Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal
-
-
@raphjd said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:
It will be interesting to see the written opinions...
IMHO: The state-wide mask mandates are overreach, but the local ones are not. If the virus is "run amok" in a community, they should have the power and authority to mandate children wear masks (or close the schools) as an "order of protection"... But unless you're talking about Rhode Island, STATES are too big (and the whole country is by an order of magnitude too big) to be making these decisions...
When the Trump Administration shut down the economy in the early days of the pandemic, we saw large areas of the country - almost untouched, as-yet, by COVID-19 - having to shut down and "hide" from a threat that wasn't there yet! It was a knee-jerk decision - and not one I opposed at the time! I fully admit to hindsight being 20-20!
But I believe that this early overreaction is, in part, what led much of rural America to believe that COVID-19 wasn't so bad, or was a HOAX to begin with!
I'm a believer in empowering local governments to do what's right for their own communities, with larger jurisdictions coming into play (like states and the federal government) when coordination and uniformity are required. Masks in schools does not require that...
Thus, I am just as opposed to my State's Governor's Executive Order prohibiting mask mandates as I am of the PA Governor's order requiring them!
In my view, local School Boards need to be making these calls - and in some areas, individual school Principals! Most States are FAR TOO BIG to be making these sweeping COVID response requirements, when different communities are seeing different situations!
Finally: this opinion should not be conflated with my belief that certain people can, and should, be required to be vaccinated (including COVID-19), depending on many factors - including their jobs!
-
@bi4smooth
You are not following the science.Children have a zero percent chance of dying from Covid 19.
The studies that prove anything less then a N95 mask does nothing to stop the virus.
The socialization and mental health harm to children forced to wear masks.
-
@geobear40 said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:
@bi4smooth
You are not following the science.Children have a zero percent chance of dying from Covid 19.
FALSE
The studies that prove anything less then a N95 mask does nothing to stop the virus.
FALSE
The socialization and mental health harm to children forced to wear masks.
NOT SHOWN (I can't say FALSE here, because there haven't been any real studies... what HAS been shown is that the remote-learning experiment of 2020 was a colossal failure - few children were able to learn much of anything over zoom classrooms, and the vast majority essentially lost the year.)
IMHO, if the local area is in a COVID outbreak / hotzone, the local schools and/or school board should be allowed to require students and staff to wear masks.
The point of agreement here is that STATE-WIDE mandates - EITHER WAY : either requiring masks or not allowing masks - is state government overreach, and NATIONAL mask mandates are overreach by an order of magnitude worse!
-
@bi4smooth
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/47-studies-confirm-inefectiveness-of-masks-for-covid-and-32-more-confirm-their-negative-health-effects/https://healthpolicy.usc.edu/article/mandatory-masking-of-school-children-is-a-bad-idea/
So my statements are not false at best the science is not settled.
Again you put way to much trust in the Government and Lord Fauci
-
@geobear40 said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:
@bi4smooth
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/47-studies-confirm-inefectiveness-of-masks-for-covid-and-32-more-confirm-their-negative-health-effects/https://healthpolicy.usc.edu/article/mandatory-masking-of-school-children-is-a-bad-idea/
So my statements are not false at best the science is not settled.
Again you put way to much trust in the Government and Lord Fauci
The CONSENSUS of Scientists is that the Earth is round and orbits the Sun... however, there are SOME SCIENTISTS who insist that the Earth is flat and that the Sun circles (not orbits) the Earth...
The CONSENSUS of Scientists is that masks DO WORK to slow the spread of aerated, respiratory viruses - like COVID-19. The permeability of the mask is of little consequence, as the point (work) of the mask isn't to block the virus itself, but to block the aeration/air flow and the water droplets that CARRY the virus.
I consider the flat-earth question settled, but admit that there are some that will never - EVER - be convinced.
I consider the mask issue settled, but admit that there are some (like yourself) that will never - EVER - be convinced.
-
Just weird
-
@bi4smooth
Well then Lord Bi4smooth has spoken. Science is settled until his Royal highness Fauci who is science changes again. -
@geobear40 said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:
@bi4smooth
Well then Lord Bi4smooth has spoken. Science is settled until his Royal highness Fauci who is science changes again.Thanks for the title, but I must refuse... the US doesn't recognize peerage, except when traveling to foreign countries where it is practiced.
(Sarcasm alert!)
If the ability to apply critical thinking to random posts that clearly are false and/or misleading is threatening to you, well I'm sorry...
