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

Most of us know that it is illegal to deliberately and falsely yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater...but does this limit of free speech also apply to a person who deliberately interrupts and halts the evacuation of a burning movie theater? would it not be illegal for them to tell everyone "just sit down! there is no fire!"?

discuss

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
Most of us know that it is illegal to deliberately and falsely yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater...but does this limit of free speech also apply to a person who deliberately interrupts and halts the evacuation of a burning movie theater? would it not be illegal for them to tell everyone "just sit down! there is no fire!"?

discuss I think there is a fine line between what becomes protecting people from the dangers of speech and what then becomes censorship.

I will say there is a responsibility to call out the dangers of misinformation. Which is why I think the notion of agree to disagree on important topics is incredibly dangerous.

It's okay to believe what you want. It's not okay to be willfully ignorant to protect beliefs especially if they cause harm to others in pursuit of that ignorance. For instance anti-vaxxer rhetoric legit causes harm. This has been documented in cases and outbreaks of diseases that had been under control for awhile now.

Originally posted by Newjak
I think there is a fine line between what becomes protecting people from the dangers of speech and what then becomes censorship.

I will say there is a responsibility to call out the dangers of misinformation. Which is why I think the notion of agree to disagree on important topics is incredibly dangerous.

It's okay to believe what you want. It's not okay to be willfully ignorant to protect beliefs especially if they cause harm to others in pursuit of that ignorance. For instance anti-vaxxer rhetoric legit causes harm. This has been documented in cases and outbreaks of diseases that had been under control for awhile now.

Lawmakers and public figures breaking their own rules causes just as much harm and it makes no sense. You first should start holding the people you support to the same standard to want the other side to abide by.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Lawmakers and public figures breaking their own rules causes just as much harm and it makes no sense. You first should start holding the people you support to the same standard to want the other side to abide by. Well at least you can't argue that the protocols aren't correct.

So at least there is that.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
Most of us know that it is illegal to deliberately and falsely yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater...but does this limit of free speech also apply to a person who deliberately interrupts and halts the evacuation of a burning movie theater? would it not be illegal for them to tell everyone "just sit down! there is no fire!"?

discuss I don't think so. If there's a fire, the person trying to pretend it isn't there is overshadowed by the ****ing fire and is putting themselves in harm. The crowd will simply just push them out of the way and they'll win a Darwin award.

Originally posted by Blakemore
I don't think so. If there's a fire, the person trying to pretend it isn't there is overshadowed by the ****ing fire and is putting themselves in harm. The crowd will simply just push them out of the way and they'll win a Darwin award.

If the fire is in the front of the house, and the usher tells the theater-goers to ignore the fire alarms and remain seated, then what?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If the fire is in the front of the house, and the usher tells the theater-goers to ignore the fire alarms and remain seated, then what? Well, the evidence would still be in the smoke and heat and they'll be a fire exit anyway.

Originally posted by Blakemore
I don't think so. If there's a fire, the person trying to pretend it isn't there is overshadowed by the ****ing fire and is putting themselves in harm. The crowd will simply just push them out of the way and they'll win a Darwin award.

don't know why you're scripting the whole situation unrealistically, but anyway...


most theater fires start out of view of the patrons. unless they see/small fire (which they probably won't), it's all down to trust. if yelling "there is no fire" is legal, then should it also be legal to lie and tell "fire"? imho it's far worse to risk burning other people alive than it is to risk public trampling.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
don't know why you're scripting the whole situation unrealistically, but anyway...


most theater fires start out of view of the patrons. unless they see/small fire (which they probably won't), it's all down to trust. if yelling "there is no fire" is legal, then should it also be legal to lie and tell "fire"? imho it's far worse to risk burning other people alive than it is to risk public trampling. I guess. If they were found to be bullshitting, they'll rightfully get fined for terrorism.

Yeah, they're protected in spouting their potentially dangerous blabbering. Should they be though is another issue.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, they're protected in spouting their potentially dangerous blabbering. Should they be though is another issue. No one's stopping them, it's the context as to why they're doing the thing in question. If the intent is malicious, they've committed a crime.

Originally posted by Blakemore
No one's stopping them, it's the context as to why they're doing the thing in question. If the intent is malicious, they've committed a crime.

