• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mask Mandates Don't Work

Care to cite any cases of demonstration spread of covid-19? Meanwhile, let's talk about poor Herman Cain, shall we? Oh, wait. You couldn't give half a shit about him for obvious reasons.
Show me a study of testing done on protestors that shows protestors don't spread the virus. I'm aware of the study that Minneapolis protestors were tested and didn't spread the virus. I need more than one study, though. For the sake of science, you know.
 
Care to cite any cases of demonstration spread of covid-19? Meanwhile, let's talk about poor Herman Cain, shall we? Oh, wait. You couldn't give half a shit about him for obvious reasons.
Just replying to your signature: Fascism will also come to the US in the form of a mask mandate.
 
Show me a study of testing done on protestors that shows protestors don't spread the virus. I'm aware of the study that Minneapolis protestors were tested and didn't spread the virus. I need more than one study, though. For the sake of science, you know.
You people sure love to try to get away with that fallacious challenge. It's the same as saying "prove god doesn't exist." So for the "sake of science" please learn how it works. You can't prove something didn't happen since by definition that means there are no cases that can be tested. The best of you can come with (which even you acknowledge has been done) is the lack of evidence which you cited for any spread. Please get some education on logic and the scientific method I'm tired of having to school you people on this point every time you try it.
 
Last edited:
Just replying to your signature: Fascism will also come to the US in the form of a mask mandate.
So, now you're just creating self-serving and pitifully ridiculous definitions of something. You're like a drowning man grasping for the slimmest of reeds.
 
You people sure love to try to get away with that fallacious challenge. It's the same as saying "prove god doesn't exist." So for the "sake of science" please learn how it works. You can't prove something didn't happen since by definition that means there are no cases that can be tested. The best of you can come with (which even you acknowledge has been done) is the lack of evidence which you cited for any spread. Please get some education on logic and the scientific method I'm tired of having to school you people on this point every time you try it.
Show anything that proves demonstrations don't spread the virus.
 
So, now you're just creating self-serving and pitifully ridiculous definitions of something. You're like a drowning man grasping for the slimmest of reeds.
If fascism is strictly ultra-right winged (or right-winged), how did it happen that Mussolini, the father of of fascism, was a leftist?

As I've posted earlier in this thread, I suspect the definition of fascism has been changed to reflect a progressive relativity. That since progressivism is ultra-left winged, to the progressive, every other political bent must be right-winged...which would include fascism.
 
LOL. Now you're playing loose with the facts because you know you don't have any.

You haven’t presented any facts for anyone to “play loose with.”

Let’s review.

Your claim: Mask mandates do not work.

Issue: How is work measured? What does that look like? No idea, as you’ve failed to conceptualize what “work” means or looks like. Which necessarily means your claim is as valuable as the claim there’s a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Your claim not be tested, verified, or falsified because “work” lacks any quantification or quantification from you.

It is YOUR claim masks do not work. It is YOUR burden to provide the factual and reasoned support for your argument.

You’ve provided no evidence they do not work. Hence, I have no reason or evidence to think they do not work. And since I have no evidence or reason they do not work, it makes sense to reject any notion they do not, and it makes sense to not act upon such a claim and advocate repealing mask mandates or denounce any imposition of them.

It is Your claim they do not work, and you’ve given no evidence or reasoning to believe what you say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You are the one claiming that a non mask wearer can infect a mask wearer. The burden of proof is on you. Name one. Just one. Not scientific opinions.

You are the one claiming that a non mask wearer can infect a mask wearer. The burden of proof is on you. Name one. Just one. Not scientific opinions.

Right after YOU support your claim that is the IMPETUS for this thread’s existence, Mr. Pot.

And as a hint, there is scientific evidence such an infection can occur and it’s based on the nature of the mask. Yes, that evidence exists. Yes, it is scientific and logical. I’ll happily post it as soon you post evidence for YOUR claim that is the subject of this thread.

You are the one claiming that a non mask wearer can infect a mask wearer. The burden of proof is on you. Name one. Just one. Not scientific opinions.

Excuse me? If my argument is “can,” then for purposes of my argument, my burden of proof isn’t to find “just one” person infected in this specific way. Especially since I told you in a prior post why looking for “just one” or waiting for “just one” doesn’t change or alter the fact it is rational to require masks based on some risk. This is how risk is rationally approached, preventive measures are instituted to avoid the risk of the undesirous result manifesting.

So, I reject your polite but illogical change of my burden.


Not scientific opinions

Lol. That says it all. Gravity denier to are you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You haven’t presented any facts for anyone to “play loose with.”

Let’s review.

Your claim: Mask mandates do not work.

Issue: How is work measured? What does that look like? No idea, as you’ve failed to conceptualize what “work” means or looks like. Which necessarily means your claim is as valuable as the claim there’s a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Your claim not be tested, verified, or falsified because “work” lacks any quantification or quantification from you.

