New parents wearing masks get kicked out of Texas restaurant

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  dig  •  one month ago  •  134 comments

By:   Melissa Koenig

New parents wearing masks get kicked out of Texas restaurant
Natalie Wester and her husband, Jose, were asked to leave Hang Time in Rowlett, Texas on September 11 because they wore face coverings to protect their immunocompromised son.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



A couple were kicked out of a Texas restaurant last week after they refused to take off the masks, which they say they were wearing to protect their newborn immunocompromised baby back home.

Natalie Wester and her husband, Jose, went to Hang Time, a restaurant and bar in the northern Dallas suburb of Rowlett with a few friends on September 11, when they say staff members told them they could not wear their masks indoors.

Wester said she tried to explain how her son is immunocompromised, when a waitress told them that if they had a problem with the policy they could leave - which they did.

Now, the owner of the bar and grill is defending his no-mask policy, calling mask-wearing an 'overall reaction' and saying he will continue to enforce the policy in an interview with CBS DFW.

Wester said she and Jose went to the restaurant last Saturday to meet up with a few friends - a rare outing for the couple since their son, Austin, was born four months ago.

'If you've ever been new parents, having those couple of hours out like once or twice a month is so important for your mental health,' she told the local CBS affiliate.

But when she got there, she posted on Facebook, the hostess asked her and her husband to take their masks off.

'The music was loud, so I just assumed she wanted to see our faces for our IDs,' Wester wrote. 'She again said something about taking the mask off, [but] because I couldn't hear her very well, I brushed it off.'

Wester and her husband then sat down at a table, ordered some drinks and an appetizer, she said, but about half an hour later, her waitress sits down next to her, saying 'Our manager told me to come over here because I am nicer than he is - but this is political, and I need you to take your masks off.'

'She said that the mask "doesn't work, is like using a chain-link fence to keep out mosquitoes and doesn't give people enough oxygen,"' Wester recounted in her post.

The mom said that when Austin was born they found out he had cystic fibrosis - a genetic disorder that causes severe damage to the lungs, digestive system and other organs.

'Cystic fibrosis is a very life threatening disorder,' Wester continued, 'and if my son were to contract COVID, he would need to be hospitalized.'

So, she said, 'when my husband and I are out, which is not often, we choose to wear a mask.'

'I informed my waitress of this information,' she said, 'and she told me she could close my check for me if it was an issue.

'Fine,' Wester said. 'My husband and I left without a scene.'

Now, though, the owner, only identified by CBS as 'Tom,' is defending his no-mask policy, telling CBS DFW his restaurant is a private business and he has every right to refuse service to a customer.

'I have spent my money on the business, my blood, sweat and tears in this business, and I don't want masks in here,' he said, adding: 'I feel the overall reaction with masks is ridiculous in the United States right now.'

His restaurant does not have any signs warning customers about the policy, CBS DFW reports, so the hostess tells everyone to take their masks off when they enter.

'So when they put their masks on the other night, they were reminded that at the front to take it off,' he said of Wester and her husband. 'They didn't want to, and so we asked them to leave.'

Tom said he was unaware they had an immunocompromised baby, but he strongly believes people cannot wear masks in his business - a rule he said he will continue to enforce.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Dig
Masters Guide
1  seeder  Dig    one month ago
... her waitress sits down next to her, saying 'Our manager told me to come over here because I am nicer than he is - but this is political, and I need you to take your masks off.'

Freeeeeedommmm!!!

'MERICA!!!

Yeah right....

"This is political." There you go folks. That's all the mask issue has ever been to the asshole/treason party.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2  Kavika     one month ago

''This is political'' that says it all.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3  TᵢG    one month ago
'She said that the mask "doesn't work, is like using a chain-link fence to keep out mosquitoes and doesn't give people enough oxygen,"' Wester recounted in her post.
'I have spent my money on the business, my blood, sweat and tears in this business, and I don't want masks in here,' he said, adding: 'I feel the overall reaction with masks is ridiculous in the United States right now.'

A partisan action based on stubborn ignorance (and, likely, stupidity).

 
 
 
Dig
Masters Guide
3.1  seeder  Dig  replied to  TᵢG @3    one month ago
doesn't give people enough oxygen

So much for the mosquito and chain link fence analogy. Apparently masks can filter out O2 molecules, but not the much larger virus particles.

*facepalm*

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dig @3.1    one month ago

Now you are talking science. Don't do that, Dig. Don't you know that intellectuals are looked down on?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Dig @3.1    one month ago

No thinking ... just group think parroting.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4  Perrie Halpern R.A.    one month ago

There seems to be a choice issue going on and all of it political.

Masks, abortion, wrong. We can tell you what to do. 

But talk about a vaccine, and hey, our bodies. 

The US is upside down.

 
 
 
Dig
Masters Guide
4.1  seeder  Dig  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4    one month ago

This anti-vaccine and anti-mask crap kills me, especially the people trying to make it an issue of freedom and individual liberty. No one has a right to put others at risk of harm and possible death, and walking around breathing a crisis-level virus into shared air in workplaces or public spaces is doing exactly that.

It's probably safe to say that every philosopher or intellectual who ever wrote a treatise on liberty would agree that government intervention during a massive public health crisis would be acceptable, and likely even warranted. For one example, from John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty (from Chapter 4 - Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual)...

Whenever, in short, there is a definite damage, or a definite risk of damage, either to an individual or to the public, the case is taken out of the province of liberty, and placed in that of morality or law.
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Dig @4.1    one month ago

I have never been so disappointed in the intellect of the average American.   This is pathetic.

 
 
 
Dig
Masters Guide
4.1.2  seeder  Dig  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.1    one month ago

I know what you mean. Hell, it's even coming from elected officials. How many Republican governors have invoked 'liberty' as a reason for not requiring masks in schools or public spaces, or even trying to ban them outright? How many are trying to do the same with the 'vaccine or test' mandate for workplaces?

It's as if they're pro-disease. Even with hospitals literally overflowing with Covid patients in some areas.

Pathetic might be an understatement.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
5  MonsterMash    one month ago

Wester and her husband then sat down at a table, ordered some drinks and an appetizer.

Were they going eat and drink while wearing a mask?

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
5.1  Sparty On  replied to  MonsterMash @5    one month ago

This has the stink of fundamentalist left wing operation to me.

A real human being, who wanted to protect their child, would have seen the no mask allowed sign and just moved on to another restaurant that better fit their wants and desires.

This couple probably goes into a Mickey D's and gets pissed they can't get a Kobe beef filet dinner there .......

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Ender  replied to  Sparty On @5.1    one month ago
His restaurant does not have any signs warning customers about the policy
 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
5.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @5.1.1    one month ago
Yawn .....
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @5.1.1    one month ago

We know what the 'stink' is here.  

