We Have the Right to Assemble and Freedom of Religion - Unlawful Arrest of Preacher

Siete

Platinum Member
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
34,325
Reaction score
3,965
Points
1,130
But this current lockdown can't be open ended, we need to see a return to normalcy up ahead pretty soon. 30% unemployment is really bad news. They had it for many years in Detroit, take a look at that mess.
If this continues for very long, most of us won't need to go to places like Detroit to see it. Our own communities will look the same way.

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO IS FIGHT FOR YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and the people rubbing elbows in the church -

that would prolong the virus effecting you, and your community could be totally wiped out.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
 

Polishprince

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
20,010
Reaction score
4,742
Points
290
But this current lockdown can't be open ended, we need to see a return to normalcy up ahead pretty soon. 30% unemployment is really bad news. They had it for many years in Detroit, take a look at that mess.
If this continues for very long, most of us won't need to go to places like Detroit to see it. Our own communities will look the same way.

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO IS FIGHT FOR YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and the people rubbing elbows in the church -

that would prolong the virus effecting you, and your community could be totally wiped out.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
A virus that kills less than 1% of the people it affects is not going to "wipe out" any community.
 

Siete

Platinum Member
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
34,325
Reaction score
3,965
Points
1,130
But this current lockdown can't be open ended, we need to see a return to normalcy up ahead pretty soon. 30% unemployment is really bad news. They had it for many years in Detroit, take a look at that mess.
If this continues for very long, most of us won't need to go to places like Detroit to see it. Our own communities will look the same way.

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO IS FIGHT FOR YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and the people rubbing elbows in the church -

that would prolong the virus effecting you, and your community could be totally wiped out.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
A virus that kills less than 1% of the people it affects is not going to "wipe out" any community.
you calling blaylock a liar
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
115,935
Reaction score
18,297
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
The "right to gather to worship" ain't in there.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
WHAT'S THE VERB IN THAT PHRASE, DINGO??

"Gather to worship"

That's why it was in ITALICS, Dumbass.

:aug08_031:

THIS JUST IN -- worship does not require "gather" so spare us the persecution-complex Checkers Speeches.
Now, you're just playing the sort of absurd, intellectually-dishonest semantic games for which you are notorious.

The First Amendment is absolutely clear that we have a right to worship. It is equally clear that we have a right to peaceably assemble.

It absolutely, and undeniably follows from that, that we have a right to peaceably assemble, for the purpose of worship.

Even you, in all your madness and in all your deceitfulness, can't possibly believe that there is a case to be made that having two separate rights, which are not directly connected, does not mean that we have the right to exercise one of those rights pursuant to exercising the other.
Okay one more time...

The poster tried to make the point that, quote,
people still have the Constitutional right to gather for worship
--- There is no such thing. The Constitution guarantees the right to religious practice of one's choice. That does NOT require "gathering". Ergo, since there is no attempted ban on religion, a local directive on social distancing DOES NOT AFFECT that right. Again, the poster is blaming her own intellectual sloth --- failure to find another way ---- in a congregation SHE AIN'T EVEN PART OF IN THE FIRST PLACE --- on local public safety directives.
 

Bob Blaylock

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
11,710
Reaction score
3,504
Points
290
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
If the dude would have followed social distancing rules, he wouldn't have been arrested, but he didn't, so he was.
And if Rosa Parks had just given up her seat in the bus and kept her mouth shut, then she wouldn't have been arrested either. But she didn't, so she was.


And no, a temporary order given by the government isn't going against the Constitution. Why? Because it's for the general welfare (another phrase in the Constitution), and it is only TEMPORARY, not permanent.
The general welfare clause is a statement of purpose, not an endorsement of any specific policy, and certainly not a license for government to do anything not otherwise permitted by the Constitution.

And where, in the Constitution, does it say that government is permitted to violate the rights asserted therein, so long as it only does so “temporarily”?


No, nobody's 1st Amendment rights have been taken away.
If they are not being permitted to exercise those rights, then yes, those rights are being taken away.
 
Last edited:

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
115,935
Reaction score
18,297
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
And where, in the Constitution, does it say that government is permitted to violate the rights asserted therein, so long as it only does so “temporarily”?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand we're right back to "CONGRESS shall make no Law".

