|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 27 2020 03:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 03:20 Introvert wrote:On November 27 2020 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:
It’s just so weird. Tons of churches just do zoom now. It works. The idea that people feel like they need to physically exist in the church is so wild Maybe my ID on the website makes me not the best person to ask this, but are you surprised that people want to meet, talk, and gather with others in person? Do you think church is just a sermon? If the social aspect is the part that is essential, it shouldn't be justified with religious freedom. Religious freedom should be extremely confined to strictly religious experiences. If people also like being able to gossip at church, so they wanna go to church, they can go fuck themselves. Its a pandemic, it is reasonable for people to make concessions. But if we are deciding religious expression is inalienable, it should be clear what we are protecting. If its just people saying "I should be able to always go to the religion place to hang out because freedom of religion", that's fucked and they should be ashamed for having that level of entitlement. Covid spread is always related to particle concentration per square meter. Most churches have very small volumes and have been giant spreader events because of it. Old janky buildings with poor circulation are not where you should be. If you don't need it for religious fulfillment, people shouldn't be going. In Oregon we have had spreader events where 30% of a church walks away with covid.
The social aspect of many things, not just church attendance, is important. You have otherized it to an insane degree. Asking why you need to BE there is a lot like asking "why do you need to be AT a funeral/wedding/celebration for anything anymore?" We can't even get to the question what restrictions and precautions are reasonable or not when you have demoted it so far down below every other form of human community building.
|
On November 27 2020 03:19 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 23:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 26 2020 18:24 Oukka wrote:On November 26 2020 17:02 Salazarz wrote:First of all, the government will never be able to do good for the people, including workers, the way a free market can. But that's another discussion of course lol Not to take your conversation too far off topic, but I am genuinely curious, what are the reasons for your position on this? Compared to the rest of the developed world, the US has some of the worst (if not genuinely the worst) track records when it comes to things like workers' rights, access to education and healthcare, justice system outcomes, etc. What makes you think that the free market does good for the people when the US has a higher relative poverty rate than such wonderful places like Russia and Mexico, keeps a proportion of its population in prison comparable to that of Stalin's Soviet Union, is the only OECD country that lacks such basic protections like mandatory paid parental leave or universal healthcare, and so on. Not trying to start an argument on this, I'm just very interested in what is your position based on. I'm glad someone else picked up on this, I'd also like to hear more on this. It seems like a bold statement to start with without backing it up further. BerserkSword's post is so full of delusion I wouldn't try tot hard to understand it. That said, the idea that government can't do anything good when compared to the free market is textbook libertarianism, regardless of how they try to square it with reality. Also, I have to say that I never really thought of conservatism as KwarK posits it, but I can't really find a way to argue against that interpretation. I'm sure Danglars will be apoplectic to see KwarK calling out conservatives for the sheer identity politics. unfortunately even the "sane" ones like David Frum and Jonah Goldberg were wrong about almost everything back in the 2000s (David Frum even thought gay marriage would destabilize the American family, lmfao). I think Republicans might have to go back 30, maybe even 40, years before their ideology can become salvageable. If you go back that far in time you hit the Reagan era. Reagan was an incredibly overhyped and extremely immoral president. Reagan-era conservatism and his supply side economics are morally bankrupt and absolutely atrocious. ... Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
Happy Thanksgiving.
Re: super spreader events we had a big outbreak on the isolated island of lanai that was caused by one funeral.
|
On November 27 2020 01:44 JimmiC wrote:
Our current just imposed rules is religious gatherings can be no more than 1/3 fire capacity and businesses can be at no more than 25%. So under this new rule this would be fine but the reverse would be illegal?
I don't think that is the worst, I can see why people would believe religion is essential and there by understand if the restrictions were the same as other essentials and not more severe than not essential services. If those people believe it to be fair they are also more likely to follow the regulation, where as if they feel it is unjust they will more likely break it. Whether it is a enforced rule or just policy it might simply just work better to do it in this manner.
I think the court is still fine with %-based capacity limits that's in-line with the restrictions on secular institutions and businesses. NYC just happened to have a particularly strict limit for religious institutions in red and orange zones, but they had already lifted those areas to yellow zones and scaled back those limits to 50% building capacity shortly prior to this decision.
