I'd love to see logic taught in schools. Like philosophy of argument style courses. Of course this won't fix all the problems, since it depends on the acceptance and practice of the knowledge presented (US grades and high school graduation rates aren't great). But maybe it would give us a chance at being a little better.

I think citizenship tests should be extended to all via school curriculum. If we require people who immigrate to know our laws and how the system is supposed to work, then I don't see why the people already here shouldn't also be required to know this basic info.

Immigrants are required to possess a modicum of knowledge about the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the system of government, not to mention some level of command of the English language (my wife teaches citizenship courses to immigrants). I, myself, am a naturalized citizen, from Canada, and I had to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, forbear allegiance to foreign powers etc.

It's a ritual, but rituals have meaning and power. It would be nice to see more native-born Americans with a strong grounding in democracy and electoral politics.

When we had a mandatory military draft, at that time most able bodied young men were required to put on a uniform, salute the U.S. flag, march to patriotic music, etc.

Today this sounds trite and even anti-democracy -- weren't we indoctrinating generations of gullible young people to just blindly follow the leader?

Yet, today, many young people including college graduates are hardly patriotic at all, and are mind-numbingly ignorant of even the most basic facts, as illustrated by man-in-the-street interviews posted on Youtube by wags like Ami Horowitz and Mark Dice, getting college students to admit that the triceratops (an extinct dinosaur) is endangered and trophy hunting of this poor beast should be banned, and similar ridiculous notions.

Even during the Vietnam War, one survey in about 1970 found that 25% of Americans thought Vietnam was in South America.

Education is the key, and by that I believe you and I both agree that indoctrination in particular directions is not the same thing. My kid in high school... well, I could tell you stories, but I'd better stop :)

I tend to agree actually, and would go a step further and suggest that citizenship should be a requirement to vote in any election, and that persons born in the US should not be granted citizenship without being able to pass the citizenship test.

I'm less comfortable granting people a bid based on general knowledge and intelligence though, I think the uninterested citizenry is a far larger problem than the uneducated citizenry.

My concern with gating for votes in America is that America specifically has a very long history of gating voting in order to disenfranchise minorities from voting. We cannot trust our institutions not to use any restrictions to vote in a racist way. Without this, I can easily imagine a world where our existing disenfranchisement of minorities makes them uniquely vulnerable to being unable to acquire the education necessary to pass to citizenship test- and that this vulnerability is taken advantage of to cut them out of democracy altogether.

The problem with this argument is that racists historically used every system in order to be racist. Should we eliminate public schools, because we still to this day provide less funding for schools in black neighborhoods? What about the Post Office, which was still segregated as recently as the 20th century? If we can't trust politicians not to implement policies in a racist fashion, don't we then have to eliminate the entire government?

Or we could strive not to implement good policies in a bad way.

The property tax system of funding schools is not a good system, but it's also not truly racist. Yes, there are urban schools which are underfunded and disproportionately affect minorities, but there are also rural schools in predominately white areas that are also underfunded. Look to much of Appalachia and some of the south as examples. So in my opinion, property tax funding of schools would fit more with the "rich get richer" paradigm.

You could say the same thing about literacy requirements. That's kind of the point.

> Yes, there are urban schools which are underfunded and disproportionately affect minorities, but there are also rural schools in predominately white areas that are also underfunded.

You could presumably also find some instances of so-called "white trash" being disenfranchised by aggressive voter eligibility requirements.

> So in my opinion, property tax funding of schools would fit more with the "rich get richer" paradigm.

All of racism fits into that paradigm. Racism is a system for causing poor black folks and poor white folks to fight against each other instead of fighting with each other against the systems oppressing both of them.

"All of racism fits into that paradigm. Racism is a system for causing poor black folks and poor white folks to fight against each other instead of fighting with each other against the systems oppressing both of them."

Your statement contradicts itself. If in fact the oppressors are targeting both white and black people to maintain power, then they are by definition not targeting only one race and would instead be classist/elitist.

Also, not all racism is about people getting richer. Some of it was done on their (misguided) principles without financial benefit, or even to their detriment as the civil rights movement grew.

I fail to see how the citizenship test would lead to the rich getting richer.

> Your statement contradicts itself. If in fact the oppressors are targeting both white and black people to maintain power, then they are by definition not targeting only one race and would instead be classist/elitist.

Elites don't promote racism because they're racists, they promote racism because it's a mechanism of control.

Racism as a theory is pseudoscience bullshit. There is no scientific basis for race even existing. We're all humans. The only people who believe otherwise are the victims of propaganda.

See also: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/

> I fail to see how the citizenship test would lead to the rich getting richer.

It could benefit them if the subset of people it prevents from voting would vote for things they wouldn't like.

Also, some policies are nothing but collateral damage. Elites get the proles fighting each other and each coalition starts demanding aversarial policies that harm the outgroup and neither hurt nor help the elites, but keep everyone distracted and fighting each other. The elites don't care which policy like that is implemented as long as it keeps people too busy fighting each other over it to pay attention to certain other things.

