Little 10 in stunning reversal!

[Terry Blue]

Starts playing games Oct 22-23

[KeithKSR]

Reversals are what happens when you mess up initially. It’s looking like college football should have played the season as scheduled, and that may have happened had the B1G and PAC? not cancelled their seasons.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I think the lesson learned from all of this is that our nation values sustainability of higher learning, athletics and "personal freedoms" more than public safety and the lives of somewhere between 500k and 1M (or maybe more) lives before this is all over. Not to mention long term complications that we do not know yet.

I'm not passing any judgment one way or another as I will definitely benefit (and have) from returning sports, but it is definitely a bittersweet enjoyment when I think of all the lives and complications that are happening. My heart is with the families and loved ones of those that have suffered and lost.

There is no moral argument anymore about protecting and keeping us safe or right to life points of view. Everything is all about money and entertainment.

I don't think the B1G was wrong to begin with and I do not think their reversal is wrong. They made the decisions they had to with the information that we knew then and now, and that now is that dollars are more important than sacrifice and safety.

[KeithKSR]

I disagree completely, Stu. MLB, the NBA and the NFL have shown that sports can be operated without furthering spread of the virus. High school sports aren’t being operated for the all mighty dollar.

What sports and entertainment do is to reintroduce some normalcy into life.

[CitizenBBN]

This is the least "stunning" thing to happen since Willie Nelson admitted to smoking pot while in the White House.

Give up all that money and cede the whole season to the other Power conferences? Oh please.

They thought they would be out in front on this, and everyone would cancel. When the SEC starts up a full weekend of highly viewed football this next weekend the athletics departments in the B?? were going to lose their minds.

AP rankings without a single one of their teams in it for a whole season? This was very easy to see coming.

[Darrell KSR]

Please be careful not to touch on political issues. There's always a slippery slope.

[catmanjack]

Right now that slope has oil on it.

[CitizenBBN]

I think the lesson learned from all of this is that our nation values sustainability of higher learning, athletics and "personal freedoms" more than public safety and the lives of somewhere between 500k and 1M (or maybe more) lives before this is all over. Not to mention long term complications that we do not know yet.

I'm not passing any judgment one way or another as I will definitely benefit (and have) from returning sports, but it is definitely a bittersweet enjoyment when I think of all the lives and complications that are happening. My heart is with the families and loved ones of those that have suffered and lost.

There is no moral argument anymore about protecting and keeping us safe or right to life points of view. Everything is all about money and entertainment.

I don't think the B1G was wrong to begin with and I do not think their reversal is wrong. They made the decisions they had to with the information that we knew then and now, and that now is that dollars are more important than sacrifice and safety.

I love how "personal freedoms" are in quotes as if they aren't relevant.

All of life is a balance between safety and simply living life. I can keep us all safer by banning non-essential travel forever. Ban bungee jumping, base diving, private swimming pools, I can save a lot of lives.

We choose to not do those things b/c a) people are endowed by a power greater than the state or even other citizens with inalienable rights, and we choose to tread on those rights as little as possible, and b) the only way to make everyone maximally safe is to restrict our lives to such a degree our lives are not worth preserving.

We could keep the aged alive longer by warehousing them in sterile environments, caged up with access only to irradiated food and workers in sterile suits like some sci fi dystopian nightmare, but at that point no one would want to keep living.

So it's always a balance, and, not surprisingly, that balance is different for everyone, and thus, in conjunction with the inherent rights given to us by someone more important than a politician, we let people choose their own level as much as possible.

Humans have survived far worse plagues, and done so while still contributing art and music and yes entertainment to the world.

Man cannot live by bread alone, and neither would he want to, so we find a balance. Lots of testing, distancing, spreading out fans to extremes, etc. all seems a very reasonable balance.

The absolutist notion that not doing every single thing possible to preserve every possible life means you don't care about preserving life is a complete falsehood, a dangerous moral strawman that, like every other faux morality that "if you don't agree with me you're immoral", only serves to hold back our species.

[CitizenBBN]

Please be careful not to touch on political issues. There's always a slippery slope.

I'm going to copy this thread over to Barber Shop (aptly abbreviated BS), and then we can moderate this one, including my last post which I will do.

[Padukacat]

I think the lesson learned from all of this is that our nation values sustainability of higher learning, athletics and "personal freedoms" more than public safety and the lives of somewhere between 500k and 1M (or maybe more) lives before this is all over. Not to mention long term complications that we do not know yet.

I'm not passing any judgment one way or another as I will definitely benefit (and have) from returning sports, but it is definitely a bittersweet enjoyment when I think of all the lives and complications that are happening. My heart is with the families and loved ones of those that have suffered and lost.

There is no moral argument anymore about protecting and keeping us safe or right to life points of view. Everything is all about money and entertainment.

I don't think the B1G was wrong to begin with and I do not think their reversal is wrong. They made the decisions they had to with the information that we knew then and now, and that now is that dollars are more important than sacrifice and safety.

