GULAGS... coming to a State near you!

DeSanto

Active member
COVID GAVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY

First they came for the anti-maskers...



...and I didn’t say anything because I wasn’t an anti-masker.

#Bill416
4BF23416-0211-43FF-951D-F4D147D719B2.png
 

vibise

Active member
How would you react if this was proposed as a way of dealing with someone infected with Ebola who refused to self-isolate or seek medical treatment?

Would you think forcing that person into medially supervised isolation would be chilling, or justified?
 

LifeIn

Active member
Despite the thread title laced with hyperbole, NY bill A416 is no big deal, and could be totally appropriate and justified. Society passes laws to protect the safety of society, which is the primary duty of any society.
 

DeSanto

Active member
How would you react if this was proposed as a way of dealing with someone infected with Ebola who refused to self-isolate or seek medical treatment?

Would you think forcing that person into medially supervised isolation would be chilling, or justified?
Someone with Ebola would be visibly ill and most likely voluntarily seek out medical care.

Making this amendment in the law now, assumingly due to Covid, would seem to be proposing as a way of dealing with someone that has no signs or symptoms of illness refusing to self-isolate or seek medical treatment.

How would you react if you were removed and detained against your will because you were PRESUMED to be ill without having shown any signs or symptoms of illness?
 

LifeIn

Active member
Someone with Ebola would be visibly ill and most likely voluntarily seek out medical care.

Making this amendment in the law now, assumingly due to Covid, would seem to be proposing as a way of dealing with someone that has no signs or symptoms of illness refusing to self-isolate or seek medical treatment.

How would you react if you were removed and detained against your will because you were PRESUMED to be ill without having shown any signs or symptoms of illness?
The "detaining and removing" only occurs if one has violated the public health measures meant to protect everyone. It has nothing to do with presuming anyone is ill. It is only because anyone might be an asymptomatic carrier, or just not think their symptoms are that bad yet. The average person is notoriously bad at assessing their own symptoms.
 

DeSanto

Active member
Despite the thread title laced with hyperbole, NY bill A416 is no big deal, and could be totally appropriate and justified. Society passes laws to protect the safety of society, which is the primary duty of any society.
“Society” didn’t pass that law.

Society already had long established laws and regulations in place for involuntary commitment keeping in line with individual rights.

It seems they want to ease those regulations quite a bit with this little amendment, though.
 

DeSanto

Active member
The "detaining and removing" only occurs if one has violated the public health measures meant to protect everyone.
So just to be clear... you wouldn’t object state governors deciding to “remove and detain” healthy individuals just because they refuse to continue following their mask mandates and lock down rules?

Would you like to watch these people be hauled away trains, as well? I’m sure they’d be glad to arrange live streams of it on the news for you.

That way you get to feel safer and, for those who like their freedom, they’ll be more afraid to step out of line. Perfect! Two bird, one stone!
It has nothing to do with presuming anyone is ill. It is only because anyone might be an asymptomatic carrier, or just not think their symptoms are that bad yet. The average person is notoriously bad at assessing their own symptoms.
I thought it was established that asymptomatic carriers don’t spread Covid. Has this changed again? And what about all the false positive tests?
 
Last edited:

LifeIn

Active member
So just to be clear... you wouldn’t object state governors deciding to “remove and detain” individuals who refuse to continue following their mask mandates and lock down rules?
If the conditions of the pandemic warrant it, then I would support "remove and detain". I believe conditions do warrant it some level of enforcement.
I thought it was established that asymptomatic carriers don’t spread Covid. Has this changed again?
That was never true. What was true and still is true is that asymptomatic carriers do not spread Covid as effectively as fully symptomatic carriers. That makes sense. Symptomatic carriers have a much higher viral load, and often find it necessary to cough. Most people with symptoms are self-isolating, which has helped a lot. Presently most of the spread is coming from either asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic individuals. Those are people that are in the process of developing symptoms, but those symptoms have not yet risen to the level where the individual recognizes them as Covid, and not just "the sniffles" or something minor. As I said, the average person is not very skilled at knowing if their minor symptoms are Covid or not.

And what about all the false positive tests?
Those are mostly the fast tests that have a high false positive (and false negative) rate. The PCR test is the gold standard and it has a very few false positives.
 