-
@bi4smooth
No not at all. Does Bi 4 smooth mean you are a married man who like boys? -
@geobear40 said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:
@bi4smooth
No not at all. Does Bi 4 smooth mean you are a married man who like boys?I used the name bi4smooth because:
- throughout my life, I have been self-described as bisexual, omnisexual, and pansexual... in 2008, when I created this account, I guess I was in a "bi" phase...
- The reality of my sexual proclivities... is none of your damned business?!?!
- I have been married once (to a woman) and engaged one other time (to a man)... in a cruel twist of fate, my ex-wife survives to this day, while my ex-fiance was taken from me before our marriage (by a medical mis-diagnosis)...
Since you are so intensely interested in my sex life, let me add:
- when I was married (to a woman), I led a "straight" lifestyle... as-in, I did not cheat on my wife (except in my fantasies)
- when I was engaged (to a man) I led a "gay" lifestyle.... as-in, I did not cheat on my man (except in my fantasies)
- 2 years ago, as I was single, I was open to dating men or women
- as-of a little over a year ago, I've been dating a man. Even though we're not "committed", I am currently monogamous with him (except in my fantasies)
-
@bi4smooth
Being straight or gay is not a "lifestyle" and if you think that you are still pretending to be something and not being yourself.Maybe that is why you think of the government as your parent telling you how you should live your life.
-
@geobear40 said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:
@bi4smooth
Being straight or gay is not a "lifestyle" and if you think that you are still pretending to be something and not being yourself.Your vocabulary is insufficient here... perhaps you're confusing "lifestyle" with "orientation" or "desire"??? I don't know - but:
A "lifestyle" is how you choose to live... and that means it's a way of BEHAVING. I am trying to live a more active lifestyle as part of my "healthy living" initiative... that means I choose to do more active things: like walking and riding my new bicycle!
When I have been in relationships (including a 15-year marriage to one) with women, I have chosen to only have sex with them! That's a monogamous, straight, lifestyle! Straight in that I only had sex with women, or more grammatically correct: a woman! THAT woman! It does NOT mean I lost my attraction to men - or other women, for that matter - only that I choose to not act on those desires while I'm in a relationship!
Likewise, when I have been (as I am currently) in a relationship with a man, I chose (and currently choose) to only have sex with him! That's a monogamous, gay, lifestyle! Gay in that I only had (have) sex with men (him)! It doesn't mean I have lost my attraction to women - or to other men, for that matter - only that I choose to not act on those desires while I'm in this relationship!
There have been other times in my life that I've chosen to be monogamous... as well as times I have chosen NOT to be... But never - since the age of 12, and I first came to terms with the fact that I was neither gay nor straight - have I deluded myself into thinking my attraction to other people could be controlled or changed. This is the way "my wiring" works, and I'm fine with it.
My sexual desires (fantasies) do not change when I'm in a relationship - only my chosen behavior does! If you behave the same in a relationship as you did before the relationship, then that's you - and you should be you. But I'm glad I AM NOT dating you!
Or, perhaps you are of the misguided belief that my ex-wife didn't know I was pan-sexual? Before we even dated, much less had sex, got married, had kids, adopted more kids, and later got divorced!
Or, perhaps you thought I somehow hid my NINE CHILDREN and their mother from my former fiance? Or even my current boyfriend?
Or, maybe you, as so many others - ESPECIALLY GAY MEN, in my personal experience - want to force my sexual orientation into one of your neat & tidy little labels.
Mind you - I'm not saying I can (or do) choose to be straight or gay... it's not a "binary" equation!
I AM pansexual: my physical attraction goes either way, and my emotional attraction to someone does not depend on their sexual equipment! I have no difficulty being satisfied - sexually and emotionally - by a woman (as evidenced by a 15-year faithful marriage to one!); nor do I have any difficulty doing the same with a man (as evidenced by the 5-year relationship with a man - one that ended in tragedy, not divorce).
But more importantly, I am describing ME, and ONLY ME!
I do not have the HUBRIS (or gall!) to tell others what THEY should do! While I may be perfectly fine spending 15 years with a woman, and forsaking all others - including (especially?) men - while I was in that marriage; that doesn't mean YOU would (or should) be!
I might be equally fine trading in a wife for a husband... but that doesn't mean YOU should (or could) be!
I might be fine living monogamously when I'm in a relationship! But, that doesn't mean YOU should (or have to) be!Maybe that is why you think of the government as your parent telling you how you should live your life.
You've got the wrong straw-man, my friend... I am no friend of big-government! As I've stated in another thread, I'm just as much against the NY Governor mandating masks in her State as I am against the FL Governor prohibiting mask requirements in his State! The pandemic's effects are not evenly distributed - and the best place to make decisions like that is in the LOCAL governments!