The intent is irrelevant, it is the effects that matter. If someone lies about a fire for the lulz, the intent is not malicious, but the effect is the same. It is why pretending to be a fascist or a racist or what have you is indistinguishable from actually being one. People do not have insight into the operation of your mind, they can only judge your beliefs by what you say and do.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The intent is irrelevant, it is the effects that matter. If someone lies about a fire for the lulz, the intent is not malicious, but the effect is the same. It is why pretending to be a fascist or a racist or what have you is indistinguishable from actually being one. People do not have insight into the operation of your mind, they can only judge your beliefs by what you say and do. I've said horrible things for the lulz, and there's a famous youtuber, you may have heard of him "Count Dankula" who did a nazi joke for the lulz (despite the fact he has a Che Guevara tattoo from when he was 16) he got fined by the EU for spreading neo-nazism. I don't think it should be a crime if it's just someone being joking. I mean ffs, you might as well remove 4chan from the face of the Earth if you don't want dumb people saying dumb offensive things.

First they came for the racists and dumb****s, and I did not speak out...

Originally posted by Blakemore
I've said horrible things for the lulz, and there's a famous youtuber, you may have heard of him "Count Dankula" who did a nazi joke for the lulz (despite the fact he has a Che Guevara tattoo from when he was 16) he got fined by the EU for spreading neo-nazism. I don't think it should be a crime if it's just someone being joking. I mean ffs, you might as well remove 4chan from the face of the Earth if you don't want dumb people saying dumb offensive things.

First they came for the racists and dumb****s, and I did not speak out...

If you spread Nazism as a joke or you spread Nazism for real, the net result is still spreading Nazism. Hence, why the intent does not really matter if the effect is the same.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you spread Nazism as a joke or you spread Nazism for real, the net result is still spreading Nazism. Hence, why the intent does not really matter if the effect is the same. Bingo!

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you spread Nazism as a joke or you spread Nazism for real, the net result is still spreading Nazism. Hence, why the intent does not really matter if the effect is the same. But he wasn't spreading nazism, he even states in the video that he's not racist and just wanted to piss off his gf by pretending their dog was a nazi because she kept saying how cute her dog was by raising it's paw - so he pretended it was a nazi salute. He even apologised and obviously wasn't spreading hate, but still got fined.

It's like saying violent video games are promoting violence. They're not.

Originally posted by Blakemore
But he wasn't spreading nazism, he even states in the video that he's not racist and just wanted to piss off his gf by pretending their dog was a nazi because she kept saying how cute her dog was by raising it's paw - so he pretended it was a nazi salute. He even apologised and obviously wasn't spreading hate, but still got fined.

It's like saying violent video games are promoting violence. They're not.
Especially video games that allow you to play as a Nazi. Anyone who makes or plays such games should be thrown into jail for no less than 25 years!

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Especially video games that allow you to play as a Nazi. Anyone who makes or plays such games should be thrown into jail for no less than 25 years! Exactly! I used to play Dungeon Keeper as a kid. I don't torture mistresses or slap imps.

Well, I did in the game. lol

To answer the original question: yes they are protected.

Anyone saying it isn't: you are wrong, so do better

Originally posted by Blakemore
But he wasn't spreading nazism, he even states in the video that he's not racist and just wanted to piss off his gf by pretending their dog was a nazi because she kept saying how cute her dog was by raising it's paw - so he pretended it was a nazi salute. He even apologised and obviously wasn't spreading hate, but still got fined.

It's like saying violent video games are promoting violence. They're not.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I guess he learned a valuable lesson about being responsible with his speech.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I guess he learned a valuable lesson about being responsible with his speech. You could look at it that way, but I feel uncomfortable about treating ignorance equally to hatred.

Originally posted by Blakemore
You could look at it that way, but I feel uncomfortable about treating ignorance equally to hatred.

Wether a motorist kills a pedestrian through negligence or malice, the pedestrian is no less dead.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Wether a motorist kills a pedestrian through negligence or malice, the pedestrian is no less dead. Manslaughter and murder are treated as different things entirely, as it should be.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I guess he learned a valuable lesson about being responsible with his speech.

Thinks people should be punished for jokes, how very democrat of you.

Backfire makes a good post.

Originally posted by Surtur
To answer the original question: yes they are protected.

Anyone saying it isn't: you are wrong, so do better

Originally posted by Blakemore
Manslaughter and murder are treated as different things entirely, as it should be.

