Well, the state isn't saying it's safe to go to Home Depot. They're saying that since Home Depot sells items that are considered necessary, and flower shops don't really sell anything that's necessary, that you may shop at Home Depot, but not a flower shop. With such simple rules, they are inconsistent. Restaurants are a necessity because people need food, and as long as they operate within the rules, it's safer. But, ice cream is not a necessity (unless it's Graeter's double chocolate chunk). Ice Cream shops, because they're considered restaurants, may be open under the same rules as any restaurant, even though they only sell deserts, which are not necessary (notwithstanding Graeter's double chocolate chunk).
This is not true. Many government offices are shut down, and many government employees are furloughed too.
I think this one is about the Michigan executive order. It did not ban the sale of seeds. Part of the executive order says that certain areas of stores > 50K sq ft must close off certain departments in their stores, basically because it gives people fewer reasons to have lots of people there. Lawn and Garden section was one of the areas. You can still get seeds elsewhere, so it's overly hyperbolic to say they banned seeds. The point about lottery tickets is pretty good though. It doesn't look good to close some things off and not that. They obviously want ticket sales to continue because that's about the money.
The golfing one is more understandable I guess. In some states you can't just go for a drive with your family. That's ridiculous. But, it's not proof of the assertions implied by these statements.
Obviously it's ridiculous to jail people for that, and I'm not sure that there wasn't another legitimate reason the woman was charged with neglect, but let's say it was only about that. It's not exactly proof that the rule isn't about health. It's more of an overzealous belief that people are harming people for just going to the ***damn park!
Well. C'mon. It's a chiroquackter, for **** sake. No, seriously this is a problem. People still need these services which are considered unnecessary. Set up procedures and policies to help mitigate spreading this as much as you can, but if providers are willing to provide the stuff, and people are willing to go, I think it's ridiculous to shut that down. But, it's not evidence that it wasn't done for reasons other than health.
These aren't connected. You can go to the grocery store or hardware store because those places have things you need, and getting everything on line is not always practical. Voting places are ideal for spreading disease. Given the choice between voting in a booth in person and voting by mail, I'd mail in my ballot rather than going to the polls. Of course, polls could be made less great at spreading disease. Anyway, there's no connection between these two supposed dichotomies that should logically conclude with, "it's not about your health".
And this is probably the most retarded point of all. That people don't agree on these points doesn't logically conclude with, "therefore you are asleep."
My problem with the points presented in the quotes, stems mostly from the inaccuracies and the poor logic used. There's a better point to be made than the one I think it's trying to make. They're trying to say these lock-down policies aren't about health, but about something else, presumably, a power grab. That's mostly unsubstantiated
bull**** at this point. I'm not saying it's definitely not true, but I am saying the case has not been made that it is true. But I get it. The more they try to lock down, it sure feels like there must be some other motive. I think the better point to make would be that it's not better for society to prioritize safety over freedom to the extent that we have. We're getting way too used to accepting just any restrictions, without demanding justification and accountability.
