I'd settle for cook county
notice the lack of purple.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Man Locked Up for Crime of TB
- Thread starter Kirk Freeman
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
notice the lack of purple.
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
If the citizenry is going to confine someone, in their home because they are sick, with the force of the government is that same citizenry going to make said confined persons bills current while they are confined?
Catch the flu, get locked up!
steveh_131
Grandmaster
Since influenza can be fatal and is more easily contracted than tb, should people with the flu be confined to their homes by force?
steveh_131
Grandmaster
The cool thing about property rights is that I can choose who I want to be around or not be around.
Okay, so you would have a problem being around one then.
I guess there's a bit of a fundamental difference in our philosophy. If I had a disease such as TB I'd try to stay home of my own will. Wouldn't want to get infected by somebody in public, so I don't want to infect anybody in public. Kind of a mutual interest going on there.
Last edited:
steveh_131
Grandmaster
Yes, I avoid infectious people.
steveh_131
Grandmaster
No difference, here. I am very cautious to not spread even the most common cold that I catch.
If the POS has an infectious disease and intentionally risks the health of others by not exercising common sense by staying home then he deserves to be punished harshly. He's acting recklessly with other peoples health, there should be a consequence for that more than a slap on the wrist.
Last edited:
If everyone were like this there would be no problem. The man in question violated a court order to stay in his home because he was still infectious. I'd like to be able to go out and about without wearing a face mask for fear of catching it from somebody else.
So we end up debating the moral choice of forced confinement or standing by while some people willingly infect others.
Of course I imagine the rebuttal you have in mind is that I could stay away from such places. Only problem with that is TB patients don't exactly carry a sign around their neck stating they're infectious, so a person who wants to avoid catching it would have to become what amounts to a shut in. Like you I would like to avoid infection, but I would like to be able to leave my home.
The effectiveness of sanatoriums in nearly eliminating tuberculosis in the United States can not be denied. As a previous poster has stated, much of this resurgence in the disease comes from foreign travelers from countries that don't have nearly as effective a medical system as ours. One of the reasons I am a proponent of very strict borders.
steveh_131
Grandmaster
Who here thinks that the government can keep us safe from disease if we task them with confining sick people?
Who here thinks that it will be a gigantic cluster**** of abused rights?
Anybody in the first group: I've got a very heavily used TSA to sell you.
Who here thinks that it will be a gigantic cluster**** of abused rights?
Anybody in the first group: I've got a very heavily used TSA to sell you.
You do realize it has been standard policy for decades now, right? Not exactly a new program they're trying out. World hasn't exactly burnt down or anything.
Sooo... you don't want to be exposed to it, but you are more than okay with the idea of others being?
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
Probably, 30,000 + die every year from it
steveh_131
Grandmaster
So far it seems well limited, thanks to a few people who still value liberty over a false sense of security.
I didn't say that I am "okay" with anything. I just don't think the government should be involved.
You didn't answer my question. Why not the flu? It's easier to catch and kills lots of people. Should we quarantine everyone with a fever and chills? If not, then I assume you are "okay" with being exposed to it?
You'll shoot your eye out
Master
- Jan 21, 2011
- 1,781
- 48
If the guy only had AIDS instead he would have federal protection against prejudicial treatment.
steveh_131
Grandmaster
Let's talk about AIDS. Should we let people with AIDS walk around free? All sorts of even minor accidents could cause blood to be mixed. It's especially an issue for emergency workers.
Why do we let these sick people walk around free to infect people?
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
That's why you have an emergency fund, short term disability, etc. Plan ahead. If you are hacking up death germs, your boss and co-workers would probably rather you stay home anyway.
Me. Quarantine is common among Western civilizations, and has been since we figured out germs. Civilizations that don't have it suffer more from pandemics. Read up on the plains Indians. Many tribes would not engage in quarantine, even after Europeans explained the concept, believing it to be cruel to leave the sick unattended and locked away. Guess which tribes suffered greater losses, those that enforced a quarantine and those that did not.
Now, as far as comparing it to the flu and whatnot, I'm sure the doctors here can correct me if I'm wrong, but a flu goes away. Its only fatal to those who are vulnerable due to weakened immune systems, age, and those people know who they are and can take steps to protect themselves. TB is forever, and can affect anyone. AIDS is not so easily transmitted, but think of how different the world might be if a quarantine had been enforced decades ago. Close to 2 million people die a year, some 35 million people are carriers, some 3.5 million babies are born with it globally. Seems like if we could have nipped that in the bud early on, it'd have paid off big time in terms of human suffering. I have no idea if that would have been feasible, if there were tests and an understanding of what we were dealing with before it became too widespread, but for a hypothetical let's say you figured out that 500 people had the virus and knew the future millions of deaths it would cause. Would a quarantine not be logical? Would it not be ethical?
There's a law in most states that says you can't intentionally spread it. What's the difference?
http://www.thebody.com/content/art6936.html
Disposable Heart
Grandmaster
Intent... Had some jagov at a gym I used to go to that had MRSA, decided that he wanted to go work out (or try to). Would not be deterred. Got done flipping around the gym, THEN went to the front counter on the way out, told the lady there he had MRSA, then left. Some people just don't get what they do. He was told to stay home, stay away from people, decided to KNOWINGLY spread MRSA to three other gym people and forcing the gym to close for a week and a half.
Yes, quarantine measures should have backing of state sanctions, b/c some people just don't friggin' get it.
Yes, quarantine measures should have backing of state sanctions, b/c some people just don't friggin' get it.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
MRSA? How can that be a problem?
I don't discriminate; I avoid ALL people.