If NYC (or Jackonville, FL) is having a COVID-19 outbreak, they should be allowed to enact a local mask mandate, and to lift it when the danger passes. But the folks in Lake Placid (or Lake Panasoffkee) shouldn't have to mask up because there is an outbreak hundreds of miles away!
Now, if your stance is that we shouldn't have any kind of public-health response to COVID-19 - just let people do what they want to do - well, that's just anarchy... and I'm not an anarchist. We DO need SOME rules, otherwise society breaks down.
Again, my personally: I'd rather local mask mandates on an as-needed basis than a national (or state) wide vaccine mandate! But the vaccine question takes us back to the "your private employer is not the same as the government" argument.
The Government shouldn't be able to force everyone to get a vaccine, but your employer should have that right - even if your employer is the Government!
Want simpler answers? Go back to 2nd Grade! This is real-world stuff... this shit gets complicated FAST!
-
@bi4smooth said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:
The Government shouldn't be able to force everyone to get a vaccine, but your employer should have that right - even if your employer is the Government!
And you want us to believe that you don't believe that businesses have more "human rights" than people.
Every time you say something about businesses, I just envision every dystopian movie/book/video game.
Just be honest, you believe that businesses should own us like chattel slavery. You're the modern-day Anthony Johnson.
NOTE 1: Anthony Johnson was the black former indentured servant who refused to let one of his indentured servants go and the resulting court case gave the US (pre US actually) chattel slavery. At the time of the court case, Johnson had 4 white indentured servants and 1 black indentured servant. Casor became the first chattel slave in what was to become the US.
NOTE 2: John Punch was the 1st lifetime slave, as ordered by the court because he fled his IS master. His case is different because he illegally tried to break his IS contract. Also, in the court case, only he was a lifetime slave. Any spouse or offspring he may have had or later gotten would not be slaves, as well, as opposed to the Casor case. Punch's legal status was that of a lifetime IS, as opposed to Casor who was legal property. Punch retained some of his rights, Casor did not.
-
@raphjd said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:
@bi4smooth said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:
The Government shouldn't be able to force everyone to get a vaccine, but your employer should have that right - even if your employer is the Government!
And you want us to believe that you don't believe that businesses have more "human rights" than people.
Dude, you've continuously suggested that businesses should be treated like governments - and when I say otherwise, you (as is your most common tactic) jump to this absurd statement that businesses have more rights than people... and this all ties back to your being butt-hurt because Facebook edited (or even censored - did your facebook get banned?) you, which you claim is a violation of your 1st Amendment Rights!
Again: NO - as has been discussed recently: the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with individuals, groups, businesses, or corporations limiting your speech... it SOLELY protects you from the Government limiting your speech... and Facebook IS NOT the Government!
Every time you say something about businesses, I just envision every dystopian movie/book/video game.
Yes, I agree - you are myopic when it comes to a business (like Facebook or Twitter) limiting your speech... but, as I've noted on here before:
- YOU are the Administrator here! Have you not EVER taken action against someone here because of something that they have posted?
- You represent the business of GT.ru, and when you take "editorial" action - whether in the Forum, or with regard to a torrent - you are doing so with the exact same rights as Facebook is when they alter or remove your posts (or Twitter, for that matter)!
- That you and Facebook and Twitter have different "trigger points" as to what you find objectionable on your platform is immaterial!
Just be honest, you believe that businesses should own us like chattel slavery. You're the modern-day Anthony Johnson.
Get hyperbolic much? I'm guessing this absurd jump is tied to my assertion that businesses DO have the right to require things like vaccinations or masks for their employees.
You CONTINUALLY suggest that YOUR FREEDOMS supersede the freedoms of others! But dude, it's a balance - and that's been a HUGE MAJORITY of what our COURTS have been asked to decide since the beginning!
- it is unreasonable for you to brandish a weapon (gun or otherwise) when my dog wanders into your yard to relieve itself?
- What if I led the don onto your property - knowing we (me and the dog) were unwanted?
- What if there were signs warning of dire consequences?
- What if...???
And that's JUST the animal control courts!
But what makes US (Western Democracies) different is that we believe the Governments rule by consent of the governed... and we have put CONSTRAINTS on what the Government can and cannot do!
There are, of course, constraints on what PEOPLE (individuals, groups, businesses, etc) can do as well - but those are DIFFERENT! People have MORE RIGHTS than the Government!
If you don't like that, you can try living somewhere like N Korea - where the Government has no limits, and the leader is revered and considered infallible!
