We Will Not Comply | Ray Gillenwater We Will Not Comply | Ray Gillenwater - Page 6

starting strength gym
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 77

Thread: We Will Not Comply | Ray Gillenwater

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    21

    Default

    • texas starting strength seminar september 2020
    • wichita falls texas december seminar 2020
    Don't we already restrict personal freedoms for the betterment of health and safety of others? Should an intoxicated person be able to freely drive their car down the street? Should a person be able to light up a cigarette in a restaurant? Should a person be able to freely distribute cocaine in a community? For a relatively unknown virus that we really don't know much about i don't fault the decision for temporary stay at home orders. I mean stores have prevention guidelines, like one way aisles, and emphasize 6 feet of distance but I witness people going the wrong way down the aisle, or reaching over my shoulder to grab something off the shelf, or even not covering their coughs while in public in this current situation. From an economical standpoint we also can't keep everything locked down either. There has to be some sort of middle ground. Everything doesn't have to be so binary.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Garage of GainzZz
    Posts
    2,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nighttrain View Post
    Don't we already restrict personal freedoms for the betterment of health and safety of others? Should an intoxicated person be able to freely drive their car down the street? Should a person be able to light up a cigarette in a restaurant? Should a person be able to freely distribute cocaine in a community? For a relatively unknown virus that we really don't know much about i don't fault the decision for temporary stay at home orders. I mean stores have prevention guidelines, like one way aisles, and emphasize 6 feet of distance but I witness people going the wrong way down the aisle, or reaching over my shoulder to grab something off the shelf, or even not covering their coughs while in public in this current situation. From an economical standpoint we also can't keep everything locked down either. There has to be some sort of middle ground. Everything doesn't have to be so binary.
    It’s not “we.”

    The State is not “we.”

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nighttrain View Post
    Don't we already restrict personal freedoms for the betterment of health and safety of others? Should an intoxicated person be able to freely drive their car down the street? Should a person be able to light up a cigarette in a restaurant? Should a person be able to freely distribute cocaine in a community? For a relatively unknown virus that we really don't know much about i don't fault the decision for temporary stay at home orders. I mean stores have prevention guidelines, like one way aisles, and emphasize 6 feet of distance but I witness people going the wrong way down the aisle, or reaching over my shoulder to grab something off the shelf, or even not covering their coughs while in public in this current situation. From an economical standpoint we also can't keep everything locked down either. There has to be some sort of middle ground. Everything doesn't have to be so binary.
    The difference is that we don’t SHUT DOWN entire economies because there are drunk drivers on the road. We get on with life, and if you’re scared of getting killed by a drunk driver, you stay off the road. I prefer not to be on the roads at 2:30 AM on a Saturday morning because that’s drunk driving “rush hour.” So I avoid that as much as possible.

    My state still allows smoking in 21+ venues (I think). I don’t frequent such establishments because I hate smoke. Well, I don’t care much for bars anyway, but you get my point...

    Furthermore, comparing a maskless grocery shopper walking the wrong way down an aisle to a drunk driver or cocaine dealer is truly fucked. Maybe we should label these people somehow? Like sew some sort of symbol on their clothes to let the world know of their transgressions?

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    73

    Default

    I have heard of no person advocating shutting down the entire economy, and saying it has happened so far misses the food, clothing, gasoline, household products, essentially everything needed not just to survive, to to live well, is readily available. What has been shut down is what can easily be seen as not "essential," at least for the time necessary to get a control on our response to the virus, and to plan for a safe, full re-opening. Unfortunately, the feckless nation leadership squandered that opportunity long ago.

    As to driving, it's a very good analogy to how the virus should be approached. At the national level, the Nat'l Hwy Traffic Safety Admin sets standards that are followed in every state, including the acceptable blood alcohol level. In turn, every state has a thick, and well-used, vehicle code that governs every aspect of motor vehicle traffic, from rules of the road to the equipment on a vehicle. Drivers must be trained and tested before being allowed to drive, and there is constant monitoring of traffic by law enforcement and penalties for violations. Surely, you are not suggesting this system is unnecessary, or its mere existence violates peoples' rights. That concept has been rejected by every court that has every faced it.

    And, yes, a massless grocery store shopper is analogous to a drunken driver. Wandering around endangering yourself is one thing. But no person who contracts the virus endangers only themself. Missing that point is to miss the point of the purpose of following rules in any shared endeavor.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darrowdisciple View Post
    I have heard of no person advocating shutting down the entire economy, and saying it has happened so far misses the food, clothing, gasoline, household products, essentially everything needed not just to survive, to to live well, is readily available. What has been shut down is what can easily be seen as not "essential," at least for the time necessary to get a control on our response to the virus, and to plan for a safe, full re-opening. Unfortunately, the feckless nation leadership squandered that opportunity long ago.
    Toilet paper and cleaning supplies have not been readily available. It's impossible to get pork at my local Aldi if I don't shop right away in the morning. In the future, after farmers have been forced to sell their crops at pennies for the dollar because demand from restaurants and catering industries plummeted, there will be real food shortages. In the distant future, once the effects of this make it back to the little Vietnamese boys who make our clothing, the prices of those things will also go up. Blaming the Orange One will not solve any of this. It was caused entirely by state and local officials.