I think there is a lot of merit to what you are saying honestly. I've witnessed it on the youth level and parents are going literally INSANE to see their kids play sports regardless of their views of the risk. I get it i really do, and especially in the middle of being cooped up for 6 months and thinking there is another 6 months to go. Mental health and education/development of kids and parents is at stake here and i believe may carry more weight than the impending loss of life due to COVID.

Opening amateur sports outside of a "bubble" is going to certain cause for rapid spread that we have likely not seen yet. Only 150 or so kids under 21 have passed from this, so the risk isnt theirs, it is with whom they carry it to. It is what it is and im resigned to that being ok. I tell my parents to be extra careful.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I disagree completely, Stu. MLB, the NBA and the NFL have shown that sports can be operated without furthering spread of the virus. High school sports aren’t being operated for the all mighty dollar.

What sports and entertainment do is to reintroduce some normalcy into life.

Huge difference between college and pro sports. Also, we have not seen yet that the NFL can be operated without furthering spread.

MLB has proven with its limitation that the virus can spread. The NBA and NHL have been successful because they have operated in a bubble.

College football is THE best collective engagement sports there is. It is a campus event, It's a family/friends event. It is more like a holiday than it is a day-to-day event like a professional sports game.

I cannot accept that there will not be upticks in events and gatherings with the return of college football and we have yet to see ANY event that includes gatherings that have not yielded increase in spreading, cases and ultimately deaths. Not to mention that we have not even reached the flu/virus season yet.

Surely, you can be of opinion that engagement with college football with emulate that of the professional sports. I totally disagree, especially since there is a very large (albeit minority) point of view that the virus has run its course. I guess we will see.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I think there is a lot of merit to what you are saying honestly. I've witnessed it on the youth level and parents are going literally INSANE to see their kids play sports regardless of their views of the risk. I get it i really do, and especially in the middle of being cooped up for 6 months and thinking there is another 6 months to go. Mental health and education/development of kids and parents is at stake here and i believe may carry more weight than the impending loss of life due to COVID.

Opening amateur sports outside of a "bubble" is going to certain cause for rapid spread that we have likely not seen yet. Only 150 or so kids under 21 have passed from this, so the risk isnt theirs, it is with whom they carry it to. It is what it is and im resigned to that being ok. I tell my parents to be extra careful.

You touch on something here that I have been trying to get across. I think there is a collective dishonesty of what we are willing to accept. I am not here to judge what is right or wrong, but simply searching for a consensus of what we are doing.

You bring up mental health issues, which has been a HUGE issue before COVID. You are right, there are definitely mental considerations to consider as we prioritize how we balance normalcy vs public health. However, I have a couple of issues personally. One, after we have all ignored mental health for so long, NOW it takes priority that it is affecting those that never cared about it? Two, we are now saying that addressing mental health issues is MORE important than saving the lives of 100's of thousands of people that do not, or did not, have to die.

We all have to live with the collective decisions that are made, and as I pointed out, I will benefit from the decisions as I love college sports. I am just not going to pretend to think we live in a country where public safety is our top priority and pro-life arguments. It is a sham. We have proven that self-interests are more important.

For me personally, there won't be one game that I watch that I will not think about those that will be impacted by the decisions that we make.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I love how "personal freedoms" are in quotes as if they aren't relevant.

I put that in quotes because it is the number 1 excuse for those that will not work masks, but they are somehow silent on all the other laws and mandates they follow established to ensure and promote public safety.

I do not need to list them, but there are plenty. It is no more an infringement on personal freedoms than any of these other laws, regulations, etc.

The "personal freedom" argument is a disguise something bigger, and that is a talking point echoed by Trump and followed by his minions. It's a tool for divisiveness and nothing else. Actually, I think there's a segment of non-maskers that will use whatever excuse they have to not wear one because doing so is the first time they had to smell the crap breath they have been subjecting people to all these years.

Until one of these "personal freedom" idiots can give a good answer as to how their freedoms are being restricted relative to any other of these other things that people willfully obey, then it stays in quotes. We are talking about a piece of cloth around your mouth. That's it.

[VirginiaCat]

I put that in quotes because it is the number 1 excuse for those that will not work masks, but they are somehow silent on all the other laws and mandates they follow established to ensure and promote public safety.

I do not need to list them, but there are plenty. It is no more an infringement on personal freedoms than any of these other laws, regulations, etc.

The "personal freedom" argument is a disguise something bigger, and that is a talking point echoed by Trump and followed by his minions. It's a tool for divisiveness and nothing else. Actually, I think there's a segment of non-maskers that will use whatever excuse they have to not wear one because doing so is the first time they had to smell the crap breath they have been subjecting people to all these years.

Until one of these "personal freedom" idiots can give a good answer as to how their freedoms are being restricted relative to any other of these other things that people willfully obey, then it stays in quotes. We are talking about a piece of cloth around your mouth. That's it.

