sts7049 said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Ya, and you would never be able to fly anywhere, have to order everything online and never go into any private business except for a small subset, couldn't leave the country, ect. All to prove your stupid little point.

But thankfully that won't happen. At least not with this virus.

---

No. Some private businesses won't require it and you'll see a percentage of the population move to those businesses. That's the great thing about freedom and the free market.

You keep saying it won't happen, but I bet you thought you'd never see the day where the government forces the economy to shut down for over a month, yet here we are.

---

This is not something you can stick to your principles 100% on unless you are willing to kill everyone. Imagine a virus or other highly communicable illness comes around that kills off over 80% of all that are infected. Not enough? 90%. Not enough? 100%. You would have to hold true to your standard that government, of any level, can never temporarily shut down any sort of private commerce to save lives, no matter how many, to the point of 100% death of the entire population. Otherwise you will have conceded that at some arbitrary point, it is a legitimate function of government.

---

I wouldn't want the government mandating me to do anything to protect myself. I want them to make their suggestions and allow me the freedom to make the choice on what feel is best for me and my family. So yes, I would hold true to my standard of government. It would be no different at 80-100% or the <1% this is turning out to be.

---

that's fine. prove to me how your choice will not impact me or my family in this situation.

---

Because you'll be taking similar measures to protect yours. If my choices are outside of what you feel is safe for your family, you will keep your family away from me and mine or keep them inside. See, it's that simple. You become responsible for you and your family in that situation, not me.

I'm not sure what they're going to do. His step-dad is HFD, so I'm sure he's going to see what he's able to do for it.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

All of those things are minuscule in direct threat to others compared to a communicable disease that can kill and maim.

Your argument makes as much sense as telling people that drunk driving should be legal and if you don't like the threat of it, then you are free to stay at home.

---

I just responded to what you said, which is 100% wrong. I'm sorry you aren't able to see that other people are often harmed with other things as well, yet we don't shut down the economy for it.

Quote:

---

I'm mostly with you on drugs, prostitution, seat belts and other things that just case harm to the person doing it or not doing it.

---

Regarding drunk driving, I do think someone should be able to stop by the corner store after leaving work to grab a beer to drink on the way home.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Bondag said:

---

IrishTxAggie said:

---

HPOU just told lil'Lina to **** off!

---

Why is the background behind the text a different color? Looks like a bad photoshop.

---

It's legit

---

My wife read that to me while we did a little half our drive during lunch to get out of the house, and I had the same response. "There's no way that's real" and then she showed me it was from their official FB page.

SIAP, but great story from KPRC about the money wasted on the NRG tent hospital:

https://www.click2houston.com/news/investigates/2020/04/22/commissioners-may-soon-pull-the-plug-on-harris-countys-pop-up-hospital-at-nrg-park/

Quote:

---

The facility, with a potential price tag of $60 million, was designed by Garner Environmental Services, a Deer Park company, to help with a surge of coronavirus patients at the Texas Medical Center. But that surge never materialized and the facility sits empty right now.

---

Quote:

---

Channel 2 Investigated obtained the full contract between the county and Garner Environmental Services.
Among some of the items in it, we found highly compensated personnel ranging from:

• Various safety officers receiving day rates of $2,875, $2,300 and $2,012
• A finance section chief at $2,875 a day
• Two public information officers at $2012 a day, even though the contract states "contact with the news media, citizens of Harris County or governmental agencies shall be the responsibility of the county."

---

Quote:

---

it doesn't appear the temporary facility will need to be mobilized. If it had been, the price tag for the project could have hit that $60 million mark.

But as it stands now, Harris County's bill could be closer to $17 million and with the federal government pledging to reimburse 75% of the cost, county taxpayers could be on the hook for only $4.25 million.

---

Interesting, and not surprising.

Why won't they link the darn contract itself?

Demotard magic

Quote:

---

county taxpayers could be on the hook for only $4.25 million.

---

Quote:

---

I just responded to what you said, which is 100% wrong. I'm sorry you aren't able to see that other people are often harmed with other things as well, yet we don't shut down the economy for it.

