So does a mandating shoes in public indoor spaces. What's your point? The only difference between a mask mandate and a shoe mandate is that we grew up with the latter, we're used to it, it's all we've known so we do it.
Right, and most people are also not used to wearing banana hammocks. I don't think that it's unreasonable that someone would feel that it was intrusive if the government made them start wearing a banana hammock. Masks are not part of normative dress like shoes are. There is also a difference between wearing something that covers the face and wearing something on your feet in terms of physical comfort and social dynamics.
About as much as the argument that mask mandates are wrong because we can't force people to put something on their face. (All the while, we do force people to put something across their bodies when they drive).
That did not answer the question. Nice try, though.
Impacts it how though? That is the question. The idea that masks somehow harm people has been debunked and continues to be more than a little ridiculous. So how exactly does it impact them?
How exactly does one "debunk" the idea that masks harm people? Is the only harm you recognize some sort of medical injury?
I happen to believe that the ability to make choices about what I wear on my face is worth something. Taking away the ability to make that choice does harm people. You have deprived them of a personal liberty. This deprivation can also be described as a harm. This is not some sort of neologistic use of the word. People talk this way about deprivations of rights all the time. Just read some court filings.
Minimally relevant? Are you kidding??? It's about as minimally relevant as it would be if I said to someone who didn't want to wear a shirt or shoes "don't go to the store then". It's a choice and in this day and age of mail-to-order everything if someone doesn't like mask mandates, there is literally no reason they have to be in a public indoor space.
Yeah, it's technically a choice to enter public, but this is minimally relevant to a discussion of individual liberties. To demonstrate this, just imagine we've gone back to the time of segregation. Now imagine the politicians saying that black people aren't really being harmed because segregation only applies to public spaces and they could choose to just remain on their private property. Or imagine that the police arrested someone for spreading communist propaganda but then claimed that it's not actually restricting freedom of speech because they're free to distribute fliers on their own private property.
Practically, there is always a recognition that the technical possibility of never entering public is not a realistic option. As such, we generally act as if an edict broadly governing public behavior are broadly restrictive, regardless of the fact that it is possible to be a hermit.
So the determination of what is a meaningful impact vs not is made by you? Is wearing shoes in a store narrow impact also? Seat belt? What about policies about removing hats when indoors? Or clear bags at the stadium? People acting like this is all brand new and we've never before imposed rules in society and suddenly we want to and it'll be the end of a civilization as we know it are so hyperbolic and melodramatic, that the rest of us just can't take these people seriously. Yes, you're right, this isn't the way to get people to change their behavior, but there comes a point when enough is enough and people just need to grow the hell up, accept certain facts - like COVID is raging like never before - and do your part because it's your responsibility to society and the country.
Well . . . yes. This is a debate. Do I really have to explain how debates work?
One person takes a position and another person gets to argue for an alternative position. My position is that mask mandates have a broader impact than noise ordinances, for the reasons I described. You haven't actually addressed that position, or those reasons. You've just come back with a list of other policies, hoping that you can get me to take another position that might be seen as unpopular. That is not actually an argument.
I'm being hyperbolic? COVID is raging like never before? Really? You think that the situation we are in now is worse than the first wave of COVID? We're currently in freezer truck morgue territory?
You're right, some people are selfish jerks and don't care about anyone but themselves, so in that sense, it is a value thing. For the rest of us, when the country's on fire, we don't invoke values as a placeholder for "I don't wanna and no one can make me!"
This is essentially an ad hominem against somebody. Against who it is unclear. Is it towards me, people who disagree with mask mandates, or people who refuse to wear masks? In any case, it doesn't require a response.
This is really getting pretty off-topic but this is the last I'll say on the issue of seatbelts. I believe that there is a compelling state interest in ensuring that cars are reasonably safe. This is why I also don't have an issue with the requirement that new cars have back-up cameras. This compelling state interest stems from a consumer protection duty to shield consumers from companies that might make unreasonable sacrifices to safety in the interest of economy. I don't believe that there is generally a compelling state interest in protecting people from themselves.