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
5.1.4  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.2    one month ago

Lol.  From the guy who just wrote this elsewhere.

“I've been crushing dimbulbs who underestimate my intelligence for about 50 years now.”

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
5.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @5.1.4    one month ago

Meh, i just follow the golden rule.  

So many here treat others like shit so i assume that's the way they want to be treated.   Just like shit.

People who show respect here get the same thing back from me.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
5.1.6  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.5    one month ago

For such an esteemed intellectual, you sure have a common misunderstanding of the golden rule.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
5.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @5.1.6    one month ago
For such an esteemed intellectual, you sure have a common misunderstanding of the golden rule.

Nah, my understanding of it is just fine and thanks for the compliment.

Who knew you held such a high opinion of me.

Thanks again

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @5.1.6    one month ago

We know who has a very high opinion of themselves, a very unfounded one.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5.1.9  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @5.1.6    one month ago
you sure have a common misunderstanding of the golden rule

He's obviously one who believes the golden rule to be "Do unto others as they have done to you". It's a common misunderstanding among religious conservatives. I think they simply can't believe in a Jesus that taught “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12

Let's not fool ourselves, many religious conservatives today believe in 'eye for an eye', not 'turn the other cheek'.

Jesus is ideal and wonderful, but you Christians, you are not like him.” - Indian philosopher Bara Dada

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
5.1.10  Sparty On  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.9    one month ago
He's obviously one who believes the golden rule to be "Do unto others as they have done to you".

Nope, once again you are wrong

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5.1.11  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.10    one month ago
Nope, once again you are wrong

In your own words:

"many here treat others like shit so i assume that's the way they want to be treated.   Just like shit. People who show respect here get the same thing back from me."

That is the very definition of "Do unto others as they have done to you".

The golden rule isn't about whether others are following it or not, it's about yourself choosing how you treat others.

Only weak spineless fools allow others actions to dictate their own.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.9    one month ago

Some of today's Christians have nothing but hatred and meanness in their hearts

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5.1.13  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.12    one month ago
Some of today's Christians have nothing but hatred and meanness in their hearts

I think many are bitter and feel they and their faith have been dismissed and left behind by science and secular governments who work to meet the needs of all citizens instead of catering to their needs as the 'Kings and Priests" sitting at the right hand of Jesus as they imagine themselves to be.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.12    one month ago

Those small c christians are also petty, vengeful, bitter, and downright nasty and mean.  

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
5.1.15  epistte  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.2    one month ago

 They went with another couple, so it wasn't entirely their choice. They hoped that rational people were part of the management of the restaurant, but that isn't likely in Texas. What sort of ignorant jackdogs ban the wearing of face masks in a pandemic?

Read this Sparty,

Natalie Wester and her husband, Jose, went to Hang Time, a restaurant and bar in the northern Dallas suburb of Rowlett with a few friends on September 11, when they say staff members told them they could not wear their masks indoors.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.16  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @5.1.15    one month ago
They hoped that rational people were part of the management of the restaurant, but that isn't likely in Texas.

I do not equate Texas with rationality, especially after the abortion law nonsense.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
5.1.17  Sparty On  replied to  epistte @5.1.15    one month ago

So what?  

How many times have you walked out of an establishment after you entered it and didn't like what you saw for some reason?

I have more than once and i don't make a stink about it or try to change what i didn't like.   I just walk out and go somewhere else.   Or course i don't have an agenda nor am not a flaming narcissist that always has to get my way.  So there you go ....

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
5.1.18  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.16    one month ago

That's okay, i don't equate todays liberalism with real liberty.   Not in the least.

Many liberals here wouldn't know true liberty if it slapped them in the face and called them momma.

Liberty is easy when you agree with the freedoms being allowed, it only gets hard when you don't.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.19  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.18    one month ago

What is your point?

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
5.1.20  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.19    one month ago

What part you having trouble understanding there Gordy?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.21  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.20    one month ago

How about you elaborate your point, especially with how it pertains to my post you replied to.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
5.1.22  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.21    one month ago
How about you elaborate your point, especially with how it pertains to my post you replied to.

Again, how about you tell me what you're having trouble understanding and i'll be happy elucidate it from there for you.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.23  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.22    one month ago

How does your reply relate to my post?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.23    one month ago

(Pretty sure you are wasting your time.)

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.25  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.24    one month ago

I tend to agree.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.19    one month ago

He never has one.  Just ignorance and insults and sticking it to the libs.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
5.1.27  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.23    one month ago

It really surprises me me that a person with your "intellect" couldn't divine a point to my comment but i'll be happy to explain it to you now that i know what the question is.

You stated:

I do not equate Texas with rationality, especially after the abortion law nonsense.

That is a classic liberal position.   A tyrannical one.   You pick and chose liberties based on your value system and call people who do disagree with you, irrational.   You rationalize that a choice for abortion is okay but call a choice of not wearing a mask irrational.   You can try to justify that logic all you want but it will never hunt within the definition of real liberty.

So it's pretty simple and true in your case.   I don't equate liberalism like that with liberty because it isn't real freedom of choice.   It's freedom of YOUR choice to which i say.

No thanks.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
5.1.28  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.24    one month ago

Nah but your comment was.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
5.1.29  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.27    one month ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif     jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif     jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
5.1.30  epistte  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.18    one month ago

What about the liberty to wear a mask while indoors in a crowded restaurant, during a pandemic if they choose to do so, or didnt you consider that possibility?  You may be an anti-vaxxer and an ant-masker but not all people are similarly intellectually deficient because of your partisan beliefs.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
PhD Participates
5.1.31  r.t..b...  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.27    one month ago

“…that a choice for abortion is okay but call a choice of not wearing a mask irrational.”

So you’re argument lies in the word ‘choice’ in that all choices are sacrosanct. So be it, regardless of the simplicity in implication. 

Many  believe otherwise…that there are significant reasons for protecting a personal decision while exhibiting behavior to protect a public concern.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.32  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.27    one month ago
It really surprises me me that a person with your "intellect" couldn't divine a point to my comment but i'll be happy to explain it to you now that i know what the question is.

You could have simply clarified your "point" when I requested without having to resort to snark.

That is a classic liberal position.   A tyrannical one.   You pick and chose liberties based on your value system and call people who do disagree with you, irrational.  

Wrong. First, I'm not a liberal. I analyze a situation and make an objective analysis. Recent actions by the Texas government does not lend itself to rational policy making decisions, especially when there is no justification for it or when it conflicts with established precedent and the Constitutuon.

You rationalize that a choice for abortion is okay but call a choice of not wearing a mask irrational.   You can try to justify that logic all you want but it will never hunt within the definition of real liberty.