It benefits the rich because the proponent-victims spend their political capital to implement the policy and then the opponent-victims spend their political capital to repeal it instead of either of them spending that political capital to do anything that benefits the poor at the expense of the rich.

"Elites don't promote racism because they're racists, they promote racism because it's a mechanism of control."

That may be true, but the policy we were discussing (property tax funding education as an example of 'every policy being racist') affects large portions of both whites and minorities, and thus does not make it a racist.

"Elites get the proles fighting each other and each coalition starts demanding aversarial policies that harm the outgroup and neither hurt nor help the elites, but keep everyone distracted and fighting each other."

If that's your premise, then your position is moot. This is happening already.

> That may be true, but the policy we were discussing (property tax funding education as an example of 'every policy being racist') affects large portions of both whites and minorities, and thus does not make it a racist.

Affecting large portions of both whites and minorities hasn't generally prevented anything from being labeled racist, if they affect minorities differently than white people (as a whole, not a specific subset).

And voter literacy requirements continue to be of the same kind. You can argue that neither is bad because neither is really racist, but then you can have voter literacy requirements. You can argue that both are bad because both are racist, but then you can't have public schools funded by property tax, or even public schools at all, because after all we're talking about avoiding things over their historical implementations even if other implementations are possible.

What I haven't seen is a consistent case that you can have one and can't have the other.

> If that's your premise, then your position is moot. This is happening already.

Are you implying that it happening has had nothing to do with the inflammation of racial tensions by elites and media organizations?

"...we're talking about avoiding things over their historical implementations even if other implementations are possible."

Well that's not at all what has been discussed. If that's what you think this thread is about, then you are very off-topic. If we are truly doing that, then we need to avoid all institutions and policies since they all have some bigoted background, and there's no path forward because everyone can just unsupportively call anything racist.

"Are you implying that it happening has had nothing to do with the inflammation of racial tensions by elites and media organizations?"

You have been stating that subjecting everyone to the citizen test is racist and said that we shouldn't do it because the racist policy will lead to parties fighting each other so the elites are left alone.

I'm saying that's already happening, so you don't have any premise for why not to do this. And quite frankly, you have derailed the actual topic of thread and failed to provide any logical reasoning for your stances (paraphrased, because all past policies have been racist this one must be racist and shouldn't be implemented).

> If we are truly doing that, then we need to avoid all institutions and policies since they all have some bigoted background, and there's no path forward because everyone can just unsupportively call anything racist.

I believe this was my original point. Go back and read it again.

Well it's a stupid point. Why argue on here if you think there's no path forward? You're not contributing anything.

> Racism as a theory is pseudoscience bullshit. There is no scientific basis for race even existing. We're all humans.

Would you rather herd sheep with a pug or a border collie? They’re both dogs.

The west might have swallowed the kool-aid after a century of self, China sure hasn’t [1].

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/04/china-super-so...

Would you rather play basketball with Shaquille O'Neal or Neil deGrasse Tyson on your team? They're both humans. They're also both "black", so what's your point?

Your comparison is moot. If I were to select a squad of long distance endurance athletes, I would look to those of Kenyan stock before I’d look to Icelandic.

We are animals, it may not be politically correct but animal husbandry (science) applies.

If we can't trust our institutions, then what is the solution?

There doesn't have to be much education to pass this test. A small book with the material could be mailed to each person on request with no charge. Crafting a strong ammendment with protections like this could address those concerns.

This I don't particularly mind if a small book with the material is provided to each person on request with no charge, potentially even at the point of voting. The point after all is to ensure that maximum numbers of people participating are aware of the systems, not as a gating mechanism.

I'm merely protesting the use of a gating mechanism in isolation. If the gating mechanism came with an educational booklet then my concerns evaporate.

Yeah, I think any law creating restrictions should also provide protections so it's not abused.

For an example on another topic, gun rights groups want a punishment in the new red flag laws for people who file false red flag claims against others so that it can't be "weaponized", as restraining orders have increasingly been used as a "standard" part of divorce proceedings by some lawyers (in cases without any abuse). Seems to make sense, but like most laws it doesn't seem to get any legitimate debate because both sides are just passing laws on mostly partisan lines instead of investigating possible tweaks that would make both sides accepting (no empathy or devil's advocate).

I agree uninterested citizenry is a bigger problem than uneducated, but what about a citizenship test (which is absolutely, without a doubt, going to be immediately used as a disenfranchisement tool by a particular political party) is going to get people interested?

It seems like that'd fix absolutely nothing but create further class distinctions between people who are represented and people who aren't.

In fact, I'd prefer to see things go radically in the opposite direction. I think it's unjust to prevent non-citizens from voting. If you live in place x, you should have a say in how place x is run.

We can do it that way. You just end up with many of the same issues we see today being exacerbated further, like rule of law not being followed and a lack of understanding about the legal structure.