They are not entirely different things at all. They are the same thing by a matter of degrees.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Thinks people should be punished for jokes, how very democrat of you.

Why do you hate law and order?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
They are not entirely different things at all. They are the same thing by a matter of degrees. Irresponsibility is not malice, dude.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Wow, that sounds a lot like consequences. Okay, I see where this is going. Governments in Europe and elsewhere have orchestrated lockdowns where businesses are forced to close down or wear masks and protective plastic due to the virus spreading through the mouth and nose via airborn travel, like all viruses. I've seen the same people wearing the masks behind the barriers, you'd think they shouldn't bother right? No, it's because they're taking the precaution that they're still around. It's a pandemic. Nurses were getting sick and catching the virus before serious precautions were taking place. I think anti-virus protests are putting other people lives at risk and spreading misinformation and something should be done to prevent them. Trump's nonsense about how he shouldn't wear a mask only to get the virus and give it to his son speaks volumes, but it's ok because not only can he afford the best healthcare available, he's the goddamn president.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Okay, I see where this is going.

They want the ability to suppress speech they deem offensive. That is where this is going, though they will not admit it.



Any protest where everyone isn't social distancing and wearing masks puts people at risk according to the experts.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Irresponsibility is not malice, dude.

Are those people still dead regardless, or nah?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Are those people still dead regardless, or nah? Yes, and manslaughter is a crime and warrents punishment! Murder, however, is not only killing a person, it's out of madness. It's a much bigger crime and in some cases, incurable. But this case https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40478679 is hardly the same tier as Jeffry Dahmer.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Yes, and manslaughter is a crime and warrents punishment! Murder, however, is not only killing a person, it's out of madness. It's a much bigger crime and in some cases, incurable. But this case https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40478679 is hardly the same tier as Jeffry Dahmer.

Yet, regardless of intent, people are still dead. So it is almost like intent does not effect outcomes, only matters in the context of punishment. Thanks for agreeing.

Judges can and have used intention when handing out the minimums or maximums in sentencing . eg say the convicted is looking at anywhere between 10-20 years for *crime*, the judge may hand out the minimum allowed if it came out during the trial that the accused lacked malice or had intended for something else when the crime happened.

Though as you said, dead is still dead when it comes to that.

Originally posted by Robtard
Judges can and have used intention when handing out the minimums or maximums in sentencing . eg say the convicted is looking at anywhere between 10-20 years for *crime*, the judge may hand out the minimum allowed if it came out during the trial that the accused lacked malice or had intended for something else when the crime happened.

Though as you said, dead is still dead when it comes to that.

Right. Dead is dead. The intention does not change that. It only matters in the context of punishment.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet, regardless of intent, people are still dead. So it is almost like intent does not effect outcomes, only matters in the context of punishment. Thanks for agreeing. I've been saying that the whole time. I don't get your point. Are you saying we should punish stupidity?

Originally posted by Blakemore
I've been saying that the whole time. I don't get your point. Are you saying we should punish stupidity?

No, it is not. You initially argued that people should not be punished for an offense if they did not have ill-intent. I argued that people should be punished for an offense regardless, and their intent should only be considered when determining the severity of said punishment. I supported that reasoning by illustrating to you that if you kill someone, they are no less dead whether it was an accident or on purpose. The intent only matters in determining what that punishment should be. Your argument was effectively that intent should determine whether there should be punishment at all.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, it is not. You initially argued that people should not be punished for an offense if they did not have ill-intent. I argued that people should be punished for an offense regardless, and their intent should only be considered when determining the severity of said punishment. I supported that reasoning by illustrating to you that if you kill someone, they are no less dead whether it was an accident or on purpose. The intent only matters in determining what that punishment should be. Your argument was effectively that intent should determine whether there should be punishment at all. Well, I'm sorry if it came across that way. That was not my intention.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Why do you hate law and order?

Why do you hate jokes?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Why do you hate jokes?

I only hate jokes that are not funny.

So, you think people should be punished if you don't like their jokes. how very democrat of you.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So, you think people should be punished if you don't like their jokes. how very democrat of you.

I do not make the laws in the UK. He has lived there his entire life. He should have known better. It is really not my problem.

Nobody said you made the laws, try and keep up with the conversation.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Nobody said you made the laws, try and keep up with the conversation.