|
United States43933 Posts
On November 27 2020 04:10 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 03:54 Mohdoo wrote:On November 27 2020 03:20 Introvert wrote:On November 27 2020 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:
It’s just so weird. Tons of churches just do zoom now. It works. The idea that people feel like they need to physically exist in the church is so wild Maybe my ID on the website makes me not the best person to ask this, but are you surprised that people want to meet, talk, and gather with others in person? Do you think church is just a sermon? If the social aspect is the part that is essential, it shouldn't be justified with religious freedom. Religious freedom should be extremely confined to strictly religious experiences. If people also like being able to gossip at church, so they wanna go to church, they can go fuck themselves. Its a pandemic, it is reasonable for people to make concessions. But if we are deciding religious expression is inalienable, it should be clear what we are protecting. If its just people saying "I should be able to always go to the religion place to hang out because freedom of religion", that's fucked and they should be ashamed for having that level of entitlement. Covid spread is always related to particle concentration per square meter. Most churches have very small volumes and have been giant spreader events because of it. Old janky buildings with poor circulation are not where you should be. If you don't need it for religious fulfillment, people shouldn't be going. In Oregon we have had spreader events where 30% of a church walks away with covid. The social aspect of many things, not just church attendance, is important. You have otherized it to an insane degree. Asking why you need to BE there is a lot like asking "why do you need to be AT a funeral/wedding/celebration for anything anymore?" We can't even get to the question what restrictions and precautions are reasonable or not when you have demoted it so far down below every other form of human community building.
Nobody is saying that socialization isn’t important, they’re saying that during a pandemic indoor crowded socialization isn’t the way to get it. And they’re saying that using religion as a pretext to risk the lives of others so you can keep up your social calendar is bad.
People in favour of good public policy keep getting accused of not liking the stuff being sacrificed (in this case in person socialization). It’s nonsense. Nobody is happy we can’t see movies anymore, just like nobody likes recycling or limiting the AC in the summer or flying less on holidays or anything else that scientists ask us to do. If nothing bad would result then all the tree hugging liberals would freely litter, pollute, and so forth. But scientists checked what would happen if we do all that shit and it turns out it’s bad and so now we can’t anymore. We don’t like it anymore than anyone else. We don’t want lockdowns, we don’t want to not see family for the holidays, our favourite restaurants are closing too, it sucks. But we have to do it anyway.
|
Why can't churches just get a megaphone or something and hold their services outdoors in person? If protesting is OK during the pandemic at least that should be.
|
What do you mean "We have to do it anyway"
Speak for yourself please.
|
I don't see why you would hold protesting and church to the same standard.
On November 27 2020 04:49 Nick_54 wrote:
What do you mean "We have to do it anyway"
Speak for yourself please.
I guess you didn't really follow the environnmental crisis happening in the US right now ? You know, record hurricanes and forest fires?
|
|
|
On November 27 2020 04:50 Erasme wrote:I don't see why you would hold protesting and church to the same standard.Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 04:49 Nick_54 wrote:
What do you mean "We have to do it anyway"
Speak for yourself please. I guess you didn't really follow the environnmental crisis happening in the US right now ? You know, record hurricanes and forest fires?
Both are groups congregating during a pandemic for something they believe in. Seems pretty equivalent to me.
|
On November 27 2020 04:53 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 04:50 Erasme wrote:I don't see why you would hold protesting and church to the same standard.On November 27 2020 04:49 Nick_54 wrote:
What do you mean "We have to do it anyway"
Speak for yourself please. I guess you didn't really follow the environnmental crisis happening in the US right now ? You know, record hurricanes and forest fires? Both are groups congregating during a pandemic for something they believe in. Seems pretty equivalent to me. I certainly wouldn't equate protesting police murdering citizens in cold blood with religious gatherings and a desire for comfort no.
|
What about gatherings for purely political purposes?
|
On November 27 2020 04:53 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 04:50 Erasme wrote:I don't see why you would hold protesting and church to the same standard.On November 27 2020 04:49 Nick_54 wrote:
What do you mean "We have to do it anyway"
Speak for yourself please. I guess you didn't really follow the environnmental crisis happening in the US right now ? You know, record hurricanes and forest fires? Both are groups congregating during a pandemic for something they believe in. Seems pretty equivalent to me.
Sure, do i have to explain to you why banning protesting is a bad idea ?
|
Northern Ireland26667 Posts
I’m no particular fan of churches, but hell if they’re responsible in how they congregate, it’s nowhere near as bad as what we’ll see justified in the greater cause of the almighty economy god on Black Friday.
I guess perspectives of value (outside the science aspect) will vary on circumstance.
Not advocating for Church services specifically but the social effects of Covid are not spread symmetrically across the population. Working reasonably comfortable from home vs not, living with family/partner/roomies and all that.
