Which rights?
Didn’t Germany test way more people than any country in Europe and that was the reason for their low death count along with that the average person who caught corona in Germany was much much younger than the average person who caught it in Italy and France where it spread much more through senior communities?
No, am I absolutely not saying self defense is the same as capital punishment. Trayvon case is difficult. I definitely feel Zimmerman should have been acquitted but just because he was overcharged. I definitely feel he was defending himself and that’s what led to Trayvon’s death or at least you can’t prove he wasn’t defending himself on the evidence. However I do believe he was intentionally putting himself in a dangerous situation fully knowing it was dangerous and against the recommendations of the police and from that should have been charged with second degree manslaughter.
Thank you though for reading my arguments to conclusion and also sticking with it until we cleared things up. I hope I didn’t just start another argument hahahah
Once again should implies what a perpetrator deserves. What the law says you can do to protect yourself or your property is not what the law is saying the criminal directly deserves. If that were the case, if the situation resolved itself and criminal were captured by the government then the government would kill him. They would give him the death penalty.
If they apprehend a person for committing these crimes either afterwards or during and once at that point they never kill the criminal then clearly the law does not think the criminal should be shot or deserves to be shot.
Texas only gives out the death penalty for certain kinds of murder cases. So clearly in any of these instances the law does not think the person committing these crimes should be shot even if it gives people the power to do so to protect themselves.
I’m not confused. I’m very concrete in my stance.
Also I just want to add that I know you weren’t the first commenter. This is what happened
The first person said that rioters should be shot.
I said you can shoot them out of self defense but I don’t think they deserve to be shot and the law doesn’t think so either.
You said I should read more laws. That implies that you don’t agree with me that the does not say these people should be shot.
I argued why I think the law agrees with me by saying yes the law says you can shoot people to protect someone but the place where the law says whether someone deserves to die or not is in its sentencing, and it doesn’t say there that those crimes deserve death.
What I’m talking about is entirely on topic. What should happen to the criminals is at the center of every comment I’ve made and yours as well. If you’re just trying to argue what you can do legally when defending yourself then you’ve changed topics without making that clear.
My god, I know! Able to be lawfully shot in self protection is still not the same thing as law prescribing that as the just punishment, it’s just giving people the ability to defend themselves. I don’t believe an arsonist deserves death. I don’t believe someone who beats another person deserves death. I don’t believe someone who murders in the second or third degree deserve death. I believe those people should have their freedoms stripped from them and be locked away for at least close to their entire lives. The law agrees with me.
The law saying that you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself or someone else are laws that are solely about protecting the victim. They exist entirely for the sake of the victim. The use of deadly force is not written as an appropriate punishment for the perpetrator. Those laws having nothing to do with passing judgment on the perp. The way the law says what a person deserves is by what the sentencing for those crimes are. The law saying someone has the right to defend themselves is not a sentencing guideline.
If you attack someone, the person you attack has the right to defend themselves. Them legally defending themselves is not the law carrying out a sentence on you. The law has acknowledged that by criminally and directly endangering someone that you have assumed a risk that the other person is not responsible for.
It’s like knowingly trespassing in an unsafe construction zone. The law says you are assuming a risk and if you get killed then the construction company is not liable. However, that is not the law saying that you deserve death for trespassing. That’s just an assumed risk of your actions that the law won’t offer you any protections from. What the law says you deserve is probably to pay a medium fine and maybe get a misdemeanor if you could have potentially put you in danger.
Fucking Christ how many times do I have to say self defense is the exception?? I said it in the first sentence of my first comment and I said it again in the comment you’re replying to. I also am not changing the subject because I made it clear I was just talking about what our legal system says those crimes deserve.
The first guy said if you’re a commie and you’re rioting and beating people then “you should be shot.” I was saying that our legal system doesn’t agree with him and I agree with our legal system, that when our legal system evaluates those crimes they won’t come to the conclusion that they should be shot. Yes our legal system allows people to defend themselves but that is not our legal system passing a judgement on what that crime and person deserve. I don’t think the perpetrator deserves to die from doing those things, but if they get killed in the process then oh well, that’s their fault and no one’s gonna cry over it. That’s different than saying they should be shot.
Yah of course, if you believe the threat is credible and can convince a court that it’s credible which shouldn’t be too hard to prove at that point. I’m not saying you can’t shoot them in self defense or defense of another, I’m just saying based on our legal system they don’t deserve to be shot or killed (though they forfeit protection from the law while they are endangering others). They deserve a long long jail sentence. I just don’t support people going out and looking for violence to respond to with violence. I’ve seen that make things worse too many times. I don’t want mob rule by either side.