    As to driving, it's a very good analogy to how the virus should be approached. At the national level, the Nat'l Hwy Traffic Safety Admin sets standards that are followed in every state, including the acceptable blood alcohol level. In turn, every state has a thick, and well-used, vehicle code that governs every aspect of motor vehicle traffic, from rules of the road to the equipment on a vehicle. Drivers must be trained and tested before being allowed to drive, and there is constant monitoring of traffic by law enforcement and penalties for violations. Surely, you are not suggesting this system is unnecessary, or its mere existence violates peoples' rights. That concept has been rejected by every court that has every faced it.

    And, yes, a massless grocery store shopper is analogous to a drunken driver. Wandering around endangering yourself is one thing. But no person who contracts the virus endangers only themself. Missing that point is to miss the point of the purpose of following rules in any shared endeavor.
    Brilliant. It makes sense now. Giving someone a disease roughly equivalent to the flu is the same as driving my car into someone at 70 mph. We need a brand new government bureau to regulate people walking around, the DMV but for ambulatory traffic. Thanks for enlightening me.

    This kind of nonsense is exactly while I will not wear a mask out in public.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Since your non-logic is so rampant, and contradictory to itself, and fact-free, NIH reports that COVID is ten times more lethal than influenza, but why quibble over science, just focus on this: In what alternative country to the United States does anyone have the right to make someone else even a little bit sick recklessly? You're whining about a temporary lack of pork and toilet paper, yet you think spewing a virus willy nilly is nothing? Next time you go to a football game, take out your AR and fire non-lethal rounds indiscriminately into the crowd. Your defense can be that you just resent all those constraints on your freedom, and only a bunch of wimps would complain, right?

    There are so many weak points to your argument, so I'll just focus on the weakest. The "authorities" do not presume you have the virus, but they do presume the virus will find you, as it will find 60%-70% of the population before it slows down. And unlike influenza, it can be spread by asymptomatic people. And like any society in which we share public spaces, the authorities have every right, in fact the obvious obligation, to act to protect people as much as possible. To say otherwise is to say "what right do they have to restrict how I drive my car?"

    That said, the purpose of the lockdowns was to buy enough time while virus has infected a maximum now of 20% of the population in order to plan for a measured, sensible re-opening. You want to squawk? Squawk about how that time was wasted babbling about bleach, and chloroquine, and how testing is uselesss, rather than making sure a "Great" America has enough PPE for its health care workers, and law enforcement, and....

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    42,229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darrowdisciple View Post
    NIH reports that COVID is ten times more lethal than influenza, but why quibble over science,
    This is so deeply stupid that it baffles me. You think the NIH = Science. But you represent the 70% of the general public caught up in this mess, and it's worth knowing your position.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darrowdisciple View Post
    Since your non-logic is so rampant, and contradictory to itself, and fact-free, NIH reports that COVID is ten times more lethal than influenza, but why quibble over science, just focus on this: In what alternative country to the United States does anyone have the right to make someone else even a little bit sick recklessly? You're whining about a temporary lack of pork and toilet paper, yet you think spewing a virus willy nilly is nothing? Next time you go to a football game, take out your AR and fire non-lethal rounds indiscriminately into the crowd. Your defense can be that you just resent all those constraints on your freedom, and only a bunch of wimps would complain, right?

    There are so many weak points to your argument, so I'll just focus on the weakest. The "authorities" do not presume you have the virus, but they do presume the virus will find you, as it will find 60%-70% of the population before it slows down. And unlike influenza, it can be spread by asymptomatic people. And like any society in which we share public spaces, the authorities have every right, in fact the obvious obligation, to act to protect people as much as possible. To say otherwise is to say "what right do they have to restrict how I drive my car?"

    That said, the purpose of the lockdowns was to buy enough time while virus has infected a maximum now of 20% of the population in order to plan for a measured, sensible re-opening. You want to squawk? Squawk about how that time was wasted babbling about bleach, and chloroquine, and how testing is uselesss, rather than making sure a "Great" America has enough PPE for its health care workers, and law enforcement, and....
    I am not going to argue with this high school kid anymore.

  9. #59
    Ray Gillenwater's Avatar
    Ray Gillenwater is offline Administrator, Starting Strength Gyms
    Starting Strength Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Darrow, to make this conversation more constructive, it would be helpful to know what position you're coming from. Mine is: maximize personal freedom and minimize harm. Minimizing harm means "net" harm, which means all pros and cons must be weighed before taking action. If a proposed solution is unproven and the risk of increasing harm is high, it should be avoided. This is why we take drugs after they've been tested. We are trying to solve a health problem and don't want to make that problem worse by taking a medication that only works "in theory."