You are so wrong and so off it is not even worth my time. Please go read the US Constitution and the papers behind it and learn about the men that created it. Their number 1 goal was on the freedom and power of indivudal freedom OVER the power of government. That was their sole intent. If you do not like that, there are a lot of european government forms that agree with you. go there.

[VirginiaCat]

BTW, what happened to my original $$$ Post?

[CitizenBBN]

I put that in quotes because it is the number 1 excuse for those that will not work masks, but they are somehow silent on all the other laws and mandates they follow established to ensure and promote public safety.

I do not need to list them, but there are plenty. It is no more an infringement on personal freedoms than any of these other laws, regulations, etc.

The "personal freedom" argument is a disguise something bigger, and that is a talking point echoed by Trump and followed by his minions. It's a tool for divisiveness and nothing else. Actually, I think there's a segment of non-maskers that will use whatever excuse they have to not wear one because doing so is the first time they had to smell the crap breath they have been subjecting people to all these years.

Until one of these "personal freedom" idiots can give a good answer as to how their freedoms are being restricted relative to any other of these other things that people willfully obey, then it stays in quotes. We are talking about a piece of cloth around your mouth. That's it.


Is there anything more pompous than defining what others believe and ascribing motives to it? More important perhaps, is there anything that is more divisive and less likely to lead to understanding?

You have on here called for understanding of your position many times, yet never extend that to those who disagree. Maybe those who tout freedoms, wait for it, actually care passionately about individual freedoms, and aren't just "Trump's minions" and "Dittoheads", an attack you have used more than once to characterize those who disagree.

As for your argument that we have lost other freedoms so why whine about these, I could say we've already lost 700K lives, why whine about another 300K. See how absurd that is?

First, I'm betting most who care about freedoms aren't real happy with most of those others you might list either. second, even if they are, it doesn't change the question, any more than someone being OK with property theft and not being OK with rape and saying well if you're OK with one you have to be OK with the other. They are independent questions.

Now, do I think it's a horrific infringement in light of a pandemic? No I do not, and in fact I would argue that as the spread of Covid is an externality that it is a rightful place for government to sometime act, just as with polluting a river downstream.

But that doesn't change the fact that others feel differently.

And of course, your whole point is a bit of a strawman b/c the argument over liberty in this isn't contained to just wearing masks. It's part of it, and I disagree, but it's also restricting access to one's family, etc.

The simple truth is that the American system was set up to pursue liberty, not safety. Thus when faced with situations like these we will probably not respond as well as a nation with more despotic rule as we are generally non-conformist in nature.

I can live with that b/c in the end liberty is more important in the long term than facing a pandemic once a century. Apparently you cannot, but that's b/c you don't really value individual liberty very highly. But the fact that others disagree with you does not make them "idiots" nor does it make them morally inferior.

At some point I'd be happy to discuss the philosophical underpinnings that support the moral superiority of the pursuit of liberty versus the modern "social justice" formation of the basic notion that subservience to the greater state is superior, but suffice to say the jury is out on that one and just b/c you call for the state to act in what you think are the best interests of the whole does not provide any inherent moral high ground.

[CitizenBBN]

You are so wrong and so off it is not even worth my time. Please go read the US Constitution and the papers behind it and learn about the men that created it. Their number 1 goal was on the freedom and power of indivudal freedom OVER the power of government. That was their sole intent. If you do not like that, there are a lot of european government forms that agree with you. go there.

It would be nice if just one nation on Earth could be left to pursue individual liberty. Literally every other nation is founded basically by historic and ethnic happenstance and none of them have such a mission, so why not go to one of them and leave this one for those of us who think liberty is actually still deeply important?

No, they have to save us from ourselves apparently.

[CitizenBBN]

BTW, what happened to my original $$$ Post?

Not sure, I deleted a few posts on the other board to clean that up, but none on here.

[Doc]

Please be careful not to touch on political issues. There's always a slippery slope.

Nice try........

[Doc]

I think the lesson learned from all of this is that our nation values sustainability of higher learning, athletics and "personal freedoms" more than public safety and the lives of somewhere between 500k and 1M (or maybe more) lives before this is all over. Not to mention long term complications that we do not know yet.

I'm not passing any judgment one way or another as I will definitely benefit (and have) from returning sports, but it is definitely a bittersweet enjoyment when I think of all the lives and complications that are happening. My heart is with the families and loved ones of those that have suffered and lost.

There is no moral argument anymore about protecting and keeping us safe or right to life points of view. Everything is all about money and entertainment.

I don't think the B1G was wrong to begin with and I do not think their reversal is wrong. They made the decisions they had to with the information that we knew then and now, and that now is that dollars are more important than sacrifice and safety.

Go hide under your couch but let the rest of us live our lives. Do what you think is best for you....I could care less, but don't force your paranoia on everybody else

[StuBleedsBlue2]

You are so wrong and so off it is not even worth my time. Please go read the US Constitution and the papers behind it and learn about the men that created it. Their number 1 goal was on the freedom and power of indivudal freedom OVER the power of government. That was their sole intent. If you do not like that, there are a lot of european government forms that agree with you. go there.