Then why should I be accountable for them? Try and keep up.

Nobody said you should be accountable for the laws. again, try and keep up.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Nobody said you should be accountable for the laws. again, try and keep up.

Try again:

Originally posted by Silent Master
So, you think people should be punished if you don't like their jokes. how very democrat of you.

That doesn't say you should be held accountable for the laws, just that you agree with them. try and keep up.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I do not make the laws in the UK. He has lived there his entire life. He should have known better. It is really not my problem. Technically Scotland has a different, stricter law system to England and Wales for whatever reason. Ie. you're more likely to be questioned by the police, punished and serve a harsher sentence there. Don't ask me why, I don't have the faintest idea.

Silent master going full reeeeeetard in this thread

LOL!

Originally posted by Silent Master
That doesn't say you should be held accountable for the laws, just that you agree with them. try and keep up.

Where did I say I agree with them? It seems to me that I only said he knew what the law was, broke it anyway, and should accept the consequences for it. You know, like a person who believes in personal responsibility. Unlike you who evidently hates law and order, because he whines when law-breakers are punished from breaking the law, when he agrees with the law-breaker or disagrees with the law. Rules for thee, but no for me, is your motto.

If you don't agree with the law, just say so. Watch, it's easy.

It's a stupid law.

So you hate law and order. Got it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you spread Nazism as a joke or you spread Nazism for real, the net result is still spreading Nazism. Hence, why the intent does not really matter if the effect is the same.

So should anyone who's every wrote, directed or starred in a movie about WW2 be prosecuted for spreading Naziism?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So should anyone who's every wrote, directed or starred in a movie about WW2 be prosecuted for spreading Naziism? Or the writer of Father Ted.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
So you hate law and order. Got it.

So, you agree with the anti-free speech law?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So should anyone who's every wrote, directed or starred in a movie about WW2 be prosecuted for spreading Naziism?

Is that spreading Nazism?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So, you agree with the anti-free speech law?

So you agree with breaking laws you do not agree with?

Yeah here is the thing: you guys will not be granted the control over speech you desire.

Too bad, so sad

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
So you agree with breaking laws you do not agree with?

IOW, if you lived in Nazi Germany. you'd be one of those praising Hitler and asking the Jews. "So, you agree with breaking the law"?

^^godwin's time waster troll

S&M really is one of the worst.

Because I'm correct.

Speech is always limited, either by government structures or by social repercussions, and usually both. It is a societal negotiation to decide which speech is considered acceptable and which isn't. And that seems to be mostly what so called "free speech warriors" are trying to do, move the legally and socially acceptable speech to one that is more in line with their philosophical views of it.

I think one aspect that I would be happy if those in favor of "free speech" take on, is a view of not just negative rights to free speech, but positive ones. Right now there is a lot of absence of rules in the US regarding speech, but there's very little that enables speech for more people. In my ideal society more people would be able to meaningfully contribute their voices to, rather than a cumulation of what you could call "speech capital" at the very top. To me it is undeniable that Rupert Murdoch has much more free speech than I do (and than any of you do) in any meaningful sense.

Breaking immoral laws is the right thing to do.

Surely no one disagrees with that?

The whole right to free speech means the U.S. government will not apprehend anyone's speech. Businesses and people however, can. It's stating that the government will not do something that is possible of anyone.

Originally posted by wxyz
Breaking immoral laws is the right thing to do.

Surely no one disagrees with that?

Adam does, he thinks immoral laws should always be followed

Originally posted by Silent Master
Adam does, he thinks immoral laws should always be followed

Did I say that? Because according to the example, he was not a consciencous objector to the law, nor was he taking action to challenge its legitimacy. In fact, he did not seem to have a problem with the law, until he experienced consequences for breaking it. Indeed, he treated it like a law against jaywalking. He knew it existed, did not have a problem with it, and flouted it dozens of times without incident. And it is only the one time he was cited, that he cried muh-injustiz. It is very telling that he and you only care about freedom of expression, when it is to defend Nazism.

Originally posted by Blakemore
But he wasn't spreading nazism, he even states in the video that he's not racist and just wanted to piss off his gf by pretending their dog was a nazi because she kept saying how cute her dog was by raising it's paw - so he pretended it was a nazi salute. He even apologised and obviously wasn't spreading hate, but still got fined.

