COVID-19 Response: An issue that shouldn't be at all political....yet here we are

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

Anything with similar large groupings and risk factors and that aren't providing an essential need like food. Larger groupings with occasionally at least risky behavior within. Movie Theaters or like a Play/concert seem like somewhat similar events in this manner (obviously depending but where you regularly get a large group/audience and some singing or other risky behavior mixed in unless strictly regulated like some may while others might not).

Essential business is a special label given to businesses where the harsher restrictions don't apply to them. You don't just automatically get said label, there has to be reasoning for special treatment. Health experts work with local governments to come up with a plan and that is what happened in NY. People here haven't been saying they got everything right, we are dealing with the reality of what they had in place and the ruling from SCOTUS. You having opinions is great as I said feel free to repeat them even if it's never been the point (other people have theirs too on how it should be handled and none are likely the same). It doesn't address the case/issue most have which is can Churches be labeled like other similar businesses or do they automatically get preferential treatment even if it goes against local government/health experts plan in place for their areas (potentially adding risk for the whole).

---

There are 2 arguments to be made here. One is in the context of essential, the English word. In this context, there is no debate, church is essential. If I asked you if church is an essential part of peoples lives a year ago, every single person in here would say yes.

The second is in the context of essential, the pandemic response label. In this context there can be debate, but based off of what you guys explained as being the parameter for essential, I think it is quite obvious that churches can safely be given the essential label.

And yes, they are special and privileged in comparison to entertainment venues. They should be treated as such.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Brother, I entered the conversation clearly stating that my opinion is that if a church can operate safely a certain way then they should, and when the idea of essential business came up me and sitewolf both asked details about what exactly essential means. The answers we receive would dictate our opinions as we both stated our opinions are based on the actual spread, not labels.

When people explained what exactly that means, I then said very clearly that I support churches being labeled as essential because what you told me being essential entails isnt necessarily a spread concern for churches.

If you are about the science, as you say, then why is your concern with the label of churches instead of the actual spread? If churches have people singing in groups without masks that's separate issue because that is not something that happens on basis of being an essential business.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

You started telling people it was about theism/atheism when you didn't understand the point of essential or not yet lol. You were clearly not overly caring what was said and ready to get your say in about your opinions/beliefs about something mostly irrelevant to the topic at hand (probably part of why Sitewolf seems to be having following along as you often aren't talking about the same things and discussion gets sidetracked from the point).

The question isn't if you personally think they should be or not. It is if you think it should be required of every place out there to have them in the essential label with lesser restrictions in a similar manner or else it is against the constitution/illegal. This is why you haven't understood that most of don't necessarily agree with how NY is doing it or the labels are given that is simply a reality. Your personal beliefs, while I'm sure are extremely important to you, are irrelevant to most of the point others have issue with.

My issue is that they have people without masks, singing and it causes major spreading. It isn't irrelevant when it is something literally that can be shown happening multiple times and already has been shared. It's affecting many different areas in real life. I get your opinion on how it is possible to be safe, that is true of everything but it isn't how reality works or we wouldn't be here today (a large chunk of people aren't going to help the cause/will hurt it unless forced via orders like this). I don't disagree with a tons of the aspects you have mentioned that would provide a safe environment, if you think that you are the only one that gets masks/social distancing and that is science lol. Others don't feel the need to talk a bunch about one off examples or how it is technically possible to be safe, we are dealing with real life examples and issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

That isn't something you just get for existing there are plans in many different areas but having some essential businesses with lesser restrictions is common and is preferential treatment compared to other businesses out there that don't carry the label.

---

Given peoples connection with the church, many feel like it SHOULD carry preferential treatment.

In the context of covid response, I agree with that opinion. I agree because it is not in of itself a public health hazard.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

You started telling people it was about theism/atheism .

---

It is, lol, you guys are not picking up on the fact that your opinions are being dictated by the atheist agenda.

That's why, in true atheist fashion, you think your opinion is "right".

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

In this post your issue doesn't even seem to be with essential vs non essential status, it seems more to do with large gatherings causing spread.

Their actions were wrong regardless if they are essential status or not.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

If we were following and not covering up the guideline recommendations to limit attendance to these institutions, then we would be much further along. There is no case to be made for them being essential other than people will whine louder about ANY sensible restrictions placed on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Mngopher


You ignored this post of mine.

Answer it, it will help bring clarity to our discussion.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

....demands the guy that's been avoiding questions left and right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

There are 2 arguments to be made here. One is in the context of essential, the English word. In this context, there is no debate, church is essential. If I asked you if church is an essential part of peoples lives a year ago, every single person in here would say yes.

The second is in the context of essential, the pandemic response label. In this context there can be debate, but based off of what you guys explained as being the parameter for essential, I think it is quite obvious that churches can safely be given the essential label.

And yes, they are special and privileged in comparison to entertainment venues. They should be treated as such.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

I am not surprised you would spend a paragraph explaining that the word essential applies to things outside the pandemic. Wow

You think it is quite obvious that is great but it still doesn't touch on any issue being discussed. As stated, feel free to have whatever opinion you want.

