Flight to London has to return to Miami because of anti Mask "Karen"

[Faun]

That makes no sense.
Obviously the shoe bomber had no control over where his flight took him.
Once he tried to light the fuse, they took his shoes and tied him up.
Doesn't matter if they went back, landed sooner, or continued on to their original destination.

But comparing an actual bomb to saliva droplets, is not at all rational.
A bomb can cause a plane to depressurize and be torn apart by the high speed winds.
Everyone is going to get the saliva droplets of everyone else on any long flight.
That is pretty much guaranteed.

The comparison is meant to show if you disrupt a flight for any reason, they can land at the closest airport and have the disruptive person removed.

 

[Rigby5]

Rules that have no negatives, do not exist in nature or society and never have.
Science on masks has been obscured by partisanship on both sides. The mask partisans have at time purported masks the perfect solution, though they are and were not perfect filtration, no matter the quality of non respirator type masks. The anti-mask partisans to this day would have you believe that anything less than perfect 100% filtration are of no benefit. Both positions are wrong.

I totally disagree.
The only time rules are at all acceptable is if they have no negatives, (meaning they are more positive than negative).
For example, "first come, first serve" is a universal rule we all accept as preventing the strong from harming the weak.
When I let an elderly or disabled go ahead of me, that is my choice, not a rule being imposed arbitrarily.

Mask are not just slightly imperfect, but horrendous.
It is not just that they only slightly reduce the viral load to others, but that by slowing down infection rates even a little, they actually cause far more death.
That is because the goal to minimize death in most epidemics, relies on achieving herd immunity rates as quickly as possible.
Just slowing the infection rate means the epidemic can't end, goes on possibly forever, and that greatly increases the death total.

Just go back to Gen. Washington ordering deliberate infection of his continental army with smallpox, (variolation), in 1777.
The quicker you get an epidemic over, the least deaths you have as a result.
The longer you let an epidemic drag on, the more deaths you have as a result.

This article is wrong to call variolation a "vaccination".
It is deliberate infection.
Vaccine were not invented for almost 30 more years.

Are vaccine mandates un-American? Ask the father of our country

Again, the point against masks is NOT about them not being 100% effective.
The point is that the only useful strategies for epidemics are quick.
Mask are useful if the quick strategy of full quarantine is being used.
But if you are not doing full quarantine, then the quick strategy of deliberate acceleration of infection is your only other choice.
Social distancing and masks to "flatten the curve" is not a valid or useful strategy.
It does not work, can not end any epidemic, and results in the largest possible death result.

 

[Rigby5]

The comparison is meant to show if you disrupt a flight for any reason, they can land at the closest airport and have the disruptive person removed.

But that is still stupid.
Once a threat is over, then disrupting the flight destination is entirely the fault of the crew and no one else.

 

[Faun]

When rules are contrary to science, then they must be defeated at all costs.
Rules are arbitrary and do not contain a legal basis unless they are based on science.
Mask rules can have some science for short periods, but not long enough periods for saliva to evaporate.

Nope, they can make any rules they want if they so decide it's for the safety of their passengers and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. You're always free not to fly if you find their rules too bothersome for you.

 

[Rigby5]

Nope, they can make any rules they want if they so decide it's for the safety of their passengers and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. You're always free not to fly if you find their rules too bothersome for you.

Wrong.
For example, if an airline makes a rule that a pilot is totally in command and can do whatever he wants, and he then starts feeling up female passengers, then the passengers are free to ignore the rule and tie up the criminal pilot.
Illegal rules are still illegal, no matter how much fascists would like it to be different.
The only valid rules are ones that defend rights, not abuse rights.
It is our duty in a democratic republic to violate rules that abuse rights.
Or do you believe Blacks should still be denied service at restaurants?

 

[Orangecat]

The mask partisans have at time purported masks the perfect solution, though they are and were not perfect filtration, no matter the quality of non respirator type masks. The anti-mask partisans to this day would have you believe that anything less than perfect 100% filtration are of no benefit. Both positions are wrong.

True. The difference today being, in the past, if one wanted to protect themselves with a mask, they were perfectly able to, but could not force their personal choice on others.

 

[AMart]

Video or it didn't happen....
If she was hot, I don't see the need for a mask.
If she was fat pig, however, mask would be mandatory.

Pretty privilege is real and it should be. Also why so many ugly people end of marxists.

 

[Faun]

But that is still stupid.
Once a threat is over, then disrupting the flight destination is entirely the fault of the crew and no one else.

Anyone can still be disruptive even after their initial disruption is resolved. Planes are often routed to the nearest airport to get such people off their planes as quickly as possible. They're also often added to no-fly lists so they can't repeat their disruptions.

 

[AMart]

Eh....? Or just land in London and then extradite her back. Turning around was idiotic.

This

 

[Faun]

Wrong.
For example, if an airline makes a rule that a pilot is totally in command and can do whatever he wants, and he then starts feeling up female passengers, then the passengers are free to ignore the rule and tie up the criminal pilot.
Illegal rules are still illegal, no matter how much fascists would like it to be different.
The only valid rules are ones that defend rights, not abuse rights.
It is our duty in a democratic republic to violate rules that abuse rights.
Or do you believe Blacks should still be denied service at restaurants?

Now you're being stupid. Moreso than usual. Feeling up passengers is illegal. Neither airlines nor the FAA can make rules that violate laws.

And you're welcome to violate their mask rule if you feel it's your duty to do so. But you'll only get to do that one time before they kick you off the flight and ban you from flying again.

