you, but this is very incorrect information.

The Schenck vs. US case was a First Amendment case, and the ruling was that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater (unless there is a fire).
 
#25,768
#25,768
GordonC said:
Man, I have no quarrel with you, but this is very incorrect information.

The Schenck vs. US case was a First Amendment case, and the ruling was that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater (unless there is a fire).
Click to expand...

I don't see this as that. Respectfully disagree
 
#25,770
#25,770
05_never_again said:
You're not suggesting that banning church services during a pandemic is a slippery slope?
Click to expand...
No. I'm not. What gave you that idea?

There's no slope about it. I'm saying that it's a blatant infringement of constitutional rights to exercise freedom of religion, freedom of movement, and freedom of association. And that if you're afraid of the virus, stay home. You won't come into contact with all those people you're afraid of.

Where did you come up with a "slippery slope" argument in all of that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40
#25,773
#25,773
GordonC said:
Man, I have no quarrel with you, but this is very incorrect information.

The Schenck vs. US case was a First Amendment case, and the ruling was that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater (unless there is a fire).
Click to expand...

There wasno ruling about fires, yelling,or movie theaters in that case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GordonC
#25,774
#25,774
GordonC said:
Man, I have no quarrel with you, but this is very incorrect information.

The Schenck vs. US case was a First Amendment case, and the ruling was that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater (unless there is a fire).
Click to expand...

And why is that?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top