If I am so wrong then why don't you point out all the other laws and regulations that we have in this country for public safety and why are people not throwing such a "personal freedom" fight over those too?

Seatbelt Laws
Smoking in public places
Helmet laws
Speeding laws (well, pretty much all traffic laws)
Public Intoxication
Drug laws

I can go on and on...

ALL of these limit personal freedoms, but wearing a stupid piece of cloth over your face is the one that causes so many to lose their minds?

Would you please care to explain to me why this ONE causes such an uproar?

I'm all for personal freedoms, but I am MORE for sacrifice to keep our nation safe, especially in instances where it is temporary.

All I ask for is for people to be consistent and don't selectively choose for what you are fighting in the name of personal freedom. The mask argument is complete BS. I have still not heard one good argument on how it is.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Go hide under your couch but let the rest of us live our lives. Do what you think is best for you....I could care less, but don't force your paranoia on everybody else

Your image of me "hiding under my couch" must be quite humorous to you. I'm having a good ole time in 2020. It's been a great year. There's been some down moments, but I haven't let that stop me.

I like to travel, to hang out with friends, go to large events, go out on the town, socially active. I didn't let a pandemic slow me down, but I adjusted. 3 things our experts tell us to do to stay safe and can get us past this: 1) Wear masks 2) Wash you hands 3) avoid large gatherings. I diligently practice all 3 and besides missing concerts and sporting events, my life has been pretty awesome in 2020.

The "why don't you" game is so childish. It's two times in this thread that it's been directed to me. So I'll act like a child for a minute too since that is where the tone has been lowered to (I have no problem going low when others do).

Do what is best for you, why don't you just live life like there isn't a contagious deadly virus. If you get sick, or worse, I could care less, but don't force your reckless idiocy on everybody else. It may actually hurt someone.

[CitizenBBN]

If I am so wrong then why don't you point out all the other laws and regulations that we have in this country for public safety and why are people not throwing such a "personal freedom" fight over those too?

Seatbelt Laws
Smoking in public places
Helmet laws
Speeding laws (well, pretty much all traffic laws)
Public Intoxication
Drug laws

I can go on and on...

ALL of these limit personal freedoms, but wearing a stupid piece of cloth over your face is the one that causes so many to lose their minds?

Would you please care to explain to me why this ONE causes such an uproar?

I'm all for personal freedoms, but I am MORE for sacrifice to keep our nation safe, especially in instances where it is temporary.

All I ask for is for people to be consistent and don't selectively choose for what you are fighting in the name of personal freedom. The mask argument is complete BS. I have still not heard one good argument on how it is.

People do throw fits over those, all the time. Kentucky had a knock down drag out fight in the assembly over seatbelt laws.

Unfortunately people on your side of the aisle, who don't care about individual rights over the "greater social good", managed to win the battle, so now we have a ton of those very unconstitutional laws on the books.

This one is an uproar for a simple reason: it impacts EVERYONE. Most people won't get upset about a helmet law if they don't ride a bike, or speeding if they don't speed, or drug laws if they don't do drugs.

Really? You need help understanding that's how it works?

Go try to ban alcohol and see how that goes. Why? B/c too many people drink, but the FDA managed to ban clove cigarettes without a peep b/c so few used them.

Now, should we all be mad that cloves are banned and pot is banned but tobacco is OK? Maybe, but that's asking a lot of the average person. Most don't work that way, they only care about what impacts them.

Oh, and if you look at those individual laws you cite you'll find a strong correlation between their level of existence and impact and the color of the voters. Lexington banned smoking, but outside of blue counties there are few restrictions, just like mask wearing.

Speeding laws? Go to Montana. They only exist in their current form b/c of them being tied to transportation money, and are lower in blue counties/states than red ones. Same as masks.

Drug laws is one where it flips, b/c drug use is seen as immoral and the externalities (crime, death) are clear and accepted. So if you don't do drugs you don't want others to do them b/c they are an externality you don't like, but with masks they are asking YOU to wear one too, and that's different b/c the ban on heroin doesn't really impact you as you aren't a user.

So, that's your answer. It is b/c that law impacts everyone, and the laws you cite effectively do not.

Go try to ban guns and see how it goes, or even tobacco or booze. You'll think the mask fight was a group hug. that's how this works.

And the key point is this: it's not for YOU to decide what OTHERS think are their important and unimportant rights, or infringement on the same.

You effectively miss the entire point b/c you don't value individual liberty: that whether they think a mask is an infringement or not is their God given right to decide, not yours to decide they are wrong and ignore their position.

Each person owns their own liberty, it's theirs to decide with as they choose so long as those choices don't infringe on the rights of others.

Which btw is the argument for masks being a valid infringement on one's rights, but it is still an infringement, just maybe one that is justified by the Social Contract.

[CitizenBBN]

And fwiw if I were Trump or another leader, that's how I would approach it.