A false equivalency. The two are different situations and different circumstances.

So it's pretty simple and true in your case.   I don't equate liberalism like that with liberty because it isn't real freedom of choice.   It's freedom of YOUR choice to which i say.

You presume too much.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
5.1.33  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.32    4 weeks ago
You could have simply clarified your "point" when I requested without having to resort to snark.

 Or you could have simply "analyzed" the situation and come to a logical conclusion to bring to the conversation but you didn't.      That said, one person "snark" is another person sincere commentary.   It's very subjective, especially on the internet.   I think much of your commentary is snarky.   Especially when someone is disagreeing with you but i don't bother saying that most of the time because the that topic is so subjective here. 

Wrong. First, I'm not a liberal.

You keep telling yourself that.   The empirical evidence you prove here almost daily bears out that you are in fact, by definition, liberal.   Your posting here proves that out day in and day out.   The only way that changes is if you posting begins to lean more conservative but i don't see that happening with you.   Not from what i've seen.

A false equivalency. The two are different situations and different circumstances.

Not a false equivalency.   Not in the least

You presume too much.

No i don't, not in this case.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.34  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.33    4 weeks ago
Or you could have simply "analyzed" the situation and come to a logical conclusion to bring to the conversation but you didn't. 

Or you could have simply answered my question for clarification when asked [deleted]

That said, one person "snark" is another person sincere commentary.   It's very subjective, especially on the internet. 

Yeah, not buying that BS! Snark is not conducive to a serious discussion.

I think much of your commentary is snarky.

A "I know you are but what am I" type response. Droll!

You keep telling yourself that.   The empirical evidence you prove here almost daily bears out that you are in fact, by definition, liberal.   Your posting here proves that out day in and day out.

Feel free to prove that then! I think I know my position better than you do!

Not from what i've seen.

Then you haven't been looking. Or maybe seeing what you want to see.

Not a false equivalency.   Not in the least

Yes, it is!

No i don't, not in this case.

Yes, you do!

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
5.1.35  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.34    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.36  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.35    3 weeks ago

I see you're only interested in playing these games and not in any serious discussion, as I've suspected. Sorry, not interested in your juvenile tactics!

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
5.1.37  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.36    3 weeks ago
I see you're only interested in playing these games and not in any serious discussion, as I've suspected. Sorry, not interested in your juvenile tactics!

Once again Gordy you need to look in the mirror.   The main issue you are having here is simply that i disagree with your viewpoint/opinions.   Nothing more.   To that i say, too bad for you.

That said, you have a nice day now ya hear! 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
6  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

There are people in America who have not only lost their minds, but they've lost their hearts as well.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
7  Sparty On    one month ago

So, the USA is still mostly a free country .... right?

Except when a business sets a policy the tyrannical don't like.   One can set a mask mandate and kick those out who don't wear masks.   That is perfectly okay in their minds but not if the opposite happens.   Setting a policy to kick out the unmasked, is somehow a dire threat to the survival of our democracy.

Liberals who like to sedulously parrot that they always fight for liberty, truly are the worst enemies of it.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
7.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sparty On @7    one month ago
One can set a mask mandate and kick those out who don't wear masks.   That is perfectly okay in their minds but not if the opposite happens.   Setting a policy to kick out the unmasked, is somehow a dire threat to the survival of our democracy.

Do you really not see the huge glaring difference between the two? One is mandating a safety protocol to primarily keep others around you safe by limiting the spread of viruses through respiration droplets, while the other is mandating people who choose to wear a mask when not required to potentially expose themselves to other peoples raspatory droplets.

We have seatbelt mandates in every State that keeps drivers and passengers safer than to drive without seatbelts. Would you support a State that mandated no seatbelts? In States where prostitution is legal they mandate wearing condoms, would you support the States if they banned condom use just because of some group within the government who liked to raw dog it? Forcing unsafe behavior on others is not the same as forcing safety protocols. They are night and day different, complete polar opposites.

Even if you're convinced wearing a mask has no safety benefit to yourself or others, why would anyone want to force someone to take off their mask? Someone in the same room with you wearing a mask isn't putting anyone else at an increased risk while the exact opposite is true for those refusing to wear masks.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
7.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1    one month ago
Even if you're convinced wearing a mask has no safety benefit to yourself or others, why would anyone want to force someone to take off their mask? Someone in the same room with you wearing a mask isn't putting anyone else at an increased risk while the exact opposite is true for those refusing to wear masks.

Not a policy i would make but that's not the key point in this conversation IMO.   I don't agree with a no mask policy.   You don't agree with a no mask policy but that doesn't mean someone else might feel differently.

Freedom of choice and liberty are easy to embrace when you agree with what is being said or done.   It only gets hard when you don't.

The only problem i see here is the owner evidently didn't clearly advertise that no mask policy.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
7.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.1    one month ago

The only problem i see here is the owner evidently didn't clearly advertise that no mask policy.

My guess would be because it would ultimately it would hurt business. 

It's a private business, they are free to enact rules as they please. But...most if not all rules imposed by businesses are designed to protect patrons and staff. How is wearing a mask hurting anyone? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
7.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.2    one month ago

Or he could just be a prick.

Lots of those out there and they ain't all in Texas

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
7.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.3    one month ago

Lots of those out there and they ain't all in Texas

True, I don't live in Texas. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
7.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.4    one month ago

Lol ..... style points for honesty Frosty

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Sparty On @7    one month ago
So, the USA is still mostly a free country .... right? Except when a business sets a policy the tyrannical don't like.

You do understand the difference between public and private property......don't you?  On private property, the owner can set a policy that you cannot enter unless you are wearing something green.  We can call out that policy as stupid and non-sensical, but it is his property.

One can set a mask mandate and kick those out who don't wear masks.   That is perfectly okay in their minds but not if the opposite happens.

Again, yes.  If you don't like it, you can espouse what you think it is, but you have to acknowledge the property owner's right to impose it.

Setting a policy to kick out the unmasked, is somehow a dire threat to the survival of our democracy.

The survival of our democracy AND our very lives.  

Liberals who like to sedulously parrot that they always fight for liberty, truly are the worst enemies of it.

How does wearing a piece of cloth on your face effect your liberty????

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
7.2.1  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @7.2    one month ago
You do understand the difference between public and private property......don't you?  On private property, the owner can set a policy that you cannot enter unless you are wearing something green.  We can call out that policy as stupid and non-sensical, but it is his property.

I hope you see the hypocrisy of that statement. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @7.2.1    one month ago
I hope you see the hypocrisy of that statement. 

I do not.  Please explain in detail.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
7.2.3  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @7.2.2    one month ago
I do not.  Please explain in detail.

In your statement you put forth that on private property the owner can set a policy and your options are to follow the policy or not go into said private property.  So the same rights would go to the owner of say, a privately owned bakery who refuses to create a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. 