It's like saying violent video games are promoting violence. They're not. Whoa, xyz actually doing some shit where he stands up for moderate stuff the KMC Left goes hard auth-left nazbol on. Good on you, man. Seriously.

Originally posted by Scribble
Whoa, xyz actually doing some shit where he stands up for moderate stuff the KMC Left goes hard auth-left nazbol on. Good on you, man. Seriously.

I was shocked too.

It's also sad as f*ck someone was pathetic enough xyz needed to point out the context of the nazi dog thing.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Is that spreading Nazism?

More so than Count Dankula's crappy joke.

Originally posted by Scribble
Whoa, xyz actually doing some shit where he stands up for moderate stuff the KMC Left goes hard auth-left nazbol on. Good on you, man. Seriously. Originally posted by Surtur
I was shocked too.

It's also sad as f*ck someone was pathetic enough xyz needed to point out the context of the nazi dog thing. Thanks.

Originally posted by Blakemore
I've said horrible things for the lulz, and there's a famous youtuber, you may have heard of him "Count Dankula" who did a nazi joke for the lulz (despite the fact he has a Che Guevara tattoo from when he was 16) he got fined by the EU for spreading neo-nazism. I don't think it should be a crime if it's just someone being joking. I mean ffs, you might as well remove 4chan from the face of the Earth if you don't want dumb people saying dumb offensive things.

First they came for the racists and dumb****s, and I did not speak out...

There's a few minor errors in that account, he was not fined by the EU, he was fined by a Scottish Sheriff, based on a Scottish and English law, with the fine upheld by the Scottish High Court.

The text of the law he broke reads:



The basis of the fine, and the ultimate upholding of said fine, is based on the menacing character of the video, which the sheriff and courts found to be threatening to the Jewish community, particularly the repeated usage of nazi imagery with the shouting of the phrases "gas the Jews" and "Sieg Heil", while not seeing it as mainly aimed at his girlfriend, which is what the defense argued.

Now, I personally do not agree with this fine, and it does seem like it was in part upheld because of the incompetent way the defense argued the case. But I also don't think the reaction to it was warranted. To me it didn't seem like a deep threat to freedom of expression, and I was unsettled by the outpouring of support from actual far right, white supremacist and neo-nazi fringe groups.

The man himself of course made out quite well from the whole situation, his increased income from supporters and subsequent fame vastly superseding the fine and costs. But that's really neither here nor there.

If you are interested you can read the full judgment here.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2019hcjac13.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Originally posted by Artol
There's a few minor errors in that account, he was not fined by the EU, he was fined by a Scottish Sheriff, based on a Scottish and English law, with the fine upheld by the Scottish High Court.

The text of the law he broke reads:



The basis of the fine, and the ultimate upholding of said fine, is based on the menacing character of the video, which the sheriff and courts found to be threatening to the Jewish community, particularly the repeated usage of nazi imagery with the shouting of the phrases "gas the Jews" and "Sieg Heil", while not seeing it as mainly aimed at his girlfriend, which is what the defense argued.

Now, I personally do not agree with this fine, and it does seem like it was in part upheld because of the incompetent way the defense argued the case. But I also don't think the reaction to it was warranted. To me it didn't seem like a deep threat to freedom of expression, and I was unsettled by the outpouring of support from actual far right, white supremacist and neo-nazi fringe groups.

The man himself of course made out quite well from the whole situation, his increased income from supporters and subsequent fame vastly superseding the fine and costs. But that's really neither here nor there.

If you are interested you can read the full judgment here.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2019hcjac13.pdf?sfvrsn=0 He did not break that law. He was obviously joking and having a laugh.

I went grocery shopping today without a mask. I didn't get asked to wear one by shoppers or staff, and didn't even get a mean look.

That' surprising.

Yeah, I wouldn't dare do that because I know I'd get sent out.

Only one store does that here, and its only the Uppity Rich People store that does it. Phuck the Mask Health Nazis.

Originally posted by Badabing
I went grocery shopping today without a mask. I didn't get asked to wear one by shoppers or staff, and didn't even get a mean look.

With 90+% of people wearing masks and still hitting record numbers of deaths and new cases, you have to wonder why people think masks are useful.

Masks Save Lives....if you are a moron.