---

What you are talking about are secondary consequences really, not direct harm. Very little DIRECT harm comes to others as a DIRECT consequence of someone doing drugs. Require prostitutes to use protection and there is very little, if any DIRECT harm caused to others who don't engage in it.

As for seat belt laws, the argument of being a projectile is pretty dubious. A good argument would have been that wearing a seat belt keeps the driver in their seat and therefor more able to control the vehicle from harming others in cases where evasive maneuvers are necessary.

At what level of intoxication do you think it's moral for government to utilize force to stop someone from driving and issue penalty?

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Quote:

---

I just responded to what you said, which is 100% wrong. I'm sorry you aren't able to see that other people are often harmed with other things as well, yet we don't shut down the economy for it.

---

What you are talking about are secondary consequences really, not direct harm. Very little DIRECT harm comes to others as a DIRECT consequence of someone doing drugs. Require prostitutes to use protection and there is very little, if any DIRECT harm caused to others who don't engage in it.

As for seat belt laws, the argument of being a projectile is pretty dubious. A good argument would have been that wearing a seat belt keeps the driver in their seat and therefor more able to control the vehicle from harming others in cases where evasive maneuvers are necessary.

At what level of intoxication do you think it's moral for government to utilize force to stop someone from driving and issue penalty?

---

Secondary consequences? I'm sure my cousin would agree that the past 14 years without her dad is a secondary consequence.

What level of intoxication? Honestly, I think it varies by person. You may handle a beer better than your wife, so you shouldn't be held to the same standard.

if we're in a public space where both families have equal right to access or be, then the impact is not the same. your choice then becomes my burden.

your answer to that, which i presume is "tough s***" doesn't fly, sorry.

if that's how you feel then i guess you wouldn't then have a problem with me kicking you out of said public place either for endangering my family.

in principle i have no problem with leaving the decision up to the individual. but it cannot be without consequence.

Quote:

---

Secondary consequences? I'm sure my cousin would agree that the past 14 years without her dad is a secondary consequence.

---

Smoking could do the same, eating unhealthy could, adultery could, being a terrible dad that abandons their kids could. None are directly harmful to the kid if the parents do them, hence none of them should be illegal.

Quote:

---

What level of intoxication? Honestly, I think it varies by person. You may handle a beer better than your wife, so you shouldn't be held to the same standard.

---

So you want cops just to field test all drivers that swerve a bit and use their own discretion as to who should be able to and who should go to jail?

cone said:

---

i bet HPD is so pissed about this that they're going to stage a no knock raid and kill some perfectly good white trash

---

Tuttle was a US Navy veteran. May want to rethink your stupid statement

like i said, actions have consequences if that's your personal view on life. you are the one strutting around only worried about you and your family and nobody else.

sts7049 said:

---

like i said, actions have consequences if that's your personal view on life. you are the one strutting around only worried about you and your family and nobody else.

---

His libertarian view on public spaces would also result in what is happening in LA and San fran with the homeless.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Quote:

---

Secondary consequences? I'm sure my cousin would agree that the past 14 years without her dad is a secondary consequence.

---

Smoking could do the same, eating unhealthy could, adultery could, being a terrible dad that abandons their kids could. None are directly harmful to the kid if the parents do them, hence none of them should be illegal.

Quote:

---

What level of intoxication? Honestly, I think it varies by person. You may handle a beer better than your wife, so you shouldn't be held to the same standard.

---

So you want cops just to field test all drivers that swerve a bit and use their own discretion as to who should be able to and who should go to jail?

---

Smoking isn't harmful to kids? Ever hear of second hand smoke? Daddy porking the secretary or mommy getting drilled by her personal trainer doesn't impact kids? Give me a break. My parents split when I was 16 (no unfaithfulness or anything), and it was devastating to me and still is 22 years later. It took over 10 years from their split before any form of "normal" returned, and honestly, it still hasn't fully returned.

I think if a cop suspects drunk driving then they administer a field test to determine it. If I were to take some pills that cause me to drive dangerously, I'm not going to blow a .08.

sts7049 said:

---

like i said, actions have consequences if that's your personal view on life. you are the one strutting around only worried about you and your family and nobody else.