They should be treated differently than venues with the same kind of potential for spread? So this isn't based in science/spread then because from just a viewpoint of the risk it is similar. You personally think one is more important in some other way and deserving of preferential treatment in comparison. That's what people were saying a long time ago but you/sitewolf seemed to fight against it. So we agree now that is how you view it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Given peoples connection with the church, many feel like it SHOULD carry preferential treatment.

In the context of covid response, I agree with that opinion. I agree because it is not in of itself a public health hazard.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Tons of businesses that are restricted more fit the same category. If the standard is in and of itself it isn't a public health hazard (yet) then anyone that hasn't had massive outbreaks yet fits the bill. Church is higher risk than many other places shut down currently this isn't just about a comparison of level of health hazard because church is a higher risk than many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

Your personal beliefs, while I'm sure are extremely important to you, are irrelevant to most of the point others have issue with.

.

---

My personal belief is that my concern is in regards to the gym opening, not the mosque. I jumped in this convo notnbecause I am passionate about it, but because you guys think your opinions are facts. They're not. They're opinions.

Your opinion is that church isnt essential. Many people disagree. But you just assume your opinion to be the correct answer. When given reasons as to why people view church as essential, you dismiss them as if your opinion trumps theirs. It doesn't. My take is who cares about opinions, let's cater to the actual science.

You are showing instances of churches not following essential business guideline as proof that churches cause spread. Yes they do, but that has nothing to do with being labeled essential or not.

Would you approach restaurant the same way. If I can pick out examples of restaurant not following distance guidelines, will you turn agree that the science says all restaurants must close? If not, then why do you do so with churches?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

There is no case to be made for them being essential

---

To an ignorant atheist, no, to a follower of religion, yes.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

I am not surprised you would spend a paragraph explaining that the word essential applies to things outside the pandemic. Wow

---

What does this say about you? lol

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

My personal belief is that my concern is in regards to the gym opening, not the mosque. I jumped in this convo notnbecause I am passionate about it, but because you guys think your opinions are facts. They're not. They're opinions.

Your opinion is that church isnt essential. Many people disagree. But you just assume your opinion to be the correct answer. When given reasons as to why people view church as essential, you dismiss them as if your opinion trumps theirs. It doesn't. My take is who cares about opinions, let's cater to the actual science.

You are showing instances of churches not following essential business guideline as proof that churches cause spread. Yes they do, but that has nothing to do with being labeled essential or not.

Would you approach restaurant the same way. If I can pick out examples of restaurant not following distance guidelines, will you turn agree that the science says all restaurants must close? If not, then why do you do so with churches?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

To an ignorant atheist, no, to a follower of religion, yes.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Your honor, I rest my case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

I You personally think one is more important in some other way and deserving of preferential treatment in comparison.

---

I think any place that can open safely should have a platform to make that argument, and many of them are. Good for them.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GasMan

Your honor, I rest my case.

---

If your case is to demonstrate that opinions are just that, opinions not facts, then yes your case is rested.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

My personal belief is that my concern is in regards to the gym opening, not the mosque. I jumped in this convo notnbecause I am passionate about it, but because you guys think your opinions are facts. They're not. They're opinions.

Your opinion is that church isnt essential. Many people disagree. But you just assume your opinion to be the correct answer. When given reasons as to why people view church as essential, you dismiss them as if your opinion trumps theirs. It doesn't. My take is who cares about opinions, let's cater to the actual science.

You are showing instances of churches not following essential business guideline as proof that churches cause spread. Yes they do, but that has nothing to do with being labeled essential or not.

Would you approach restaurant the same way. If I can pick out examples of restaurant not following distance guidelines, will you turn agree that the science says all restaurants must close? If not, then why do you do so with churches?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

You often just don't understand, we weren't saying many things you thought and I even can highlight posts where I literally had just said something different than your assertion of what I believed. You were confused because we were talking about real life situations. What happened in NY is real even if it goes against your opinion and your opinion isn't really relevant to it.

My opinion is that it doesn't need to be labeled as essential in this context/reality of NY. I have actually been trying to get people to answer specific questions around this but no one would. The deflections/rants got us way sidetracked, we don't really know who is right because it has been almost impossible to get the two people disagreeing to settle down and have a basic back and forth conversation. I would have loved to do that instead of this insanity that has gone on. I dismiss the strawman arguments, putting words in my mouth, making things up completely of course. I point out that you often are ranting about unrelated things sure. That isn't me saying I know all we must follow my way of thinking, the reality is I have never given my personal opinion on the level I would have compared to others, it's never been remotely the point of the discussion. You are so focused on some agenda you still have no clue what the discussion is even about.

Risk factors and services provided absolutely do factor into the decisions of what is allowed and isn't. It was in the write ups in the SCOTUS decision about having different risk factors and medical opinion on what events facilitate spread. This is where health experts and local governments get together and make these plans, it often factors many of this in when doing so. That doesn't make it perfect but it certainly has something to do with the process.

My opinion is restaurants should be restricted to takeout if you have been reading the thread. What's the inconsistency here? You are looking for gotchas over and over without even having any idea of my actual beliefs. I have scattered a few throughout but our personal opinions on how to handles things has only ever been YOUR focus and telling others about your opinions as if it was the end all be all (when it was never even the point of the discussion at hand).