Unless you agree that the owner can set whatever policy they see fit (provided it does not break any laws, the owner cannot demand for example human sacrifice from one member of your party in order to enter). and the patron can really only follow/accept the policy or not go into the establishment.   If  you agree in total then I apologize as you are not being hypocritical.  If you however are in agreement with the lawsuits against bakers for their refusal to create said wedding cakes then your statement is hypocritical. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @7.2.3    one month ago

A key consideration is discrimination.   An owner can freely choose which products / services to offer but cannot offer/deny to a select group of clients based on criteria.    So a proprietor can choose to not allow the wearing of masks in his restaurant (regardless of how petty, stupid and counterproductive this is) but he must be consistent in the administration of his policy.   Everyone must be treated equally.

In this case, the evidence suggests consistency.  Thus the owner is in his rights even if his reasoning is misguided.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
7.2.5  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.4    one month ago

Except SCOTUS overturned the Colorado ruling and basically ruled for the baker. The Colorado courts failed to take into accounts the bakers first amendment rights. 

But I feel you are splitting hairs here. You stated that on private property the owner can set policy.  I even took it a step further and stated that said policy cannot break any laws. Now you seem to be trying to show which persons constitutional rights are more important and that's IMO a no win argument.  So I stand by my first comment, your statement in 7.3 is hypocritical. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @7.2.5    one month ago
Except SCOTUS overturned the Colorado ruling and basically ruled for the baker. The Colorado courts failed to take into accounts the bakers first amendment rights. 

If the baker made homosexual cakes for some customers but denied making same for homosexual customers then the baker would have been guilty of discrimination against a protected class.    The baker, however, did not discriminate.   He refused to make homosexual-themed products and it did not matter which customer asked for them.

But I feel you are splitting hairs here.

I explained the key nuance in this case.

You stated that on private property the owner can set policy.  I even took it a step further and stated that said policy cannot break any laws. Now you seem to be trying to show which persons constitutional rights are more important and that's IMO a no win argument. So I stand by my first comment, your statement in 7.3 is hypocritical. 

You have me confused with Ozzwald.

Regardless, I am not in any way stating which people's constitutional rights are more important.    Quote me to show where you got such a completely wrong idea.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
7.2.7  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.6    one month ago
You have me confused with Ozzwald. Regardless, I am not in any way stating which people's constitutional rights are more important.    Quote me to show where you got such a completely wrong idea.

Sry, I did confuse your reply with Ozzwald.  Ozz stated the property owner can set policy, not you. So you are not splitting hairs..

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @7.2.7    one month ago

But the property owner can indeed set policy (as I described).   He cannot discriminate but he is free to set whatever (realistically) policy that he wants to apply to ALL customers.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
7.2.9  Sparty On  replied to  Ozzwald @7.2    one month ago
How does wearing a piece of cloth on your face effect your liberty????

You sound very confused.  

In your first response you say you understand the business owners rights.   In your last comment you question how not being able to make such choices affect his freedom/liberty.

You answered your own question in your first comment.   And please, don't try to intimate that most of the people pissing and moaning about it here wouldn't drop the hammer on that business owner if they could.   Most would do it in a heartbeat and sleep like a baby that night.

More proof that their understanding of true liberty is obtuse at best.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
7.2.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Snuffy @7.2.3    one month ago
In your statement you put forth that on private property the owner can set a policy and your options are to follow the policy or not go into said private property.

For some private home or ranch you'd be correct. For businesses that obtain a license from the local government to operate a business open to the public they have to follow local, State and Federal laws in the operation of their business such as FDA food cleanliness laws and accommodation laws. They cannot just choose to serve old raw chicken covered in salmonella, if they do they would both be open to bodily injury lawsuits and risk being shut down by the local government if they don't stop intentionally harming citizens. If these parents or child got Covid after being required to remove their masks indoors they would likely have a very solid bodily injury liability lawsuit even though masks are no longer required since the establishment took action that potentially made them less safe.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.2.11  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @7.2.3    one month ago
In your statement you put forth that on private property the owner can set a policy and your options are to follow the policy or not go into said private property.  So the same rights would go to the owner of say, a privately owned bakery who refuses to create a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. 

My statement is correct for the topic we are discussing, if I'd known that you'd want to go completely off-topic I would have added a few additional words.

"On private property, the owner can set a policy that you cannot enter unless you are wearing something green.  We can call out that policy as stupid and non-sensical, but it is his property as long as his policy does not violate the law."

Unless you agree that the owner can set whatever policy they see fit (provided it does not break any laws, the owner cannot demand for example human sacrifice from one member of your party in order to enter).

You are correct, unfortunately for you, discrimination DOES violate the law.

the patron can really only follow/accept the policy or not go into the establishment.

Correct, but the patron expects the owner of a business to follow the laws regarding that business.  

If you however are in agreement with the lawsuits against bakers for their refusal to create said wedding cakes then your statement is hypocritical. 

And I apologize for that, I should have known that someone with no other defense, would go completely off topic to try and make a non-sensical point.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.2.12  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @7.2.5    one month ago
Except SCOTUS overturned the Colorado ruling and basically ruled for the baker. The

SCOTUS found for the baker on a technicality, it did not pertain to the merits of the case.

You stated that on private property the owner can set policy.

I stated that, and for the topic at hand, it is entirely correct.

I even took it a step further and stated that said policy cannot break any laws.

Discrimination is against the law.

Now you seem to be trying to show which persons constitutional rights are more important and that's IMO a no win argument.  So I stand by my first comment, your statement in 7.3 is hypocritical. 

You can stand by your statement all you want.  But you are comparing a lawful policy against an unlawful policy, and trying to say they are the same.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.2.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Sparty On @7.2.9    one month ago
You sound very confused.

Only after trying to read and make sense of your spinning, convoluted responses.

In your first response you say you understand the business owners rights.   In your last comment you question how not being able to make such choices affect his freedom/liberty.

There is a reason I linked the statement you made prior to my response to it.  You stated:

Liberals who like to sedulously parrot that they always fight for liberty, truly are the worst enemies of it.

And I merely asked what liberty (freedom) they lost by wearing masks.  I am beginning to understand why you don't quote people very often.  Your answers would not make much sense when they're spelled out.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
7.2.14  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @7.2.11    one month ago

Nope. As was pointed out above, if a baker refuses to make a same sex wedding cake for anybody then the baker is not discriminating. The baker is making the same decision for everybody. So by your own definition the baker who owns the business has the right to do so.

You stated that on private property the owner can set policy.
I stated that, and for the topic at hand, it is entirely correct.