Whelp -- Congress didn't. Did they.

Are you aware there are several states that still have blasphemy laws?
 

WEATHER53

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
9,031
Reaction score
1,635
Points
290
I’m not sure what right people have to assure they remain uncontaminated when such “right” definitely quashes other established rights
 

Siete

Platinum Member
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
34,325
Reaction score
3,965
Points
1,130
the city has laws to keep dogs from shitting on sidewalks, so morons like you wont step in it
 

Astrostar

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2017
Messages
1,058
Reaction score
278
Points
140

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
26,631
Reaction score
12,532
Points
2,445
Location
Land of the sane.
Why should those rights supersede others rights to life?
Mainly because the premise that allowing people to exercise their explicitly-asserted First Amendment rights violates anyone else's right to life is a flat-out lie, and those of you telling it know damn well that you are lying.
Nope, it's not a lie. Congregating in large numbers increasing the spread of COVID-19. Not just among church-goers, but among those with whom they come in contact. That selfishly puts others lives in peril and unfortunately for some, brutally strips away their right to life.

Your pathetically weak excuse fails to justify placing the right to assemble above the right to life.
That is the legal/constitutional justification. There's no social need to ban snake handling, or even peyote use, if it's central to the exercise of religion, because no one besides the faithful are impacted. But the virus WILL WITHOUT ANY QUESTION spread outside of just the people assembling in some religious setting, because the faithful will not remain quarantined inside the locale of the religious setting.

So, if someone want to assert the regulation goes too far in banning the assembly altogether, they have to address how the exponential rise in sick people is not affected.
And in a totally selfish vein, those who continue to disregard the social distancing orders prolong this goddamned shutdown and the ever tightening stay-at-home orders that are completely fucking up our lives.
if all 50 states go into shelter in place mode, scientists are predicting that our best outcome will be 100,000 - 240,000,000 dead. that is the benchmark we hope to meet. but it's not looking like the troglodyte states are jumping on board; so the toll might be higher. i hope & pray (in my house where i know god can hear me) that scientific models have it wrong.

Actually, you got this half assed backwards. The most affected states are cess pools like New York, owned and operated by the Far Left.


Not in so called "troglodyte states".


Libs have disregarded our President's suggestion for citizens to wash their hands, figuring they are "fucking up Trump's program" by their refusals.
tick toc, trog ... tic toc.
It's happening now, Mississippi has the largest COVID-19 hospitalization rate.


Oklahoma and South Carolina round out the top 3.

Mississippi has 1100 cases of Kung Flu. New York has 84000.


BTW, Louisiana is adjacent to Mississippi but is run by a Hardcore leftist, and has more than 5 times as many cases as Mississippi
And? Per capita they have the most people hospitalized with COVID-19 and it's going to get worse for them and everyone else quite frankly.

It isn't "per capita" but by percentage of those diagnosed that are in the hospital.

The thing with Mississippi and other deplorable states is that they aren't big on public transportation, living in crowded cities or using reusable shopping bags. All huge disease vectors.
Yes, 31% of COVID-19 cases in MS are in the hospital. MIssissippi commonly ranks as one of our least healthiest states. Other unhealthy states include Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama and Louisiana.
being in Mississippi, it occurs to some of us that not all people who actually have corvid 19 are seeking medical treatment until its really bad.

And without going into off topic debate, if that is a reason for the hospitalization rate, it may not be JUST about insurance coverage, access to services or patient ignorance. At it might explain the shelter in place order state wide
I was thinking the hospitalization rate in Mississippi might be because there is a larger at risk population? Diabetes, heart trouble, COPD, those sort of things?