It is YOUR claim masks do not work. It is YOUR burden to provide the factual and reasoned support for your argument.

You’ve provided no evidence they do not work. Hence, I have no reason or evidence to think they do not work. And since I have no evidence or reason they do not work, it makes sense to reject any notion they do not, and it makes sense to not act upon such a claim and advocate repealing mask mandates or denounce any imposition of them.

It is Your claim they do not work, and you’ve given no evidence or reasoning to believe what you say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is my claim that mask DO Work, for the person wearing them and that it doesn't matter how many people aren't wearing theirs as long as you are wearing yours.
 
Right after YOU support your claim that is the IMPETUS for this thread’s existence, Mr. Pot.

And as a hint, there is scientific evidence such an infection can occur and it’s based on the nature of the mask. Yes, that evidence exists. Yes, it is scientific and logical. I’ll happily post it as soon you post evidence for YOUR claim that is the subject of this thread.



Excuse me? If my argument is “can,” then for purposes of my argument, my burden of proof isn’t to find “just one” person infected in this specific way. Especially since I told you in a prior post why looking for “just one” or waiting for “just one” doesn’t change or alter the fact it is rational to require masks based on some risk. This is how risk is rationally approached, preventive measures are instituted to avoid the risk of the undesirous result manifesting.

So, I reject your polite but illogical change of my burden.




Lol. That says it all. Gravity denier to are you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is you guys who keep on claiming that my mask protects you. It is your job to prove that with something more than just scientific opinion. Masks work for the wearer. If you are wearing YOUR mask then it doesn't matter whether others are wearing theirs or not.
 
It is you guys who keep on claiming that my mask protects you. It is your job to prove that with something more than just scientific opinion. Masks work for the wearer. If you are wearing YOUR mask then it doesn't matter whether others are wearing theirs or not.


It is your job to prove that with something more than just scientific opinion.

Says who? You? Because you said so? Nonsense. I do not have to do what you demand because you say so. That is an asinine statement. I do not have to to present more than scientific opinion which is based on the evidence because “you said so,” anymore than a person insisting gravity exists has to present non-scientific opinion or evidence for gravity’s existence because someone said so.

Just because you personally demand it doesn’t mean jack squat. This is just another irrational attempt to recreate the burden for people on nothing more than your personal opinion.

I do not have to present one person infected infected in the specific manner you demand just because you say so.

And I repeat my prior remarks of why your claim makes little sense. It is sensible, rational, to take precautions to minimize an undesirous outcome which can develop. Where the physical evidence supports the existence of risk some consequence can occur, it isn’t necessary to wait until a documented consequence occurs, as it is rational to act upon the risk which exists based on the physical evidence. Especially where the risk for some can be death, and an increased risk of death.

This is applicable to masks and the context of an infected person not wearing a mask around someone wearing a mask that isn’t N-95.

Viral particles are microscopic. They attach to saliva, spit, water droplets from the mouth, and aerosols, which are also small and range from visible to not detectable with the human eyes. Some can be suspended in the air and can be moved around in a room by air currents, such as from an AC. See Chinese epidemiological study of one woman infected 9 others in restaurant based in part to the AC moving the viral air particles around the room on her side of the restaurant. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article

The mask, except for N95 masks, leave openings on the face. The virus and the small particles carrying it are small enough to pass through the openings between the mask and face. “Masks, depending on type, filter out the majority of viral particles, but not all.” https://m.box.com/shared_item/https://ucsf.app.box.com/s/blvolkp5z0mydzd82rjks4wyleagt036

That is a rational reason for both people in the hypo and all people to wear a mask. There is no logical reason mentioned as to why that is insufficient for universal masking.

There is no evidence, or argument, yet again, from you illuminating how your claim “mask mandates do not work” is believable. Your claim is literally the equivalent to the flat earth people claiming the earth is flat, as both share a dubious common denominator, no supporting evidence or sound argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Says who? You? Because you said so? Nonsense. I do not have to do what you demand because you say so. That is an asinine statement. I do not have to to present more than scientific opinion which is based on the evidence because “you said so,” anymore than a person insisting gravity exists has to present non-scientific opinion or evidence for gravity’s existence because someone said so.

Just because you personally demand it doesn’t mean jack squat. This is just another irrational attempt to recreate the burden for people on nothing more than your personal opinion.

I do not have to present one person infected infected in the specific manner you demand just because you say so.

And I repeat my prior remarks of why your claim makes little sense. It is sensible, rational, to take precautions to minimize an undesirous outcome which can develop. Where the physical evidence supports the existence of risk some consequence can occur, it isn’t necessary to wait until a documented consequence occurs, as it is rational to act upon the risk which exists based on the physical evidence. Especially where the risk for some can be death, and an increased risk of death.

This is applicable to masks and the context of an infected person not wearing a mask around someone wearing a mask that isn’t N-95.