A lot of people are having to suck up a lot of stuff for the greater good without getting much back to keep them sane.
|
Since church gatherings are know superspreader events and they still want to open up in defiance of local ordinances i think it is only fair that we hold them liable for all covid related cost and deaths that are a direct result of said gathering. If they are going to make there communities suffer they need to at least be held responsible.
|
On November 27 2020 04:10 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 03:54 Mohdoo wrote:On November 27 2020 03:20 Introvert wrote:On November 27 2020 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:
It’s just so weird. Tons of churches just do zoom now. It works. The idea that people feel like they need to physically exist in the church is so wild Maybe my ID on the website makes me not the best person to ask this, but are you surprised that people want to meet, talk, and gather with others in person? Do you think church is just a sermon? If the social aspect is the part that is essential, it shouldn't be justified with religious freedom. Religious freedom should be extremely confined to strictly religious experiences. If people also like being able to gossip at church, so they wanna go to church, they can go fuck themselves. Its a pandemic, it is reasonable for people to make concessions. But if we are deciding religious expression is inalienable, it should be clear what we are protecting. If its just people saying "I should be able to always go to the religion place to hang out because freedom of religion", that's fucked and they should be ashamed for having that level of entitlement. Covid spread is always related to particle concentration per square meter. Most churches have very small volumes and have been giant spreader events because of it. Old janky buildings with poor circulation are not where you should be. If you don't need it for religious fulfillment, people shouldn't be going. In Oregon we have had spreader events where 30% of a church walks away with covid. The social aspect of many things, not just church attendance, is important. You have otherized it to an insane degree. Asking why you need to BE there is a lot like asking "why do you need to be AT a funeral/wedding/celebration for anything anymore?" We can't even get to the question what restrictions and precautions are reasonable or not when you have demoted it so far down below every other form of human community building.
My point is that as it pertains to the constitution, we should be boiling this down to the finest detail. What part is religious freedom and what part is emotional/ social fulfillment? People are entitled to religious expression (but we make exceptions for things like honor killings), but they are not entitled to chatting with Karen and talking about what's what in small town news. My point is that people can still reap the religious benefits through zoom. Are you saying there are *specific* things that are religiously necessary to be in person?
|
Very bold of you to light into religious zealotry in a decision that .... wonders why campgrounds, acupuncture facilities, and garages were not singled out for such restrictive treatment but churches were.
They can’t single out religious facilities for disparate treatment and that’s all.
The most dry decision ever and STILL people here show their anti-religious zealotry. Come on, and listen to some reason, and reread the opinion if you ever read it in the first place.
|
|
|
On November 27 2020 05:25 Danglars wrote:Very bold of you to light into religious zealotry in a decision that .... wonders why campgrounds, acupuncture facilities, and garages were not singled out for such restrictive treatment but churches were. They can’t single out religious facilities for disparate treatment and that’s all. The most dry decision ever and STILL people here show their anti-religious zealotry. Come on, and listen to some reason, and reread the opinion if you ever read it in the first place.
Churches are a huge statistical outlier, mainly because of their construction philosophies. Covid spreads as a function of infection particles per square meter. Lots of churches are stuffy. Oregon has had tons of case studies where tons of people end up infected. Are campgrounds stuffy, in your eyes? How many people gather in garages? You're being completely ridiculous here. Take a moment to look at the mechanism through which Covid spreads.
|
On November 27 2020 05:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2020 05:25 Danglars wrote:Very bold of you to light into religious zealotry in a decision that .... wonders why campgrounds, acupuncture facilities, and garages were not singled out for such restrictive treatment but churches were. They can’t single out religious facilities for disparate treatment and that’s all. The most dry decision ever and STILL people here show their anti-religious zealotry. Come on, and listen to some reason, and reread the opinion if you ever read it in the first place. Churches are a huge statistical outlier, mainly because of their construction philosophies. Covid spreads as a function of infection particles per square meter. Lots of churches are stuffy. Oregon has had tons of case studies where tons of people end up infected. Are campgrounds stuffy, in your eyes? How many people gather in garages? You're being completely ridiculous here. Take a moment to look at the mechanism through which Covid spreads.
Would it be an idea to just have strict requirements across the board and an application process to increase the limits? Like signing a document stating all participants will have masks, there will be no physical contact and distances of 2m will be held. Along with soap(or similar) being on offer in the locales.
With high fines and removal of any gathering (for that location/organiser) at all if broken?
|
In addition to all the other good points, i would also like to add that it is weird that religious people seem to always want to get extra rights.
If i wanted to gather a few hundred people in an enclosed space to shout and sing without adding in religion, i would be laughed out of the room, and rightfully so. Yet religious people feel as if they are totally entitled to that, and they don't even see why it is a problem.
I have a few hobbies that are important to me and which usually require gathering people in the same spot. And they are relatively tame. I cannot gather a few friends in a room to play boardgames or tabletop RPGs. I do miss that a lot.
I find it really absurd that religious people should get to keep performing their extremely dangerous hobby, increase the duration of the pandemic and endanger themselves and more importantly all the other people down their lines of infection who didn't choose to enter into a cramped building full of other people.
Religious people really are an absurdly entitled bunch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
