On Sep 4, 2021 at 8:05:12 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
<op.087auyqcmvhs6z@ryzen.lan>:

>>>>>>>>> I disobey any law I believe is wrong. Do you really stop at a red when the
>>>>>>>>> whole junction is empty?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here's another way to go through a red safely - if the person in front goes
>>>>>>>>> through on green, you can go through as it turns to red, and so can hundreds
>>>>>>>>> behind you. The other direction won't just start driving into a continuous
>>>>>>>>> line of traffic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why wait at all? Others can stop for you as well as you can stop for them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Answer: you follow safety laws.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I follow common sense. If I can get to where I'm going without hitting
>>>>>>> something, I go. Doesn't matter what the lights say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet you stop at red lights.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I take them under advisement. They stop other cars, leaving a gap for me
>>>>> to go. But often there's a gap the lights don't know about.
>>>>
>>>> You still generally stop for them, and assume others will, too.
>>>
>>> I do not. I go whenever it's clear. The lights are just bunching up when cars
>>> go different ways.
>>
>> Why not drive on the left side of the street? Why follow any government safety
>> demands?
>
> That's not safety, that's efficiency.

It is safety. You are doing what the government tells you to make things
safer. You are taking common sense safety precautions to protect yourself and
others.

Why make the exception with Covid?

> Having to dodge everything coming towards you and decide who goes where lowers
> the possible speed you can go at.

Easier to dodge a car you can see than a virus you cannot.

>
>>> If we drove on random sides, we'd all crash with a very short time and have no
>>> working cars left.
>>
>> It would not be nearly as safe -- like not wearing a mask in a pandemic.
>
> I'm not stopping you. Just don't insist I'm safe.

And if I drive on the left and ignore red lights you have not right to insist
I am safe, right?

Again: you pretend this is about you and only you. That is a fiction. Your
harm to others is not just about you.
>
>>> For example, wearing a seatbelt is for safety. Wearing a parachute is because
>>> you have to. The first one has a tiny chance of a problem, the second is 100%.
>>>
>>>>>> Stop pretending basic safety measures are unreasonable. It is absurd. Stop
>>>>>> denying
>>>>>> a horrid pandemic which is killing hundreds of thousands and leaving countless
>>>>>> more harmed for life.
>>>>>
>>>>> A fraction of a percent. New people are being born faster than this.
>>>>
>>>> Again, you minimize a major pandemic. This goes against common sense. And
>>>> evidence.
>>>
>>> The evidence was given to you, the amount dying of it is a fraction of the
>>> population growth. Not worth writing home about.
>>
>> Who argued against the numbers you gave? You just reached irrational
>> conclusion from them.
>
> What's irrational about it?

It ignores the number of people getting sick and dying. It ignores the trauma
of our medical personnel. It pretends that human life does not matter. Of
course, that seems to be your basic assumption.

> Why should we worry about the 4th biggest killer, and one which is temporary?
> Oh no, lets make it worse by shutting everything down.
>
>> The fact is this is the worst pandemic in our lifetime, and that is even with
>> precautions. There are a bunch of immature people who pretend it is their
>> right to harm others who make it worse.
>
> You're confusing harming others with not protecting others.

Nope. I am noting it is not all about you... your harm to others is about
others as much as it is about you.

You insist you have special entitlements to risk others needlessly.

>
>>>>>> It is deeply immature and irrational... and the fact so
>>>>>> many people do that is why the pandemic causes so much harm. The very people
>>>>>> whining about wearing masks and having lockdowns are the ones making those
>>>>>> things more needed. I have precisely no sympathy for folks who think their
>>>>>> ignorance is a reason to cause others harm, or even risk harm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop caring about others and look after yourself, things are much easier that
>>>>> way.
>>>>
>>>> And that me me me focus of the right is what is killing us. We do not live in
>>>> our own bubbles.
>>>
>>> We should,
>>
>> So move to a deserted island and you will.
>
> I shouldn't have to. We can all share the same land and do as we wish.

Yet here you are making your harm to others be all about you. Why should
others not be able to harm you? What makes you so special?

>
>>> it would be far easier than this society bullshit. We're not a fucking ant
>>> colony.
>>
>> What is keeping you in society... other than it is much better?
>
> The lack of another place to be.

There are deserted islands.

>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure that as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American, I would be willing to make it even easier for them to bully me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around than it already is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The UK manages without guns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are "tyrannical" with that, eh?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't think anything of it. Nobody here except madmen have a desire to own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a gun. People do not feel threatened and want to defend themselves. Mainly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of the lack of criminals with guns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you want to control people and deny them their guns, eh?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Libertarianism allows for a small amount of control - eg. locking up murderers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Who pays?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A very small income tax.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What if I do not want to pay?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would be so small you wouldn't care.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Add up all these small things and it adds up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At the moment we have thousands of things funded by the government. The
>>>>>>> Libertarians would have two. Minimal military for defending only, and police
>>>>>>> for serious crimes only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So no rules of the road? No fire departments. No safety measures. A deeply
>>>>>> immature and unworkable system.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, rules are not required because people can think for themselves.
>>>>
>>>> As shown by masks they often come to conclusions which are contrary to
>>>> evidence and common sense, and basic caring of other people. We need the
>>>> mandates because people are actively ignorant and play victim.
>>>
>>> They are contrary to your safety conscious wimpy beliefs.
>>
>> Equal rights and human rights are important to me.
>
> Because you're a pansy.

You think it is bad to care about other people and not make it all about
oneself.

>
>>>>> Would you suddenly go around setting fire to yourself because there's no
>>>>> legislation telling you it's dangerous?
>>>>
>>>> That sounds like the folks who say without a god they would be raping others.
>>>
>>> Precisely. You have made my point well. Being an atheist doesn't make you
>>> commit sins. So removing laws wouldn't make you commit crimes.
>>
>> Laws help to influence behavior, but also provide legal consequences.
>
> They fail every single time.

If they do not work why have laws at all? I am not saying all are good -- many
are not -- but why have them at all?

> If laws worked, nobody would be breaking them.

If nobody was breaking them there would be no need for the law.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.