    A few comments on the points you've raised:

    Quote Originally Posted by darrowdisciple View Post
    I have heard of no person advocating shutting down the entire economy, and saying it has happened so far misses the food, clothing, gasoline, household products, essentially everything needed not just to survive, to to live well, is readily available.
    I don't believe I've suggested that anyone is advocating for a complete shut down.

    Quote Originally Posted by darrowdisciple View Post
    What has been shut down is what can easily be seen as not "essential," at least for the time necessary to get a control on our response to the virus, and to plan for a safe, full re-opening.
    If you can plausibly designate certain types of businesses as non-essential, it doesn't mean that they are actually non-essential. My argument is that businesses are essential to support our society's needs. A prolonged closure will cause significant harm. Do you disagree? If so, please explain how a prolonged closure of half of the nation's 30M small businesses will not cause harm to the people that rely on income from those businesses and the people that depend on goods/services from those businesses. Keep in mind that small businesses make up 99% of all companies in this country, 40%+ of the payroll, and around half of all economic activity.

    Quote Originally Posted by darrowdisciple View Post
    As to driving, it's a very good analogy to how the virus should be approached. At the national level, the Nat'l Hwy Traffic Safety Admin sets standards that are followed in every state, including the acceptable blood alcohol level. In turn, every state has a thick, and well-used, vehicle code that governs every aspect of motor vehicle traffic, from rules of the road to the equipment on a vehicle. Drivers must be trained and tested before being allowed to drive, and there is constant monitoring of traffic by law enforcement and penalties for violations. Surely, you are not suggesting this system is unnecessary, or its mere existence violates peoples' rights. That concept has been rejected by every court that has every faced it.
    This comment is why I've asked what position you're coming from. Infrastructure creates more freedom by allowing people and goods to move around the country. The regulation surrounding this freedom can be viewed as necessary to minimize unnecessary harm, without infringing on people's rights to make use of that infrastructure to increase commerce and personal freedom. The analogy doesn't land because COVID-19 policies reduce personal freedom and commerce.

    The accuracy of the analogy aside, this is a serious question that I hope you answer: In your mind, what are the top three biggest risks associated with a society that centrally plans and controls the movement and behaviors of its people? I want to make sure you're clear on what the implications of this are.

    Quote Originally Posted by darrowdisciple View Post
    And, yes, a massless grocery store shopper is analogous to a drunken driver. Wandering around endangering yourself is one thing. But no person who contracts the virus endangers only themself. Missing that point is to miss the point of the purpose of following rules in any shared endeavor.
    Why not leave it to the grocery store owner to decide if he wants to allow mask-less people inside the store? And leave it to the customers to decide if they want to shop at store that do/don't require masks? And leave it to the people that are being "endangered" to decide what level of risk they are taking? Where does the desire to control other people's behavior come from? Is it because you believe they are not intelligent enough to make their own decisions and must be controlled? Or?

    Quote Originally Posted by darrowdisciple View Post
    You're whining about a temporary lack of pork and toilet paper, yet you think spewing a virus willy nilly is nothing?
    The temporary supply shortages may not be a problem for you individually, but they are certainly a problem for others. Similarly, millions of people are suffering as a result of these lock-down orders. Hundreds of thousands, at minimum, will likely die from the government's response to COVID, many of them young, healthy people. You do see this as a problem, correct? How do you suggest we mitigate against it?

    I have not argued that "spewing the virus is willy nilly nothing," but I have suggested that attempting to avoid its spread seems to come at a cost that is higher that allowing it to spread to people that aren't at high risk of dying.

    Quote Originally Posted by darrowdisciple View Post
    That said, the purpose of the lockdowns was to buy enough time while virus has infected a maximum now of 20% of the population in order to plan for a measured, sensible re-opening.
    The goal posts have changed significantly and the rationale varies state by state. What I'm suggesting for a measured, sensible re-opening is: if you're elderly and/or have a medical condition, you may want to take extreme measures (at your own discretion) to avoid exposure. Otherwise, decide whether or not you're willing to expose yourself to a virus that is unlikely to make you anything more than mildly ill, but does have the potential to make you seriously ill. In other words, I'm suggesting that we stop conflating the old and sick with the entire population. I'm also suggesting that we stop conflating "exposure to the virus" with "dying from the virus."

    What do you suggest? It appears that your answer might be, "to follow whatever the government decides." If that is your answer, can you think of any circumstance where you might not comply with their directives?

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    21

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Gillenwater View Post
    Mine is: maximize personal freedom and minimize harm. Minimizing harm means "net" harm, which means all pros and cons must be weighed before taking action.
    Ray, just so I'm understanding, are you saying then that the state should respond by doing nothing and this would maximize personal freedoms and minimize "net" harm for the people as a whole?

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •