Oddbean new post about login | logout According to systematic review of 19 different studies, masks do stop the spread of COVID: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020748920301139 Covidiots can even watch a scientifical slow motion video, where LED lighting is used to see how masks stop droplets flying from the mouth when talking, coughing and sneezing: https://thorax.bmj.com/content/75/11/1024 If you will do any type of job containing contact with humans without wearing a mask — i.e. you will deliberately try to kill me first — I will kill you. I don't care, if you don't believe in science. If you try to stab me, I will kill you, even if you don't believe in the studies telling that stabbing usually kills people.
The covid virus is smaller than the mask fabric. Some political speakers even allowed regular cotton fabric, like a t-shirt over your face. I’m sure you can produce tons of links to science groups with funding from pharmaceutical companies. The question is who gets to decide what science is real? I propose it’s the individual land owners. You propose government violence to force me. So you might want to change your name from “anarchist” to "stabber"
Nothing good in wearing cotton fabric masks — though better than nothing. Happy you understand that, so you can do better! I can indeed produce tons of links. The important thing though is, that science groups funded by big pharma or not, based in EU or Africa, in liberal or conservative countries, those, which benefit the most from COVID, and those, which suffer the most — they all more or less agree about COVID danger, mask & vaccine effectiveness, ecetera. Thinking, that almost all world's scientists got it wrong, while you alone (or your few marginal researches) got it right, is ridiculous. The idea that I propose government violence is ludicrously made up by you. Please cite or screenshot, where I said such thing. In fact I said, that if you try to kill me first by spreading deadly virus onto me or my friends, knowing, that you could not, but still doing that, I will kill you (and I will even do the right thing according to ancap's NAP). Think about it: if one big bourgeoisie is having a factory, which is spreading deadly toxins to citizens, and one is knowing about it fully well, but ignoring that (cuz oneself is safe), it's self-defense for the people to kill the one. The bourgeoisie started the aggression, not the people. So yeah, without any fictive government aggression support — I don't really care, how do you care about your health for yourself, just don't force me to live the same way YOU want — and I will kill you, if you won't use mask on any work, including contact with me or my friends.
Ah I misunderstood. So we’re both saying no government mandate. If the factory owner has land, he decides his terms, if the workers agree or not is up to them
Do you own the land, where you refuse to wear the mask? Also, what is really the difference between today's world and your utopia? The government owns the land, thus, decides that everyone shall wear masks, and it's up to you to agree or leave.
Clearly I disagree with the government owning all land Again, might want to change your name from anarchist
Again, you assumed that I support the government owning the land. Stop putting words in my mouth I never said — for the second time. Land should belong to the people living on it collectively, because no one has rights to really own it (nobody created the land, it's truly «owned» by the planet). You cannot own land, even if you're wealthy, just like you cannot own humans or privatize air.
I disagree with your worldview that humans can’t own land. On a philosophical level, it’s part of a fundamental human right own what you put your work into, as outlined by John Locke. On a practical level, if the government and individuals both don’t own land, then nobody does. And society can’t function because people don’t agree. For example right now me and you don’t agree. So then who gets to decide anything? You have this mythical utopian fairy tale of anarchy, where people just co-exist happily and coordinate society with no government and no individual ownership of land. But yet you can’t even co-exist in (likely) another country on Nostr without death threats every post. I certainly wouldn’t surrender my land to you without a fight to the death
On a philosophical level, you can own the land, if you create it. If you put work into it, you can use what you get, but not own it — eg. as a dog trainer, I put work in training your dog, and I can use the results, but I cannot kill it, because I don't own your dog. This was outlined by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in his works about land. On a practical level, you are free to do whatever you want, if you don't interrupt my freedom and safety — otherwise, by NAP, you are starting the aggression. Killing the land where I live (while you yourself may not be even close to it), because you bought it (from who? planet Earth? or prevoius owner, who didn't have a right for it either?), thus, poisoning my life on it, is interrupting my freedom and safety. You can kill your company, fictional character or a project — because you really created it, and you do own it. I have this mythical utopian fary tale of anarchy, which actually exists in or have existed in Ukraine, Spain, Kronstadt Commune, Xinmin Province, Oaxaca (20th century), Seattle, Christiania, Zapatista Students, Munster Anarchio-Communist Commune, Kurdistan, Zaachile, Cheran, Aura-Amba, ZAD, Fiume Free State, Strandja Commune, Markov Republic, Amish territories, countless indigenous peoples (e.g. Bushmen, Indians, Hopi, Croatans, Cherokees, Anuaks, Nubia, Piao, San, Santals, Tivs, Zomis, etc), and other territories. Where does your real non-mythical truestory existed, so we can check, if it even works in practice? I presume, it should have a lot more practical examples than some fairy tale
your philosophical statement is a contradiction. you can own the land, but you can't your practical level statement is just agreement with AnCap lol ZAD, what was that a 1 week protest? Ukraine? like we're talking when? You're listing off countries as though the words "ukraine" and "spain" were some magical thing. Ukraine is in war. Spain is tyranny crackdown on catalonia with rampant poverty throughout the EU from the failed euro. Not going 1 by 1 on your list
There's no contradiction: you can own the land, if you *create* it. You can't, really. Thus, you cannot really own it. Happy to hear, that left-wing anarchism and AnCap agree on the practical level. Then we have no problems with it. ZAD — one week? You know, that many people lived there four years together? Ukraine — obviously not today's, I'm talking about year 1917. Spain — years 36-39. If you want today day's example, search for EZLN, Christiania, Rojava, Aura Amba and others. Still waiting for the answer about hundreds of AnCap existing / existed territories by the way, you ignored that question.
If people can’t own land, and there’s no government, then who decides what happens?
The primary purpose of the mask is not to protect yourself against viruses spread by others. But to prevent to spread your viruses to long distances (specially when you sneeze or cough) and therefore protect others. There is a reason why doctors and nurses wear masks during surgery…
Tom Woods Covid Charts the masks do nothing. it didn't work
Checked them out. Charts show that mask mandate does not stop virus completely («high COVID cases happen after the mask mandate as well»). This is a cognitive mistake. First and worst, you don't have a control group — another chart, where masks were not mandatory, to compare if they we're really useless. (But you can compare countries with & without mass-mask-wearing — and it will show that masks were effective.) Second, you simplify the role of mask: «it shall fully cure COVID, or I won't wear it». Sadly, almost everything in our lifes does not work this way: things help, not instantly cure. I don't support forcing people wearing masks by the government — still, saying that they're useless is ridiculous.
If lack of a control group is the basis for dismissing information, then by your own admission the supposed “science” from these government and drug company funded studies you’re trying to link to are bogus as well. Why didn’t they do a control group? Because they don’t care about the truth, they want to push their sales
Will you accept surgery where doctors and nurses are not wearing any masks? As I have written already. It's not about passing viruses through mask. It's about airflow of MY breath/sneezing/coughing. No rocket science.
The question is not should one wear a mask or not. The question is who gets to decide. In your example, I say it’s the patient who decides. You say the government. The purpose of a constitution is to outline what decisions governments can make, and failing to abide by this is a dangerous slippery slope because it’s essentially unlimited power. “No rocket science”
>The question is not should one wear a mask or not I though you just said, that masks didn't work?" >You say the government For the third time, please cite or screenshot, where did I say that the government should decide. Yet, again you're putting words in my mouth I didn't say. Stop continuously trying to fight a strawman.