Man Locked Up for Crime of TB

[steveh_131]

Strap them with government tracking collars! Indefinite detention! Forced medication!

Also, I support small government and rugged individualism!

People love some big government, as long as it is regulating things that they're scared of.

 

[Jack Burton]

You are relating innocent, nonviolent, never-convicted medical patients to convicted murderers.

and the medical patients don't wander into a sanitarium by accident. Nor are they disposed of willy nilly. There was a legal process that each went through. "Convicted?" No. Legally done? Yes. "Nonviolent" is not the magic word here. There are many non-violent people locked up for the good of themselves and society. Again, just because you can point to some "bad" doesn't mean that "everything is bad."

There are more than a few reasons this is not "exactly the same."

But people are being locked up against their will and for the good of society.



You're arguing against claims that nobody made. I'm not going to argue against logical fallacies.

You are not "arguing" against it because you can't.


You are free to stay on private property that you feel safe on, and you are free to wear masks in public. What is not OK is turning the outside world into a prison so that you can feel risk-free and comfortable.

And if someone is walking down the crowded city street swinging a operating chain saw with no real intent of hurting anyone but still slicing and dicing folk going about their daily business I also have the right to stay home or wear a pair of leather chaps, eh. There are libertarians who live in a dream world and those who actually acknowledge common sense. It's pretty apparent what we are dealing with here.

..

 

[Jack Burton]

People love some big government, as long as it is regulating things that they're scared of.

If you want to believe that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people has no legitimate interest in the well being of those same people then go for it. I won't stop you.

 

[steveh_131]

If you want to believe that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people has no legitimate interest in the well being of those same people then go for it. I won't stop you.

If it does, then controlling the possession of dangerous weapons in public should fall under the same regulations as the possession of dangerous germs.

 

[Llamaguy]

If it does, then controlling the possession of dangerous weapons in public should fall under the same regulations as the possession of dangerous germs.

People can be in full and safe control of a weapon and even many dangerous animals. It is very much more difficult for someone to isolate their dangerous microbes from those around them. Imagine someone walking around with a running chainsaw.

 

[Jack Burton]

If it does, then controlling the possession of dangerous weapons in public should fall under the same regulations as the possession of dangerous germs.

Little more needs to be added than this. The thought process that went into this sentence speaks for itself.

 

[hoosierdoc]

What politically privileged status does an HIV carrier have in the US?

Federally funded healthcare for one.

http://hab.hrsa.gov/gethelp/index.html

wwhich of course Obamacare is totally changing. There is a lot of $$ in that program and it used to say >75% of your money had to go to medical care. Now that they may be eligible for Medicaid or requires to buy coverage, their $$ wasn't going to be spent on that anymore. Solution: another waiver so they still get $$

 

[steveh_131]

People can be in full and safe control of a weapon and even many dangerous animals. It is very much more difficult for someone to isolate their dangerous microbes from those around them. Imagine someone walking around with a running chainsaw.

I disagree.

I can wear a mask. I can wash my hands carefully. I can avoid contract with others. I can travel, isolated in my vehicle, only to places where the property owner allows me to reside. I can carry on with my life and even my work while putting no one else at risk.

A person can be sick and contagious and take precautions to avoid infecting others, just like a person can carry around an extremely powerful handgun without shooting people.

 

[steveh_131]

Little more needs to be added than this. The thought process that went into this sentence speaks for itself.

Thank you. I agree completely.

 

[rambone]

We can't even get a bunch of gun owners away from their infatuation with forced, government-funded health care. Obamacare is just the icing on the cake.

 

[steveh_131]

Sick person, circa 2014

 

[steveh_131]

you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

unless I'm sick, then you can just confiscate my entire body.

 

[Jack Burton]

I disagree.

I can wear a mask. I can wash my hands carefully. I can avoid contract with others. I can travel, isolated in my vehicle, only to places where the property owner allows me to reside. I can carry on with my life and even my work while putting no one else at risk.

A person can be sick and contagious and take precautions to avoid infecting others, just like a person can carry around an extremely powerful handgun without shooting people.

And the person who doesn't do all of this?

Let's see. Society, in its collective wisdom, managed to solve in several decades a problem that had been the bane of mankind for thousands of years. As a consequence millions of lives have been saved since then. Steve, here, says his "solution" trumps everything known about the spread and defense against infection diseases learned the hard way over those thousands of years.

If I were a betting man I know which way I would jump when it came to defending my family and society against the spread of something so virulent without a cure.

 

[Leo]

What politically privileged status does an HIV carrier have in the US?

You cannot deny employment to them based on any knowlege of HIV even if you are looking to fill a position handling food or patients with serious health problems.

 

[spirit390]

ebola anyone

 

[steveh_131]

And the person who doesn't do all of this?

What about the person who doesn't use his handgun responsibly?

Should we restrict the rights of all who would carry a handgun in public because some might not do so responsibly?

Let's see. Society, in its collective wisdom, managed to solve in several decades a problem that had been the bane of mankind for thousands of years. As a consequence millions of lives have been saved since then. Steve, here, says his "solution" trumps everything known about the spread and defense against infection diseases learned the hard way over those thousands of years.

If you're going to make this claim then you need to provide some evidence that locking sick people up involuntarily is what stopped the spread. From what I've read, most people checked themselves in voluntarily to be treated.

 

[Leo]

I think this goes under our responsiblity of society. We have freedom of speech but that is no excuse for yelling fire in a crowded theater. We can buy fireworks but we know that it is wrong to toss a firecracker in a office building. Anyone with 1/2 a good charactor would not want to infect his fellow man with a disease that he fully understands is deadly. The guy is clearly a jerk. Behaving properly is a choice made on a WAY higher level than any standards even attemped by our feeble perverted law system. If we were not all lawbreakers at heart, 10 laws would have been enough.

 

[Bunnykid68]

So involuntary confinement solved all of the TB problems? Or did something else have a big hand in it too?

 

[Jack Burton]

What about the person who doesn't use his handgun responsibly?

Should we restrict the rights of all who would carry a handgun in public because some might not do so responsibly?

Apples and oranges. Absolutely no valid comparison between the two. There has never been a "right" to walk around spreading an infectious disease in any society that I am aware of. Perhaps you can name one. I can name many that consider self defense a natural right, even with a firearm. I

If you're going to make this claim then you need to provide some evidence that locking sick people up involuntarily is what stopped the spread. From what I've read, most people checked themselves in voluntarily to be treated
If you're going to make this claim then you need to provide some evidence that locking sick people up involuntarily is what stopped the spread. From what I've read, most people checked themselves in voluntarily to be treateI don't have to "provide" anything. The government locked up people involuntarily and I so noted with an official cite that they still had to power to do so. How many and how much of it contributed to the ending of the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people each year can be disputed by those who crunch numbers. .

 

[Jack Burton]

So involuntary confinement solved all of the TB problems? Or did something else have a big hand in it too?

Since no one said that "involuntary confinement solved all of the TB problems" I don't see much of a point in this post.