Viral particles are microscopic. They attach to saliva, spit, water droplets from the mouth, and aerosols, which are also small and range from visible to not detectable with the human eyes. Some can be suspended in the air and can be moved around in a room by air currents, such as from an AC. See Chinese epidemiological study of one woman infected 9 others in restaurant based in part to the AC moving the viral air particles around the room on her side of the restaurant. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article

The mask, except for N95 masks, leave openings on the face. The virus and the small particles carrying it are small enough to pass through the openings between the mask and face. “Masks, depending on type, filter out the majority of viral particles, but not all.” https://m.box.com/shared_item/https://ucsf.app.box.com/s/blvolkp5z0mydzd82rjks4wyleagt036

That is a rational reason for both people in the hypo and all people to wear a mask. There is no logical reason mentioned as to why that is insufficient for universal masking.

There is no evidence, or argument, yet again, from you illuminating how your claim “mask mandates do not work” is believable. Your claim is literally the equivalent to the flat earth people claiming the earth is flat, as both share a dubious common denominator, no supporting evidence or sound argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You have zero prove, zero, that someone wearing a mask caught Covid from someone not wearing a mask. Zero.
 
You have zero prove, zero, that someone wearing a mask caught Covid from someone not wearing a mask. Zero.

And I don’t need it! You operate off the assumption that’s necessary. Why is it necessary? Well, apparently because you say so, which means nothing. Such a porous and poorly conceived approach is check mated, well stale mated, as soon as someone else says they do not need it.

And you have zero evidence and no argument supporting the claim mask mandates do not work. Right now you’re operating between a Scylla and Charybdis, no evidence or argument for your claim about mask mandates, and no argument or evidence for the claim it is necessary to have the one infected person you demand.

Yet, as I’ve said before, it is rational, when dealing with a very infectious virus that kills in high numbers compared to other viruses/bacteria, to act on risk alone.

After all, when it comes to combating illnesses by viruses and bacteria that kill at this rate and numbers, preventive measures are rational. Why? Because the objective is to not wait for someone to get the virus before acting, but instead implement safety measures to reduce risk of getting infection.

Waiting for someone to get infected by someone not wearing a mask, and thereby risking death as well, before telling all people to mask, makes as much sense as not limiting CT scans until we have a documented case of CTs causing cancer.

The goal is to not get to your asinine evidentiary point of someone getting sick, just as the goal of limiting CTs is to avoid getting to a point of a CT causing cancer.

Hence, I have an argument for the rationality of universal masking, and a rebuttal to your asinine demand of one documented person getting sick in a specific manner. I have provided evidence for this view.

Your view is conspicuously devoid of argument and evidence, and devoid of any evidentiary rebuttal or reasoned rebuttal to my argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
What has become obvious is that if all the daily testing, procedures and protocols didn't keep Trump from getting Covid then the idea that mask mandates or lockdowns can protect the average person is clearly specious. Rather than doubling down on failure, we need to protect the vulnerable to the extent possible while letting the rest of the country return to normal life. It's the only answer unless we plan on living in a state of permanent, unbridled fear.
 
What has become obvious is that if all the daily testing, procedures and protocols didn't keep Trump from getting Covid then the idea that mask mandates or lockdowns can protect the average person is clearly specious. Rather than doubling down on failure, we need to protect the vulnerable to the extent possible while letting the rest of the country return to normal life. It's the only answer unless we plan on living in a state of permanent, unbridled fear.

No not at all...the measures do not exist to keep going to keep any specific person from getting it, but rather to reduce the risk of getting it. Risk reduction does decrease the number of people testing positive.

Second, Trump testing positive doesn’t generally show the mitigation efforts are “specious,” any more than the failed argument of a 92 year old survived and therefore, the virus isn’t deadly.

Third, since Trump and those around him and in the White House proudly did not use masks generally, the his positive cannot logically be an indictment of mask use or mask mandates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
No not at all...the measures do not exist to keep going to keep any specific person from getting it, but rather to reduce the risk of getting it. Risk reduction does decrease the number of people testing positive.

Second, Trump testing positive doesn’t generally show the mitigation efforts are “specious,” any more than the failed argument of a 92 year old survived and therefore, the virus isn’t deadly.

Third, since Trump and those around him and in the White House proudly did not use masks generally, the his positive cannot logically be an indictment of mask use or mask mandates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The people in the WH are tested daily. If that can't keep out the virus then the idea that other measures used by average citizens can do so, is simply inaccurate. Covid will soon approach the same sort of infection levels as seasonal flu. Are we supposed to stay locked down until it reaches zero? There comes a point of diminishing returns and we passed that some time ago. Children and healthy adults under 65 survive Covid at a rate of 99% or better yet we're all supposed to run around in a panic. Like I said, protect the vulnerable as much as possible and return to normal life.
 
Back
Top Bottom