Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
moveurfeet32

Ivy League just cancels all Winter Sports

Recommended Posts

Please show ANY evidence or data or science that says not wearing a mask while running outside and never coming closer than 15 feet to someone for 1 second will spread COVID...otherwise you are nothing but a self righteous troll...wait everyone already knows that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TBar1977 said:

That type of talk is typical leftist dismissiveness. 

Your comment here is precisely what Elise Slotkin(D) Michigan was speaking about this past week when she offered that Democrats "talk down at people" instead of "talking to people". 

i read everything he writes. he is insane and unprincipled. i'm sorry if that disappoints you to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TBar1977 said:

If they can make AHamilton wear a mask because of Covid 19 then they'll someday force him to wear a mask due to the Flu. Then it will be the common cold. It will never end. Then everyone will realize this was never about Covid in the first place, it was about control and power. 

If this were truly about Covid and the political left was truly concerned and righteous in their belief of these rules and regulations they put in place, then the leadership wouldn't break every rule they set for us little people and do so in plain sight of us all. Your liberty is being eroded every day this crap goes on. Wake up. 

I think we should start ignoring electrical code requirements, too.  I should have the freedom to wire my house any way I choose.  It's my house, right?  My house, my choice.  It's not like my choices affect others.  What's next, fire code regulations?  It will never end!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, klehner said:

I think we should start ignoring electrical code requirements, too.  I should have the freedom to wire my house any way I choose.  It's my house, right?  My house, my choice.  It's not like my choices affect others.  What's next, fire code regulations?  It will never end!

Well, if you want to get technical, in all likelihood, it's the bank's house - so no, you don't get to wire it however you want. On the chance that you own it free and clear, yes, I think you should be able to bizarrely wire it to your heart's content. That does seem like a reasonable ask.

The further you get into regulation, the further it can potentially go. For example - drunk driving accidents could be easily prevented by simply outlawing drinking, right? It'll be regulated and safe - unless you have a clear stop, I think folks like Tbar would prefer you not start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, ugarte said:

i read everything he writes. he is insane and unprincipled. i'm sorry if that disappoints you to hear.

Of course you feel that way, you are by your own admission "a committed leftist". Your own sensibilities have been cut off to the wisdom and common sense of the ages. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TBar1977 said:

Of course you feel that way, you are by your own admission "a committed leftist". Your own sensibilities have been cut off to the wisdom and common sense of the ages. 

he's been too extreme, at various points, for roberts, kavanaugh and gorsuch this term. AND I HATE THOSE GUYS TOO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, klehner said:

I think we should start ignoring electrical code requirements, too.  I should have the freedom to wire my house any way I choose.  It's my house, right?  My house, my choice.  It's not like my choices affect others.  What's next, fire code regulations?  It will never end!

Another red herring. Like seat belt wearing, the masses understand and know thru demonstrated fact that seatbelts and electrical codes work. Ninety-nine percent of the homeowners and commercial property owners follow the standards and would do so even if those standards were repealed. They would do so because of the deep understanding it was in their own best interests to do so.

These on again - off again constant changes have not been proven to work, or they prove benefit in one sense but only accompanied by substantial harm in another. Then you have a situation like AHamilton running on some mountain trail that I think MOST people using common sense would know there is no proof that mask will do anything to stop Covid. And that is why they don't comply, will not comply, and frankly should stand against. 

Rest assured, when you start to concede your liberties, they will eventually go too far for even you. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Janderson133 said:

Well, if you want to get technical, in all likelihood, it's the bank's house - so no, you don't get to wire it however you want. On the chance that you own it free and clear, yes, I think you should be able to bizarrely wire it to your heart's content. That does seem like a reasonable ask.

The further you get into regulation, the further it can potentially go. For example - drunk driving accidents could be easily prevented by simply outlawing drinking, right? It'll be regulated and safe - unless you have a clear stop, I think folks like Tbar would prefer you not start.

I don't mind regulation, but it has to be demonstrably better than no regulation at all. If it can't be proven to be better to regulate than to not regulate, then caution should require not regulating based on a one sided view of any situation. 

Philadelphia just announced a severe regulation of bars and restaurants. Heading into very cold weather they are closing down all indoor eating which effectively makes restaurants take out only. This will shutter even more restaurants, but the man who literally danced while singing "I have a sanctuary city"(1) probably doesn't give a crap about those restauranteurs. They are shuttering all schools and preventing fans attending outdoor NFL games. The restaurant owners should drag him into court to defend his lockdown measures. 

