49 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

The reporter blasting Pence about having rallies in OK and AZ was funny considering she never brought up thousands of people protesting in cities the past couple weeks. 

that's some fantastic whataboutism.

Florida is in trouble.  Over 9,000 new cases today and the state just shut down liquor sales in bars.  

4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

that's some fantastic whataboutism.

Scientifically, what is the difference between people body to body protesting and people body to body attending an election rally? 

3 hours ago, lynched1 said:

Biden: 120,000,000 dead from Covid 19.

🙄

Yes... we all love that injectable bleach serum that was developed.....  

48 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

It's really not that difficult.

Do I believe the government has a legal right to force everyone to wear a mask? Likely not.

Do I wear a mask because I am not a scumbag of a human being and want this to be over? Yes.

It's basically a question of whether or not you are a decent human being.

The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.  

It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine in the first instance whether vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the public health

"The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is then liberty regulated by law."

Jacobson v. Mass. 191 U.S. 11 (1905)

 

5 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

Scientifically, what is the difference between people body to body protesting and people body to body attending an election rally? 

Whether or not you believe it is a double standard, from a pure scientific standpoint masks vs no masks and indoors vs outdoors are big differences.  

5 minutes ago, What The F said:

Florida is in trouble.  Over 9,000 new cases today and the state just shut down liquor sales in bars.  

Are you turning your back on Gods beautiful breathing system?

11 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

Scientifically, what is the difference between people body to body protesting and people body to body attending an election rally? 

one body of protesters had a large segment that wore masks. the other, as some sort of "muh rights" protest, wore none. and one was outdoors, one was indoors.

7 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Whether or not you believe it is a double standard, from a pure scientific standpoint masks vs no masks and indoors vs outdoors are big differences.  

While that is true one cannot just give a free pass to the protesters and then also defend a strict mask only policy.

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

It's really not that difficult.

Do I believe the government has a legal right to force everyone to wear a mask? Likely not.

Do I wear a mask because I am not a scumbag of a human being and want this to be over? Yes.

It's basically a question of whether or not you are a decent human being.

I equate it to shopping carts. You can tell who is a good person and who isn’t by seeing who leaves shopping carts sitting in the parking lot instead of taking them to a stall. 

25 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

 

 

DeSantis is an ok governor in terms of management but he sucks as a leader in crisis. He’s a deer in headlights when he has to make a decision. Counties and cities are starting to adopt face mask requirements. IMO it needs to be a statewide requirement. I went to the grocery store the other day (in a county that recently made face masks mandatory) and people were walking in without them even though it was posted on the door that they were required. The clerk at the door was just telling people to wear them next time. Made me shake my head. 

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

one body of protesters had a large segment that wore masks. the other, as some sort of "muh rights" protest, wore none. and one was outdoors, one was indoors.

You can go that route but then you're opening yourself up for the comparison of sheer volume of protesters vs. the mere 6000 in that Tulsa rally.

All in all, I'd say the better approach would be to be consistent and condemn both sides if that is your position.  The Tulsa one is easier to condemn but the mob gets no free pass either even if they had 60% in masks or whatever it was in reality.

Just now, DrPhilly said:

While that is true one cannot just give a free pass to the protesters and then also defend a strict mask only policy.

Absolutely not, but he asked what "scientifically" what the difference was.  From a COVID protection standpoint those are pretty significant differences between the 2 groups.

1 minute ago, DEagle7 said:

Absolutely not, but he asked what "scientifically" what the difference was.  From a COVID protection standpoint those are pretty significant differences between the 2 groups.

On a percentage basis by person but the effect on society as a whole is almost surely worse from the protesters who outnumber the 6k in Tulsa by say 100x in person days.

It all depends on what stats you choose to present which is more often than not the case with this type of thing.

6 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

one body of protesters had a large segment that wore masks. the other, as some sort of "muh rights" protest, wore none. and one was outdoors, one was indoors.

Do you think that the increase of new cases in Philadelphia throughout the past two weeks has anything to do with the below and do you think that every person was wearing a mask? https://6abc.com/philadelphia-coronavirus-covid-19-philly-phialdelphia-2nd-wave/6271557/

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

You can go that route but then you're opening yourself up for the comparison of sheer volume of protesters vs. the mere 6000 in that Tulsa rally.

All in all, I'd say the better approach would be to be consistent and condemn both sides if that is your position.  The Tulsa one is easier to condemn but the mob gets no free pass either even if they had 60% in masks or whatever it was in reality.

they all should've worn masks.  but why would the reporter ask pence about mask wearing at protests? they weren't events pence & the wh were involved in planning. the rallies were. 

Just now, mr_hunt said:

they all should've worn masks.  but why would the reporter ask pence about mask wearing at protests? they weren't events pence & the wh were involved in planning. the rallies were. 

I wasn't commenting on the reporter.

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I wasn't commenting on the reporter.

that's the origin of this discussion....the post below.

1 hour ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

The reporter blasting Pence about having rallies in OK and AZ was funny considering she never brought up thousands of people protesting in cities the past couple weeks. 

 

i thought that's what you guys were still talking about. 

5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

On a percentage basis by person but the effect on society as a whole is almost surely worse from the protesters who outnumber the 6k in Tulsa by say 100x in person days.