The CDC recently came out with a study on mask mandates in Kansas (where mandates differed on a county by county bases). According to them the findings indicate that mask mandates are effective in controlling the spread of this particular virus.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm

Originally posted by Artol
The CDC recently came out with a study on mask mandates in Kansas (where mandates differed on a county by county bases). According to them the findings indicate that mask mandates are effective in controlling the spread of this particular virus.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm

I read about this.

Poorly designed study. As the Dutch study pointed out, these studies always fail to control for other factors involved which have stronger influences on new cases.

When you do control for those factors and finally isolate the mask-wearing portions of the variables, the differences disappear and we get no statistically significant result from mask-wearing.

Primarily, missing from the study is field-observations to verify mask-wearing adherence and self-report mask wearing frequency.

Also in the study: the "mask mandated" counties were a minority of the counties but comprised a majority of the population. Meaning, this was a rural vs. urban and surburban comparison. We know from case counts and timeline trends, rural areas lagged behind urban areas. So they didn't even make a proper temporal apples to apples comparison. I can't take credit for being smart enough to point out this trend: this is also a criticism of studies like these from other researchers.

The best research into mask wearing is in the face (pun intended) of no mandates and no other policies being followed to isolate the mask-wearing efficacy. When those studies are done, that's when you see the benefits disappear. When every single controlled study shows mask offer no stastitical benefit compared to no masks, you have to wonder what they are really measuring in these poorly designed studies. Are they measuring human behavior with masks? Do humans naturally socially distance more when they are wearing masks like some sort of behavioral placebo that actual results in something better? In which case, masks should be supported for this reason alone. Even if they don't work, if they cause humans to subconsciously socially distance better, that's good enough.


But, back to the study:

+


So by the end of the study period:
16 cases per 100,000 among mandated counties
12 per 100,000 among nonmandated counties.


Uh-huh.

No mention of the non-mandated countries comprising almost all the rural counties. No emphasis on rural counties still having fewer cases per 100,000 compared to the mask-mandated counties. Only a focus the percentage changes in cases per 100,000. Hmmm...seems odd, don't you think?

Look at the "Figure." It shows a massive uptick in cases in the mask mandated counties shortly after the mask-mandate went in place. This is a trend we have seen in other studies. Why didn't this study point that out?

If you go back and look at the "mandated masks" counties, you see a much different picture:

Here are a list of all those counties:

Allen, Atchison, Bourbon, Crawford, Dickinson, Douglas, Franklin, Geary, Gove, Harvey, Jewell, Johnson, Mitchell, Montgomery, Morris, Pratt, Reno, Republic, Saline, Scott, Sedgwick, Shawnee, Stanton and Wyandotte.

Are them are in the "severe red" category for cases per 100,000.

Let's see them plot their data (it's simply an Excel spreadsheet so this is not difficult at all, to do) until present and see what happens to their trend lines.

It would take me probably 4 hours to do that. I'm not interested in doing it.


If you have the time and you're interested, you can use this data which is very amazing and thorough across the US. Multiple studies can be done to analyze this data if they want to determine how policy worked:

https://covidactnow.org/us/ks/county/allen_county?s=1401377

Contrary to that CDC study, another study from the CDC showed that people who got SARS-CoV-2 wore masks a majority of the time: 85% of the cases. The people who never wore a mask comprised 3.9% of the cases:

Originally posted by dadudemon
CDC just published some research on how got the coronavirus and who didn't based on habits such as mask-wearing.

Guess what the results were?

71% of the case patients (people with symptoms and coronavirus) said they always wore a mask.

3.9% of the case patients said they never wore a mask.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf

The only way to reconcile this data is to determine the percentage of the population wearing masks or not. If the population percentages for what level of mask wearing also marries up to the cases by mask-wearing adherence, then we have found the explanation in the data. However, we do know the answer. During the study period, Only 59% of Americans were wearing masks and 14% were never wearing masks.

Guess what this tells us if you correlate the two figures?

If the "never maskers" are only 3.9% of the cases but comprise 14% of the population, that means they are underrepresented in the cases. Meaning, the mask-wearing group is overrepresented in SARS-CoV-2 cases. If I was as dishonest as the pro-maskers, I'd say that wearing a mask clearly increases your chances of contracting the coronanvirus.


To put it more clearly:

Never-maskers were 14% of the population but only 3.9% of coronavirus cases.

Maskers* were 59% of the population but 85% of the cases.

