Jump to content
270soft Forum

Biden flip flops on National Mask Mandate


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

It's a bad idea, whether constitutional or not. Glad he's dropping it.

Eh I think people wearing masks in public is a good idea but since its unconstitutional for the federal government to do so what else can he do?

Trumps rhetoric on masks and the virus in general were terrible but it's easier to say more funding for tests and PPES etc. For the most part hes done that.

So I think short of a vaccine what can Biden do? 

At this point it's pretty much a fantasy to suggest locking down the country for a certain amount of time and even in hotspots I think it's pretty clear the president doesnt have that power. So now what?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is, in fact, *not* a 180 degree reversal. He has always talked about the federal government leaning on states, not a federal mandate.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, admin_270 said:

It's a bad idea, whether constitutional or not. Glad he's dropping it.

Constitutional or not? Hmm...

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, billay said:

I think people wearing masks in public is a good idea

Masks have obvious problems. They make it more difficult to communicate (be heard) and express emotion. They lull people into a false sense of security ("I'm safe because people are wearing masks"). They decrease oxygen intake and increase carbon dioxide intake. They harbour bacteria.

Even if you think that masks significantly slow the spread of respiratory illnesses like COVID-19 (and the evidence on this is not that strong), why require them in places where there are basically no cases? Why require them when in public, as opposed to in public places where it's not practical to keep a certain distance? Better yet, why mandate them at all, and instead use persuasion to convince people to wear them? This is what many governments do with vaccines, which cover an array of diseases that collectively are more important than COVID-19.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I actively disagree with most of the reasons you've stated, @admin_270, but I don't believe there to be any constitutional backing for a federal mask mandate. It's an invasion of the personal liberty of the individual for the federal government to force that, as much as I disagree with those who refuse to wear a mask and deny science. If the states want to do that, sure. I'd imagine the 10th Amendment comes somewhere into play to give them that power. But the federal government has no such power that I'm aware of, and Biden is wise to back off of that. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Herbert Hoover said:

I actively disagree with most of the reasons you've stated, @admin_270, but I don't believe there to be any constitutional backing for a federal mask mandate. It's an invasion of the personal liberty of the individual for the federal government to force that, as much as I disagree with those who refuse to wear a mask and deny science. If the states want to do that, sure. I'd imagine the 10th Amendment comes somewhere into play to give them that power. But the federal government has no such power that I'm aware of, and Biden is wise to back off of that. 

Constitutional rights on their own cannot support a society. That is why Libertarianism, and other anti-social, apathetic, and self-involved ideologies and mentalities related to it are all failures and disasters in the making. We are primates, not non-leonine felines or ursines. A social order transending, and in exceptional times, with a measured viewpoint and a full and complete empowered review afterwards (something Bush got away without, which further hammers forth the high criminal he is) a sacrifice in the rights to greater survival and any hope of future prosperity. Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand couldn't see beyond their own noses on the subject.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Patine said:

Constitutional rights on their own cannot support a society. That is why Libertarianism, and other anti-social, apathetic, and self-involved ideologies and mentalities related to it are all failures and disasters in the making. We are primates, not non-leonine felines or ursines. A social order transending, and in exceptional times, with a measured viewpoint and a full and complete empowered review afterwards (something Bush got away without, which further hammers forth the high criminal he is) a sacrifice in the rights to greater survival and any hope of future prosperity. Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand couldn't see beyond their own noses on the subject.

Constitutional rights have been expanded in modern interpretations of the law to stay fit with modern society. The right to privacy being expanded to be inclusive of the right to be able to have an abortion procedure, as an example. The Constitution is not the same document that it was. That's why judicial history is so interesting. Every court interprets the document a bit different, but it has general trends in how its viewed and what rights it protects that transcend political ideology.

I never said that Constitutional rights are ALL that we should have, which is what your first statement seems to imply. Instead, it is the bare minimum. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Herbert Hoover said:

Constitutional rights have been expanded in modern interpretations of the law to stay fit with modern society. The right to privacy being expanded to be inclusive of the right to be able to have an abortion procedure, as an example. The Constitution is not the same document that it was. That's why judicial history is so interesting. Every court interprets the document a bit different, but it has general trends in how its viewed and what rights it protects that transcend political ideology.

I never said that Constitutional rights are ALL that we should have, which is what your first statement seems to imply. Instead, it is the bare minimum. 

