Pat @Pat@qoto.org

@freemo

Actually, the meanings of words are continually changing over time and always subject to interpretation, especially these words, which have broad meaning.

But, as you say, we don't even need to get into semantics. Using the definitions you provide, what I said makes complete sense. "Freedom" is a broader term and "rights" has narrower scope which derives meaning in the context of society.

What I said makes complete sense and is totally reasonable given those definitions you provided.

@freemo

There is a very specific difference between a right and a freedom. A freedom can be limited from many sources, such as a lack of means, or even just the laws of physics. A freedom can also be limited through a proscribed restriction, in which case it is also a limit on one's rights. A right exists in the context of a society -- your rights imply that someone else recognize them. This is the difference between the two concepts.

Pre-pandemic, society had an understanding about what rights would be recognized by society based on the conditions of our situation and upon reasoned extrapolation of certain values.

When the pandemic hit, the situation changed, and a reasoned extrapolation of our values under that new situation formed a slightly different set of specific rights. That's all.

Some people are not very good at change. They don't like it. And many don't have a very deep understanding of where rights come from or how the recognition of those rights have been developed (hint - rights aren't given to us by the government). So when the situation changes and requires a quick re-extrapolation of our fundamental principles to meet the new challenge, they become confused or even restive. They believe that the pre-pandemic set of specific rights are absolute even if the exercise of those rights violate the rights of others under the new situation.

This is what has happened during the pandemic.

@freemo

This may seem like a fine point, but I assign a very specific meaning to the word "rights" in this context.

Some of our freedom was limited by the virus, but not our rights. An analogy is if there is a flood (a natural disaster) that floods out a road. We can no longer drive on the road, but the flood didn't take away our rights, it limited our freedom. Authorities may recommend that we do not attempt to drive on the road because of the danger. They may even have reason to prohibit that action in some circumstances (if some jerk gets stuck in the water and needs to be rescued while emergency personnel are busy helping others; or if the guy is driving a bus and he tries to drive through the water and endangers the passengers on bus.)

I see the limits on our freedom as happening because of the natural disaster of the virus, not because of the appropriate limits that flow from that natural disaster. (And yes, there were some authorities who used the situation for a power grab, but most didn't. Most States had suggested guidelines, not mandates.)

@sparkinstech said, "It just doesn't feel natural because I don't talk like that."

I know exactly what you mean...

I always get funny looks when, during a causal conversation, I say the word "ellipsis" before pausing to gather my thoughts.

@freemo

I think we agree on the right to assemble and the right to control your own body with regard to medical procedures that don't effect others. I think only a few jurisdictions actually tried to prevent people from gathering in a private setting (e.g., churches). Nearly all of the policies from the states were guidelines and not mandates.

Although an environmental argument could be made against actions that promote the spread of the virus and cause more virulent strains, kind of like regulations against dumping too much of some particular toxin into a river... I haven't thought that argument completely through though.

@PenguinWithHat

I don't think anyone could, but I think someone could.

#camera #joke #logic #TruthBeTold

The truth is...

When the invention of the camera was first announced in 1839, no newspapers or magazines included any photographs of the device.

(This toot was originally published Jan 6, 2020)
--------
#TruthBeTold = A statement that is logically or literally true (or partly true), but seems to imply something that isn't true or is just plain weird. (for rhetoric, logic or propaganda studies... or just for fun)

(public domain image per SVG SILH)

@ademan @freemo

Re the marshmallow study, I was thinking of the folks at CDC. They relaxed the guidelines about 2-3 months prematurely.

We never lost any rights. We just needed to respect the rights of others (the right to not be assaulted by a chemical weapon).

@iankenway

Why do guys always name their companies after their penises?

@tripu said that Paul said, "...it presents a formidable intellectual challenge to ..."

Consider yourself intellectually challenged.