NOTE 1: Anthony Johnson was the black former indentured servant who refused to let one of his indentured servants go and the resulting court case gave the US (pre US actually) chattel slavery. At the time of the court case, Johnson had 4 white indentured servants and 1 black indentured servant. Casor became the first chattel slave in what was to become the US.
NOTE 2: John Punch was the 1st lifetime slave, as ordered by the court because he fled his IS master. His case is different because he illegally tried to break his IS contract. Also, in the court case, only he was a lifetime slave. Any spouse or offspring he may have had or later gotten would not be slaves, as well, as opposed to the Casor case. Punch's legal status was that of a lifetime IS, as opposed to Casor who was legal property. Punch retained some of his rights, Casor did not.
Thanks for the history lesson, but slavery pre-dates the discovery of America - by thousands of years (even the discovery by "native" tribes, much less by Whites) - and is mentioned (even "accepted") by the Jewish Torah, Christian Bible, and Islam's Koran... the idea that "slavery" is a "moral abomination" is relatively NEW in human history, and runs counter to religious dogma that was in place for millennia before...
NO! That is not a pro-slavery argument! That is a recognition that we HUMANS are constantly trying to improve ourselves... sometimes we make "progress", and sometimes not so much... but from that societal perspective, would we believe the same if the South had won the US Civil War and there was still a Confederacy?
-
You believe that businesses have rights and people don't unless businesses (sometimes the government too) allow them to.
-
@bi4smooth
I agree with your points but when the corporation is a way for the government to control your speech there is a problem.Corporate MSM being the propaganda arm of the Democratic party
Social media who is the enforcement arm of said propaganda. -
@raphjd said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:
You believe that businesses have rights and people don't unless businesses (sometimes the government too) allow them to.
Thank you, once again @raphjd for that lucid and coherent explanation of what other people think... your clairvoyant abilities continue to astound us (or is that, confound us?)
What ever would I do in life, were it not for your clarifying my own thoughts for me!
Here's an idea: the next time you want to start a sentence with the words "you think" or "you believe" - think again! Erase that part and start over...
-
@geobear40 said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:
@bi4smooth
I agree with your points but when the corporation is a way for the government to control your speech there is a problem.Corporate MSM being the propaganda arm of the Democratic party
Social media who is the enforcement arm of said propaganda.The political parties are not the Government. Fox News, as an admitted partner of the Republican Party, is well within its rights to broadcast stories - even false ones, like Tucker's latest rantings on the 2020 Election (well, latest may not be accurate - I don't watch Fox News on cable, as I don't have cable-tv! But, when it aired isn't the point!)
Parler is perfectly within its rights to take down posts about Trump's taxes (leaked information), just as Facebook is perfectly within its rights to take down posts about Covid-19! In another thread, we're discussing FB being on trial - not for taking down a post, but for supposedly libeling the author! (NOTE: If the plaintiff wins here, the only thing FB will do is stop explaining WHY they removed a post - they won't stop removing them!)
To be clear: they have no obligation to explain why they take down these posts: its their platform, they can "edit" it in any way they like! If YOU don't like it, use another platform!
This really isn't that much different (except that the shoe is on the other foot) than looking at talk-radio in the 80's and 90's - which was (and remains so) completely dominated by conservatives.
Look, if you want to compare "in league with" cable news, do you REALLY think MSNBC holds a candle to FOX? Ratings? Production quality? No way... but how about a different statistic: percent of the time MSM references a story LED by either cable network... you ALMOST NEVER hear CBS reference an MSNBC story, but they often reference a FOX one! (Not daily, mind you, but not that rare, either!)
This is "democracy in action" and this is also our society trying to figure out what's acceptable and what is not about a new communications technology (namely, the Internet).
It's messy... but we'll figure it out!
But the Government taking it over is NOT the best answer (it seldom, if EVER, is), and limiting people's freedoms isn't either!
Look: there has NEVER BEEN - in the history of human-kind - a lower "barrier to entry" in the ability to reach masses of people. Facebook - as a website - isn't even 20 years old yet! Same for Twitter (which turned 15 this year)! Do you not remember "GeoCities"? or "MySpace"? SnapChat just celebrated 10 years in business, and it looks as-if its "time in the Internet sunshine" has passed... who can predict the future?
I will reiterate here: I don't agree with how FB is handling itself - but that's a different thing from believing that they should be treated (limited) as-if they were a Governmental Body.
-
Your beliefs are clear and your constantly spew them here.
People don't have rights, but businesses and governments do.