The point of citizenship distinction is part of organizing a democratic government and maintaining cohesion. It tests a person on the basic form and laws of the government and their allegiance to the tribe. The point here is that you have a group off like-minded people allowing other like-minded people into the group. This creates a cohesive group that agrees on basic principles and can function well. Think about trying to conduct a system architecture design meeting with the non-technical users weighing in through a democratic vote on each suggestion - are you excited to do your job in that scenario? Do you end up with lemmings following the best salesman without understanding what is going on? (Different opinions are fine as long as they are legitimate and don't violate the common principles)

Letting anyone in makes the knowledgeable people feel disenfranchised by mob rule, not to mention making the organization susceptible to subversion. There's anecdotal evidence (probably statistical evidence if we look around) to support that citizenship that is earned results in a population that is more involved (look at voter turnout in places that never before had free elections).

So while I agree that people in a given location should have say over their government, I also believe that in being a part of that democratic government they have the responsibility to learn the basics by which the government functions. This minimum requirement at least shows a good faith effort on the part of the individual to be a diligent member of society.

You make good points, though I'm sympathetic to the parent's point too.

In the very layered federal system we have in the US, it might be possible for us to have it both ways. Non-U.S.-citizens could be given a vote in local/municipal/county matters, but still not for national representation. (And some states might want to try out different levels of statewide enfranchisement.)

Yeah, I thought a municipality or state was allowing non-citizen voting for the local elections. I think parts of MD and CA.

The problem with this is that you find yourself in a position where you're adding educational access as a means to manipulate the voting base. Want to disenfranchise people (as an example) from rural areas in your state over the long run? Funnel education funding away from school buses and into schools that offer wide varieties of academic programs (that can only be offered in large schools).

Before you say "that would never happen", the US has a long history of using literacy tests to disenfranchise voters, including many cases where those tests were applied unevenly or administered in ways that were openly discriminatory. [0]

[0] https://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm

All you really to do to fix that is have the ammendment require the test study material (small book) be provided via mail upon request. Or some other means. If you have an ammendment that requires this, anyone targeted by manipulation can sue for their constitutional rights. Most of the past manipulations are attacks on older laws that were less specific and required judicial interpretation to determine applicability.

Getting the study material in the mail doesn't help if your education system isn't equipped to teach people how to read (much less study the government).

You might or might not have noticed, but the politically and economically disenfranchised are not well-known for their access to legal recourse.

If illiteracy is a widespread issue, then there are bigger issues at play. Not to mention, do we really want people like that voting? After all, that would make one ineligible to perform other duties which require basic english proficiency required of citizens (military drafts, jury). Rights come with responsibilities.

Lawyers would love to take a clear cut case on a contingent basis.

> If illiteracy is a widespread issue, then there are bigger issues at play.

There are bigger issues at play [0]. Largely the echoing effects of white flight on second-tier cities, and politically motivated defunding of urban education. As with most of the other forms of systematic discrimination in our lives, there is always just enough plausible deniability to avoid judicial ramifications.

I'm all for doing everything we can to ensure the people voting in our elections are educated enough to make informed decisions. I just don't think we should be doing that by depriving people of the fundamental right (in our system) to elect their representatives.

edit: to add the citation I forgot

[0] https://literacyrochester.org/new-york-state-has-a-literacy-...

That group is using a 5th grade reading level to indicate literacy. The citizenship test doesn't even require that level of literacy. Incorrect grammar and spelling are considered passing so long as the person can read and write well enough to communicate. A good gauge of that could be whether or not they can study from a book. I would be interested to see what percentage of illiterate people are voting now anyways.

The part of your comment that is a bit twisted is saying that we would be taking away someone's fundamental right under the current system. I'm not suggesting we take away anyone's current rights, but institute a new policy for future children to require the test for them. Under our current system the right to vote is only a right for citizens. As we wouldn't be removing anyone's citizenship, we wouldn't be stripping anyone of that right. Not to mention that the current test is allows some immigrants to vote and others not, due to literacy constraints. So why not extend that paradigm to people who are born here.

Finally, it seems the most important part of what I have said is consistently ignored - citizens have duties and to be a citizen one should be capable of performing those duties. That's a fundamental principle of democracy, as the people are the government. If being illiterate prevents one from being able to perform those duties, then they have have no reason to be afforded the privileges and specific rights from which they are derived (basic human rights would be intact).

If one can have all the rights and privileges of being a citizen without the responsibilities, why would they even want to be a citizen? What would being a citizen even mean at that point?

I can see where I was confusing. I meant that voting is a fundamental right in our system, not that our current system takes away that right.

In any case, I would consider a policy that removes the right to vote from a class of people to be taking away a right, whether or not you grandfather people in. In the long term, it's a regressive policy.

You still didn't get it. It's only a fundamental right in our system for citizens. There is no right for non-citizens. Nor have you provided any logic for why it makes sense to allow non-citizen voting.