---

Showing kids daddy isn't who they thought he was?

Texaggie7nine said:

---

sts7049 said:

---

like i said, actions have consequences if that's your personal view on life. you are the one strutting around only worried about you and your family and nobody else.

---

His libertarian view on public spaces would also result in what is happening in LA and San fran with the homeless.

---

You seem to think I'm all for lawlessness and no government. I'm not. Government has use and there are times where laws are needed for the public good. I don't believe this is one of them. As more and more comes out about this, it's not looking nearly as bad as they predicted. Remember the projections for millions of people dying? Then being adjusted down to hundreds of thousands? And now further adjusted to below 100k?

What about overwhelming our hospital system? My SIL is a PA in the ED. I had my wife ask her how things are for her. She told us she's been sent home early from shifts, had shifts cancelled (no pay for her if she doesn't choose to use PTO), and are seeing patient numbers drop. She said she used to see anywhere from 35-40 patients on a 12 hour shift, and yesterday, she saw 7 before being sent home after 8 hours.

If you haven't noticed, the government "experts" seem to have about as much of a clue as you or me. They're like the effing weatherman who predicted 80% chance of thunderstorms and it's a bright sunny day all day, except it's not just weekend plans the government "experts" are ruining.

tone police got me again

That'll be $20 for the entertainment.

aTm2004 said:

---

sts7049 said:

---

if we're in a public space where both families have equal right to access or be, then the impact is not the same. your choice then becomes my burden.

your answer to that, which i presume is "tough s***" doesn't fly, sorry.

if that's how you feel then i guess you wouldn't then have a problem with me kicking you out of said public place either for endangering my family.

in principle i have no problem with leaving the decision up to the individual. but it cannot be without consequence.

---

You're right, tough ***** If you have a problem with it, then leave. If you try to be a bully and trying to kick us out, you better hope you're the big dog on the block or your kids will see daddy get his ass kicked like a *****.

---

Jesus, calm down guys. It's the internet.

But you have Badass over there going to kick someone out of a place because that person is enjoying their freedom and he doesn't like it. Kind of like the dudes blocking Dave at the inauguration.

aTm2004 said:

---

Smoking isn't harmful to kids? Ever hear of second hand smoke? Daddy porking the secretary or mommy getting drilled by her personal trainer doesn't impact kids? Give me a break. My parents split when I was 16 (no unfaithfulness or anything), and it was devastating to me and still is 22 years later. It took over 10 years from their split before any form of "normal" returned, and honestly, it still hasn't fully returned.

---

Second hand smoke you could make an argument for, but not if the parent only smokes outside and away from the kids.

Believe me, I am personally fully aware of the consequences of split up families and not having a parent around. I'm not arguing that consequences of such actions that are perfectly legal aren't bad. I'm pointing out that they are not DIRECT harm.

This is the distinction that gives cause for local government intervention, when direct harm of others is at stake.

Quote:

---

I think if a cop suspects drunk driving then they administer a field test to determine it. If I were to take some pills that cause me to drive dangerously, I'm not going to blow a .08.

---

So first off, you are admitting that there is a certain level of threat of direct harm that justifies government intervention and restriction. So this is not a debate over whether government has the right to use force to limit threat of harm, but rather just a debate over what that level of threat should be.

Now with something like this type of regulation, where it's just left up to cops to determine if they think drunk drivers should be able to drive, and there is no set standard applied across the board, you are going to cause way more drunk drivers than we have now. Every drunk driver thinks they are just fine to drive and if their only concern was if a cop thought they were ok to drive and not some arbitrary measure like BAC, then way more dumbasses would be trying it.

Now you are arguing over if this virus is as bad as the experts are saying. That's a different argument and has been had all over this site. You came into this argument with a stand that government doesn't have the right to have these kinds of restrictions in the first place.