@collectedoverspread

You can search for them on google.com

Type into google's search field:

podcast filetype:ogg OR filetype:aac OR filetype:flac OR filetype:wav OR filetype:mp3

or whatever combo of audio file types you want to find.

#podcasts #audio #file #search

The ability to delay gratification is correlated strongly with success in later life.

#mask #Covid19 #vaccine #CDC #social #distancing

https://rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=4622

@freemo

Yes, *in a month or two* it may be over (if no vaccine-resistant mutations emerge). Only THEN do we begin to relax the guidelines and go back to work.

Between now and then tens of thousands will die from the virus, many needlessly, because the guidelines were relaxed prematurely, while the pandemic continues much longer than it should have.

And also contributing to the problem...

Many of those 100+ million "stragglers" are reluctant to get jabbed because of the corrupt way in which leaders have dealt with the pandemic. They don't trust them and they don't know how to evaluate the science behind the vaccine. They believe that those in charge are more interested in trying to improve the economy than in the health of our citizens. And they're right.

You and I both want the same thing. We want to crush the virus and go back to normal. The quickest way to get there is to continue the fight until the virus is extinguished using all of the tools available.

Those who are unable to persist -- unable to delay gratification -- just prolong the battle and as a result contribute to a worse economic outcome.

#mask #Covid19 #vaccine #CDC #social #distancing

#mask #Covid19 #vaccine #CDC #social #distancing

@freemo

First of all, there was no mask "mandate" from the CDC. It's a guideline. Also, we're talking about more than just wearing a mask -- it's the social distancing, avoiding large gatherings, reducing the number of exposures by making less-frequent trips to the store, etc.

By relaxing the guidelines, the CDC, and the media, have prematurely sent a message that people can drop their guard and people receive that message as "the pandemic is over" and they think that they no longer need to take precautions.

I consume a lot of media from a wide variety of sources and I haven't heard any of the old media outlets reporting that deaths continue to occur at an alarming rate. In fact, they are essentially reporting that "the pandemic is over".

The fact is that those precautions save lives and can virtually extinguish the virus when adhered to universally. Several countries were able to eliminate the virus from their countries *before* the vaccine was available just by getting everyone to follow those precautions.

The reason why more people have died in the US from COVID19 than in any other country is because that asshole in the Whitehouse told people to ignore the precautions, to not wear their masks. And now the CDC and the media are making the same mistake by prematurely claiming "mission accomplished". In countries where they took it seriously and people followed the guidance, they had fewer deaths and in some cases extinguished the virus in their counties *before* the vaccine was even available just by getting everyone to follow the proper protocols.

Those countries were THEN able to go back to normal, to go back to work months ago because the virus had been crushed. The CDC should have waited until community spread of the virus was actually stopped before relaxing the guidance.

@isol8

Cover you mouth when say that because you're spraying spit all over everyone...

@freemo
Yes, I know that. The point is that with 50%+ of the population vaccinated, the rates should be falling drastically, but they aren't, because everyone who believed the CDC let down their guard and stop wearing masks and gathered without social distancing and now more people are dying because of it.

Also, what kind of fools stop fighting a war (or stop using their most effective weapons to date) while people are being killed at a rate of 500 people per day? That's insane.

People have died because of what they did.

#COVID19 #mask #CDC #social #distancing

15,281 people.

As of this morning, 15,281 people have died from COVID-19 since the CDC relaxed their mask guidance.

That's more than 500 people per day who thought they were safe, but died because the CDC gave them bad advice.

#COVID19 #mask #CDC #social #distancing

@Vectorfield

When you are stuck inside a hot car on a hot summer day and you can't get out, it doesn't matter if it is a fancy sports car or an old wreck. You are still stuck. You're not free. And either way, in the end you're toast.

@trinsec
As of this morning, June 11, it's now 15281 people who have died since the CDC relaxed their mask guidance.

10,835 people.

In the US, 10,835 people have died from COVID-19 since the CDC relaxed their mask guidelines.

#COVID19 #mask
#social #distancing #CDC