It's not a regressive policy. That would mean we go back to the method of only land owners voting or excluding classes of minorities. This is simply validating that citizens meet the minimum requirements to be good citizens, something we already do for immigrants. This also does not discriminate against any class of people - the requirements would be the same for all and are easily achievable. This would actual make the granting of citizenship more equitable by making the process the same for everyone instead of the current process that differentiates between those born here and those not.

I'm also still waiting for your answers to my previous two questions.

Unpatriotic college grad here, I think you're missing the "most basic fact", that the government obviously doesn't work for you and me. What's the point of getting involved with all this political junk, spending my time on it, when they're all in it for themselves, for their donors? That's a real question that's totally legitimate for most people. They're busy, the issue isn't education, it's a totally corrupt system that works for the wealthy.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about non-electoral politics? I've found that sort of engagement is much easier to get traction for from normal people. It's easy to see the effects of your actions.

That disinterest is part of what drives the issue of poor electoral choices. The most radical candidates can draw the most support in primaries since the voter turnout is so low.

I also feel the disenfranchisement that you talk about. I think non-electoral civic engagement is also an important part. I try to write my representatives on some issues. It seems largely futile, but often times you get a more detailed response from them than you see I'm the media. I also try to right the wrongs I encounter in my community. For example, a police department was wrongly stating that a specific summary offense was a misdemeanor and I was able to correct that. I also encountered a state trooper that was doing things that violate civil rights, like lying to a judge. I filed a complaint and he was counseled (should have been fired but the investigator covered for him - only so far up the chain you can chase corruption before your life/safety becomes a concern).

But the government is supposed to work for you and me, at least indirectly. Mind you, if you get stopped for speeding and you say to the cop "Do you realize I'm paying your salary?" he's going to find 10 things wrong with your vehicle that you didn't know existed (a cop friend told me this years ago). But getting back to the main point, it is our government and we can take it back. It takes hard work and dedicated involvement, though.

Years ago, a bunch of reform minded Boomers moved into a dying neighborhood in north Boston (a city known for its corruption over many decades). They were well educated, affluent, and politically active. They banded together, went to meetings, made their voices heard, and after a time, city politicos became more responsive to them. They showed how democracy can work, if one puts in the time.

Once you own some property and raise a family, you will probably find that you need to become involved in local government to get what you need from it, as have millions of others.

What critical thinking is involved in believing the virus is real? Apart from those who made some independent study I would say there is little critical thinking at all... Just faith in the institution of government and press.

That you've made this point is part of the problem.

I'm judging that the virus is real and a problem based on having had it, knowing people who died from it, knowing other people who had severe symptoms, from knowing (via other acquaintances) what the hospitals in my area were like, and from seeing freezer trucks full of dead bodies in the streets. OTOH, I'm from an area that got crushed by the virus early.

I can't say for sure that if I were in an area that hadn't had much contact with the virus my "Critical thinking" hat wouldn't be saying, "wait, what if they're just telling us there's a virus outside to keep us locked up".

It's not an appeal to authority to tell you to trust in doctors that have been studying and fighting infectious diseases their whole life; for me, however, the fact that so many countries have independently developed their own testing methodologies; that certain quantitative elements of the virus - e.g. transmissibility, CFR - are relatively consistent, with outliers and anomalies having additional evidence to justify their uniqueness; and the unfortunate human toll of this is undeniable.

Believing that the virus is real means considering the possibility that the virus might be fake (manufacfured, overblown, non-existent, etc) and then discarding them based on critical thinking. I don't have to believe the US government to see how North Korea was one of the first countries to completely block Chinese people from entering the border. We could all see how quick New Zealand was to implement travel and tourist restrictions. One has to stop and think about why all these nations are doing things that are actively harmful to their bottom line. To actively look away from these facts is what gets you away from critical thinking. Listening to the government does not equal sheeplike blind acceptance despite what the conspiracy theorists might have you believe.

My only proof from personal experience was when my wife got it, and lost her smell. Never having heard of that symptom for flu before, that was my personal proof.

Until a colleague told me he lost his smell 2 years ago after a serious flu.

I still do believe the virus exists, but not having the equipment to look at it myself how can I be absolutely certain?

The problem is not everyone are the same. For example, regarding covid, for some people they think the risk is low, for some people they think the risk are high.

Some think the lockdown are worth it, some think the lockdown are not worth it.

Both are correct，it highly depends on your personal preference.

This will always cause conflict.

This is democracy, both side will fight and to convince other. Whoever gain the majority/power is the winner.

Unless facebook taking sides, i don't think it harm democracy. Both side too can utilize facebook for their advantage.

> This is democracy, both side will fight and to convince other. Whoever gain the majority/power is the winner.

> Unless facebook taking sides, i don't think it harm democracy. Both side too can utilize facebook for their advantage.

The problem is, for the most part, there's harm to democracy if no compromise is ever reached, and the "fight" on every issue becomes constant and intractable.