You can't say this right is ok for this topic but not ok for that topic, rights don't work that way. Putting a laser focus only on what  you want to discuss really only means that you don't have a defense for what  you are saying.  That you refuse to see the connection is on you.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.2.15  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @7.2.14    one month ago
You can't say this right is ok for this topic but not ok for that topic, rights don't work that way.

No, but that's how discussions work.  Which is why going off-topic is not accepted.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
7.2.16  Sparty On  replied to  Ozzwald @7.2.13    one month ago

Lol .....  i quote people all the time Ozz.   I quoted you in the post you are responding to.

Yeah, i can't help you, you are very much too far gone.

Best of luck to you sir/ma'am .... whatever the case may be.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
7.2.17  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @7.2.15    one month ago
No, but that's how discussions work.  Which is why going off-topic is not accepted.

got it..   you make a big statement about the business owners rights in his own business but then you want to limit it to this seed only.  To me you don't want to discuss things, you seem to want to just shout dogma and argue. So I won't reply to you anymore as I would rather discuss things.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.2.18  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @7.2.17    one month ago
you make a big statement about the business owners rights in his own business but then you want to limit it to this seed only.

I already admitted that.  My mistake was not realizing that someone would take my comment out of context and apply to to something that was not being discussed.  I later amended my comment to what it would have been if I'd realized you were going to go off-topic.

To me you don't want to discuss things, you seem to want to just shout dogma and argue.

My comment was true for the topic at hand, YOU are trying to apply it universally.

So I won't reply to you anymore

happy-celebrate.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.19  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @7.2.17    one month ago

You're the one that gets pissy and goes off topic and then gets more pissy when they don't play your game.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
7.2.20  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.19    one month ago

blah blah blah...    I responded directly to his comments. He got caught by his words so he tried to say I was off-topic. But as my comments were not removed one can assume that either he wasn't bothered enough to flag them or the moderators felt the comments were not off-topic.  He made the comment and then couldn't defend it when called on it...   oh well

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.21  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @7.2.20    one month ago

Nope, you're the one who is blah blah blah ing all the fucking time.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
8  Greg Jones    one month ago

How would wearing a mask in a smoky bar protect their child at home?

Weren't they vaccinated?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
8.1  Snuffy  replied to  Greg Jones @8    one month ago

Yes.  Doesn't the science prove (oh damn,  I'm talking about science...)  that the mask is to reduce the potential of  you spreading the virus as you talk/breath/sing/etc.  But it really does nothing to protect you, especially in an environment like that. If they are so concerned about their child why are they putting themselves in a situation like that. They would have seen the sign at the door or noticed everybody else in the place was unmasked so it's not like they were unaware of their environment. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Snuffy @8.1    one month ago

According to the article there was no sign on the door

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
8.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Snuffy @8.1    one month ago

If you're going to talk about science,  you should at least know the science first before you try to talk about it. Yes, masks (when worn properly) prevent the spread of viruses from droplets. But it also protects the wearer. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
8.1.3  Snuffy  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.1    one month ago

ok, I missed that. Yep, no sign at the door but the hostess did tell them when they came in about the policy. The article states that the woman didn't hear the hostess very will and just brushed it off.  

Still doesn't change the facts about what they were doing to put their child at risk. I have a daughter with a 6 year old son who is also high-risk, they have not gone out to eat or to a bar since this all began because they are putting the health and safety of their son before their desires. New parents do need a break but there are safer approaches than going to an indoor bar and grill.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
8.1.4  Snuffy  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.2    one month ago

Minimal protection and if you look at the pictures in the article it shows them wearing disposable masks that are not fitted and show gaps between mask and skin. 

Yes wearing a mask will provide the wearer with some protection but when you look at the type of mask and the gaps, put them in an enclosed area with a lot of people (who they can see are not masked) and now add in the fact they have an immuno-compromised newborn at home.  Those two are not victims here, they are just idiots.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
8.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  Snuffy @8.1.4    one month ago

From the picture, they are wearing surgical masks. Surgical masks come in different layers of protection, with thicker masks offering better protection. Even if we assume they're wearing basic masks with minimal layering, they still have at least a 50% effectiveness of protection. That seems more than just "minimal" protection, and certainly better than none. The fact that they're wearing masks in a crowded place sans masks, they're being smarter than everyone else there.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Snuffy @8.1.3    one month ago
New parents do need a break but there are safer approaches than going to an indoor bar and grill.

A picnic is always a great idea

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
8.1.7  Snuffy  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.5    one month ago

Take a closer look at the pictures.  They are wearing disposable masks which are not fitted.  There is no bridge stay in the nose area, those do not look like any surgical masks that I'm aware of. They look like standard disposable masks to me. Look at all the gaps between mask and skin between both of them.  There are gaps around the nose and the side of the face for both of them, the husband's beard is also doing a bang-up job of holding the mask away from skin.  Those masks are offering minimal protection against any virus to them. Add in the immunocompromised child at home and I stand by my statement.  Those two are not the victims here, they are just fucking idiots.

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
8.1.8  JaneDoe  replied to  Snuffy @8.1.3    one month ago
New parents do need a break but there are safer approaches than going to an indoor bar and grill.


I have to agree. If I had an immunocompromised newborn at home I certainly wouldn’t be going out in public to dine during a pandemic, mask or no mask! 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
8.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  Snuffy @8.1.7    one month ago

Surgical masks are generally not designed to form a tight seal around the face like an N95 is. It's a barrier and that is its functional design and purpose. That is what is needed. You keep saying "minimal" protection, but say nothing about no protection at all from not wearing masks. At least the couple in question are wearing masks. That's something to be applauded, not admonished.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
8.1.10  Snuffy  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.9    one month ago

I said nothing about a tight seal around the face, I said there were all sorts of gaps between mask and skin. There is not a nose bridge in the mask they are wearing. A surgical mask will have a nose bridge that can be adjusted to better fit around the nose to reduce glass fogging. You want to call them surgical masks, I say they are just simple disposable masks. As neither one of us was physically there to confirm and the story does not state we have nothing here to go on definitively. Call it what ever you want, it doesn't matter in this instance.

ok, so wearing anything is better than nothing, so give them a fucking cookie.  But the couple in question state they have an immunocompromised infant at home which is why they wear the masks.  Those masks do not provide sufficient protect for what they are trying to do and  you want to applaud them?  They are fucking idiots who are putting their child at risk. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
8.1.11  Sparty On  replied to  Snuffy @8.1.10    one month ago

Masks are better than nothing but imo they can give people a false sense of security.   They filter the big particles but do nothing for the smaller ones.   Many of which may be COVID-19 infected and freely transmitted through the mask.   I have no problem wearing them where required or i simply don't go where they are required if i so choose.   It's that easy.   No need to make a big production out of it either way.