Yes, this is an infringement on our liberty, but our liberty is limited to actions that do not impact the liberty of others, and where those two bubbles overlap we must as a whole decide how to resolve the conflict.

In this case the infringement on others by risking spreading the disease is great enough to justify some infringement to require masks. It's a gray area, a judgement call, and it is absolutely a limitation on our liberty, but one we need to endure in temporary form for the proper balance with protecting the rights of others to their life and health.

Just be honest about it, and what must be done.

BUT, it must also be tempered without blanket foolishness, and honestly I am not sure it can be a legal requirement more than a bully pulpit request. Ask they be worn in public spaces and gathering spots, but I see no basis for the blanket demands made in some states, nor the total shutdowns.

It's sometimes necessary for the social contract that we sacrifice TEMPORARILY in clear ways, like mobilizing for WWII, but we should always be clear, and limit our infringement to what is necessary and always approach our infringement with a heavy weight of responsibility as to the seriousness of what we are doing so that it is tempered as much as possible.

Where it gets very unclear, and overkill, is when we talk about things like football. Banning it outright versus more tempered responses is where this overreach occurs, or total lockdowns on hair dressers versus just spacing and testing.

yes, it's less safe than just welding us in our homes, but this is a land of liberty, not Chinese statism. Freedom isn't free, whether it is a war or a virus, and many Americans (thankfully) are too proud to cower completely from the rain.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

People do throw fits over those, all the time. Kentucky had a knock down drag out fight in the assembly over seatbelt laws.

Unfortunately people on your side of the aisle, who don't care about individual rights over the "greater social good", managed to win the battle, so now we have a ton of those very unconstitutional laws on the books.

This one is an uproar for a simple reason: it impacts EVERYONE. Most people won't get upset about a helmet law if they don't ride a bike, or speeding if they don't speed, or drug laws if they don't do drugs.

Really? You need help understanding that's how it works?

Go try to ban alcohol and see how that goes. Why? B/c too many people drink, but the FDA managed to ban clove cigarettes without a peep b/c so few used them.

Now, should we all be mad that cloves are banned and pot is banned but tobacco is OK? Maybe, but that's asking a lot of the average person. Most don't work that way, they only care about what impacts them.

Oh, and if you look at those individual laws you cite you'll find a strong correlation between their level of existence and impact and the color of the voters. Lexington banned smoking, but outside of blue counties there are few restrictions, just like mask wearing.

Speeding laws? Go to Montana. They only exist in their current form b/c of them being tied to transportation money, and are lower in blue counties/states than red ones. Same as masks.

Drug laws is one where it flips, b/c drug use is seen as immoral and the externalities (crime, death) are clear and accepted. So if you don't do drugs you don't want others to do them b/c they are an externality you don't like, but with masks they are asking YOU to wear one too, and that's different b/c the ban on heroin doesn't really impact you as you aren't a user.

So, that's your answer. It is b/c that law impacts everyone, and the laws you cite effectively do not.

Go try to ban guns and see how it goes, or even tobacco or booze. You'll think the mask fight was a group hug. that's how this works.

And the key point is this: it's not for YOU to decide what OTHERS think are their important and unimportant rights, or infringement on the same.

You effectively miss the entire point b/c you don't value individual liberty: that whether they think a mask is an infringement or not is their God given right to decide, not yours to decide they are wrong and ignore their position.

Each person owns their own liberty, it's theirs to decide with as they choose so long as those choices don't infringe on the rights of others.

Which btw is the argument for masks being a valid infringement on one's rights, but it is still an infringement, just maybe one that is justified by the Social Contract.

There is so much here that is just plain stupid, I don't know where to begin. So I'll just focus on a couple.

"Each person owns their own liberty, it's theirs to decide with as they choose so long as those choices don't infringe on the rights of others." This is where your argument falls completely flat. Not wearing a mask and potentially being an asymptomatic spreader is ABSOLUTELY infringing on the rights of others. It's just like smoking in public places. It's just like drinking and driving laws.

And the key point is this: it's not for YOU to decide what OTHERS think are their important and unimportant rights, or infringement on the same. I never claimed that it is for ME to decide what OTHERS think are important and not. I said be consistent. No one can give me a reasonable answer as to why wearing a mask is SO much more an infringement than any other laws and regulations that involve public safety. I have my theory, which I have detailed. You seem to like to tell me how things work. Why are masks SUCH a major infringement relative to all the other (permanent) infringements?

There is one thing that you said that I agree with and its really my entire point:

Which btw is the argument for masks being a valid infringement on one's rights, but it is still an infringement, just maybe one that is justified by the Social Contract.

We accept minor infringements on our freedoms all the time that are justifiable by the social contract. That's what masks are. It is a short term sacrifice for long term gain. You have provided some very specific isolated incidents, but have failed to provide any explanation of why there is this national venom towards masks.