For instance, the fight around the response to COVID has pretty thoroughly undermined the response to it. You have people refusing to wear masks for the most part to just to say "fuck you" to the other side.

This kind of over-the-top fractiousness is a clear propaganda win for authoritarianism. China, for instance, is pretty effectively using it (and their corresponding success) to reduce the appeal of democracy among its people.

I think The fight is inevitable. Eventually winner will emerge, democracy doesn't care who the winners is and how it get there as long as both side still allowed to fight.

Even to reach compromise, fight may still be necessary.

>You have people refusing to wear masks for the most mart to just to say "fuck you" to the other side.

Mask has real downside (for some people), you can't just dismissed that (not just to say fuck you), although there is of course people like that.

Similarly, You have to acknowledge there also people who want to force other to wear mask to just to say "fuck you" to the otherside.

> Mask has real downside (for some people),

Name one. -- Not including the rare medical condition where having anything touching your face is incredibly painful.

One. Wearing Mask can be uncomfortable, and it is real downside (at least for me)

I'm sorry. Grow up.

I wear a mask 8 hours a day. Surgeons do for longer.

Is it really that much to ask? I honestly don't understand this mindset.

Its fine for you doesn't mean its fine for other.

Not everyone the same.

Whether its too much or not can be different for different people.

Its not hard to understand right?

>>> One. Wearing Mask can be uncomfortable, and it is real downside (at least for me)

>> I'm sorry. Grow up. I wear a mask 8 hours a day. Surgeons do for longer. Is it really that much to ask? I honestly don't understand this mindset.

> Its fine for you doesn't mean its fine for other. Not everyone the same. Whether its too much or not can be different for different people. Its not hard to understand right?

Some people aren't fine having a DD or getting a taxi after a night out, and would rather drive themselves home drunk. Those people have a far greater likelihood of getting into a crash that kills themselves or others.

Your decisions and actions can have real consequences for others, it's not just about your personal preferences. Reflect on that and take the GGP's advice.

I didn't says decision and action can't have real consequences. Every action will have its consequences.

Forcing other to wear mask has its consequences too.

> Forcing other to wear mask has its consequences too.

As you've said before, people like you would be forced to wear something you think is uncomfortable. I'd even be forced to play the world's smallest violin for you.

The thing is, you have to weigh those consequences (ideally non selfishly), not just assert they exist.

So, one the one hand, you have minor inconvenience and intolerable oppression of having to think of others for even a second. On the other hand, you have hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths and the economic toll of a poorly-managed pandemic.

I don't know, seems like a tough call. /s

You dismissed my concern as "minor inconvenience". I acknowledge that for you its minor but for me its major inconvenience.

Its not clear that thousand of deaths will be avoided if everyone wear mask.

I agree that it is poorly managed pandemic, that is the decision to do lockdown.

> You dismissed my concern as "minor inconvenience". I acknowledge that for you its minor but for me its major inconvenience.

I did, because your concern is something that should be dismissed. The hypothetical drunk driver I mentioned earlier almost certainly has similar rationalizations for his irresponsible behavior, too. But no one is swayed by his insistence that not driving drunk would have caused "major inconvenience" to him.

Refusing to wear a mask in this environment is like deciding to drive drunk. Don't be like a drunk driver, be a responsible person.

Likewise don't be suprised when other people can also simply dismissed your concern.

No, the different is the risk of not wearing mask way way lower than drunk driving.

About 1.5 times as many people died of Covid in the last seven days than people who died due to drunk driving in 2016.

Drunk driving may be more dangerous to the individual, but not all wearing masks appears to be doing much more damage.

For context, the number of covid related deaths over the past week are equivalent to 5.47 times the number of people killed in 9/11.

These numbers don't include those who survive but suffer from lasting effects caused by covid.

Sources:

https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/impaired_driving/im...

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_deathsinlast...

Edit: Add Drunk ... 9/11.

Edit 2: Change the paragraph about 9/11 to be more respectful.

Edit 3: Add comment about lasting effects.

Covid related death is a highly inflated number, i mean it include people who die and happen to be tested positive for covid, not just die due to covid.

Okay. So, according to [0], about 6% of the covid related deaths have only covid as a cause.

According to [1], there have been 291,522 covid related deaths since Jan 21 of this year, and according to [2], there were 2,977 fatalities in 9/11.

All numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number. EDIT: Except for the 6% and final results, for obvious reasons.

291,522 * .06 = 17,491 deaths with no related comorbidity. This number happens to be still ~1.7 times the number of drunk driving related deaths in 2017.

Finally...

17,491 / 2,977 = 6 times the number of people who were killed by 9/11 with no comorbidities.

---

Now, lets do the math for this past week.

16,308 * .06 = 978.48 deaths with no comorbidities.

2,977 / 978 = 3 -- So last week was equivalent to one third of 9/11 for deaths with no comorbidities.