 

(1) https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Jim+Kenney+dance&docid=608052182753808079&mid=552F10E9C9450E18E4D1552F10E9C9450E18E4D1&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Janderson133 said:

Well, if you want to get technical, in all likelihood, it's the bank's house - so no, you don't get to wire it however you want. On the chance that you own it free and clear, yes, I think you should be able to bizarrely wire it to your heart's content. That does seem like a reasonable ask.

The further you get into regulation, the further it can potentially go. For example - drunk driving accidents could be easily prevented by simply outlawing drinking, right? It'll be regulated and safe - unless you have a clear stop, I think folks like Tbar would prefer you not start.

Yes, if you own your own house free and clear, wire to your hearts desire.  Doesn't matter that any hazards you create can damage neighbors' houses, or result in injury to a fireman who responds to put out your blazing home.  We have these regulations to protect others than yourself.  What a concept!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep...it's ALL about protecting others...like while you are running outside...especially if you don't see anyone...just put the damn mask on!  Don't you care about others AHamilton??

[sarcasm]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, klehner said:

Yes, if you own your own house free and clear, wire to your hearts desire.  Doesn't matter that any hazards you create can damage neighbors' houses, or result in injury to a fireman who responds to put out your blazing home.  We have these regulations to protect others than yourself.  What a concept!

Unfortunately - that's the world we live in. If you want to put forth a proposal to regulate things so that there will be no potential fires, I applaud your effort. However, the same could be said for wood burning stoves, those that accidentally start fires while cooking, or any number of other potential fire hazards. You can want people to live their lives by your standard - but you might consider wanting in your right hand, while defecating in your left and seeing which fills more quickly....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TBar1977 said:

Another red herring. Like seat belt wearing, the masses understand and know thru demonstrated fact that seatbelts and electrical codes work. Ninety-nine percent of the homeowners and commercial property owners follow the standards and would do so even if those standards were repealed. They would do so because of the deep understanding it was in their own best interests to do so.

These on again - off again constant changes have not been proven to work, or they prove benefit in one sense but only accompanied by substantial harm in another. Then you have a situation like AHamilton running on some mountain trail that I think MOST people using common sense would know there is no proof that mask will do anything to stop Covid. And that is why they don't comply, will not comply, and frankly should stand against. 

Rest assured, when you start to concede your liberties, they will eventually go too far for even you. 

Your problem is that you think that you and anyone else gets to choose which laws apply to them and in which situations.  Of course, *your* judgment is flawless, so whatever you choose is correct and appropriate.  That's not how civil society works or can survive.  Your attitude (and the attitude of apparently millions of others) is why we  as a country have failed to control this pandemic.  You don't think that wearing a mask, or not gathering indoors in large groups, or not cooperating with contact tracers, is right, for whatever reason.  The reality is that we have these laws and regulations, and if you don't like something enough, you work to change it, or you ignore it and get slapped with an appropriate penalty (and then whine on an obscure Internet forum).  You don't get to go 100mph because you don't think the posted speed limit is right for you (after all, *you* are an above-average driver) or you don't like your freedoms (TM) infringed, or you don't want to be inconvenienced, or you read on the Internet that it's okay.  You don't do it because you (should) understand the ramifications of everyone doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, klehner said:

Your problem is that you think that you and anyone else gets to choose which laws apply to them and in which situations.  Of course, *your* judgment is flawless, so whatever you choose is correct and appropriate.  That's not how civil society works or can survive.  Your attitude (and the attitude of apparently millions of others) is why we  as a country have failed to control this pandemic.  You don't think that wearing a mask, or not gathering indoors in large groups, or not cooperating with contact tracers, is right, for whatever reason.  The reality is that we have these laws and regulations, and if you don't like something enough, you work to change it, or you ignore it and get slapped with an appropriate penalty (and then whine on an obscure Internet forum).  You don't get to go 100mph because you don't think the posted speed limit is right for you (after all, *you* are an above-average driver) or you don't like your freedoms (TM) infringed, or you don't want to be inconvenienced, or you read on the Internet that it's okay.  You don't do it because you (should) understand the ramifications of everyone doing it.