I'll wrap it up with this, you think you have me pegged, but you really don't. It's quite comical. You see, I am not this person that wants to ban this and that. Whatever a person (or consenting people) want to do that does not affect others, I'm all for it. Alcohol, drugs, prostitution, guns, smoking, no seatbelts, no helmets, you name it...However, I don't believe in anything unfettered, especially freedoms and capitalism. For everything great that our nation stands for, there is abuse that must be checked and limited as anything that goes unchecked are going to have safety implications. It IS our government's #1 priority to keep us safe.

So when our national health experts say that wearing a mask for a period of time is going to save lives and protect one another, it is absolutely something I can sacrifice. I find it sad that others do not feel the same sense of patriotism to do what is absolutely best for our country.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

And fwiw if I were Trump or another leader, that's how I would approach it.

Yes, this is an infringement on our liberty, but our liberty is limited to actions that do not impact the liberty of others, and where those two bubbles overlap we must as a whole decide how to resolve the conflict.

In this case the infringement on others by risking spreading the disease is great enough to justify some infringement to require masks. It's a gray area, a judgement call, and it is absolutely a limitation on our liberty, but one we need to endure in temporary form for the proper balance with protecting the rights of others to their life and health.

Just be honest about it, and what must be done.

BUT, it must also be tempered without blanket foolishness, and honestly I am not sure it can be a legal requirement more than a bully pulpit request. Ask they be worn in public spaces and gathering spots, but I see no basis for the blanket demands made in some states, nor the total shutdowns.

It's sometimes necessary for the social contract that we sacrifice TEMPORARILY in clear ways, like mobilizing for WWII, but we should always be clear, and limit our infringement to what is necessary and always approach our infringement with a heavy weight of responsibility as to the seriousness of what we are doing so that it is tempered as much as possible.

Where it gets very unclear, and overkill, is when we talk about things like football. Banning it outright versus more tempered responses is where this overreach occurs, or total lockdowns on hair dressers versus just spacing and testing.

yes, it's less safe than just welding us in our homes, but this is a land of liberty, not Chinese statism. Freedom isn't free, whether it is a war or a virus, and many Americans (thankfully) are too proud to cower completely from the rain.

I wouldn't have necessarily put it this way, but I don't disagree with much of what you have said here. Especially the part about, "that how I would approach it".

[CitizenBBN]

Stu, be careful with the direct insults.

second, read my whole post. I told you not wearing a mask is a potential externality and thus subject to regulation by the whole of the Social Contract. In more than one post. I was just telling you that such regulation is a restriction of liberty, albeit a justified one in philosophical terms.

My point was never about whether requiring masks is OK or not.

My point was you never try to understand anyone who disagrees with you, choosing to simply dismiss their position with faux morality (people don't care about lives, just entertainment) or the classic ad hominem (anyone who says X is just a Trump minion).

My opposition isn't with masks, it's with not respecting those who feel their liberty is being infringed. Primary among all in this country should be respect for liberty, and if so many feel it is not being respected then we need to listen and understand and act with all possible moderation to achieve the policy aim.

Too much policy is being made by Governors in this country without enough weight given to the fact that these actions ARE by their nature intrusive and infringing.

[CitizenBBN]

But yes, in large part we agree on masks, and on seat belts, etc. If i can just get you to see the beauty of the Invisible Hand I might get you over to the light of Libertarianism yet. :)

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Stu, be careful with the direct insults.

second, read my whole post. I told you not wearing a mask is a potential externality and thus subject to regulation by the whole of the Social Contract. In more than one post. I was just telling you that such regulation is a restriction of liberty, albeit a justified one in philosophical terms.

My point was never about whether requiring masks is OK or not.

My point was you never try to understand anyone who disagrees with you, choosing to simply dismiss their position with faux morality (people don't care about lives, just entertainment) or the classic ad hominem (anyone who says X is just a Trump minion).

My opposition isn't with masks, it's with not respecting those who feel their liberty is being infringed. Primary among all in this country should be respect for liberty, and if so many feel it is not being respected then we need to listen and understand and act with all possible moderation to achieve the policy aim.

Too much policy is being made by Governors in this country without enough weight given to the fact that these actions ARE by their nature intrusive and infringing.

3 counterpoints here:

1) I punch back. If I am insulted, I certainly deserve that right. I would appreciate it if the warning was given to both sides, especially the instigator.

2) I totally will listen to those that have opposing views. I am no more dismissive, categorical, labeling as many others. I just happen to have a different POV than many others here. I participate in the discussion because I WANT to hear from people with opposing views. I do not have the confidence that others feel the same way.

3) Respect goes two ways. The incessant whining, the lack of compassion, the lack of respect when people storm businesses and accost store employees, the "Karen's" and so on. Those folks have no respect for anything but themselves. If someone doesn't want to wear a mask, then don't wear one in the privacy of your homes, friend's houses and businesses that do not require to do so. Protest all you want. If you want respect, offer it to others.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

But yes, in large part we agree on masks, and on seat belts, etc. If i can just get you to see the beauty of the Invisible Hand I might get you over to the light of Libertarianism yet. :)

Let's take a moment to pause a celebrate a moment of agreement and get back at it. :)

[KeithKSR]

But yes, in large part we agree on masks, and on seat belts, etc. If i can just get you to see the beauty of the Invisible Hand I might get you over to the light of Libertarianism yet. :)

Stu could never be a Libertarian.