As deaths are expected to climb, we can expect to have at least the equivalent of 9/11 every three weeks for a while.

And none of this math includes those who were mostly fine, but happened to have a small condition that was lumped in, causing them to not be counted in the 6%.

[0] https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/514915-is-us-covid-19...

[1] https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_totaldeaths

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11...

So by your number, only 978 death last week ? Even if its true that is still such a low number and probably skewed towards old people.

With this number you want to have shutdown business, restrict business, prevent gathering, implement all those silly safety theatre for the rest of population? Yeah very very not worth it.

978 deaths is equivalent to 1/18 of the entire year to date. The rate is increasing, and there's only one way to stop it.

Edit: And again, this number is with absolutely no comorbidities. Had diabetes for your whole life? not counted. Broke your arm? not counted. High blood pressure? not counted.

Plenty of people who would've lived decades more are not included in this number.

> With this number you want to have...

> shutdown business

Nope. I want masks and social distancing.

I recognize that businesses need to be open. Heck, I'm still working.

> restrict business

Depending on your point of view, yes.

Meaning that I think social distancing should be practised at all businesses, and people should decide themselves not to go to businesses that they don't have to. Note, this is "Free market" restriction, not government mandated.

> prevent gathering

Not precisely. I would say don't gather with people from outside of your region, and social distance when you do gather with people inside your region.

> safety theatre

Still waiting on a source for this, assuming you are talking about masks.

I haven't said anything about any measures other than the above, and masks to point.

>978 deaths is equivalent to 1/18 of the entire year to date. The rate is increasing, and there's only one way to stop it.

Its still such a low number. There is no conclusive evidence that mask will reduce the death and even if wearing mask will avoid those 978 death, it still not worth it.

Don't get me wrong, reducing death is good and I will support it but not if it require forced mask/lockdown.

That being said, I can support voluntary mask recommendation though.

> Its still such a low number.

Again, there are much more than this that should be attributed to covid, these are just the most perfectly healthy people who still died, despite medical care.

> There is no conclusive evidence that mask will reduce the death

Have you looked at any other countries handling of the pandemic?

> and even if wearing mask will avoid those 978 death, it still not worth it

Again. Much more than 978 deaths.

> That being said, I can support voluntary mask recommendation though.

How do you feel about businesses requiring masks for entry?

> these are just the most perfectly healthy people who still died, despite medical care

Of course, it could still happen but the chance are very low, flu still kills thousand of people every year, despite of vaccine.

>Have you looked at any other countries handling of the pandemic?

at least one country I know doesn't have mask mandate: sweeden.

not a country but Florida doesn't have statewide mask mandate and they are handling it very well (in my opinion). Went there for a week this past few months, so much better than other state. I would consider moving there.

>Again. Much more than 978 deaths.

How much more ? Whats the evidence that those 978 is avoidable because of mask ?

>How do you feel about businesses requiring masks for entry?

I think its silly but their business their rule as long as I can choose other business that doesn't require mask or if I have business I can choose to not requiring mask.

> How much more ?

This seems like a good method of determining this [0].

> Whats the evidence that those 978 is avoidable because of mask ?

Physics, New Zealand, Japan, most other countries.

> How much more ?

This seems like a good method of determining this [0].

> as long as I can choose other business that doesn't require mask or if I have business I can choose to not requiring mask.

So what if all businesses require masks?

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

>Physics,

How the physics work in this case?

virus particle is much smaller than mask pores, especially with most mask that worn by general public

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RaBLKKXJt4

> New Zealand, Japan, most other countries.

In those countries, What evidence that it is the mask that responsible for it ?

Sweden, Florida, South Dakota doesn't have mask mandate and they are doing very well.

>So what if all businesses require masks?

very unlikely, even if that the case then if I own business I can have competitive advantage by attracting customer that don't like mask.

> How the physics work in this case?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32371934/

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.19.20071779v...

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RaBLKKXJt4

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcnTNQG1_WkZ5h7go3B0Ntw/abo...

This about page looks... not so trustworthy.

"SECOND OPiNION!!" -- Capitalization and punctuation taken from page.

> Sweden, Florida, South Dakota

https://www.mediaite.com/news/sweden-once-heralded-for-avoid...

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/florida/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-dakota-covid-kristi-noem-...

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32371934/

'Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals.'

Doesn't say anything about clothes mask that most people use.

>https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.19.20071779v...

Its say it may block some droplet, and even then require 2 or 3 layers of cloth. Does not saying anything about whether it can reduce virus transmission.

>This about page looks... not so trustworthy.

The page looks has nothing to do with the content/argument.

>https://www.mediaite.com/news/sweden-once-heralded-for-avoid...

So ? They have no mask mandate and still no lockdown and live is pretty much still normal there.

>https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/florida/

So ? They are doing very well. I went there for visit myself recently and considering moving there.

>https://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-dakota-covid-kristi-noem-...

So ? She is doing the right thing and the state are doing well too.