 

[White 6]

I totally disagree.
The only time rules are at all acceptable is if they have no negatives, (meaning they are more positive than negative).
For example, "first come, first serve" is a universal rule we all accept as preventing the strong from harming the weak.
When I let an elderly or disabled go ahead of me, that is my choice, not a rule being imposed arbitrarily.

Mask are not just slightly imperfect, but horrendous.
It is not just that they only slightly reduce the viral load to others, but that by slowing down infection rates even a little, they actually cause far more death.
That is because the goal to minimize death in most epidemics, relies on achieving herd immunity rates as quickly as possible.
Just slowing the infection rate means the epidemic can't end, goes on possibly forever, and that greatly increases the death total.

Just go back to Gen. Washington ordering deliberate infection of his continental army with smallpox, (variolation), in 1777.
The quicker you get an epidemic over, the least deaths you have as a result.
The longer you let an epidemic drag on, the more deaths you have as a result.

This article is wrong to call variolation a "vaccination".
It is deliberate infection.
Vaccine were not invented for almost 30 more years.

Are vaccine mandates un-American? Ask the father of our country

Again, the point against masks is NOT about them not being 100% effective.
The point is that the only useful strategies for epidemics are quick.
Mask are useful if the quick strategy of full quarantine is being used.
But if you are not doing full quarantine, then the quick strategy of deliberate acceleration of infection is your only other choice.
Social distancing and masks to "flatten the curve" is not a valid or useful strategy.
It does not work, can not end any epidemic, and results in the largest possible death result.

I guess you had more permissive parents than I.

 

[EvMetro]

Masks on a long plane flight are totally and completely ridiculous.

Indeed.

 

[Rigby5]

Anyone can still be disruptive even after their initial disruption is resolved. Planes are often routed to the nearest airport to get such people off their planes as quickly as possible. They're also often added to no-fly lists so they can't repeat their disruptions.

Makes absolutely no sense at all to reroute airplanes unless damage has occurred that make continues flying hazardous.
All you said is that they do it "often", well lots of stupid or illegal things were "often" done in the past, like segregation.
That does not at all make it legal or right.

 

[Rigby5]

Now you're being stupid. Moreso than usual. Feeling up passengers is illegal. Neither airlines nor the FAA can make rules that violate laws.

And you're welcome to violate their mask rule if you feel it's your duty to do so. But you'll only get to do that one time before they kick you off the flight and ban you from flying again.

Their mask rule results in the greatest death result, so then is illegal murder.
Since they are not finger printing, then they can not prevent anyone from flying, ever.

However, I do not like flying and simply do not do it.

 

[Rigby5]

I guess you had more permissive parents than I.

Wrong.
I just learned logic, history, law, and science.
That allows one to determine what is right vs what is wrong.
Like all the wars since the War of 1812 were actually wrong.
They were all murder motivated by profits, and were illegal.
The lies about "Remember the Maine" are almost identical to the lies about "Iraqi WMD".
And honest citizens have a duty to oppose harmful lies.

 

[Who_Me?]

I totally disagree.
The only time rules are at all acceptable is if they have no negatives, (meaning they are more positive than negative).
For example, "first come, first serve" is a universal rule we all accept as preventing the strong from harming the weak.
When I let an elderly or disabled go ahead of me, that is my choice, not a rule being imposed arbitrarily.

Mask are not just slightly imperfect, but horrendous.
It is not just that they only slightly reduce the viral load to others, but that by slowing down infection rates even a little, they actually cause far more death.
That is because the goal to minimize death in most epidemics, relies on achieving herd immunity rates as quickly as possible.
Just slowing the infection rate means the epidemic can't end, goes on possibly forever, and that greatly increases the death total.

Just go back to Gen. Washington ordering deliberate infection of his continental army with smallpox, (variolation), in 1777.
The quicker you get an epidemic over, the least deaths you have as a result.
The longer you let an epidemic drag on, the more deaths you have as a result.

This article is wrong to call variolation a "vaccination".
It is deliberate infection.
Vaccine were not invented for almost 30 more years.

Are vaccine mandates un-American? Ask the father of our country

Again, the point against masks is NOT about them not being 100% effective.
The point is that the only useful strategies for epidemics are quick.
Mask are useful if the quick strategy of full quarantine is being used.
But if you are not doing full quarantine, then the quick strategy of deliberate acceleration of infection is your only other choice.
Social distancing and masks to "flatten the curve" is not a valid or useful strategy.
It does not work, can not end any epidemic, and results in the largest possible death result.

Umm, the medical profession uses them constantly to stop the spread of virus and infection. My money is with them.

 

[Rigby5]

Umm, the medical profession uses them constantly to stop the spread of virus and infection. My money is with them.

Totally wrong. Doctors use masks to stop bacteria and protozoa, not viruses.
If anyone said they wore a mask to prevent virus spread, they were lying.
A full face shield and respirator might work, but that is only used in the ICU.

 

[Who_Me?]

Totally wrong. Doctors use masks to stop bacteria and protozoa, not viruses.
If anyone said they wore a mask to prevent virus spread, they were lying.
A full face shield and respirator might work, but that is only used in the ICU.

Right Doc.

 

[krichton]

Simple solution: STOP with the stupid mask mandate!!!!!

or simply abide by the rules of the airline to which you agreed to when you bought your ticket?

 

[Circe]

or simply abide by the rules of the airline to which you agreed to when you bought your ticket?

Pointless rules for the sake of obedience, obedience. Time to stop complying, people.