Okay, maybe this is a stupid question, but does going to the doctor sooner prevent hospitalizations? I thought they couldn't do anything until you needed to be hospitalized and hooked up to oxygen.

no dr visits via appt, waiting rooms etc - ER service only -

at least here in Tx
One of our local hospitals is taking everyone's temperature before allowing them in.
walmart is now doing that for their employees. any worker showing up w/ a fever gets paid for the day but sent home.
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
26,631
Reaction score
12,532
Points
2,445
Location
Land of the sane.
Why should those rights supersede others rights to life?
Mainly because the premise that allowing people to exercise their explicitly-asserted First Amendment rights violates anyone else's right to life is a flat-out lie, and those of you telling it know damn well that you are lying.
Nope, it's not a lie. Congregating in large numbers increasing the spread of COVID-19. Not just among church-goers, but among those with whom they come in contact. That selfishly puts others lives in peril and unfortunately for some, brutally strips away their right to life.

Your pathetically weak excuse fails to justify placing the right to assemble above the right to life.
That is the legal/constitutional justification. There's no social need to ban snake handling, or even peyote use, if it's central to the exercise of religion, because no one besides the faithful are impacted. But the virus WILL WITHOUT ANY QUESTION spread outside of just the people assembling in some religious setting, because the faithful will not remain quarantined inside the locale of the religious setting.

So, if someone want to assert the regulation goes too far in banning the assembly altogether, they have to address how the exponential rise in sick people is not affected.
And in a totally selfish vein, those who continue to disregard the social distancing orders prolong this goddamned shutdown and the ever tightening stay-at-home orders that are completely fucking up our lives.
if all 50 states go into shelter in place mode, scientists are predicting that our best outcome will be 100,000 - 240,000,000 dead. that is the benchmark we hope to meet. but it's not looking like the troglodyte states are jumping on board; so the toll might be higher. i hope & pray (in my house where i know god can hear me) that scientific models have it wrong.
But what about the millions that die afterwards from the Super-Depression that ensues?
that is way more preventable than this virus. maybe donny's HHS guy - who is bigpharma can help push some benzos & prozac for that.
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
26,631
Reaction score
12,532
Points
2,445
Location
Land of the sane.
Why should those rights supersede others rights to life?
Mainly because the premise that allowing people to exercise their explicitly-asserted First Amendment rights violates anyone else's right to life is a flat-out lie, and those of you telling it know damn well that you are lying.
Nope, it's not a lie. Congregating in large numbers increasing the spread of COVID-19. Not just among church-goers, but among those with whom they come in contact. That selfishly puts others lives in peril and unfortunately for some, brutally strips away their right to life.

Your pathetically weak excuse fails to justify placing the right to assemble above the right to life.
That is the legal/constitutional justification. There's no social need to ban snake handling, or even peyote use, if it's central to the exercise of religion, because no one besides the faithful are impacted. But the virus WILL WITHOUT ANY QUESTION spread outside of just the people assembling in some religious setting, because the faithful will not remain quarantined inside the locale of the religious setting.

So, if someone want to assert the regulation goes too far in banning the assembly altogether, they have to address how the exponential rise in sick people is not affected.
And in a totally selfish vein, those who continue to disregard the social distancing orders prolong this goddamned shutdown and the ever tightening stay-at-home orders that are completely fucking up our lives.
if all 50 states go into shelter in place mode, scientists are predicting that our best outcome will be 100,000 - 240,000,000 dead. that is the benchmark we hope to meet. but it's not looking like the troglodyte states are jumping on board; so the toll might be higher. i hope & pray (in my house where i know god can hear me) that scientific models have it wrong.
But what about the millions that die afterwards from the Super-Depression that ensues?
You're right. Let's open up for business now. You think the virus is going away and the economy comes screaming back? You're not going to have an economy until this is under control.

If this last for a long time, we still won't have an economy. Right now, a lot of businesses , a lot of people are really struggling. I'm not personally. But those in retail trade, in hospitality, transportation, restaurants, pimpery and prostitution, are all being ruined and reduced to utter destitution.
I get that but you can't have an economy during wildly out of control pandemic. It's just not going to happen so we have no choice but to take care of one issue to a point where it is manageable and then go after the second otherwise neither gets fixed.
Get ready to starve, dumbass. Me? I can eat whatever. You? You're in for a rude awakening.
I'm not going hungry anytime soon. I can wait this out for years if need be.
Suure, buckwheat. With what? No guns?
I live in Arizona, who said anything about no guns?
What you gonna eat in Arizona? Cactus? Snakes? Gila monsters?
Coyote? Don't eat Ms. Coyote, pls.
Aside from the cannibalism factor, I've grown rather fond over the years. That last unwarranted ban notwithstanding.

