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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

That's fine, others are bothered by churches being open, not me. Ask them what the issue is.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

No and you know that's not the issue, you couldn't find a single quote the last time you tried with the BS strawman.

People are pointing out it is ridiculous Churches called for different standards to operate other than similar businesses in the same area. They wanted special status to the most lax/no restrictions at all essentially. That is what people have been calling out and you have been arguing with them for doing so making up assertions/strawman arguments but never actually acknowledging the issue (and when called to give examples you ran away after my response pointing out clear differences one business to another, you seem to understand this is called for though when convenient elsewhere).

So when you disagree with people pointing this out and then make up strawman accusations etc. it sure looks like you are calling for the same type of special treatment as opposed to treating them like other similar businesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

I'm watching KC Tampa playing in front of a crowd right now.

Yea, churches should definitely be allowed to stay open. My mosque is on and cracking and it is HEAVILY distanced. Good for us, too bad for you [emoji846]


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

So this is just an us vs them argument for you?

Makes much more sense now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GasMan

Churches aren’t being treated the same, thanks to SCOTUS. They should be treated like other non-essential services like Bed Bath and Beyond but they want to be exempted from those requirements. Most of us disagree. You kept arguing with us because you didn’t understand the discussion despite Crovash posting a blip about the ruling and a piece of a dissenting decision. Most of us knew what we were arguing about and knew that you didn’t.

---

Ya this is about how I saw it too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GasMan

Churches aren’t being treated the same, thanks to SCOTUS. They should be treated like other non-essential services like Bed Bath and Beyond but they want to be exempted from those requirements. Most of us disagree. You kept arguing with us because you didn’t understand the discussion despite Crovash posting a blip about the ruling and a piece of a dissenting decision. Most of us knew what we were arguing about and knew that you didn’t.

---

Well here's the problem with that take....the same as what?
Before you can say they're not being treated the same, what are we comparing them to?

You can't, on the one hand, say they should be treated like a a retail store while at the same time saying they're in a different category. And as far as he and I 'misunderstanding' the discussion, as is usual here there has been various discussions within the overall discussion. Crovash's 'blip' about the ruling was no end all be all to the conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

Well here's the problem with that take....the same as what?
Before you can say they're not being treated the same, what are we comparing them to?

You can't, on the one hand, say they should be treated like a a retail store while at the same time saying they're in a different category. And as far as he and I 'misunderstanding' the discussion, as is usual here there has been various discussions within the overall discussion. Crovash's 'blip' about the ruling was no end all be all to the conversation.

---

Other similar events that would have masses of people, potentially no mask requirement and risky behavior such as singing. Also not providing any sort of essential need like food as well.

I have repeatedly asked for examples of anything similar that was being allowed multiple times but no one has been answering that question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

No and you know that's not the issue, you couldn't find a single quote the last time you tried with the BS strawman.

People are pointing out it is ridiculous Churches called for different standards to operate other than similar businesses in the same area. They wanted special status to the most lax/no restrictions at all essentially. That is what people have been calling out and you have been arguing with them for doing so making up assertions/strawman arguments but never actually acknowledging the issue (and when called to give examples you ran away after my response pointing out clear differences one business to another, you seem to understand this is called for though when convenient elsewhere).

So when you disagree with people pointing this out and then make up strawman accusations etc. it sure looks like you are calling for the same type of special treatment as opposed to treating them like other similar businesses.

---

Ok, I will quote for you someone saying people can be religious at home and over the internet, no need for in person. But when I do that, what's your response gonna be? You gonna eat your strawman bull **** argument?

No, me and sitewolf are not calling for special treatment, we have repetitively mentioned from the beginning that if restaurants etc are open then churches should be allowed to safely open too. We both went iur of our way to make this point from the very beginning.

The fact that you guys ignored that so you could have something to argue about is on you. And that ingrained reaction you guys had is the exact reason this convo is dragging the way it is. You guys are not as diff from trump supporters as you think...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

So this is just an us vs them argument for you?

Makes much more sense now

---

No, it's a science vs propaganda argument.

Science wins. [emoji846]

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GasMan

You kept arguing with us because you didn’t understand the discussion despite Crovash posting a blip about the ruling and a piece of a dissenting decision.

---

No, me and sitewolf very clearly made our points in regards to saying if they can open in a safe manner then that should be allowed. If you glossed over that then you are the one who doesn't understand the discussion.

And you specifically are the one who was saying there's no reason to go in person church. Don't try to piggyback an out now.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

Other similar events that would have masses of people, potentially no mask requirement and risky behavior such as singing. Also not providing any sort of essential need like food as well.

I have repeatedly asked for examples of anything similar that was being allowed multiple times but no one has been answering that question.

---

lol and I've been repeatedly asking why a church would need to be in a different category than a restaurant
I can sing with a mask on, I can't eat with one on.
Food is essential, a restaurant is not...and I have no idea how a bar can be while a church is not.