My guess is these people were looking for a fight.   Like the gay couple with the wedding cake maker in Colorado.

Just pull the corn-cobb out of your arses and find a restaurant that requires masks or makes cakes for gay weddings.   easy peezy

Generation N is completely out of control .......

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.11    one month ago
Masks are better than nothing but imo they can give people a false sense of security.  

I think you are correct there.   But it is still better to wear one than not.   Social distancing is arguably more effective so people should do their best to stay clear of others (as much as that is possible).

They filter the big particles but do nothing for the smaller ones.   Many of which may be COVID-19 infected and freely transmitted through the mask.

They filter smaller particles too but clearly not as effectively.   They are good when breathing and talking (most common interactions) but are far less effective with yelling, singing, coughing and sneezing.   Masks are simply part of the solution.   They give some protection for others, a little protection for the wearer.   But when combined with social distancing they most definitely help while we are still fighting this virus.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
8.1.13  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.12    one month ago

No argument there.   Trying to explain "filtration" to most folks is a losing cause.  

One of the reasons hardware stores sell the crap out of those 99 cents furnace filters that basically only filter out small sized meatballs and above

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
8.1.14  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.2    one month ago

Stop it with the facts because Snuffy has gotten this far without ever using them. Its one thing not to have a mask mandate in a pandemic, but its a whole new level of stupid to ban others who choose to wear a face mask voluntarily.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
8.1.15  Gordy327  replied to  Snuffy @8.1.10    one month ago
I said nothing about a tight seal around the face, I said there were all sorts of gaps between mask and skin.

You do realize that gaps between the mask and skin means there is not a tight seal, right? I pointed out that surgical masks generally do not form a tight seal.

There is not a nose bridge in the mask they are wearing. A surgical mask will have a nose bridge that can be adjusted to better fit around the nose to reduce glass fogging.

Look closer! There is a strip built into the mask to form better around the nose.

You want to call them surgical masks, I say they are just simple disposable masks.

They are both. Surgical masks are meant to be disposable. And different types of surgical masks are made of different fabrics or layers. What do you think the difference is between "simple" masks and surgical masks?

ok, so wearing anything is better than nothing,

Glad you finally acknowledge that masks offer protection, after your erroneous statement that masks "really does nothing to protect you," which is what I was pointing out. 

Those masks do not provide sufficient protect for what they are trying to do

So you say that erroneous statement again after saying it's better than nothing. Make up your mind.

and  you want to applaud them?

Yes! They're smart enough to wear masks in a public place, which no one else seems to be doing.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
8.1.16  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @8.1.14    one month ago
but its a whole new level of stupid to ban others who choose to wear a face mask voluntarily.

There's an understatement.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
8.1.17  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.11    one month ago
Masks are better than nothing but imo they can give people a false sense of security.  

Possibly. I have little doubt some people think wearing masks is an appropriate alternative to vaccination or distancing. Or some may think all masks are the same.

They filter the big particles but do nothing for the smaller ones.   Many of which may be COVID-19 infected and freely transmitted through the mask.

Not quite. Covid is transmitted via respiratory droplets/particles exhaled. Masks help trap those droplets before it can spread to or infect a susceptible host. Different types of masks have different levels of effectiveness at trapping droplets.

It's that easy.   No need to make a big production out of it either way.

I agree. But some people sure go crazy when it comes to wearing masks, especially when required.

My guess is these people were looking for a fight.   

I do not get that impression.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
8.1.18  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.17    one month ago
Not quite. Covid is transmitted via respiratory droplets/particles exhaled. Masks help trap those droplets before it can spread to or infect a susceptible host. Different types of masks have different levels of effectiveness at trapping droplets.

Nah, my comment is spot on.   Mask filtration efficiency decreases significantly with droplet size.   And this does not consider leakage present with virtually every cloth/material type mask.  

Total protection is a properly fitted respirator mask with HEPA filters.   Anything less is varying degrees of better than nothing protection but that's about it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
8.1.19  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.18    one month ago

Define "significantly." Mask efficacy may be lower against smaller particles, but masks still provide protection. It's disingenuous to claim they do not. Even the lowest quality consumer mask type has a 26.5% efficiency against particles, according to the EPA. it's still better than no mask. However, covid is largely transmitted via large respiratory droplets, which masks are better against. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
8.1.20  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.19    one month ago
Define "significantly.

Significantly:

1 : in a significant manner : to a significant degree the salaries differed significantly
2 : it is significant significantly , they were on time
Mask efficacy may be lower against smaller particles, but masks still provide protection.

I never said they didn't so i haven't been disingenuous in the least.

  Even the lowest quality consumer mask type has a 26.5% efficiency against particles, according to the EPA.

26.5% at what particle size?   And with what type of mask?   Under what ambient air conditions?   Define "efficiency" in context with covid bearing aerosol particle size.   A valid link here would be helpful.   A link which answers all those questions.    Otherwise your comment is useless.   Scientifically speaking off course.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.20    one month ago

"Otherwise your comment is useless."

That's how most folks feel about your comments.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
8.1.22  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.20    one month ago

I cited the EPA. Is that not a valid source for you? The CDC probably has information too.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
8.1.23  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.22    one month ago

You always talk science Gordy.   I'm asking for the scientific basis of your assertion.   Every question i asked you is a valid scientific question in context with this discussion.   You made the assertion, you get to back it up where you came up with it.  So we are still waiting for a valid link.    And just so you know, a link from the EPA or CDC that doesn't provide that information is more or less worthless from a scientific standpoint.   A study without valid and applicable methodology cites is worthless.

You are out of your depth here Gordy.   I suggest you cut your loses and just move on.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.23    one month ago

It takes no effort to find the study that Gordy cited:

If this does not contain details low-enough for your interest nothing stops you from doing your own research.   See the 'Learn More:' paragraph for a starting point.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
8.1.25  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.24    one month ago

I've read that report and it doesn't cite all of the scientific criteria required to support it's numbers.   Not that i found.

Not particle the size used, not the control air conditions used, simply not the complete testing methodology used.   All critical to coming up with valid filtration numbers.   While i don't doubt their numbers are valid for some larger particle sizes, i'm guessing their testing doesn't include smaller particle sizes and if they have covered smaller particle sizes, they should be able to cite that they did.   Until they do that, their numbers are garbage from a scientific standpoint..

And i didn't make the original assertion and have no duty to defend it.   That's the persons job who made the claim in the first place and you know it is.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.26  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.25    one month ago
I've read that report and it doesn't cite all of the scientific criteria required to support it's numbers. 

But it supports Gordy's claim.    You want to dig deeper.   I think that is admirable, but it is not Gordy's responsibility to be your research hound.

Not particle the size used,  ...