*I'm only including the Always and Almost Always groups into "maskers" because the "sometimes" group could vary too much to say they wear a mask a majority of the time." The "sometimes" and "rarely" groups are not represented in these figures.

bumping for retrospective value

This is such a dumb ass question. Most certainly they/we are protected. We have every god**** right to not take a poison shot which you call "vaccines" if we don't want one. No one has any right to force vaccines on anyone, period, regardless of the circumstances. Same thing goes for trying to force people to wear a f***ing face diaper.


Only authoritarian assholes would disagree with anything I've said here.

If vaccines truly work as well as the pro-vaxxers claim and they and their loved ones have already taken the shot, then they shouldn't be b*tching about people who choose not to take shot since all of those who took the shot should be protected regardless.


And don't whine to me about "we need to get herd immunity!". You thinking that does not negate an individual's right to refuse a "vaccine".

Oh, just noticed this thread was about public speakers speaking out against vaccines/masks and not people having a right to refuse them. Reading thread titles from my phone is kinda hard sometimes because the words are so small and my vision isn't as good as it used to be. Yes, I know I can zoom in and I tried that.


In any case, my answer is pretty much the same anyway. Public speakers have a 1st amendment right to speak out against vaccines and masks and that right should always be protected.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
If vaccines truly work as well as the pro-vaxxers claim and they and their loved ones have already taken the shot, then they shouldn't be b*tching about people who choose not to take shot since all of those who took the shot should be protected regardless.


And don't whine to me about "we need to get herd immunity!". You thinking that does not negate an individual's right to refuse a "vaccine".

During an outbreak of the delta Indian variant in Bradford, England a few weeks ago there were 50 people seriously ill in hospital.

1 of them had both doses of the vaccine (2nd dose had only been given the week prior and wasn't fully effective at the point of hospitalisation)

3 had been given 1 dose

46 had been eligible for vaccination but had not taken the opportunity to get vaccinated.

The risks just aren't worth the reward, imo. I'd much rather take my chances with a virus that has over a 99% survival rate rather than take my chances with a dangerous vaccine.

I also had to take a shit ton of shots in boot camp. I have watched videos from experts (who of course have since been wrongly silenced) saying that veterans, in particular, are especially at risk from vaccines because of dangerous risk of them negatively interacting with all of the other shit that the military has put in them.


Then when you also throw in the fact that vaccine manufacturers have 100% liability protection and that Bill Gates is on record saying that vaccines would help lower the population, yeah, there's just no way you're gonna force me to take that poison shot, sorry. You can b*tch and whine and call me "antiscience" all you like.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
The risks just aren't worth the reward, imo. I'd much rather take my chances with a virus that has over a 99% survival rate rather than take my chances with a dangerous vaccine.

It seems to me getting a vaccine is simple and easy to promote societal togtherness (thats probably made up.) If you want to push on it feel free put support your position through science please.

Yawn. Any videos from scientists/doctors I could be lucky enough to find (most have already been scrubbed from the internet) to support my position would be discounted by all of the pro-vaxxers here as "not being majority opinion" or some such shit.

You're missing the point though... I don't actually have to prove a damn thing, dude.... I have a right to refuse any vaccine for any reason I like. Don't have to explain my position or reasons. I could say I don't want the vaccine because I like cheeseburgers or because I think blue is a prettier color than red or any other lame reason. As an individual I have certain inalienable rights, especially in America. We are still a Constitutional Republic, ffs.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Yawn. Any videos from scientists/doctors I could be lucky enough to find (most have already been scrubbed from the internet) to support my position would be discounted by all of the pro-vaxxers here as "not being majority opinion" or some such shit.

You're missing the point though... I don't actually have to prove a damn thing, dude.... I have a right to refuse any vaccine for any reason I like. I don't have to explain my position or reasons. As an individual I have certain inalienable rights, especially in America. We are still a Constitutional Republic, ffs.

Sure, I thought that was one of the tennets although not constitutional. You prove your position.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
The risks just aren't worth the reward, imo. I'd much rather take my chances with a virus that has over a 99% survival rate rather than take my chances with a dangerous vaccine.

Tylenol (paracetamol) is more dangerous than the covid vaccine. It would literally not pass modern medicine safety tests that the vaccine had to. Same applies with huge numbers of older, established everyday medicines such as advil (ibuprofen)