65% is a fantasy. Perhaps under hospital condition were they constantly change the mask. but store clerks wear the the same thing shift after shift day after day. kinda gross when one thinks about it when in a grocery store. they are actually gueina pigs. there are no long term studies of mask wearing up until the mandates. its all been so sloppy. but I often say "its not about covid its about something else" we can know this is true they dont care what one wraps their face in just so long as its wrapped. People are breathing through all kinds of weird stuff inhaling all different kinds of fibers.

you said: "But to claim masks have no impact at all is to deny science" it is possible that the mask might catch a corona virus but does any one weigh the hazard of masking??? do you know how small a corona virus is? do you know what the pore size is in the mask. I have found maskers never know the scientific data.

i make my case in thread
"no masks"
https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=84140232&f=27


I dont claim they have no impact. My claim is over all they have an adverse impact. May even suggest they are trying to make people sick. seriously? what has the left brought that has been good? a virus that is above a 99.9 survival rate.

sneezing and coughing just makes a finer mist. your supposed to cough and sneeze into a napkin or something and throw it away. But not any more cause the world gone nuts. want to atomize that slobber and get stuff in that mask for secondary infections.

My compliments on the double post. And I'm more of a liberty minded person, in all honesty. There's science to indicate that 24/7/365 masking is a good idea. There's science that indicates that masking in general is stupid outside specific professions.

My take in general is there should be no government mandated mask requirement. 65% mitigation of a virus that survives free floating in the air for 3 hours may as well be no mitigation at all. On the flipside, private businesses do and should have the right to implement their own masking policy. If customers don't like it, they can make their money talk by walking to the competing business. Bad business policies lead to failed businesses. It's every business owner's right to fail due to their own stupidity.

Likewise, lockdowns should never have been and should never be mandated for something with such a minimal lethality rate. You don't quarantine the healthy to protect the sick. That's called martial law. Martial law over what is essentially a cold for the majority of the working age population is absurd.

At heart, I believe we're in rather firm agreement, except that you seem to believe businesses should not be able to set their own policies by which you can set foot on their private property, which indicates a desire for an insane level of government overreach comparable to the lockdowns and mandates themselves. Government exists to protect property rights, not remove them.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Dec 21 2020 01:06am

my first post was an error i did not "quote" you in reply so i fixed it, dont be pedantic its not a good look.

"My take in general is there should be no government mandated mask requirement. "
(I am in full aggrement here the .gov have really botched this.)

"And I'm more of a liberty minded person, in all honesty."
(you are? but you dont have a line you wont cross? Does your liberty also include that its ok to force me to wear a rag on my face thats bad for any ones health?)

"private businesses do and should have the right to implement their own masking policy."
(you seem to leave out one that serves the public and you dont have a line you wont cross. you should think about that.)

"believe businesses should not be able to set their own policies by which you can set foot on their private property"
(once again you leave out business that provide basic necessities and you still have not found a line you will not cross and will not talk about it. thats troubling) ( also you have already provided conditions they have to operate under are those .gov over reach?)

"which indicates a desire for an insane level of government overreach comparable to the lockdowns and mandates themselves."
(here your strawmanning me its also not a good look)

Private businesses do not "serve" the public. The government serves the public. Private businesses are private properties owned by private citizens. They don't exist to "serve" you. You PAY for the right to conduct business at their establishment. And you ONLY pay for that right if you are willing to follow the guidelines they set for you. Formal restaurants don't allow you to wear shorts and a beanie. Gyms don't allow you to wear flipflops. It's a private business on private property that is built and maintained and paid for by private citizens. It's THEIR land, THEIR building, and THEIR merchandise. I don't see how you can fail to understand this. You own no rights to that store. None. They can hang the "We're closed" sign and simply not open tomorrow and you can't do fuckall about it. THEY purchased the merchandise they're selling to you. THEY own all of it. And if THEY say, "I do not want you on my property, and refuse to sell you any of MY goods unless you wear a mask" then that is their right. You do NOT have to do business with them. You can purchase your goods from the competing store down the street that doesn't require a mask. They are not interfering with you, or harming your rights in any way. You have no rights to someone else's property beyond what they give you. None. It's not public property, it's not publicly funded. They invested in land, building, and products. They own it all and can do whatever the hell they want with it, including refusing to do business with you.

And you keep talking about "essential goods" like it means something. It doesn't. If you piss off every store owner on the planet and they all refuse to do business with you, that's your problem, grow your own food or starve. Even public utilities like water, gas, and electric are not guaranteed. Even though tax dollars go towards making them available, you still have to pay for what you use, or they are shut off.

That you claim you have any interest in liberty, yet want to try to talk yourself into a position where you can magically violate the property rights of others is just out and out stupid. No question about it.

interest in liberty" your the one saying they can impose any restrictions they want and lock anyone out at a whim. whos about liberty?

You do not have a right to other people's property. Doing anything to anyone else's property that they don't want done is you violating THEIR liberty. Do you understand?

If the government imposes restrictions that limits your rights to your OWN property, they're violating your liberty. If, however, you place rules on your own property that others have to follow, such as "You may not shit on my couch" then anyone who enters your property is violating your liberty if they shit on your couch.

Likewise, the private business owner owns (or leases) the land and building, and owns the merchandise. It's THEIRS. So if they say, "You must wear a mask to enter my property" then you are violating THEIR liberty, you are violating THEIR property rights, if you attempt to enter without a mask.

Somebody seriously needs to come to your home and start shitting on your couch so you start to understand why property rights matter.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/29/us/when-businesses-can-deny-you-service-trnd/index.html
excerpt: “When they focus on the word private, they’re thinking businesses are individually owned. A large number of people don’t recognize that these businesses are dealing with public accommodations – and you’re serving the public. That’s one thing they don’t take into account,” Powell says.

ya its cherry picked it would appear your at least mostly right on this topic though.

im not talking about stealing or couch chitting. if your cool that a place like a grocery store could at a whim deny people from it i say your going to have a tough battle in court a grocery store is there to provide good at a profit. Not ther eto select at a whim who they decide to serve

The fact that a sociology professor, an actual public servant paid for by the taxpayer's dime wants to label private business conducted on private property as "serving the public" means absolutely nothing. The thing to note with every one of those cases is they question whether discrimination was in practice. If you require literally everyone to wear a mask, there's no discrimination. The legal experts have already opined on this one, and the only real question is whether or not a person with health conditions that preclude their ability to wear a mask could or should be exempt from such policies. And while it varies by state, the answer to that question is "mostly no". There is no anti-discrimination law that covers "claimed health issues". There are anti-discrimination laws that cover "disabilities". So in order to take a case to the court over being refused service for not wearing a mask, you would have to prove that you are disabled, and your disability does not allow masks. Which is a rather tall order.

i already gave you a win on that topic " it would appear your at least mostly right on this topic though " going to come someday a time when people wake up about the masks.

"disability does not allow masks. Which is a rather tall order.

"(happening sooner rather than later)
Kevin J. Tours Ontario Serving Papers Suing Companies for Refusing Mask Exemptions | Dec 15th 2020
https://www.bitchute.com/video/dh1qzRoXphgH/