Did you not read this?:  

Researchers tested how well different masks and modifications filter out airborne salt particles, which are the same size as the smallest SARS-CoV-2 particles, but are not harmful. Members of the research team wore the face coverings to do the testing themselves.

You might consider reading more carefully.   And, again, if you want more details then go get them.   It is unreasonable for anyone in a forum to expect their interlocutor to keep delivering increasingly lower levels of details for them.    One level, by convention, is sufficient.

That's the persons job who made the claim ...

Gordy cited the study.   I provided the link to what he was likely referring.   The study supports Gordy's comment.   Gordy did not make claims correlating to your inquiries.   So if you want more info you can do the research.    What is your complaint?  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
8.1.27  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.23    one month ago

I cited the EPA & CDC. Those organizations utilize actual scientific information and can even link to other scientific sources. Your dismissal of them as scientifically "worthless" only demonstrates a bias and no real interest in a discussion on your part.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
8.1.28  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.26    one month ago
But it supports Gordy's claim. You want to dig deeper.   I think that is admirable, but it is not Gordy's responsibility to be your research hound.

So what?   You put the link out there.   He provided no links.   Prior to that it was only his opinion and nothing else.   And i find it admirable that you come to the defense of a buddy here.   Good job!

 

Did you not read this?:   Researchers tested how well different masks and modifications filter out airborne salt particles, which are the same size as the smallest SARS-CoV-2 particles, but are not harmful. Members of the research team wore the face coverings to do the testing themselves.

Yeah i did miss that.   That's good.   I know viruses tend to be in the .005 to .3 micron range but like salt usually attach themselves to some other particle when airborne so are usually larger than that.   Honestly not familiar with aerosol salt particle size but it sounds like they did their homework there.

You might consider reading more carefully.   And, again, if you want more details then go get them.   It is unreasonable for anyone in a forum to expect their interlocutor to keep delivering increasingly lower levels of details for them.    One level, by convention, is sufficient.

Meh, this is a discussion board not a research lab.   Most people here could give a shit about a thoughtful discussion about something like virus particle sizes and facemask filtration efficiencies.    Most don't have the slightest clue in that context.  They just know they don't like my more conservative stances here and will attack no matter what.   i consider the source at all times.

  What is your complaint?  

My comments were clear in the hierarchy they were made.   You provided links that support the original comment, albeit very sparingly  

Done deal.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.29  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.28    one month ago
Meh, this is a discussion board not a research lab.

Exactly.  So you have Gordy's note.  He cited his source.   I delivered a link per his citation which does indeed support what he wrote.

Why are we still discussing this?

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
8.1.30  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.27    one month ago
Your dismissal of them as scientifically "worthless" only demonstrates a bias and no real interest in a discussion on your part.

Bullshit.   You put a comment out there without any links to support it.   Your word that they came form the EPA or the CDC is worthless here without links to back that up as well.  

I just asked you to back up the comment you made and you took it personal.   Nothing more to it than that.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
8.1.31  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.29    one month ago
Why are we still discussing this?

I'm just responding.   Why do you keep discussing this?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
8.1.32  Jack_TX  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.15    one month ago
Yes! They're smart enough to wear masks in a public place, which no one else seems to be doing.

Sorry.  Not a chance in hell we're applauding these morons.

My spouse is immunocompromised.  If she were unable to get vaccinated and I went out to a sports bar full of unmasked people, you would ask me what the fuck I was doing and had I lost my Goddamned mind, and you would be completely correct to do so.  

If they left the baby on the roof, you wouldn't say "well at least they put a helmet on the kid, they should be applauded".

Their behavior is outrageously irresponsible, and their attempt to point the finger at anybody else is just further testament to how fucked up they are.  It's almost like they're actively trying to kill this child and need something or someone else to blame it on.

 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
8.1.33  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.30    one month ago
Bullshit.   You put a comment out there without any links to support it.   Your word that they came form the EPA or the CDC is worthless here without links to back that up as well.  

I cited the EPA & CDC. TiG was kind enough to include a link. Google can do the rest for you.

I just asked you to back up the comment you made and you took it personal.  

Not at all. You initially dismissed my sources outright. That tells me you're not really interested in listening.  Nothing more to it than that.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
8.1.34  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1.32    one month ago
Not a chance in hell we're applauding these morons.

You don't have to. I certainly would not applaud anyone who does not wear masks, especially a business owner who actually requires people to not wear masks in a crowded environment during a pandemic. At least this couple did wear a mask. 

My spouse is immunocompromised. 

I am sorry to hear that. I hope she recovers.

Their behavior is outrageously irresponsible, and their attempt to point the finger at anybody else is just further testament to how fucked up they are.

I don't see where they're finger pointing. According to the article, they left without incident. 

 
 
 
Sister Moosh Noosh Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
8.2  Sister Moosh Noosh Ample Bottom  replied to  Greg Jones @8    one month ago
How would wearing a mask in a smoky bar protect their child at home? Weren't they vaccinated?

You are assuming that the couple's dilemma has something to do with Covid.  Their newborn could have any one of a thousand diseases that either reduces their ability to fight illness, or that requires immuno suppressive therapy. 

In addition, I've noticed that you generally don't give a shit about other people.  Why this particular restaurant guy?  I seriously want to know.    

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
9  Paula Bartholomew    one month ago

It is Texass...nuff said.

 
 
 
Sister Moosh Noosh Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
9.1  Sister Moosh Noosh Ample Bottom  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @9    one month ago
It is Texass...nuff said.

Alright, Missy!  There are some really fab people in Texas.  We just need to trim the fat in the next election.

Also, check out this Facebook page:  Hang Time Grill - Posts | Facebook

This jerk is getting his ass mowed right down to the ground.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
9.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sister Moosh Noosh Ample Bottom @9.1    one month ago

My one half sister lives in Austin and I don't give a shit on how she is doing.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Silent
10  Right Down the Center    one month ago

The business owner is correct in saying it is his private business and he requires people not to have masks on while in there.  It just shows that the USA allows people the freedom to make political statements and be idiots at the same time.  I would have no problem finding another place to eat and not return even after the "crisis" is over.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
11  Jack_TX    one month ago

A few thoughts on this couple....

  • You're not going to eat with the mask on, which means you're going to spend the majority of your time in any restaurant with your mask off, which is why mask requirements in restaurants are generally stupid and why everybody says restaurants and bars are the highest transmission places you can go.
  • Best case scenario, masks are still only partially effective in reducing spread.  New data suggests somewhere between 9% and 35%.
  • So Natalie and Jose are going into an environment where nobody else is wearing masks, they're only going to wear them a very small part of the time, and the things are only 35% (best case) effective anyway... As a person who lives with an immunocompromised loved one, my question to them would be "what the actual fuck is wrong with you, you imbeciles?"  You don't go places where you're at high risk of catching a deadly disease and bringing it home to kill your loved one.  That's your life now.  Make smarter choices, you complete morons.

