Kansas Crimson

chiknbut wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 1:32 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 1:28 pm

pdub wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 1:05 pm that we don't need masks or social distancing so to protest they don't wear masks or social distance.

So for them, it is the appropriate protest.

Well, then that's just dumb.

That's like stabbing each other to protest that we shouldn't be stabbing each other.

I wouldn't support that protest either.

That the virus exists, is deadly, is spread person to person through aerosols are not philosophical opinions, are factual and provable.

Another person who hasn't spent much time going over Agenda 69.

Nice. You and Geezer worked out your copyright differences I take it? Good. It’s a shame to see a couple of one-in-a-generation comedic talents at odds with each other.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 1:31 pm

chiknbut wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 1:27 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 1:24 pm
No. Civil disobedience ceases to be civil when it unnecessarily increases the likelihood of spreading an infectious disease that is the causative agent if an ongoing global pandemic.

Don't you get tired of explaining obvious things to people who just want attention?

kinda.

I give three examples of acceptable formats people could use to protest a cause I don't believe in. The response: So, civil disobedience is an acceptable format for protest as long as you agree with the cause?

My point, which you either missed or outright chose to ignore, was that you are not the sole arbiter of what is acceptable and unacceptable, despite your belief that it is your God-given birthright by virtue of your education, intelligence, and the enlightenment you believe inherently accompanies your political affiliation.

You’ll learn a lot more if you spend less time sitting at the back of the room with class clowns like PChiknbut.

We aren't the one that believes that "THEY" are trying to take over the world.

Geezer wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 2:36 pm We aren't the one that believes that "THEY" are trying to take over the world.

Thank you for so aptly demonstrating the meaning of the term “non sequitur”.

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 2:29 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 1:31 pm

chiknbut wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 1:27 pm

Don't you get tired of explaining obvious things to people who just want attention?

kinda.

I give three examples of acceptable formats people could use to protest a cause I don't believe in. The response: So, civil disobedience is an acceptable format for protest as long as you agree with the cause?

My point, which you either missed or outright chose to ignore, was that you are not the sole arbiter of what is acceptable and unacceptable, despite your belief that it is your God-given birthright by virtue of your education, intelligence, and the enlightenment you believe inherently accompanies your political affiliation.

You’ll learn a lot more if you spend less time sitting at the back of the room with class clowns like PChiknbut.

Lulz

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 4:24 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 2:29 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 1:31 pm kinda.

I give three examples of acceptable formats people could use to protest a cause I don't believe in. The response: So, civil disobedience is an acceptable format for protest as long as you agree with the cause?

My point, which you either missed or outright chose to ignore, was that you are not the sole arbiter of what is acceptable and unacceptable, despite your belief that it is your God-given birthright by virtue of your education, intelligence, and the enlightenment you believe inherently accompanies your political affiliation.

You’ll learn a lot more if you spend less time sitting at the back of the room with class clowns like PChiknbut.

Lulz

Exactly. Stoopid rednecks.

LOL?
https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2 ... l-breaking

Grandma wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 4:47 pm LOL?
https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2 ... l-breaking

Downstate Illinois - say no more.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 1:28 pm

That the virus exists, is deadly, is spread person to person through aerosols are not philosophical opinions, are factual and provable.

Not according to some of my former facebook friends.

Maybe not according to these nurses either?
Kind of blew my mind that they would do this right across the street from the hospital.

Those nurses could either:
A. All live together as roomies or neighbors and have already, for weeks now, spent time with each other without social distancing
Or
B. All have been tested

I don't think it's a good idea and I wouldn't group that closely, but fortunately, I read that being outside reduces your likelihood of being infected by ~ 20 times.

pdub wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 5:38 am Those nurses could either:
A. All live together as roomies or neighbors and have already, for weeks now, spent time with each other without social distancing
Or
B. All have been tested

Or
C. They could all be Covid-19 positive so they say - fuck it, it doesn't matter.
Or
D. They could be friends/family members of nurses and just be wearing "scrubs" that they have borrowed.
Or
E. Unicorns and Jesus are protecting them.
Or
F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z?

Who the fuck knows?

I and everyone else can make assumptions. I have no clue what those nurses have or haven't been exposed to. My guess is they are not working with Covid-19 positive patients and that is part of the reason for their seemingly lackadaisical attitude. Of course, that's just a guess.
Still, I was a bit surprised to see them sitting together not wearing masks nor "social/physical distancing" right across the street from the hospital - while a doctor felt the need/desire to wear a mask while being interviewed across the street from them.

My initial thought after reading your post was - I wish people (including) myself truly understood "testing".
Here is where my confusion comes in. I go in to Northwestern Hospital. I get tested. My result is negative. WHEN I WAS TESTED.
I could become infected immediately after I am tested. I could leave the testing facility, get on an elevator, and get infected. Anybody who is infected could possibly infect me. Of course we can't get tested every second of every day but just because someone tests negative at 8:00am doesn't mean they can't get the virus anytime after 8:00am - that day or any other following day.
So... Is it better for people to error in believing they may have the virus (and not have it) or believing they don't have the virus (and they do have it)? I would have to assume in this case, if one or the other has to be an option, it would be better to be cautious and believe you may have the virus - but still live your life as "normal" as possible.

wtf is wrong with people?

that isn’t patriotism

other than ignorance and inconsideration, i’m not sure what to call it

I couldn’t finish watching that vid. Ugh.

I’ll be curious to see how many (if any) lawyers would take on suing a store for enforcing mask rules. “Not wearing a mask” is not a protected category.

How many lawyers (and prosecutors) wanna take on coughing, spitting etc. as assault?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri May 22, 2020 11:48 am How many lawyers (and prosecutors) wanna take on coughing, spitting etc. as assault?

My sister-in-law was charged with 3rd degree (misdemeanor) assault for spitting (in the face of my other sister-in-law).