[CitizenBBN]

Let's take a moment to pause a celebrate a moment of agreement and get back at it. :)

I feel the Capitalism flowing through you. Embrace incentive based economics and we can destroy the Emperor and rule the economy together!

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Stu could never be a Libertarian.

You're right. That's because I think Libertarianism in today's terms is a farce. I have yet to meet a self-identified Libertarian that does not use it for convenience and more so as a reluctance to completely identify with one of the two parties. Maybe that's not a bad thing, though.

[CitizenBBN]

You're right. That's because I think Libertarianism in today's terms is a farce. I have yet to meet a self-identified Libertarian that does not use it for convenience and more so as a reluctance to completely identify with one of the two parties. Maybe that's not a bad thing, though.

You've now met one. :)

it's far from a farce, its the reason this nation was founded. I'm just out there trying to stay the course.

No one has to be an absolutist, the only "pure Libertarian" is basically an anarcho-capitalist, and that's obviously not workable, but believing in the basic principles is sound.

If one does one really lacks much of a home in the two parties. In the most base terms it would equate to "out of my bedroom and out of my wallet" which is today more generally "conservative" but they can often have a hard time with the first part, though far less than say the 1980s.

it is a far less judgmental and more truly diverse approach than modern leftism, which has become a near religious devotion to fascism couched as tolerance.

And the GOP has largely sold out their conservative fiscal policies as well, becoming circa 1980s or 90s Democrats in their approach.

I end up in the GOP camp more often only b/c they are more for limited government than the Democrats, and in the end if we don't limit government in any area we can we will surely lose our liberty, but I'd definitely support a completely new party that believed more in my principles herein defined. Neither is a good fit, but the GOP is somewhat better overall.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I feel the Capitalism flowing through you. Embrace incentive based economics and we can destroy the Emperor and rule the economy together!

I have no problems at all in incentive based economics as long as everyone is playing on an equal playing field. I know that's a fantasy, but I do think it is a role of government in a capitalistic society to do what it can to create such an environment where the ones reaping the greater incentive rewards are the people that carry the burden of risks. I think there is a fundamental difference in philosophy of who carries the risk burden.

[dan_bgblue]

But yes, in large part we agree on masks , and on seat belts, etc. If i can just get you to see the beauty of the Invisible Hand I might get you over to the light of Libertarianism yet. :)

I think the outcome of the humongous outdoor crowd in Bristol this weekend will tell us a lot about how events like that one can affect the world as we know it.

[Basket Case]

3 counterpoints here:

1) I punch back. If I am insulted, I certainly deserve that right. I would appreciate it if the warning was given to both sides, especially the instigator.

2) I totally will listen to those that have opposing views. I am no more dismissive, categorical, labeling as many others. I just happen to have a different POV than many others here. I participate in the discussion because I WANT to hear from people with opposing views. I do not have the confidence that others feel the same way.

3) Respect goes two ways. The incessant whining, the lack of compassion, the lack of respect when people storm businesses and accost store employees, the "Karen's" and so on. Those folks have no respect for anything but themselves. If someone doesn't want to wear a mask, then don't wear one in the privacy of your homes, friend's houses and businesses that do not require to do so. Protest all you want. If you want respect, offer it to others.

The only name caller I see here is you. I am one of those "personal freedom idiots", as you say. You also mention "reckless idiocy" and "there is so much that is just plain stupid" in other posts. Just because some of us view the constitution and Bill of Rights as sacrosanct and allow for very little infringement does not mean anyone lacks compassion. I will willingly were a mask when indoors and in close proximity to others. I will also wear a mask if a private business (Kroger, Lowe's, etc) requires that I do so in their business. I personally do not think the government should mandate masks on private property. I have much more trouble with limiting the right to assemble and shutting down businesses. Most importantly, I do not think that our rights are suspended - EVER. You may be willing to trade your rights for safety, but I am not.

You are smug and condescending to those of us who hold these views to any degree at all. Judging from the tone of your posts, you are the only altruistic one on this site. Although you, self admittedly, have had little inconvenience due to the virus you fail to acknowledge the impact of onerous governmental rules on anyone else. I, too, have have very little personal setbacks due to the virus but I have a lot of empathy for the effect it is having on children and young adults (academic and social), business owners, people who have lost their jobs, etc due to the government rules.

[UKHistory]

I disagree completely, Stu. MLB, the NBA and the NFL have shown that sports can be operated without furthering spread of the virus. High school sports aren’t being operated for the all mighty dollar.

What sports and entertainment do is to reintroduce some normalcy into life.

The St. Louis Cardinals had some real issues. The NBA seems to have worked very well in the bubble. The NFL has just started so it is too early to tell.

