Lockdown restrictions to limit the spread of coronavirus are justified.
Yes
Side Score: 27
|
 |
No.
Side Score: 19
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Lockdown restrictions to limit the spread of coronavirus are justified. Of course. We wouldn't even be debating this in a sane society. There wouldn't even need to be a lockdown in a truly sane society, because people would be smart enough to be doing all of that stuff anyway. Side: Yes
The Aussies are on the right track. They work on the sound and well proven principle that ''people don't do what's expected, they do what's inspected''. The Brits tried to have road users wear their safety belts voluntarily for years with expensive advertising. The 'jingles' such as 'clunk-click every trip went pretty much unheeded.It was amazing the number of people who knew of a road accident where the vehicle went on fire, the occupants couldn't escape due to being strapped in by their seat belts and were burnt to death. There must have been 1000s of such incidents every week Then we had the public information broadcasts and visual advertisements about the dangers of using cell phones while driving. The whole campaign was a waste of money. People continued to use their phone against expert advice and tried to rationalize their reckless behaviour with such pathetic counter-arguments such as, using a mobile is no different to talking to someone in the back seat. Once the appropriate law was passed and vigorously enforced the use of cell phones while driving declined dramatically. Then of course we have the ''drunk drivers'' who are always, okay to drive. The covid-19 crisis is proof-positive that the average person needs to be TOLD WHAT TO DO as, due to their thick skulls they are incapable of figuring things out for themselves. *EUROPE IS NOW THE GLOBAL EPICENTRE OF COVID-19 WITH THE U.K., RIGHT UP THERE WITH THE LEADERS. Side: Yes
Lockdown restrictions to limit the spread of coronavirus are justified. Hello P: This is simple.. The virus LIVES in the human body. It only lives in the air and the surfaces it lands on, for a few hours. If nobody comes into contact with the airborne virus, NOBODY will catch it. Therefore, if everybody wore a mask, washed their hands, and social distanced themselves, the virus would have NOBODY to infect, and would be DEAD in 10 days Is that justified??? Yup. excon Side: Yes
|
Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Are these kinds of restrictions and impositions setting us down that slippery slope towards what's happening in China (where the government has installed literally millions of surveillance cameras to catch anti-social or criminal behaviour)? Screens at some road crossings show the faces of those who have jaywalked and they are sent a fine. Those with 'social demerit points' can be arrested, banned from purchasing tickets on public transport and can be barred from obtaining bank loans. Side: No.
1
point
Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Are these kinds of restrictions and impositions setting us down that slippery slope towards what's happening in China How painstakingly typical that you abuse the words of someone as great as Benjamin Franklin to sell us your fascist pseudo-reality where upwards is downwards and backwards is forwards. Liberty is not ignoring a mass pandemic which is killing the poor so that you can continue lining your coffers with gold. I daresay you have been nowhere to be found at any point during the last half century when the Republicans were legitimately putting the frighteners on Americans to justify their wars on terror and drugs, but of course you are here the moment somebody wants to stop a mass pandemic killing off all the poor people. How absolutely typical of the rotten, corrupt, Janus-faced hypocrites who support the Republican Party. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Not all share the same risk, tumble turd. Younger, healthy people have minimal risk; why should they have to hunker down like the elderly and those with co-morbidities? They shouldn't. Why should I have to pay the price for your reckless, unhealthy lifestyle, you aids-infected, back door delivery specialist? Side: No.
0
points
3
points
1
point
Ceding this degree of authority to people operating under the auspices of the government creates and perpetuates a culture of non-accountability and mutual disinterest. The implication is that we do not have to negotiate our social relationships by incurring the responsibility which accompanies liberty because the people we reflexively give power to out of fear will do it for us. Even setting aside the dubious claim that people in power can be relied upon to secure the interests of others, this abdication of personal responsibility is repugnant. Furthermore, the implications of lockdown restrictions on psychological and material well-being are understated in the cost-benefit analysis. It is not reasonable to ask literally billions of people to seriously compromise their well-being and we do not do so routinely. This is an exceptional case compelled by fear more than reasoned consideration about what one is justified in expecting of others. Side: No.
"Ceding this degree of authority to peo....blahh blahhh blaaaah blaaaah" Wear the fucking mask moron, just because you're too stupid to understand why doesn't mean you have the right to infect your betters. I wish there could be a new law passed that would allow me to face punch every maskless dip-shit I find. Side: Yes
1
point
Wear the fucking mask moron, just because you're too stupid to understand why doesn't mean you have the right to infect your betters. God she gets on my nerves. Just can't grasp the concept that a stupid idea wrapped in a blanket of semi-legible language is still a stupid idea. Side: Yes
I do wear the fucking mask, you asshat. I did so before it was mandatory and I've continued to do so after the mandate. I masked up for other illnesses before covid-19 to, which is more than you can probably claim. And all of that is because I don't abdicate my responsibility to the state. You shouldn't need legal authority to punch out a mf endangering people either; you can thank concessions to state authority for needing permission to do so. Side: No.
1
point
Ceding this degree of authority to people operating under the auspices of the government creates and perpetuates a culture of non-accountability and mutual disinterest. The "degree of authority" required to halt the spread of a deadly pandemic? Jace, you are so stupid that I just shake my head in disbelief sometimes. If you spent half as long learning basic common sense or some history (like for example the spread of bubonic plague throughout Europe) as you do with your idiot nose in the thesaurus trying to impress us with incoherent language we all might be a bit better off. Side: Yes
The only reason that authority is 'required' is because people look to authority to make them do right by one another. It shouldn't be required. People should be capable of being directly accountable to one another. If a social order or our species can't be that basically decent then we don't deserve protecting from ourselves. If you spent one iota of the time you dedicate to unoriginal ad hominem then we all might be a bit better off. Like, I realize you're threatened by vocab and reasoned argument but c'mon girl. Side: Yes
|