Yah I literally said that said that in my first sentence.
Capital punishment can only be carried out in the US for treason, espionage, multiple murders, large scale drug trafficking, or murder of a witness or juror. There’s no capital punishment for battery or arson. Yes you have the right to defend yourself or someone else but I’m talking about what are legal system says someone who does those things deserves.
I mean nothing is anywhere in atheism. Atheism doesn’t like have any core beliefs that are or aren’t a part of it and all atheists must hold. Atheism just means you don’t believe in god, not necessarily that you believe no god exists. Agnosticism means you don’t know if there is a god. One is belief claim while the other is a knowledge claim. Most atheists are also agnostic, and to be an atheist and to not be agnostic is ridiculous, but I’m sure they exist. An atheist can believe in anything and any parts of any religion even to what seems like religion. An atheist can believe in the resurrection of Jesus and they can believe in an after life as long as they don’t believe that Jesus isn’t god or and it wasn’t conducted by a god. It would be silly for an atheist to think that way but by definition there’s nothing stopping it. Atheists can believe in tons of crazy mumbojumbo and a lot of them do.
So if what you’re saying is that atheism doesn’t itself contain enough information to explain the system and universe that created us then you’re right. Atheism isn’t trying to do that. Atheism isn’t concerned with that. It’s like saying not being a gun owner doesn’t give you the answers to the universe. Like yah it doesn’t but there isn’t really an overlap there.
Naturalism is trying to make claims about the universe and I believe to be a naturalist you have to be an atheist but it’s like saying all cowboys fans are non eagles fans, there are tons of non eagles fans that aren’t cowboys fans and being a non eagles fans doesn’t even mean you like sports to begin with. And outside of that Naturalism isn’t itself trying to make any claims either. It’s more of a best guess by those who hold it but no one claims naturalism to be a proven fact.
The reason most people are atheists though is because they don’t like a non evidence belief structure. Atheists are associated with science because science admits what it doesn’t know and what it’s gotten wrong. Im speaking in generalities but most atheists are drawn to scientific explanations because they are limited and because they don’t paint the whole picture when it goes beyond their reach. Being an atheist doesn’t mean you support science instead of religion though because as I’ve said being an atheist doesn’t really mean anything. But from a personal perspective when you say that Christianity provides that wisdom that pushes me further away from your wisdom. I’ll always read a book that admits what it doesn’t know than one that says it has all the answers and you just have to believe it.
Surely not just straight up shot, like yah if someone’s in immediate danger right then to protect the person then yah shoot them, but like that’s not what the person deserves. They deserve to be arrested and processed through the criminal justice program. I don’t think that the punishment for any of that is capital in any state unless the people they beat end up dead.
Yah but by the police, not just by random people coming to their houses.
I mean not a bad idea but I’m pretty sure that would lead to a mistrial
Oh ok that makes sense. Though I’m sure the healthcare workers are more scared of corona than we are in the same way, considering viral load seems to be such a big factor and their mortality rate is much higher than average the person in similar health and their chance of exposure is probably a bit higher than yours probably was to TB or Hepatitis considering you were probably vaccinated for them.
Yah that’s dumb. There have been signs of long term damage for serious cases but I haven’t seen anything about with non serious cases.
Yah. 9,000 people get TB in the US a year and 500 or so die and it’s shrinking. 500 people are still dying a day of wuflu. It’s not a good comparison to say we shouldn’t wear masks because we don’t wear them for TB. TB is nearly exterminated in this country so why would that scare someone into wearing or not wearing a mask?
I mean that’s all well and good but that doesn’t really account for the incidence rates of both. Like maybe a lot of us are not fully up to date on their vaccines (I mean I am and I thought most people were but I could be wrong about that) but even so your chances of catching TB are next to none. There were only 9,088 cases of TB in the US in 2017 (the year the pede cited above) and 515 deaths. Like TB might suck but that’s a 0.003% chance you get TB any given year and the number is shrinking over .8% of people in the US have had serious enough cases of Wuflu and that’s growing exponentially again. Even with the lowering death rate more Americans are dying of Wuhan every day than Americans die of TB each year. Like yah getting TB is worse but if you get a bad case of Corona then it’s still an average of 11 days in the hospital with the new treatment, that’s still a rough time. And I’m very healthy but have pretty bad asthma so it’s still a risk for me and a lot of people like me that I’ll get a bad case if I catch (there are certainly more than 9,000 of us who are at a moderate risk). I probably won’t die but it would still suck. Treatment for TB last months and months but symptoms go away after around 3 weeks are pretty similar symptoms to corona just for a longer time. So unless the odds of any given person having a bad case of corona are within 10 times more common then having a bad case of TB, Id say it’s a pretty bad comparison. And since .04% of Americans have already died of Corona thus with extreme methods taken to slow the spread, the number of cases requiring hospitalizations is probably been around .2% of Americans so that is way above TB and not a good comparison.
