Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[acowboys62]

3 minutes ago, SwAg said:

I hardly every edit the content of my posts.

I dropped the final part due to lack of clarity and make it more joke-like, and added several words to the body to accurately convey factual information.

But, I’m not sure how you could be confused as to the people that I would be ambiguously referring toward based on the commentary so far.

What exactly what factual about the statement?  It was a statement of opinion.  Unless you are saying someone like me is a hypocrite because I can support someone's cause and their rights but I have zero interest in people destroying my property.  Maybe that was more so just the next persons quoting of you I am reading into wrong. 

[ET80]

Just now, TVScout said:

90  minute covid test:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30121-X/fulltext

THIS MAN DESERVES ALL OF THE LIKES!

ON MY MARK! GIVE HIM ALL OF THE FOOTBALLS! IT WILL BE A FOOTBALL BUFFET RAINED UPON HIS HEAD!

[SwAg]

1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Isn't 1st amendment law some of the most complicated?

Yeah, but the First Amendment envelopes a lot, even when you focus solely on speech, I would still limit to only in some contexts.  The complexity is more a product of the typical factual inquiry rather than the law itself being complicated, as related to protection from government action (compared to privacy torts, such as defamation, for example).

I was only referring to the first type of speech.  Though, the privacy tort analysis is stupid in practice too.

[ramssuperbowl99]

2 minutes ago, SwAg said:

Yeah, but the First Amendment envelopes a lot, even when you focus solely on speech, I would still limit to only in some contexts.  The complexity is more a product of the typical factual inquiry rather than the law itself being complicated, as related to protection from government action (compared to privacy torts, such as defamation, for example).

How so? Is it just a litany of contextual factors?

[SwAg]

Just now, acowboys62 said:

What exactly what factual about the statement?  It was a statement of opinion.  Unless you are saying someone like me is a hypocrite because I can support someone's cause and their rights but I have zero interest in people destroying my property.  Maybe that was more so just the next persons quoting of you I am reading into wrong. 

The fact added was the word “alleged,” as there is a substantial and growing body of evidence (from local law enforcement, all the way to the FBI) that the rioting is typically the product of people not associated with the protests.  FBI Director Christopher Wray even alluded to it in his testimony (and other memos) about the growing threat of white nationalist domestic terrorism.

[SteelKing728]

32 minutes ago, SwAg said:

I mean, it was objectively funny.  I was waiting for you to hit us with the “marketplace of ideas.”

 

I'll take you're against those things then...?

[N4L]

1 hour ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I mean, we are.

I’ll send you the mailer all nurses get where we describe how to off 200k people by restricting oxygen by wearing a mask.  Luckily we’ve been planting tracking devices that also serve as mind control devices under the guise of “vaccines” for years.

Unfortunately there are still some free thinkers out there who are foiling our plans.  Their alarming low education levels in the sciences makes them almost impervious to our influence.  They know better than to listen to us unfortunately and have found the real source of truth, social media posts.

And we would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids and that mangy mutt 

[SteelKing728]

22 minutes ago, ET80 said:

But that's actually correct.

I mean, we are expected to keep the subject on topic here. Obviously, some stuff is going to be limited if we don't comply with that rule, or the thread gets locked.

That wasn't my previous point though.

ANYWAYS, how would a vaccine against Covid work? Is it like the flu shot where their are multiple different strains, or something like that?

 

[SwAg]

5 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

How so? Is it just a litany of contextual factors?

Yeah, that is the simplest way to explain it.  Also, the law is simple, but its application is not always simple, and rarely intuitive.

All of the legal analysis related to the restriction of free speech is simple as a concept, as is the legal analysis the government must provide to justify a restriction.  It could be summarized satisfactorily in about fifty words,   It’s mostly abstract law that is “constrained” by precedent that provides guiding analogies, but designed to be fact-oriented inquiry that is sensitive of any number of factors — and those factors are often intersected with other areas of law, which broadens the necessary factual inquiry, and often leads to a “gatekeeping” mechanism to pass before getting into the balancing of rights and state interests.

And, to be clear, that is true with most other western democracies.  They are all fairly similar in general on speech.  The inflection point is where those nations draw the line on dangerous speech, and their mechanisms for identifying and characterizing dangerous speech.

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 minute ago, SwAg said:

Yeah, that is the simplest way to explain it.  Also, the law is simple, but its application is not always simple, and rarely intuitive.

All of the legal analysis related to the restriction of free speech is simple as a concept, as is the legal analysis the government must provide to justify a restriction.  It could be summarized satisfactorily in about fifty words,   It’s mostly abstract law that is “constrained” by precedent that provides guiding analogies, but designed to be fact-oriented inquiry that is sensitive of any number of factors — and those factors are often intersected with other areas of law, which broadens the necessary factual inquiry, and often leads to a “gatekeeping” mechanism to pass before getting into the balancing of rights and state interests.

And, to be clear, that is true with most other western democracies.  They are all fairly similar in general on speech.  The inflection point is where those nations draw the line on dangerous speech, and their mechanisms for identifying and characterizing dangerous speech.

That makes sense, because reading your explanation I wasn't sure where the stupidity was. Thanks!

[MWil23]

3 minutes ago, SwAg said:

And, to be clear, that is true with most other western democracies.  They are all fairly similar in general on speech.  The inflection point is where those nations draw the line on dangerous speech, and their mechanisms for identifying and characterizing dangerous speech.

Clear and Present Danger isn't just an awesome Tom Clancy book that was adapted by Harrison Ford's acting prowess in a mid 90's movie?

[bucsfan333]

We'll unlock this later. Maybe.

[bucsfan333]

Let's try this again.

[SwAg]

Now, as I was saying

[vikesfan89]

I hope you all learned your lesson