Take your shoes off.
Empty your water bottle.
Walk through an x-ray machine that might cause cancer.
Don't smoke.
Turn off your cell phone.
Buckle your seat belt.
Put your seat back in the upright/locked position.
Don't speak about violence or terror.
Apparently all these are constitutionally-justified rules for air travel. Except, we can't have rules about masks? Please explain the logic.
20 Apr 22
@wildgrass saidThe judge seemingly ruled that “masks don’t do much, besides stop droplets of virus”.
Take your shoes off.
Empty your water bottle.
Walk through an x-ray machine that might cause cancer.
Don't smoke.
Turn off your cell phone.
Buckle your seat belt.
Put your seat back in the upright/locked position.
Don't speak about violence or terror.
Apparently all these are constitutionally-justified rules for air travel. Except, we can't have rules about masks? Please explain the logic.
Makes one wonder how sane she is.
20 Apr 22
@shavixmir
No, it makes ME wonder what ties her to Trump. This was not a scientific decision it was strictly political in some kind of warped payback to Trump for getting her this job.
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
20 Apr 22
@wildgrass saidHere's the logic:
Apparently all these are constitutionally-justified rules for air travel. Except, we can't have rules about masks? Please explain the logic.
We DID have a rule about wearing a mask on flights, but after consideration and a change in circumstances masks were deemed no longer necessary, so the rule was abandoned.
Why is that a problem for you?
@JJ-Adams
The reason for that is it is not up to judges to make scientific rules. It is the CDC to make those kind of decisions. That judge said the CDC does not have the authority to make such decisions which in itself is a political decision not a scientific one.
THAT is our objection to that ruling. She is CLEARLY in payback mode because she is a card carrying Trumpite as are you so your opinion is tainted by politics also.
20 Apr 22
@shavixmir saidThe judge said that? Interesting.
The judge seemingly ruled that “masks don’t do much, besides stop droplets of virus”.
Makes one wonder how sane she is.
Ideally, a judge shouldn't be interjecting their opinions on matters of national safety, rulings should be on if a laws are followed or not.
The CDC should be making such calls not someone who likely has no medical degree.
20 Apr 22
@wildgrass saidOkay, Wildgrass, I'll partially agree with you on some points.
Take your shoes off.
Empty your water bottle.
Walk through an x-ray machine that might cause cancer.
Don't smoke.
Turn off your cell phone.
Buckle your seat belt.
Put your seat back in the upright/locked position.
Don't speak about violence or terror.
Apparently all these are constitutionally-justified rules for air travel. Except, we can't have rules about masks? Please explain the logic.
First, the basis for the decision seems a little flimsy.
In terms of the other restrictions:
Take your shoes off.
=== Stupid
Empty your water bottle.
=== Even more stupid
Walk through an x-ray machine that might cause cancer.
=== You're overstating that a bit. Metal detectors/scans seem like a reasonable precaution
Don't smoke.
=== That's fine. I'm not interested in breathing your second hand smoke in a confined space. There are smoking restriction in almost all major public buildings these days. I welcome them.
Turn off your cell phone.
=== They cancelled this one; though it was always probably stupid.
Buckle your seat belt.
=== This is reasonable, especially since most people don't seem to mind it.
Put your seat back in the upright/locked position.
=== Probably makes sense as a safety precaution for takeoff and landing. The rows should be traversable if there needs to be an evacuation.
Don't speak about violence or terror.
=== Makes sense to me. Why panic people?
The costs of most of these are low.
On the other hand, force-masking 3-year-olds on 12 hour flights was always absolutely retarded and anything that makes the idiotic policy stop, no matter how intellectually dishonest, has my firm support.
As for less insane mask requirements (like adults on short flights), people don't like them. People obviously will tolerate things like seatbelts and turning off their phones in the old days, but they obviously don't want to cover their faces. Forcing them to is borderline pointless and not warranted.
If you are really afraid of COVID, then get your 4 vaccine shots and wear an N95 from the the moment you reach the airport until you leave the destination airport.
If that doesn't give you enough peace of mind, then you're free to indulge your irrationalities on your own time, but others don't need to pay the price for your hypochondria. You don't get to force me to accommodate your irrational fears.
As for the one public health justification for forcing NPIs down the throats of the populace, the healthcare system being threatened, it's not happening and there's no reasonable fear of it happening any time soon.
Here's some data:
https://twitter.com/TheLawyerCraig/status/1516452512336855045?s=20&t=szsY8qHsSAE1er4tTqdzNw
https://twitter.com/TheLawyerCraig/status/1516808444283609095?s=20&t=szsY8qHsSAE1er4tTqdzNw
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
20 Apr 22
@sonhouse saidThis 'judge' had never been in a
@shavixmir
No, it makes ME wonder what ties her to Trump. This was not a scientific decision it was strictly political in some kind of warped payback to Trump for getting her this job.
courtroom. The TRUMP nominee was
judged 'unqualified' by The American Bar Assn.'
20 Apr 22
@sh76 saidAmericans by a wide majority still favor requiring travelers on public transportation and flights to wear masks.https://apnews.com/article/covid-business-health-travel-lifestyle-df8d9d7e46db0b9a85e29ac762a41a51
Matt Yglesias hits the nail on the head on Bloomberg, of all places.
https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/mask-mandate-judge-s-ruling-is-gift-to-democrats
@jj-adams saidI was asking why masks, since that logic does not apply to other dumb rules. Can we get a judicial branch ruling on walking barefoot through the metal detector at TSA, please? I'm tired of that.
Here's the logic:
We DID have a rule about wearing a mask on flights, but after consideration and a change in circumstances masks were deemed no longer necessary, so the rule was abandoned.
Why is that a problem for you?
The risk-benefit seems a logical argument coming from someone whose job it is to determine such things. We should not defer to the judicial branch of our government for decisions on public safety.
20 Apr 22
@sh76 saidThanks for taking the exercise seriously. All in all, it doesn't seem like the judiciary is the best place for conducting these risk-benefit analyses with public safety. We have people who train for careers in public health and spend all day thinking about it. If public health officials are wrong, then correcting their decisions should go through the normal channels like in any other occupation. The exception would be if public health officials are violating laws or doing unconstitutional things, which I don't think is part of this judge's argument at all.
Okay, Wildgrass, I'll partially agree with you on some points.
First, the basis for the decision seems a little flimsy.
In terms of the other restrictions:
Take your shoes off.
=== Stupid
Empty your water bottle.
=== Even more stupid
Walk through an x-ray machine that might cause cancer.
=== You're overstating that a bit. Metal detectors/scans seem like a ...[text shortened]... qdzNw
https://twitter.com/TheLawyerCraig/status/1516808444283609095?s=20&t=szsY8qHsSAE1er4tTqdzNw
20 Apr 22
@wildgrass
The take off your shoe thing was caused by that idiot who tried to make a bomb he took on a plane where the stuff was buried in his shoe which I think caught fire in flight so that set off the whole we need to see your shoes deal. I forget the dude's name been a few months now🙂