A summary of this conversation so far:

---

You've moved the goalpost:

Masks don't work -> Some masks don't work.

---

Sources you've provided:

A paper that didn't cover the topic you were "refuting" with it: ( https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 )

A YouTube video from a "doctor" who has provided no certifications, claims to be non political and is promoting a debunked theory (hydroxychloroquine), and has fixed the typo I pointed out to you to you the other day, so congrats on that one.

---

Topic you've not responded about:

Death's.

Both amount: ( https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm )

And the rate increase demonstrated in the math earlier.

---

Unless you can provide some more substantive evidence than "I feel" and "This rando on YouTube agrees with me", I don't see any reason to continue this conversation further.

Edit: Formatting

> https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

from the results itself :

Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection

and from the conclusion :

The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection

> "This rando on YouTube agrees with me"

In the YouTube I linked to She is a medical professional and she listed the research paper she referenced and we are not talking about hydroxychloroquine at all.

>Both amount: ( https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm )

So there is death to covid, i never refute this.

What is the evidence that mask can reduce this death ?

> from the results itself :

Again, taken from the "Limitations" section:

"no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others."

I never said that masks greatly help protect the individual, I said they help slow the spread of the pandemic.

> She is a medical professional

Any chance you could link me to here credentials then? Has she authored any peer reviewed papers?

Actually, I'll look her up. Presuming this [0] is her, she appears to have participated in... no peer reviewed research. In addition, on this [1] website, she both claims to be non political, and to have appeared on this list of shows... "The Tucker Carlson Show, The Ingraham Angle, The Glenn Beck Show, The Charlie Kirk Show, The Dennis Prager Show, Day Star Television"

So, despite her being an obvious liar, at least she is an emergency medical professional, I'll give her that. A shame she's not a virologist.

> What is the evidence that mask can reduce this death ?

We've been over this as well. Masks reduce pandemic reduces death.

Do you have any other sources?

---

[0] https://www.docinfo.org/search/docprofile?docid=CA796BDA-28F...

[1] https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/mission-statement/

And just for fun, this is a quote from the paper [0] cited in your YouTube video:

"Nevertheless, the overall 3.4 fold reduction in aerosol copy numbers we observed combined with a nearly complete elimination of large droplet spray demonstrated by Johnson et al. suggests that surgical masks worn by infected persons could have a clinically significant impact on transmission"

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23505369/

Edit: article -> paper

>suggests that surgical masks worn by infected persons could have a clinically significant impact on transmission

could have, doesn't mean will have

and most people don't use surgical mask

From Above:

> You've moved the goalpost:

> Masks don't work -> Some masks don't work.

Edit: Also, really? You're going to be that pedantic? It's pretty obvious what the intent behind that sentence was.

Until you can provide a better source, I'm done.

for clarification, this is my stance: most mask that is used by general population doesn't work, at least for the purpose of preventing virus.

If you want to force people to wear mask(whether they want it or not) you better come up with strong evidence that it work and the benefit should be more than the downside.

At least I'm still willing to accept compromise by not against voluntary mask.

I know I said I was done, but I ran across this earlier:

https://thehill.com/policy/international/530628-swedens-king...

> If you want to force people to wear mask(whether they want it or not) you better come up with strong evidence that it work and the benefit should be more than the downside.

Already provided both, but we're not going back into that until you have more sources, preferably reputable ones that actually agree with you.

> At least I'm still willing to accept compromise by not against voluntary mask.

That's... not a compromise. That's literally where you started.

>https://thehill.com/policy/international/530628-swedens-king...

I disagree with him by calling it failed. the death rate is not significantly different compared to previous year and most importantly life is still pretty much normal.

>Already provided both, but we're not going back into that until you have more sources, preferably reputable ones that actually agree with you.

You haven't provided strong evidence so far, all the evidence you provided are inconclusive and insufficient.

>That's... not a compromise

What do you mean not compromise ? You wanted mask, I can't support forced mask but still willing to accept voluntary mask. Mask doesn't work but if you want to wear it then its your choice, I think its silly but I won't be against it. That's a compromise.

> That's a compromise.

No, that's a default. You doing your thing and me doing mine.

That's not what a compromise is.

>You doing your thing and me doing mine.

I'm ok with that. you want to wear your mask its up to you, as long as you are not forcing it to other people.

Yes, I know you are OK with that. I said it wasn't a compromise, it's the default.

Did you even read my comment?

Ok fine maybe we interpret compromise differently. Nonetheless I'm still against forced mask mandate.

> Forcing other to wear mask has its consequences too.

Like lower death rates and being able to reopen everything more completely and earlier?

Decision to open has nothing to do mask. Its politics. I never support the lockdown in the first place, regardless of mask.

And whether mask actually help with the pandemic, its still inconclusive.

>Decision to open has nothing to do mask. Its politics.

Decisively false. Masks influence pandemic influences lockdown.

> And whether mask actually help with the pandemic, its still inconclusive.

Do you have a credible source for that?