If some have a justification to violate people's rights and ignore the constitution like violating covid procedures where no legitimate law is in effect, then it may be possible that it can be abused. This may mean that they have been handed the ability to be a dictator and/or authoritarian. We should not give any person or group the justification to be authoritarian or totalitarian no matter what because they can lie to put themselves in that position and say some people are violating the procedure when they are not.

We may kinda do something like this a little already when we give the government the power to go to war based on certain criteria that can be manufactured or we can be tricked into thinking is real. Remember weapons of mass destruction.
 

DeSanto

Active member
If the conditions of the pandemic warrant it, then I would support "remove and detain". I believe conditions do warrant it some level of enforcement.
Covid is no deadlier than the yearly flu. Why do conditions warrant it?

Are you ready to watch innocent people being drug from their homes and thrown in paddy wagons? Because they will no doubt flash videos like that all over the news to reinforce their terroristic fear-based control tactics.

Would you like to see that?
Would that make you FEEL SAFER???
That was never true. What was true and still is true is that asymptomatic carriers do not spread Covid as effectively as fully symptomatic carriers. That makes sense.
Don’t talk to me about what makes sense. None of this makes sense. None of it!

Those are mostly the fast tests that have a high false positive (and false negative) rate. The PCR test is the gold standard and it has a very few false positives.
Good for the PRC test, but I think you missed the point.
 

LifeIn

Active member
Covid is no deadlier than the yearly flu. Why do conditions warrant it?
Covid is deadlier than the yearly flu for those who catch it.

Are you ready to watch innocent people being drug from their homes
If they are in their homes then they are likely not violating public health directives. NY bill A416 is not targeted at people in their homes.


Good for the PRC test, but I think you missed the point.
If there was a point, I missed it. But I doubt there was a point.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Despite the thread title laced with hyperbole, NY bill A416 is no big deal, and could be totally appropriate and justified. Society passes laws to protect the safety of society, which is the primary duty of any society.
You are a medical outsider. You are not familiar with isolation protocols. False flag safety.

The Constitution has no room for this .,
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
“Society” didn’t pass that law.

Society already had long established laws and regulations in place for involuntary commitment keeping in line with individual rights.

It seems they want to ease those regulations quite a bit with this little amendment, though.
So if you are deemed to have been around some people who may have been around sick people, you can be incarcerated. Any family member of a nurse or employee of a nursing home with a resident that has/had Wuhan Fru can be placed in detention.

For perspective. If you go to a hospital, you will be REQUIRED to sign a consent form for blood transfusions, surgery, diagnostic procedures, etc. Here the Brownshirts can do what they wish without your consent or even a court order.
 

vibise

Active member
“Society” didn’t pass that law.

Society already had long established laws and regulations in place for involuntary commitment keeping in line with individual rights.

It seems they want to ease those regulations quite a bit with this little amendment, though.
We are not talking about involuntary committment. We are talking about generic public health measures like social distancing, mask wearing, and no involvement in large group activities. Why is these measures so objectionable to RWers who otherwise seem to be fine with stopping at red lights, not smoking in public places, wearing helmets on a motorcycle and wearing a seatbelt in a car or plane?
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Snitch laws.

Like red commie Russia. Snitch on your neighbor and he can get hauled off. Guilty until proven innocent. The Marxists will peddle this as being "for the greater good"

 

vibise

Active member
Snitch laws.

Like red commie Russia. Snitch on your neighbor and he can get hauled off. Guilty until proven innocent. The Marxists will peddle this as being "for the greater good"

The people at that illegal party were asked to disperse, but they refused, and so they were fined according to the law.

It is incumbent on citizens to obey the law, and if they don't, they should expect to suffer the consequences.

If someone living right next door to you is doing something that could spread a deadly disease then yes, you should be concerned for your own safety, and you are not out of line for seeking help in that situation.
 

DeSanto

Active member
We are not talking about involuntary committment.
That’s what they’re talking about in NY.
We are talking about generic public health measures like social distancing, mask wearing, and no involvement in large group activities. Why is these measures so objectionable to RWers who otherwise seem to be fine with stopping at red lights, not smoking in public places, wearing helmets on a motorcycle and wearing a seatbelt in a car or plane?
I guess RWers don't like playing pretend.
 
Top