If you want to argue that you don't think the threat is high enough, fine, but so long as you admit that there is validity in government protecting the public good in public spaces, then you are just going to have to try to get voters to vote in people that agree with you on that, or move. This is not some tyrannical government debate.

aTm2004 said:

---

FarmerJohn said:

---

This thread reminds me of my grandfather. He hated the idea that the government could tell him that he needed to wear a seat belt so he got a doctor to write a note saying he didn't have to. Of course he lived in rural Nebraska so no one really cared, but fine he didn't have to.

It's so bizarre reading through this that you'd have to state something as simple as, "In a society, you have to look out for each other." That's why there are societies. What has taken thousands of years to arrive at is that we don't need the government to be the one looking out if we'd collectively do it ourselves. So we've spent generations with 20% of the people kicking and screaming as they are dragged forward. It took a long time for us all to agree not to poop in the streets. But it keeps things cleaner and leads to less disease. Yet in San Francisco (and China) it still occurs and we have to work on something so basic.

Wearing masks in public during a pandemic is the same deal, just without the long history. You know who has a long history of pandemics? Asia. They wear masks there with a lot worse general hygiene. (Just try and wash your hands in some bathrooms over there.) They may be on to something, so lets give it a shot. I'm sorry that message is delivered by the intern that we voted to run the county. But lets separate the two issues.

---

You mean to follow the country where this originated from?

---

Yes, exactly that. They've dealt with SARS, MERS, H1N1, and those are just the identified ones. They seem to have some experience with these kind of things. They also think this is worth it and went right to the old playbook. Lets give it a shot and open things back up. If it works and we don't see a giant spike, maybe this will calm everyone down and the next time this happens we can all break out the masks and not shut the entire country down. There will be a next time.

What this order really does is make all the "essential" businesses take some action for their employees. I understand the order to read that businesses are required to provide masks to their staff if they are essential. So if you want to be open, you need to provide some covering. Seems reasonable. We don't need another South Dakota meat packing plant incident. I do realize that my company will probably make me responsible for my reports, which will be a pain. But that's kind of the job of a manager/boss.

Quote:

---

So first off, you are admitting that there is a certain level of threat of direct harm that justifies government intervention and restriction. So this is not a debate over weather government has the right to use force to limit threat of harm, but rather just a debate over what that level of threat should be.

---

Yes. This thing is turning out to not be as bad as we thought it would be. We closed the economy and destroyed businesses and lives because our "experts" predicted millions dead and we didn't want to overwhelm our hospitals, but now we have hospitals furloughing workers, healthcare workers being forced to take PTO or not get paid because there's no work, etc. Hell, even NYC, which is the epicenter for this, didn't need the Naval ship or makeshift hospital in Central Park. I'm not going to talk about the waste of money here in Houston that was posted a few posts above. Government has used this as an opportunity to temporarily strip rights away from it's citizens (Michigan and Colorado come to mind). You know as well as me how hard it is for government to give something back after it's taken it, so I believe my thought of them continuing to use fear to strip more rights away is justified. Requiring us to wear a mask for the public good should be met with a "what's next" approach.

2 recent studies I notated back a few pages ago (or maybe another thread) show that a lot more people have had this that we originally thought, which means that denominator is much larger. Also, there are reports of people who died of other causes being classified as a COVID death, even though COVID wasn't the main cause of death (Birx stated this). It's inflating the numbers.

Does that mean it can't be bad? No. But like everything else out there that we get, some will be impacted worse than others.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Now you are arguing over if this virus is as bad as the experts are saying. That's a different argument and has been had all over this site. You came into this argument with a stand that government doesn't have the right to have these kinds of restrictions in the first place.

If you want to argue that you don't think the threat is high enough, fine, but so long as you admit that there is validity in government protecting the public good in public spaces, then you are just going to have to try to get voters to vote in people that agree with you on that, or move. This is not some tyrannical government debate.

---

No, I came into this saying be careful of how much power you give the government. Prior to that post, my posts on this thread were a mask isn't effective if you're not going all out to protect yourself, something about a Friday drive, and about how my wife's friend think she may have had it with little symptoms.

I'm consistent in that belief. Give some guidelines on what is best and let the individual determine if they're willing to assume the risk.