It all depends on what stats you choose to present which is more often than not the case with this type of thing.

Sure.  You're weighing a large amount of being people dumb (protestors), vs a smaller number of people being really dumb (rally goers) vs a massive number of people being kinda dumb (people crowding beaches and going in and out of stores without masks while local case volume goes up).  I expect all of em to have varying degrees of effects on the number of positive cases.

Just now, mr_hunt said:

that's the origin of this discussion....the post below.

 

i thought that's what you guys were still talking about. 

So I looked at the vid on twitter in the posts on the previous page.  All I saw was Pence speaking. No reporter questions.  Can you point me to where the reporter asks the questions?

Also, the headline in that tweet is ridiculous IF (an important "IF") this is all there is to it.  In the vid she posted Pence didn't display anything that would allow for saying "Pence refused".  A much more accurate headline (based solely on the vid she included) would be to say "Pence didn't say".  Of course there may be more to it but not from what we can see in that video.

2 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Sure.  You're weighing a large amount of being people dumb (protestors), vs a smaller number of people being really dumb (rally goers) vs a massive number of people being kinda dumb (people crowding beaches and going in and out of stores without masks while local case volume goes up).  I expect all of em to have varying degrees of effects on the number of positive cases.

Agreed.  They are both dumb given the policies in place.  The symbolic part of the rally was worse of course given that the sitting POTUS basically encouraged no masks at a rally when the policy is masks.

21 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Whether or not you believe it is a double standard, from a pure scientific standpoint masks vs no masks and indoors vs outdoors are big differences.  

From a pure scientific standpoint, are you okay with 30,000-50,000 people filling the Linc this year during football season as long as they're wearing masks? 

10 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

You can go that route but then you're opening yourself up for the comparison of sheer volume of protesters vs. the mere 6000 in that Tulsa rally.

All in all, I'd say the better approach would be to be consistent and condemn both sides if that is your position.  The Tulsa one is easier to condemn but the mob gets no free pass either even if they had 60% in masks or whatever it was in reality.

I think that the fact that the Tulsa rally was a bust and only 6200 or whatever showed up is going to help the COVID-19 numbers.

But I reject the notion that condemnation of both sides has to be equal. There are mitigating factors here.

The protests, leaving any of the violent individuals aside - they should be condemned under any circumstances - were outside, and most protesters from what I could tell wore masks. Some were also trying to keep as much social distance as possible, which was the case in a great many of the protests that you DIDN'T see on TV. 

That's simply not the same as a bunch of people who decide to show up in VERY close quarters breathing the same stale air while standing side by side without wearing masks. And if 20k had actually showed up to fill the stadium? The vast majority would NOT be wearing masks. And the few that did would be ridiculed.

I'm sorry, but it's just not defensible to state "they deserve equal condemnation". They just don't.

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

So I looked at the vid on twitter in the posts on the previous page.  All I saw was Pence speaking. No reporter questions.  Can you point me to where the reporter asks the questions?

Also, the headline in that tweet is ridiculous IF (an important "IF") this is all there is to it.  In the vid she posted Pence didn't display anything that would allow for saying "Pence refused".  A much more accurate headline (based solely on the vid she included) would be to say "Pence didn't say".  Of course there may be more to it but not from what we can see in that video.

i didn't watch any video and have no idea what tweet or headline you're talking about.  my comment was 100% related to the post below mentioning a reporter asking about rallies but not bringing up the protests. 

1 hour ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

The reporter blasting Pence about having rallies in OK and AZ was funny considering she never brought up thousands of people protesting in cities the past couple weeks. 

 

3 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

From a pure scientific standpoint, are you okay with 30,000-50,000 people filling the Linc this year during football season as long as they're wearing masks? 

I've actually been thinking about this. If they can't come up with an effective vaccine, it might eventually come to that if we ever want to have mass gatherings again.

3 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

From a pure scientific standpoint, are you okay with 30,000-50,000 people filling the Linc this year during football season as long as they're wearing masks? 

I would not be particularly "ok" with that, no. but I can see that, "from a pure scientific standpoint", 30-50k people in an open air football stadium all wearing masks are going to be less likely to communicate COVID-19 than 20k people in a closed stadium who are making an emphatic point about NOT wearing masks because it "infringes muh rights".

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I think that the fact that the Tulsa rally was a bust and only 6200 or whatever showed up is going to help the COVID-19 numbers.

But I reject the notion that condemnation of both sides has to be equal. There are mitigating factors here.

The protests, leaving any of the violent individuals aside - they should be condemned under any circumstances - were outside, and most protesters from what I could tell wore masks. Some were also trying to keep as much social distance as possible, which was the case in a great many of the protests that you DIDN'T see on TV. 

That's simply not the same as a bunch of people who decide to show up in VERY close quarters breathing the same stale air while standing side by side without wearing masks. And if 20k had actually showed up to fill the stadium? The vast majority would NOT be wearing masks. And the few that did would be ridiculed.

I'm sorry, but it's just not defensible to state "they deserve equal condemnation". They just don't.

 

I never said they did.  I said you should condemn both sides.  I didn't say that the condemnation should be equal.