PS: eating dogs: :eusa_naughty:
:113:
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
26,631
Reaction score
12,532
Points
2,445
Location
Land of the sane.
Looks like some of our government officials haven't read the Constitution.

---Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne was charged with misdemeanor counts of unlawful assembly---

There are exceptions.


Will they make exceptions for the Radical Muslims in a few weeks when their annual Ramadam bullshit comes down?
Of course the exceptions don't apply to Muslims. Why that would be wacist.
Oh they never do, never. Muslims are brown-skinned, they're "diverse" and wear cool clothing.

That's all it takes for most simpleton Leftists to drool all over them.
Did you actually just sit on this board and post "Muslims are brown-skinned"????

:laughing0301:
:laugh2: :lmao:
:auiqs.jpg:


Wait wait --- and then immediately follow that sweeping non sequitur generalization with "they're diverse"??

Holy SHIT that just took over first place for stupidest post in recent memory.
Oh no, I gotta bookmark this shit.
You entirely missed that I'm citing reasons WHY BRAIN-DEAD LEFTIST LOVE MUSLIMS but go ahead Pogo knock yourself out
I don't know anyone who is 'brain dead' but as a 'leftist' I no more love or hate Muslims than I do Christians or Jews.

And I expect Americans- regardless of whether they are Muslim, Jewish or Christian or atheists to follow the law and do what they can to protect everyone.
That's what all the Nazis said at the Nuremburg Trials--they were just "following the law", just following orders

The law, "orders" should be questioned. Does anyone at all remember when so-called liberals weren't mindless drones just following whatever orders are handed down?
First we have "ohmigod, it's SLAVERY to expect us to be inconvenienced!" Now we have "ohmigod, it's just like the NAZIS to expect us to be inconvenienced!" Should we cue the fainting couch and smelling salts? 'Cause this level of hysterical melodrama is positively Victorian.
That's a lot of hyperbole coming from you.

The Nazis cited the the law when they were asked to give account: "I was just following the law". I'm saying the law isn't always right. I mean let's look at these shutdown orders now. We don't really even know if what we're doing is right or wise, for pity's sake. It's certainly crashing our economy. But aside from that, even if it IS wise, people still have the Constitutional right to gather for worship.

You do remember the Bill of Rights, correct?
No hyperbole from me at all. You're comparing "Avoid gathering in large groups for a limited time" to "the NAZIS!" It is hysterical and melodramatic, and that is just flat accuracy.

I will go farther and tell you what I told Slavery Lad: it is offensive for you to trivialize the horrors of the Nazi regime by equating it with temporary quarantine restrictions during a pandemic. You should be ashamed of yourself. You are also trivializing the First Amendment by trying to paint this asinine pastor and congregation as "heroic fighters for free religion". I am ashamed of you.

I remember the Bill of Rights, thank you very much, and do NOT take that supercilious, "If you don't agree with me, you don't care about the Constitution" tone with ME, miss. I also remember that good citizens and good adults do not get so enamored of everything they think they have a right to that they forget that they have responsibilities that go along with those rights. Maybe YOU should calm down, grow up, and remember that as well.
gold_star_winner_flexible_magnet-rbaaf5c42e240442a81b1769246992ed3_ambom_8byvr_200.jpg
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
44,581
Reaction score
7,278
Points
1,830
I think the overriding issue is whether , or not, a seasonal health issue of a foreboding nature can set aside other legal and constitutional rights and precedents.
I say no.
Set aside? No. Modify for a temporary period of time? Yes. There's plenty of legal precedence in American jurisprudence.
Modification is not a part of precedents and statues. Massaging to fit ones own personal and emotional perspectives is not permitted for a reason-it’s too variable thus unwise
Too bad for you that's not what I said, no matter how much you wish it was. And temporary modifications certainly ARE part of jurisprudence. Ever hear of martial law, just as a for-instance? How about quarantines during yellow fever and cholera outbreaks? There most certainly is precedence for weighing public health and safety as taking priority over - in the very short-term and in specific ways - over individual rights to do as you please.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
44,581
Reaction score
7,278
Points
1,830
Because D
Most Athiests are Dems. What a surprise...not.

