Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Take a look at this, a man may be put in jail for having a severe case of tuberculous, because "violated the rules of a voluntary quarantine, exposing others to a potentially deadly illness"

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/43554.php

When I read the thread, I thought to myself "What has this world come to?!"

But now I see why he is going to jail.

Originally posted by JacopeX
When I read the thread, I thought to myself "What has this world come to?!"


Exactly how tabloid readers form their opinions, and exactly how tabloid headlines are pitched.

Voluntary quarantine really doesn't sound that voluntary....

It's extremely voluntary.

It's if you stop doing it voluntarily that it becomes compulsory. That's perfectly good logic.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's extremely voluntary.

It's if you stop doing it voluntarily that it becomes compulsory. That's perfectly good logic.

That hardly sounds like voluntary to me actually.

Kinda like you could claim that having to stay in jail is voluntary but when you stop doing it you get shot...

How about entering into a contract voluntary, but then if you break it there are repercussions? No-one forced you to sign.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
How about entering into a contract voluntary, but then if you break it there are repercussions? No-one forced you to sign.

Well, but that doesn't seem to be the case, since if he hadn't voluntarily decided to go into quarantine he would have still been quarantined forcibly.

So it is more like getting the choice to enter a contract but there are repercussions if you don't as well as if you enter, but break it.

Well, that's very simple. If he didn't voluntarily quarantine himself, he would be forcibly quarantined.

There's no issue with that. it flows perfectly well. No-one was enforcing his quarantine under the voluntary agreement. He lived at home (well, a halfway house, anyway). He wasn't forced to do anything, he was trusted to keep himself reasonably quarantined. His quarantining was entirely of his own volition.

Now he;s shown he can't be trusted to do that, so his quarantine is not in the least bit voluntary.

What you have confused are the terms "volunteered to be quarantined" and "voluntary quarantine."

Different. There was never any question that he was going to be quarantined or not; he's a public health hazard.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, that's very simple. If he didn't voluntarily quarantine himself, he would be forcibly quarantined.

There's no issue with that. it flows perfectly well. No-one was enforcing his quarantine under the voluntary agreement. He lived at home (well, a halfway house, anyway). He wasn't forced to do anything, he was trusted to keep himself reasonably quarantined. His quarantining was entirely of his own volition.

Now he;s shown he can't be trusted to do that, so his quarantine is not in the least bit voluntary.

What you have confused are the terms "volunteered to be quarantined" and "voluntary quarantine."

Different. There was never any question that he was going to be quarantined or not; he's a public health hazard.

A-actually they were enforcing it...by saying if you don't do it you will face a more severe quarantine. That's force. Of course you could say it was still his own choice, though I would argue that it is hardly a free choice. It's like pointing a gun at someone's had and force them to do something and then say that it happened voluntarily, which is a misuse of the word.

No, again, you are misunderstanding the use of the term 'voluntary quarantine'.

It was an agreement by which he said he would control his own quarantine. No-one was going to order him where to go at any time, or confine him to any area. His quarantine was entirely under his control. It was voluntary.

But if the voluntary system stopped working, it would cease and be replaced by an enforced one.

Perfectly good use of the word. Once more, do not confuse "volunteered to be quarantined" and "voluntary quarantine."

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, again, you are misunderstanding the use of the term 'voluntary quarantine'.

It was an agreement by which he said he would control his own quarantine. No-one was going to order him where to go at any time, or confine him to any area. His quarantine was entirely under his control. It was voluntary.

But if the voluntary system stopped working, it would cease and be replaced by an enforced one.

Perfectly good use of the word. Once more, do not confuse "volunteered to be quarantined" and "voluntary quarantine."

You may call it "voluntary quarantine" but it certainly wasn't voluntary, just because it is called that.

And, I believe you misuse the word here, trying to attribute it to the terms of the quarantine not the quarantine itself.

What is meant with voluntary quarantine is that the quarantine was "done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice" ... and that it was not, as it was forced.

Crap. And your opinion of whether I am using it right or not is irrelevant to me because I am damn certain I know what I am talking about more than you.

It IS voluntary. He has control over it. It was HIS quarantine, under his jurisdiction and guidance. He also signed an agreement to do it of his own free will. In every significant sense it fits the meaning of the word 'voluntary'. But it didn't work- aside from anything else, he BROKE the voluntary agreement. So it has been replaced with one that does work.

This use happens all the time- for example, industries under voluntary regulation, who mess uo such regulation, and hence get an enforced one placed on them.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Crap. And your opinion of whether I am using it right or not is irrelevant to me because I am damn certain I know what I am talking about more than you.

It IS voluntary. He has control over it. It was HIS quarantine, under his jurisdiction and guidance. He also signed an agreement to do it of his own free will. In every significant sense it fits the meaning of the word 'voluntary'. But it didn't work- aside from anything else, he BROKE the voluntary agreement. So it has been replaced with one that does work.

This use happens all the time- for example, industries under voluntary regulation, who mess uo such regulation, and hence get an enforced one placed on them.
I can see that it is used that way, I just doubt that it is a correct use considering the definition of the word.

So, if the voluntary is referring to the type of quarantine, alright, strange, but okay, but you also say that it was a voluntary agreement...and that it just certainly wasn't...

Yes it was. it was absolutely and entirely voluntary. He was not made to do it at all. he could discuss and negotiate terms, and if he didn't like what it looked like, he could refuse it.

Just because it might be disadvantageous to not sign it does not stop it being voluntary, and your example of being shot if he did not sign it is not a fair or reasonable comparison.

Telling people that they can either enter into a voluntary programme to manage their behaviour, or alternatively have one enforced upon them, does not in any way mess up the word 'voluntary'.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes it was. it was absolutely and entirely voluntary. He was not made to do it at all. he could discuss and negotiate terms, and if he didn't like what it looked like, he could refuse it.

Just because it might be disadvantageous to not sign it does not stop it being voluntary, and your example of being shot if he did not sign it is not a fair or reasonable comparison.

Telling people that they can either enter into a voluntary programme to manage their behaviour, or alternatively have one enforced upon them, does not in any way mess up the word 'voluntary'.

Wait, so it is a voluntary decision to you if you are forced to decide between two alternative?

But then everything is voluntary. Going to jail or trying to break out. Even the compulsory quarantine he is in now would be voluntary, cause he could still choose to stay in or try to flee, just that he will be forced to stay in if he doesn't on his own account.

That would just make the whole word voluntary pointless...where do you draw the line there?

I'm confused about the purpose of this thread.

Am I supposed to feel displeased that a health hazard was violating the terms of an agreement to autonomously prevent himself from being a risk to the public, or indignant that the health hazard is being forcibly prevented from presenting a risk to the public?

And am I supposed to know or care what the Tucson Citizen is?

Here's a word that's pissing me off: 'tuberculous'.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Here's a word that's pissing me off: 'tuberculous'. Quite. Perhaps it's endemic to Arizona.

Are you feeling rather tuberculous today?

So they pur him in jail without a trial or charges?