Finding ways to continue our way of life is critical. Sports, movies, entertainment have all helped Americans get through great crisis.

It is true that we don't know much about the virus as it is so new. Masks and face shields can greatly reduce risk of exposure. If everyone can at least wear a mask or face guard, we can do a lot. If we can wear pants to cover our private parts, we can wear a mask and not feel our liberty is lost.

Sports is also important for the athletes. For all the debate on Title IX, for example, the law has shown sports is great to help girls with self-esteem, academics, reducing pregnancy, and going to college.

Athletics can be a unifying force in a community. It is great to have it back.

I won't ridicule the Big whatever about deciding to take the field. The conference's rationale for changing course might be more about saving face, or revenue and status. Regardless they are back and so is the PAC 12.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

The only name caller I see here is you. I am one of those "personal freedom idiots", as you say. You also mention "reckless idiocy" and "there is so much that is just plain stupid" in other posts. Just because some of us view the constitution and Bill of Rights as sacrosanct and allow for very little infringement does not mean anyone lacks compassion. I will willingly were a mask when indoors and in close proximity to others. I will also wear a mask if a private business (Kroger, Lowe's, etc) requires that I do so in their business. I personally do not think the government should mandate masks on private property. I have much more trouble with limiting the right to assemble and shutting down businesses. Most importantly, I do not think that our rights are suspended - EVER. You may be willing to trade your rights for safety, but I am not.

You are smug and condescending to those of us who hold these views to any degree at all. Judging from the tone of your posts, you are the only altruistic one on this site. Although you, self admittedly, have had little inconvenience due to the virus you fail to acknowledge the impact of onerous governmental rules on anyone else. I, too, have have very little personal setbacks due to the virus but I have a lot of empathy for the effect it is having on children and young adults (academic and social), business owners, people who have lost their jobs, etc due to the government rules.

You should read a little more closely. If you can't recognize that I am defending myself, that's on you.

By the evidence you lay out here, you are obviously not one of the "personal freedom idiots". You are wearing a mask and recognize that the social contract weights more heavily than any infringements on our personal freedoms. You actually seem to be quite the opposite as what I am calling out, although, you seem to have waffled in your own reply. You say that you are wearing masks at times (per recommendations), but you are not willing to "trade your rights" for safety. I don't see how those can operate simultaneously.

I also agree with you that government should not mandate masks on private property. I have made that point many times. Not to mention that nobody is really calling for such mandates.

I just have to laugh at the smugness and condescending comment. You don't think that others don't reek of that as well? Obviously not, because they are on your side. I can share with you the personal PM's that thank me, but those were done in confidence, so while my approach may borderline brash at times, it is not any worse that I have been the recipient of. The problem with message boards is that tone is subjective to the person that is reading. It is VERY easy to misconstrue. I know, I have done it many times over the years.

Finally, you seem to gloss over the MANY times in which I have expressed empathy and sympathy for those that have been impacted by all of the events of 2020. You say by government rules, I say by government neglect. We can agree to disagree on the causes, but certainly agree on the outcomes.

[Basket Case]

You should read a little more closely. If you can't recognize that I am defending myself, that's on you.

By the evidence you lay out here, you are obviously not one of the "personal freedom idiots". You are wearing a mask and recognize that the social contract weights more heavily than any infringements on our personal freedoms. You actually seem to be quite the opposite as what I am calling out, although, you seem to have waffled in your own reply. You say that you are wearing masks at times (per recommendations), but you are not willing to "trade your rights" for safety. I don't see how those can operate simultaneously.

I also agree with you that government should not mandate masks on private property. I have made that point many times. Not to mention that nobody is really calling for such mandates.

I just have to laugh at the smugness and condescending comment. You don't think that others don't reek of that as well? Obviously not, because they are on your side. I can share with you the personal PM's that thank me, but those were done in confidence, so while my approach may borderline brash at times, it is not any worse that I have been the recipient of. The problem with message boards is that tone is subjective to the person that is reading. It is VERY easy to misconstrue. I know, I have done it many times over the years.

Finally, you seem to gloss over the MANY times in which I have expressed empathy and sympathy for those that have been impacted by all of the events of 2020. You say by government rules, I say by government neglect. We can agree to disagree on the causes, but certainly agree on the outcomes.



I read through the whole post and the the only sort of name calling directed at you imo was Citizen suggesting you were pompous after you said "personal freedom idiots" and placed the motive as to why people dont wear masks.

I am wearing a mask to be decent to those around me and to get into certain events. I don't agree with any "social contract" overriding personal freedoms. (So I still may be a personal freedom idiot?)

I do not waffle at all. I will wear a mask at times, but I do not believe the government should mandate them - it should be my choice unless it is a government facility. The government is very much requiring masks to be worn on private property. Just because a business is open to the public doesnt mean it is not private property.

I don't disagree with you that you may very well be on the receiving end of harsh words and maybe name calling too, but that doesn't make it right for you to do the same. And in this thread, unless there are deleted posts, you certainly were the one who ramped up the rhetoric.