Because Democrats have the ability to reason rationally and accept science as the foundation of our planet, not the bs from some book spouted by liars hoping to fleece the flock!
Oh, don't even fucking go there. Lucking into the correct position once in a while does not qualify as "reasoning rationally and accepting science". Talk to me when Democrats stop insisting that men can become women just by wishing hard and saying it's so.
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
26,631
Reaction score
12,532
Points
2,445
Location
Land of the sane.
Right now, guidelines call for social distancing in the population however, the congress can assemble. I guess they are more 'special.'
Congress is classified as "essential government services". They're also assembling as little as humanly possible.

Congress people are significantly more susceptible to COVID 19 than other Americans. At least 5 members- 1%- have already contracted it. A significantly greater portion than the general public.
True, which is why they're assembling as little as they can manage. Nevertheless, they have a clear and specific duty in this situation, and if they're not prepared to take some risk to fulfill their duty to the American people, then they need to get the fuck out of office.
These people of deep faith feel they are taking a risk too, and they feel it's worth it. I'm a Christian and I'm not doing it--my church is meeting virtually. But I'm not going to police and shame and micromanage other people's faith (I do draw the line at actively sick people going to church though).

Most people who eat peanuts/tree nuts KNOW there are people in the world who are severely allergic, but they still eat them. Most people who get in a car KNOW they could kill or get killed, no matter if they follow every rule or not. We can't take people's Bill of Rights freedoms away just because there might be some risk. It is just then than we must be even more careful than ever. History should prove that more than anything.
And if they could "feel it's worth it" without risking anyone but themselves, that would be relevant. But they don't get to "feel it's worth it" when the "it" in question is someone ELSE'S health and safety.

Most people who eat tree nuts know there are people in the world who are severely allergic, and so they make what concessions they need to, however inconvenient, to accommodate that. Likewise, most people who get in a car know there's a degree of risk involved, and so they accept the imposition of prudent traffic laws to mitigate that. We can't demand unlimited freedoms without consideration of the freedoms of others; that's what living in a society MEANS.

And I'm tired unto death of you waving the flag in my face and screaming, "My rights! My rights!" and never, EVER addressing the inarguable fact that I HAVE RIGHTS, TOO. It's not all about you, however self-absorbed you are. I have a right not to have my safety excessively endangered because YOU have decided that it's an "outrage" for your freedom to be "infringed" by an expectation of basic responsibility to others.
gold_star_winner_flexible_magnet-rbaaf5c42e240442a81b1769246992ed3_ambom_8byvr_200.jpg
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
44,581
Reaction score
7,278
Points
1,830
Some people will die, but the overwhelming majority will recovered and thrive.
And most of them are old people with medical issues who only have a few years left at best anyway.
Hey, pal. My older sister is 59, with serious asthma and a couple of other things that put her in the high-risk-of-death category for this thing. Without the coronavirus and with regular medication and doctor's visits, she's a vibrant, essential part of her family's lives and will be for at least 20 years yet.

I will thank you not to be so casual and callous about people some of us love, just because they aren't YOUR loved ones.
And I will say again: my son has a severe, life-threatening peanut allergy. HIS life depends on YOU not sneaking nuts into food. And YOU and YOU and YOU. Now. Should we make laws for everyone in the world to stop putting nuts in food, in all places, or whatever, because his life needs to be sustained?

This is not an emotional argument. It's my son. It's your sister. It's really a rights v. responsibilities argument. In the end it is really no one's responsibility to keep my son alive. And it is no one's responsibility to keep your sister alive. Especially when this infringes on essential liberties.
You are incorrect. The rest of us DO have a responsibility not to simply and carelessly ignore the dangers to your son and others like him, and I doubt you'd disagree if he died because some restaurant used peanuts on the premises and didn't feel like bothering with putting up a sign (just as an example).