> no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.

Still need a source. I wasn't asking for a source on if they protect the wearer, I was asking for a source for "whether mask actually help with the pandemic"

> Its fine for you doesn't mean its fine for other.

True. I mentioned that disease which causes actual pain.

That is a legitimate reason.

However

If your reasoning is "It's uncomfortable" you are being ridiculously childish, and risking the lives of others.

I literally cannot understand the "I would rather risk killing someone than having this piece of cloth on my face for a few hours" mindset.

EDIT: Spelling (that -> than)

I don't at all mind wearing a mask when I go out, and the risk of causing harm is higher now, but wouldn't "I would rather risk killing someone than having this piece of cloth on my face for a few hours" apply in December of 2019 for example? I think this is what makes the perceived seriousness of the virus such a central point of conflict, as it determines what people see as the appropriate level of response.

> I think this is what makes the perceived seriousness of the virus such a central point of conflict, as it determines what people see as the appropriate level of response.

I have to agree there. The hospitals in my hometown are getting to the breaking point, and people are dying. It seems reasonable to expect some sort of response under the circumstances.

>That is a legitimate reasons

So you get to decide which are legitimate and which are not?

>If your reasoning is "It's uncomfortable" you are being ridiculously childish, and risking the lives of others.

Likewise, I can also says your decision to force other to wear mask is childish.

You also get to decide what childish and what is not?

>I literally cannot understand the "I would rather risk killing someone than having this piece of cloth on my face for a few hours" mindset.

The risk always exist whatever you do but the chance of that happening is very very low. Not 0, anything can happen, but very low.

Driving car in the road has non zero risk of killing people too but we do it anyway.

> So you get to decide which are legitimate and which are not?

No, but I get to have an opinion, which I stated. A doctor would be better suited to decide which is legitimate or not.

The condition I was referring to was Trigeminal Neuralgia. If a doctor says that it's okay to not wear a mask because "it's uncomfortable", then okay.

I somehow suspect you'll have difficulty with that.

> Likewise, I can also says your decision to force other to wear mask is childish.

I would agree... If people could be trusted to wear masks.

> You also get to decide what childish and what is not?

No, but I can call someone baselessly risking others lives childish. Probably selfish as well.

> Driving car in the road has non zero risk of killing people too but we do it anyway.

Of course. However, driving has a obvious and very real benefit: being able to move yourself effectively from location to location.

Is avoiding some mild discomfort really a worthy risk/benefit trade off?

Sure, you have opinion, i have opinion.

Medical reason is not the only reason for it to be legitimate.

You too are selfish for forcing other people to wear mask.

>Is avoiding some mild discomfort really a worthy risk/benefit trade off?

Very much Yes

> Medical reason is not the only reason for it to be legitimate.

I agree. I could also understand not being able to afford a mask.

Somehow I suspect that's not the case.

> You too are selfish for forcing other people to wear mask.

Disagree. Is it really that selfish to say "Hey, please endure some temporary mild discomfort with no lasting affects, in order to protect others?"

> Very much Yes

I have no words for this. You are either the best troll I've seen in a while, or are -- imho -- a ridiculously childish fool who is both weak, and hardhearted.

>Is it really that selfish to say "Hey, please endure some temporary mild discomfort with no lasting affects, in order to protect others?"

For some people, including me, its major discomfort and they never asked for protection.

You are trying to force your interest againts other people in interest, yes that is selfish too.

How is it a troll? It is true i find mask inconvenience and uncomfortable. Risk of seriously sick from covid ? very very low. Not sure what else to say.

> You are trying to force your interest againts other people in interest, yes that is selfish too.

Actually, I'm in one of the age groups/health levels that is safest from covid. I'm trying to help protect my community, not myself.

> Risk of seriously sick from covid ? very very low.

See math above for my thoughts on this.

> How is it a troll?

That wasn't the only option I listed. This applies to "it's major discomfort" as well.

Its good you are to trying to help but forcing other people who don't want to wear mask againts their interest is not helping, its selfish.

>See math above for my thoughts on this.

The number of death is still very low

It would be wonderful if epistemology was taught in schools and universities. But it would need to be embedded into every subject and focused on practical exercises. Whenever I've seen this sort of thing taught, the students learn about good reasoning methods, but they don't really internalise them.

Yes there ARE people that believe the virus isn't real, the same way there's people that believe the world is flat, but ironically I find your viewpoint about all the "stupid" virus doubters to be what's actually the real problem.

You'll say that Trump called the virus a hoax, or push narratives that imply there's actually any significant percentage of people that think the virus doesn't actually exist. You treat it in black and white, and ignore all the shades of gray and all of the extra dimensions to the issue. It's either "you're with me and everything I believe about every aspect of the issue" or "you're an evil stupid virus denier".

There's so much more to the issue than that, and 99% of the people you think believe the virus isn't real DO believe it's real, they just don't agree with you on how severe it is and how it should be responded to.