Wot no coronavirus thread? Part 2

[Kidlicious]

So the answer is "yes."

[Ming]

You are the one that has gone on record multiple times that your right to not wear a mask and to ignore common sense ways of helping to slow down the spread of the disease as recommended by Trumps government supersedes others right to protect themselves from illness and possible death.
That's a fact... and all of your silly little posts don't change that.

[Kidlicious]

Ok you're arguing against a caricature so ....

[Ming]

Pretty Lame try... you are saying it's your right not to wear a mask or do other common sense things recommended by the government to protect others. FACT
So all your silly ass little deflection posts are just that... They don't change the fact that you value your rights over all others, even if it means their death. FACT

[Kidlicious]

Believing in individual rights makes me morally correct. But you will ignore that or deny that fact in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Ming]

As I said, you believe your rights supersede others.
Got It

[Kidlicious]

As I said, you believe your rights supersede others.
Got It

No. You

[Ming]

Your "right" to not wear a mask because it's uncomfortable supersedes other people rights to not die.
That's your position. FACT
But keep trying to make it sound like my right to live vs you right to not being uncomfortable is bad.

I'll leave it to others to decide which position is morally correct.

[Kidlicious]

People don't have any right not to die. That's an absurd claim.

[-Jrabbit]

Believing in individual rights makes me morally correct.

You are wrong, Kid. You are not "believing in individual rights." There's no logic to what you are claiming to believe. It's the equivalent of someone dying of Covid-19 and you saying, "Oh well, at least he owned a gun." Instead, you say "At least he went to church" (something that, apparently, you like to talk about but rarely do) or "At least she kept her beauty parlor open."

It makes no sense. You do NOT have the moral high ground here. The government's job is to provide for the general welfare of its people. 340,000 people dead with no end in sight is, objectively, a failure. This is not an acceptable outcome, especially when an ounce of prevention and a little self-discipline would have saved most of them.

You think going maskless and socially distancing abridges your rights? And that more people should die so you can feel "morally correct" over this fake issue they fed you?

Kid, you think 1 in every 1,000 Americans being killed is a small price to pay for your arrogance and inability to think. That's 340,000 people, more than Pittsburgh, gone. What number would make you reconsider? Half a million dead? 1,000,000,000? Five million? Tell us, if you could prevent 10 million needless deaths, would you THEN agree to be mildly inconvenienced on a temporary basis?

[Ming]

People don't have any right not to die. That's an absurd claim.

People do have a right to LIFE. For you to claim otherwise is what is absurd.

[Kidlicious]

You are wrong, Kid. You are not "believing in individual rights." There's no logic to what you are claiming to believe. It's the equivalent of someone dying of Covid-19 and you saying, "Oh well, at least he owned a gun." Instead, you say "At least he went to church" (something that, apparently, you like to talk about but rarely do) or "At least she kept her beauty parlor open."

It makes no sense. You do NOT have the moral high ground here. The government's job is to provide for the general welfare of its people. 340,000 people dead with no end in sight is, objectively, a failure. This is not an acceptable outcome, especially when an ounce of prevention and a little self-discipline would have saved most of them.

You think going maskless and socially distancing abridges your rights? And that more people should die so you can feel "morally correct" over this fake issue they fed you?

Kid, you think 1 in every 1,000 Americans being killed is a small price to pay for your arrogance and inability to think. That's 340,000 people, more than Pittsburgh, gone. What number would make you reconsider? Half a million dead? 1,000,000,000? Five million? Tell us, if you could prevent 10 million needless deaths, would you THEN agree to be mildly inconvenienced on a temporary basis?

This is a really pitiful display in ignorance of the American system. The governments duty to provide for the general welfare does not give it the right to keep people from going to church or operating a business. In reality you are claiming that individuals have no rights.

But you carry on as though I'm notIon the side of individual rights.. Absolute garbage. Do better.

[Kidlicious]

People do have a right to LIFE. For you to claim otherwise is what is absurd.

You don't understand what the right to life is. It means that the government can't kill you

[Ming]

You don't understand what the right to life is. It means that the government can't kill you

So you are sticking to your claim that's the moral high ground and your right to risk other people's lives simply because you find wearing a mask uncomfortable... GOT IT

The governments duty to provide for the general welfare does not give it the right to keep people from going to church or operating a business. In reality you are claiming that individuals have no rights.

It's the governments duty to protect us.
And they are NOT saying you can't worship, or operate a business. But they can say how to do so without putting Millions of Americans at risk... You know duty to protect us.

[Kidlicious]

You are wrong, Kid. You are not "believing in individual rights." There's no logic to what you are claiming to believe. It's the equivalent of someone dying of Covid-19 and you saying, "Oh well, at least he owned a gun." Instead, you say "At least he went to church" (something that, apparently, you like to talk about but rarely do) or "At least she kept her beauty parlor open."

It makes no sense. You do NOT have the moral high ground here. The government's job is to provide for the general welfare of its people. 340,000 people dead with no end in sight is, objectively, a failure. This is not an acceptable outcome, especially when an ounce of prevention and a little self-discipline would have saved most of them.

You think going maskless and socially distancing abridges your rights? And that more people should die so you can feel "morally correct" over this fake issue they fed you?

Kid, you think 1 in every 1,000 Americans being killed is a small price to pay for your arrogance and inability to think. That's 340,000 people, more than Pittsburgh, gone. What number would make you reconsider? Half a million dead? 1,000,000,000? Five million? Tell us, if you could prevent 10 million needless deaths, would you THEN agree to be mildly inconvenienced on a temporary basis?

Only you would call the lockdowlockd "mild inconvenience." It's like stealing people's property and then saying that it's no big deal. Don't ****ing tell me that taking away my rights is an inconvenience.

The general welfare clause does not give the government to violate people's right beyond reason. That is they must be compensated. It must be done fairly, without prejudice, which it's not. And there must be limited, and it most certainly is not. What we are witnessing right now is fascism, and you are a ****ing fascist with absolutely no regard for liberty.

[Kidlicious]

Your rant is disjointed. If someone dies of Covid it is in fact good that at least they were free. I have no idea why you don't understand that.

[-Jrabbit]

Sorry, I guess I should have said "murdering fascist."

[Kidlicious]

You just use logical fallacies. They didn't just save people's lives. They took people's freedom away. To you that's nothing. You accuse people that don't take freedom away the fascist, but that's what you are.

And nobody murdered anyone. You are beyond ridiculous and tiresome.