I have news for you, civil societies are in jeopardy and not just here in the USA. You miss what happened in Hong Kong this summer? You miss all the riots here in the USA that none of your Left Wing leaders were anywhere near demonstrative enough in their condemnation thereof? They basically stoked those rioters on. Is it any wonder people on the right don't trust you or your version of leadership anymore. When you fail to earn people's trust, then yes you are going to see an erosion in civility. That lack of civility has already turned riotous and dangerous on the left.  It is already happening man, and it is no "myth". 

Now the other side, far more civil, while not rioting is starting to question your authority. That's the way it is. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TBar1977 said:

You miss all the riots here in the USA that none of your Left Wing leaders were anywhere near demonstrative enough in their condemnation thereof?

You talking about the ones that were a response to the lack of accountability for the police? That one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TBar1977 said:

Another red herring. Like seat belt wearing, the masses understand and know thru demonstrated fact that seatbelts and electrical codes work. Ninety-nine percent of the homeowners and commercial property owners follow the standards and would do so even if those standards were repealed. They would do so because of the deep understanding it was in their own best interests to do so.

These on again - off again constant changes have not been proven to work, or they prove benefit in one sense but only accompanied by substantial harm in another. Then you have a situation like AHamilton running on some mountain trail that I think MOST people using common sense would know there is no proof that mask will do anything to stop Covid. And that is why they don't comply, will not comply, and frankly should stand against. 

Rest assured, when you start to concede your liberties, they will eventually go too far for even you. 

I agree with the need to guard against lost liberties, but not necessarily at any cost. It is not like building codes were proposed and everyone thought the were a great idea and they were adopted by proclamation. Every code is in response to poor practices that used to exist. Each code is a direct result of learning from mistakes. Each code has evolved over time as more information is gathered, and the codes are not uniform across jurisdictions. And each code was fought along the way because of the incremental expense.

The real benefit of building codes is the increase in the value of housing stock as a direct result. If I know permits have been pulled and codes have been followed I will pay more for that house than a similar house where I do not know if they have been followed. After all I cannot see inside the walls, So the cost of gaining the knowledge after the fact is high. Higher housing prices also lead to higher tax bases. But safer houses also lead to less expense for government services like the fire department.

While it is not fair to compare the expense of proper building techniques to the expense of shutting down an economy, I do think it is fair to argue that there is a social good to be had by enacting the proper public health codes.

It seems that we cannot agree on the definition of proper or the value of the social good. OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

I have news for you, civil societies are in jeopardy and not just here in the USA. You miss what happened in Hong Kong this summer? You miss all the riots here in the USA that none of your Left Wing leaders were anywhere near demonstrative enough in their condemnation thereof? They basically stoked those rioters on. Is it any wonder people on the right don't trust you or your version of leadership anymore. When you fail to earn people's trust, then yes you are going to see an erosion in civility. That lack of civility has already turned riotous and dangerous on the left.  It is already happening man, and it is no "myth". 

Now the other side, far more civil, while not rioting is starting to question your authority. That's the way it is. 

I give up.  Out of all the relevant points I made, your response is an irrelevant "there are other threats to civil society."  You've demonstrated that you are unwilling to defend your positions, so any further discussion is pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I agree with the need to guard against lost liberties, but not necessarily at any cost. It is not like building codes were proposed and everyone thought the were a great idea and they were adopted by proclamation. Every code is in response to poor practices that used to exist. Each code is a direct result of learning from mistakes. Each code has evolved over time as more information is gathered, and the codes are not uniform across jurisdictions. And each code was fought along the way because of the incremental expense.

The real benefit of building codes is the increase in the value of housing stock as a direct result. If I know permits have been pulled and codes have been followed I will pay more for that house than a similar house where I do not know if they have been followed. After all I cannot see inside the walls, So the cost of gaining the knowledge after the fact is high. Higher housing prices also lead to higher tax bases. But safer houses also lead to less expense for government services like the fire department.

While it is not fair to compare the expense of proper building techniques to the expense of shutting down an economy, I do think it is fair to argue that there is a social good to be had by enacting the proper public health codes.

It seems that we cannot agree on the definition of proper or the value of the social good. OK.

That's a well-thought out and articulated approach. I would ask, though - if building codes are a social good, then increasing the privately owned value of housing wouldn't seem to necessarily be the real benefit. It could be preventing poorly built stock from entering supply, or to protect an unsuspecting populous from unscrupulous builders. 