Use other things with high numbers of fatalities like stroke or heart disease. That’s a much more effective argument than TB.
But why? We have vaccines for those thing. There’s only 9,000 cases of TB a year. Hepatitis is a bit worse at about 24,000 and yah the experience might be a lot worse but the odds of you getting it in your life are next to nothing.
TB isn’t really a good argument. TB kills people in the third world. We have a vaccine for TB. TB infects 9,000 people in the US each year. 500 Americans die of TB a year. It’s not in the top 100 causes of death in the US each year. Why would us not wearing a mask for a disease that kills 500 people inform anyone’s decision on wearing a mask for a disease that’s killed 128,000 Americans. Use flu and Stroke and cancer as an example. Not TB
Look, I’m not trying to say you should wear masks or anything like that, I’m just trying to help you improve your argument because this isn’t an effective argument for people who know a lot about epidemiology. It’s convincing if you don’t take much time to look into but you should really come at this from a different direction.
-
TB cases and deaths almost exclusively occur in the third world. The US experienced 9,088 cases of TB in 2017 in the year you sited, with only 515 deaths. That alone makes it completely incomparable to COVID or any other major cause of death in the US, considering a quarter of global deaths for COVID occurred in the US including my aunt. (https://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/statistics/tbtrends.htm)
-
Even when looking at the whole world COVID is more dangerous on the whole. Yes TB may have a much higher mortality rate and COVID thus far has infected 10,000,000 (reported, yes the actual number is much much higher but that’s not particularly important in the comparison) people world wide similar to the 10,000,000 infected with TB in 2017. However there are two problems with that. First of all the time frames are different. One is 12 months and the other is 6 to 8 as corona hasn’t been around a whole year yet plus corona started spreading from only one person while TB already started the year with millions infected. The second problem is that corona is only at 10,000,000 infections with extreme mitigation efforts taken and it’s still growing exponentially worldwide. So COVID will likely way exceed 1.3 million deaths by the end of the year. The death rate may be much lower, and they may have the same transmission method, however that doesn’t mean that they have the same transmission rate and that COVID is less dangerous. COVID is significantly more infectious and that will outweigh the difference in death rates in a few months particularly considering the daily deaths are accelerating globally though they are decreasing in the US.
-
Even if it doesn’t surpass it and it only gets to say 1,000,000 globally (which isn’t going to happen at the very least because of the third world), it’s not like it just replaces 1,000,000 that would have died of TB. It’s an additional 1,000,000 that are dying on top of all the people dying of TB and everything else and that’s still a lot of death. I mean it’s not enough to justify shutting down the country and the tax it takes on the US but if any large portion of those deaths are in the US then it’s worth some mitigating factors.
Please believe me when I say I’m making this argument entirely in good faith and I’m not trying to say that we should be shutting down the economy here or that we should have to wear masks. The death rate is still incredibly low and it will still likely kill fewer people than heart disease or cancer in the US on the whole this year. I’m just telling you this because I figure it’s best you learn this stuff here than take this argument somewhere else and have it be shut down. Just avoid TB as a talking point. Stick with influenza and stroke.
How though? Freedom of assembly? Like there’s always stipulations to that one about proper permitting and it’s about assembly for protesting not having parties and clearly that hasn’t been compromised as there have been constant protests throughout the crisis.
Freedom of expression? I don’t think that SCOTUS will see wearing or not wearing masks as expression. If it’s a safety regulation then laws made around it can control it. It’s the yelling fire in a crowded movie theater argument. On top of that the government can control what you wear in public, that’s already proven. You can’t walk around naked to protest having to wear clothes at least not without expecting to be legally arrested and fined.
Freedom to bear arms? Haven’t heard that argument before at least linked with corona. Like yah in general sure but where’s the relation to masks? I saw the chain emails saying that if you wear a mask then you give up your right to concealed carry but those emails have been completely debunked.
Freedom from unwarranted search and seizure? I dont know what this has to do with masks either. Like you don’t have to be searched for them to see if you aren’t wearing a mask in public. They don’t need a warrant to fine you for jaywalking or for not wearing anything anything as I mentioned earlier.
Like I totally get not wanting to wear masks and fighting any bills mandating it but I just don’t see how it’s a constitutional issue. If you could explain it to me, I’m genuinely curious as to what I’m missing.