A few thoughts on mask rules...

  • Generally speaking, it is the right of an owner of any establishment to set a dress code.  An owner can stipulate "no masks", in the same way they can stipulate no hats or....as in the case of a famous steak house not far from Rowlett...no neckties. (Trail Dust used to cut your necktie off and hang it on the wall.)
  • If a business wants to require masks, that is their right every bit as much as it's their right to require shoes and shirts.  Years ago, it was not uncommon for restaurants to require a sport coat or suit for men.  
  • That said, it is the right and responsibility of governments at every level to establish parameters on those dress codes.  They can and generally do dictate that a business require female patrons to cover their breasts and everybody cover their genitalia.  So yes, the government CAN make you wear a mask, just like they make you wear pants.  It is not a violation of your rights or an impingement of your freedoms.  If you don't like wearing a mask, don't go to places that require one.
  • The ongoing arguments about mask mandates in schools are yet another example of people clinging to the utter stupidity of their political tribe at the expense of common sense.  We have a highly contagious disease that kills kids, and we're arguing about whether to install a measure that might reduce that by 10%.  This is sort of like arguing over whether or not we should require the kids to wear helmets while they go to recess in the middle of Interstate 635....because we're so focused on objecting to the other tribe that nobody thinks to move the children out of harm's way.
 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
11.1  Snuffy  replied to  Jack_TX @11    one month ago
So Natalie and Jose are going into an environment where nobody else is wearing masks, they're only going to wear them a very small part of the time, and the things are only 35% (best case) effective anyway... As a person who lives with an immunocompromised loved one, my question to them would be "what the actual fuck is wrong with you, you imbeciles?"  You don't go places where you're at high risk of catching a deadly disease and bringing it home to kill your loved one.  That's your life now.  Make smarter choices, you complete morons.

Yes so much.  I had been pushed hard by someone who only wanted to congratulate the couple on their "wisdom" of wearing a mask, completely ignoring the elephant in the room of their immunocompromised 4 month old at home.  These two people are idiots in a major way.

  • The ongoing arguments about mask mandates in schools are yet another example of people clinging to the utter stupidity of their political tribe at the expense of common sense.  We have a highly contagious disease that kills kids, and we're arguing about whether to install a measure that might reduce that by 10%.  This is sort of like arguing over whether or not we should require the kids to wear helmets while they go to recess in the middle of Interstate 635....because we're so focused on objecting to the other tribe that nobody thinks to move the children out of harm's way.

Yes again. Until we can immunize all the children I believe we have a moral obligation to protect the children in school to the best of our abilities. I feel that the children do need to be in formal schooling, the year of home schooling so many of them got so far behind that it's almost a lost year for a lot of them. Even if the protection is minimal, it's important to do what can be done to keep them in school and as safe as can be from this virus. If parents disagree with the mask mandates then they need to home school their children. 

And the last thing,  I don't quite get the whole soccer thing. I grew up in a small town many years ago and my only exposure to soccer at that time was during recess when we would have approx 100 kids out on the football field playing soccer with a volley ball as we didn't have a real soccer ball in the school. 100 kids, no rules, just full contact soccer with the goal posts at each end zone the goals.  Ahh...  what fun. Especially on the wetter days when we would come back to class all muddy...  jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
11.1.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Snuffy @11.1    one month ago
the year of home schooling so many of them got so far behind that it's almost a lost year for a lot of them.

Absolutely.

But is that really a justification for risking their lives now?  

Most Americans have been through at least 12 years of learning English as their first language.  How many of them still can't differentiate between "lose" and "loose", and how many think "alot" is a word?  Point being...it's not like they were learning very much anyway.

Nothing going on in American public schools is worth risking their lives.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @11.1.1    one month ago
How many of them still can't differentiate between "lose" and "loose"  ...

... and words like affect vs. effect, your vs. you're.   SMH

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
11.1.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Jack_TX @11.1.1    one month ago

Maybe I can offer an opinion about the American educational system.  It goes back almost 70 years to my teenage days when we Canadian kids mixed with American kids from Buffalo at Crystal Beach, Ontario, on the north side of Lake Erie just west of the Niagara River during summer vacation.  The American kids would bitch about the fact that their final marks were only 97% or 98% and not the 100% that others achieved, which amazed us Canadians who had to work really hard to accomplish an honours mark of 75% or over.  Maybe the perfect/almost perfect marks the American kids were accomplishing explains their braggadocio about "exceptionalism".   We enjoyed a joke back then that American kids could major in basket weaving at University of Miami.  So it is no surprise to me that there are some who post on this site (a sampling of Americans generally) who cannot differentiate between "lose" and "loose", "its" and "it's", etc.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @11.1.3    one month ago

Also, there, their, and they're and your and you're

That gets on my last nerve!

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Silent
11.1.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @11.1.4    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Silent
11.1.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @11.1.3    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
11.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  Jack_TX @11.1.1    one month ago

Shit that's nothing.   Watch a kid today try to make change. 

They are completely lost without a register to do it for them

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
11.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @11.1.3    one month ago
We enjoyed a joke back then that American kids could major in basket weaving at University of Miami.

The American educational system has suffered from decades of mismanagement and declining standards.

However.....

I've been in Toronto in January. 

I've been on campus at the University of Miami in January.

The joke is not on the kids at The U.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
PhD Participates
11.1.10  r.t..b...  replied to  Sparty On @11.1.7    one month ago

“They are completely lost without a register to do it for them.”

Has that really changed in the last fifty years?

Only if there is a point to be made regarding our educational system in general. Regardless of what you have experienced at the register, this generation and the generations to follow have a grasp of accessing information that ours had little access to. The key function of educators today is how to filter the inundation of information…to separate the wheat from the chaff if you will. Big picture, how about we focus on that?  

Sorry if you had to count your nickels, at least you still have your two cents to contribute. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
11.1.11  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sparty On @11.1.7    4 weeks ago
"Shit that's nothing.   Watch a kid today try to make change."

Absolutely.  Right on.  Math geniuses.  LOL

See, we can agree on more than maybe both of us think.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
11.1.12  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  r.t..b... @11.1.10    4 weeks ago

Well, you're probably right, the kids today can master winning on video games, might realize that a real book doesn't need a mouse to turn the pages, even doesn't need batteries, or might even discover that a real world exists outside of their mobile phones. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
12  Thomas    4 weeks ago

Sorry, but I have to ask: If the mask is like a chain link fence to keep out a mosquito, how on earth is it supposed to restrict oxygen?

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

r.t..b...
JohnRussell
GregTx
zuksam
Jack_TX
Ender


38 visitors