Either way - nicely put. The evolution of acceptable restriction is worthwhile, as long as there is the capability for reversal - think the approval of saccharine and subsequent evidence of it being a carcinogen. Flexibility is probably the best medicine here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TBar1977 said:

Ninety-nine percent of the homeowners and commercial property owners follow the standards and would do so even if those standards were repealed.

As someone who works in the industry, this is not true TBar. A lot of people would cut corners to save a buck, convinced that structural/electrical issues would never happen to them. I speak to people on the daily who want to bypass local building regulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I agree with the need to guard against lost liberties, but not necessarily at any cost. It is not like building codes were proposed and everyone thought the were a great idea and they were adopted by proclamation. Every code is in response to poor practices that used to exist. Each code is a direct result of learning from mistakes. Each code has evolved over time as more information is gathered, and the codes are not uniform across jurisdictions. And each code was fought along the way because of the incremental expense.

The real benefit of building codes is the increase in the value of housing stock as a direct result. If I know permits have been pulled and codes have been followed I will pay more for that house than a similar house where I do not know if they have been followed. After all I cannot see inside the walls, So the cost of gaining the knowledge after the fact is high. Higher housing prices also lead to higher tax bases. But safer houses also lead to less expense for government services like the fire department.

While it is not fair to compare the expense of proper building techniques to the expense of shutting down an economy, I do think it is fair to argue that there is a social good to be had by enacting the proper public health codes.

It seems that we cannot agree on the definition of proper or the value of the social good. OK.

Perfectly fair commentary. And I agree with you on building codes (which you might have guessed would be true from my prior comment on that subject).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, klehner said:

I give up.  Out of all the relevant points I made, your response is an irrelevant "there are other threats to civil society."  You've demonstrated that you are unwilling to defend your positions, so any further discussion is pointless.

How am I unwilling to defend my position regarding not wearing a mask on a mountain trail? And how well thought out was your flimsy assertion that AHamilton or I not wearing a mask far away from others outdoors would lead to the breakdown of civil society? And you making that assertion in a year when murders are way, way up in our major cities. We have far bigger problems than a guy running up a mountainside without a mask, which really can't be proven a problem at all. So it sounds to me as if you are the one waving your white flag. 

Btw, I DO wear a mask in the grocery store because I feel it has value to both me and everyone else. I don't wear one when sufficiently distanced on a mountain trail because I feel it offers no value to anyone in any practical sense. If a large enough crowd showed up on the top of that mountain sufficient to make social distancing impossible maybe I'd feel differently, but I have to tell you that I climbed numerous mountains this summer and almost nobody on the peaks of those mountains was a mask wearer nor was any crowd large enough to prevent social distancing. Those hikers were young and free people enjoying the great outdoors and I, the most at risk in that cohort, enjoyed the shared experience. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Drake_Mallard said:

As someone who works in the industry, this is not true TBar. A lot of people would cut corners to save a buck, convinced that structural/electrical issues would never happen to them. I speak to people on the daily who want to bypass local building regulations.

There will always be some like that, but I'm not in agreement with that view. So ok, let's add up the tally here.

AHamilton's line in the sand is the government forcing him to wear a mask when outdoors far away from the maddening crowd.

Your builder friend's line in the sand is bothersome building codes that prevent him from expanding his profit margin.

Someone else's line in the sand is rioting, looting, assault and battery and arson.

I don't think AHamilton is the problem with or the cause of loss of civility in society. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

Your builder friend's line in the sand is bothersome building codes that prevent him from expanding his profit margin.

I work with construction projects nationally.

You build a foundation that doesnt meet code in Cali where mudslides and earthquakes happen, the issue isnt the profit margin. People can die. 

Im not talking about AHamilton. I am talking about building codes. Sacrificing safety so contractors can make a quick buck most certainly looks like a loss of civility in society to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TBar1977 said:

How am I unwilling to defend my position regarding not wearing a mask on a mountain trail?

I asked why you think that you are allowed to decide, for yourself, which laws/regulations make sense and you'll follow.  I further asked what would happen if everyone decided for themselves in the same manner.  You referenced South Korea or something.  I didn't ask about wearing a mask on a mountain trail, did I?  You didn't address if you believe that people should go 100mph on a highway if they felt it was safe for them to do so.  This isn't about what *you* personally do (and thanks for wearing a mask in the grocery store), or what *I* personally do.

How close is too close, or how crowded is too crowded in the outdoors such that masks are to be worn?  Who decides?  You?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...