And it sure as shit IS your responsibility to avoid spreading a pandemic through fairly easy-to-follow social distancing rules. And shouting "my rights, my rights!" still isn't impressing me, because your rights STILL aren't unlimited. You do NOT have the right to endanger others. Your right to gather in a mob ends at the point where it infringes on MY right to not be infected by selfish assholes. EVERY right you have is limited by the rights of the people around you, and I'm very sorry to hear that I am apparently the first person who has ever informed you that you're not the only person on Earth who matters.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
44,581
Reaction score
7,278
Points
1,830
Also, given that the church deliberately provoked this conflict, it definitely doesn't meet the definition of "persecution", and the pastor and his attendees are no kind of "heroes" or "martyrs".
It wasn't the church that tried to illegally shut down the government. It was the government that tried to illegally shut down the church, in blatant and inexcusable violation of the First Amendment. It was government that manufactured a fake crisis, and then tried to use it as an excuse to trash the Constitution.
Congregating at the church was not the only option. They could have performed their services online.

Not everyone has online access you know.

Computers are limited ,they have not yet found a way to deliver smell waves, so that the congregants can smell the incense. And how will snake handling denominations going to reproduce that experience online
People can burn their own incense and handle their own snakes.

Not necessarily. A lot of landlords prohibit both practices in rental properties. I suppose if the continued ban on Evictions continues indefinitely it might be possible.
Why would those people rent an apartment where they're not free to practice their religion? Sounds like they're not very committed.
Neither incense-burning nor snake-handling are typically part of individual daily devotions. They're both part of group rituals.

But I admire your consistency in never, ever, in any way allowing yourself to even try to understand people you don't agree with.
Try not to be so fucking ignorant. I was returning that poster's facetiousness.
Try not to be so fucking ignorant about doing it. Facetiousness doesn't excuse being wildly inaccurate with it.
I honestly don't believe you know what the word fucking means. Since when is accuracy a fundamental requirement of inappropriate humor?

View attachment 318334
Ever hear the phrase "it's funny 'cause it's true"? Humor works best when it's accurately targeted. Otherwise, it's just inane babbling.
And you're stupid enough to think that phrase applies to ALL humor? Something can't be funny in your alternate universe if it's not true?
No, I'm smart enough to know it does, and you're stupid enough to think "stupid" is defined as "not thinking Faun is brilliant."

We're done talking about you, because you weren't interesting to start with, and you're REALLY boring now.
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
26,631
Reaction score
12,532
Points
2,445
Location
Land of the sane.
Some people will die, but the overwhelming majority will recovered and thrive.
And most of them are old people with medical issues who only have a few years left at best anyway.
Hey, pal. My older sister is 59, with serious asthma and a couple of other things that put her in the high-risk-of-death category for this thing. Without the coronavirus and with regular medication and doctor's visits, she's a vibrant, essential part of her family's lives and will be for at least 20 years yet.

I will thank you not to be so casual and callous about people some of us love, just because they aren't YOUR loved ones.
And I will say again: my son has a severe, life-threatening peanut allergy. HIS life depends on YOU not sneaking nuts into food. And YOU and YOU and YOU. Now. Should we make laws for everyone in the world to stop putting nuts in food, in all places, or whatever, because his life needs to be sustained?

This is not an emotional argument. It's my son. It's your sister. It's really a rights v. responsibilities argument. In the end it is really no one's responsibility to keep my son alive. And it is no one's responsibility to keep your sister alive. Especially when this infringes on essential liberties.
You are incorrect. The rest of us DO have a responsibility not to simply and carelessly ignore the dangers to your son and others like him, and I doubt you'd disagree if he died because some restaurant used peanuts on the premises and didn't feel like bothering with putting up a sign (just as an example).

And it sure as shit IS your responsibility to avoid spreading a pandemic through fairly easy-to-follow social distancing rules. And shouting "my rights, my rights!" still isn't impressing me, because your rights STILL aren't unlimited. You do NOT have the right to endanger others. Your right to gather in a mob ends at the point where it infringes on MY right to not be infected by selfish assholes. EVERY right you have is limited by the rights of the people around you, and I'm very sorry to hear that I am apparently the first person who has ever informed you that you're not the only person on Earth who matters.
gold_star_winner_flexible_magnet-rbaaf5c42e240442a81b1769246992ed3_ambom_8byvr_200.jpg
 

New Posts

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top