Of course not, but when the cost is literally nothing, why not? Masks do not harm you.
The cost is not nothing. Again, you are ignoring any cost that you personally do not understand. There is a cost to restricting liberty. Some people find masks very uncomfortable. You dismiss this, but it does not make it untrue. Again, not all harms are medical harms.
No, for a variety of reasons, including that we need prison space for homicide. But that aside, I'm not opposed to DUI and reckless drivers having their licenses permanently yanked.
But why not? You could save lives by keeping them in prison. If you let them out, some of them will inevitably wind up driving again even without a license. They'll just wind up killing more people. What if we had the space for them in the prison, and that wasn't an issue. Shouldn't we just give them life in prison to protect the other drivers on the road?
No, this is not evidence. Any parent will tell you that their kid will be "bothered" by cleaning his room too or "bothered" by eating his veggies. You don't just say "oh ok let's not bother you then, you don't have to do that". Sometimes you have to call a spade and spade and being "bothered" by something that will not adversely affect you, but will help save lives is not a reason not to do it. Also, I treat people with behavioral disorders and you'll be shocked (not really) to learn how many feign being bothered because they just don't like being told what to do. They refuse on principle, and tell me so as they ask for the letter that excuses them from following rules.
Again, you are just dismissing anything that conflicts with your point of view. How is it not evidence? You claimed that there is no cost to wearing a mask. I pointed out that many people are subjectively bothered by wearing a mask. You claim that this is not evidence of a cost. Why? Because you have some convenient personal definition of cost that excludes subjective negative impacts as potential costs.
I'll ask again - what detriment? Why can no one answer that question? Everyone wants to pretend there are all these issues with masks yet everyone responds with vague "bother" or "detriment" or "cost" without any specific problem. Don't accuse me of dismissing things you haven't even given me to dismiss.
I already read VA Hopeful Dr's post and agree with it that your examples don't pass muster. The details matter, much like language.
Except that you're not showing me that people were arrested for violating a mask mandate. In NYC, the person was arrested for not leaving the subway since she wasn't wearing a mask, not for not wearing a mask. In CT, the person was arrested for not leaving the courthouse (and this one actually is law, separate from the mask mandate - federal buildings have certain laws and if you don't abide by them, you WILL be asked to leave and if you don't leave, you WILL be arrested; don't ask me how I know). In MD, it also doesn't say arrest. So I'm still not buying it.
In theory only.
No, they haven't. If they have, show me proof. Your examples above are not it for reasons already stated. The police are not roaming the streets and waiting to arrest you for not wearing a mask. If I go into a Piggly Wiggly without shoes and am asked to leave and refuse, then yea, I may be arrested. But I wasn't arrested for not wearing shoes. I was arrested because I refused to leave the Piggly Wiggly which requires shoes. There's a difference.
The detriment is the restriction of individual freedom resulting from a mandate that is enforced on threat of legal penalty.
Again, you are composing a fallacious argument structure by moving the goalposts. I'll be more explicit about how you're doing it this time:
The basic form of this sub-argument has been:
Me: Mask mandates restrict individual liberty because inherent to the idea of a mask mandate is the possibility of legal penalties.
You: Nobody is talking about legal penalties (goalpost: legal penalties for violating mask mandates).
Me: Violating a mask mandate is a misdemeanor offense in several states, punishable by fine or jail time.
You: That's absurd. Nobody is getting arrested for violating mask mandates (goalpost: arrest for violating a mask mandate).
Me: People have been arrested and charged with violating mask mandates.
You: I don't buy it. Besides, the examples you provided involved people being arrested while doing something else illegal. (goalpost: arrest for violating a mask mandate without a concomitant offense.)
Let me bring us back to your post that started this line or argument:
Wait, wait, wait, who mentioned legal penalties?
Just admit it. You were wrong about this. There are legal penalties for violating mask mandates. These penalties are not theoretical, as several people have been charged with violating them (whether or not they were arrested before being charged).