You are correct. But utilizing a Constitutional right to knowingly potentially endanger others' lives in a defiantly negligent way is effectively a great crime - morally and by intent, even if not on paper in every legal jurisdiction out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

You are correct. But utilizing a Constitutional right to knowingly potentially endanger others' lives in a defiantly negligent way is effectively a great crime - morally and by intent, even if not on paper in every legal jurisdiction out there.

It's not utilizing the Constitutional right with that purpose. There is no excuse to violate the rights granted within the Constitution - that would set a precedent that those rights are not absolute. If a politician can claim that the right to privacy does not apply to the mask mandate, what's to stop another from claiming the right to privacy does not actually include abortions? You have to maintain these rights even when it's inconvenient because not doing so could lead to much worse. There is no moral crime. Absolutely none. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Herbert Hoover said:

It's not utilizing the Constitutional right with that purpose. There is no excuse to violate the rights granted within the Constitution - that would set a precedent that those rights are not absolute. If a politician can claim that the right to privacy does not apply to the mask mandate, what's to stop another from claiming the right to privacy does not actually include abortions? You have to maintain these rights even when it's inconvenient because not doing so could lead to much worse. There is no moral crime. Absolutely none. 

Only Sith think in absolutes, and when they take over, they take away all rights and democracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Masks have obvious problems. They make it more difficult to communicate (be heard) and express emotion. They lull people into a false sense of security ("I'm safe because people are wearing masks"). They decrease oxygen intake and increase carbon dioxide intake. They harbour bacteria.

Even if you think that masks significantly slow the spread of respiratory illnesses like COVID-19 (and the evidence on this is not that strong), why require them in places where there are basically no cases? Why require them when in public, as opposed to in public places where it's not practical to keep a certain distance? Better yet, why mandate them at all, and instead use persuasion to convince people to wear them? This is what many governments do with vaccines, which cover an array of diseases that collectively are more important than COVID-19.

 

The "problems" you mention are all either false points or irrelevant. I hardly think the difficulty to communicate outweighs keeping people safe in any way. They do not decrease oxygen intake and that has been proven by many people. On the point that there is not much evidence they slow the spread, that is not true. People have been wearing some sort of mask to prevent illness from spreading for centuries. There have been numerous studies done showing at least some efficacy of masks on slowing COVID spread. In places with little cases, it makes sense to still require them because in case the virus does get introduced into the community, if you already had universal mask wearing, the chances of continued spread reduce considerably. 

I do think there is a strong tendency in people to refuse something if they are told they have to do it. So I am actually curious if more people would comply with mask wearing if it wasn't mandated as oppose to if it was. (I still think more people would choose not to wear it because they are fed to believe false info, so a mandate is necessary, but it would be interesting to see)

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, admin_270 said:

@MysteryKnight

Do you support universal mask wearing for the flu?

Yes..It boggles my mind that it is a norm for East Asian countries to wear a mask when you are sick but then people in the U.S coddle up and scream "You're taking away my rights" It is pretty weak. I work 11-12 hour days wearing a mask the entire time, and I'm not complaining. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheMiddlePolitical said:

Yes..It boggles my mind that it is a norm for East Asian countries to wear a mask when you are sick but then people in the U.S coddle up and scream "You're taking away my rights" It is pretty weak. I work 11-12 hour days wearing a mask the entire time, and I'm not complaining. 

But they wear their seatbelts and shirt and shoes when going into a store

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheMiddlePolitical said:

Yes..It boggles my mind that it is a norm for East Asian countries to wear a mask when you are sick but then people in the U.S coddle up and scream "You're taking away my rights" It is pretty weak. I work 11-12 hour days wearing a mask the entire time, and I'm not complaining.

If only mandates were about only sick people wearing masks ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, admin_270 said:

@MysteryKnight

Do you support universal mask wearing for the flu?

I think if everyone wore a mask in public during flu season, that would be very good for public health. This pandemic hopefully is opening our eyes to some common sense measures to prevent illness spread, even those that aren't as serious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MysteryKnight said:

I think if everyone wore a mask in public during flu season, that would be very good for public health. This pandemic hopefully is opening our eyes to some common sense measures to prevent illness spread, even those that aren't as serious.

OK. It sounds like you want people masked in perpetuity, albeit cyclically. That's interesting. Do you support mandates on face shields, goggles, and or eye shields?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

OK. It sounds like you want people masked in perpetuity, albeit cyclically. That's interesting. Do you support mandates on face shields, goggles, and or eye shields?

I don't think goggles or eye shields need to be mandated, I think as long as everyone is abiding by the face covering mandate that is sufficient enough to stop the spread. What I would say is people who get a medical exemption from wearing a mask should be required to use a face shield instead. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...