One more time, I've never argued a church should get special treatment, I've never opened the constitutional can o' worms that could argue that. I've simply suggested that if a restaurant is allowed 25% capacity, a church should be as well. Did we ever establish what capacity is allowed in New York before 10pm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

You're kidding, right? If churches are being split out from other businesses and instead included in the special category that includes sporting events, how is the number of people in a baseball or football stadium during a game not relative?

---

Not kidding at all actually. I sure as hell didn't mention NFL games either. I mentioned MLB games, which zero fans were allowed at during the regular season despite the overwhelming majority of these games being played in open air stadiums (which I fully believe was the wise approach). Yet for some odd reason you're trying to compare that to churches that people have been able to attend for months now.

Quote:

---

As I said, this has been an unproductive conversation for pages now...yet we're ALL participating in it.

---

The only reason this conversation has been so unproductive is the inability of people like nasty and you to have an honest conversation that involves religion.

:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Ok, I will quote for you someone saying people can be religious at home and over the internet, no need for in person. But when I do that, what's your response gonna be? You gonna eat your strawman bull **** argument?

No, me and sitewolf are not calling for special treatment, we have repetitively mentioned from the beginning that if restaurants etc are open then churches should be allowed to safely open too. We both went iur of our way to make this point from the very beginning.

The fact that you guys ignored that so you could have something to argue about is on you. And that ingrained reaction you guys had is the exact reason this convo is dragging the way it is. You guys are not as diff from trump supporters as you think...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

You can do that, it wouldn't change anything I said nor be relevant though lol. My response will probably be lol because you are trying so hard to play gotcha and it's over something I never said didn't happen.

Alright so you focused on the same treatment as restaurants. I already shared a study showing the massive outbreak potential/reality that has happened with churches and they are not providing the same service either as one deals with providing food. I responded to this point multiple times on how they are different but it hasn't ever been responded to. This isn't a valid comparison to say it might not be special treatment, one can easily be labeled essential while the other not be. That will determine the restrictions placed on different types of businesses as you have already noted being and obvious thing to do with your gyms comment. Others have provided plenty more comparisons and they are things that would have the more strict restrictions (which is the debate, not over if it should be banned/not allowed like the strawman I actually referenced/didn't get a quote for even still while you try for your gotcha).

The issue is everyone has responded to these points you say have been ignored multiple times even. You just aren't actually following along as others have also noted you don't really seem to understand what is being discussed.

You are very focused on grouping people together, making sweeping statements about groups, using strawman arguments, going for gotcha's without a basis in reality and if we wanna talk about acting like Trump...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

And I gave one simple and one non simple answer.

Too much to follow?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Again, you avoided answering my very simple and direct questions. Probably because you realize that if you did so, it would only further expose your own contradictions, hypocrisy, and general nonsense.

If I am wrong with this assumption, please go ahead and actually answer the questions I am referring to. If not, keep sidestepping and making a fool of yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

Well here's the problem with that take....the same as what?
Before you can say they're not being treated the same, what are we comparing them to?

You can't, on the one hand, say they should be treated like a a retail store while at the same time saying they're in a different category. And as far as he and I 'misunderstanding' the discussion, as is usual here there has been various discussions within the overall discussion. Crovash's 'blip' about the ruling was no end all be all to the conversation.

---

Oh, brother. It's been achingly clear that most all of us are comparing churches to other non-essential businesses. This has been stated countless time; no need to play dumb. I expect it out of nasty but I know you are smarter than this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

lol and I've been repeatedly asking why a church would need to be in a different category than a restaurant
I can sing with a mask on, I can't eat with one on.
Food is essential, a restaurant is not...and I have no idea how a bar can be while a church is not.

One more time, I've never argued a church should get special treatment, I've never opened the constitutional can o' worms that could argue that. I've simply suggested that if a restaurant is allowed 25% capacity, a church should be as well. Did we ever establish what capacity is allowed in New York before 10pm?

---

They provide different services first of all as you get at. Food is a need in order to live.
Second I already shared the study on spreading at church and we all know about larger gatherings/super spreader events. They are different in a sense as more of a risk given the ability for situations like that to occur. That risk also factors in to having a different category.

Why allow indoor eating at restaurants? I don't agree with it but it doesn't change either of the above. It also isn't a good reason to allow more risky activity.

Arguing for them to be placed in a special group of essential business for less restrictions is asking for different/preferential treatment. That comparison isn't the end all be all though. No one is even necessarily agreeing or not with the other rules this is about if they should be able to restrict them more than certain businesses labeled essential or not. I actually think you make a decent point about restaurants and I personally think they should stick to take out right now. That doesn't shift the argument over what category churches can be placed in though imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)

Not kidding at all actually. I sure as hell didn't mention NFL games either. I mentioned MLB games, which zero fans were allowed at during the regular season despite the overwhelming majority of these games being played in open air stadiums (which I fully believe was the wise approach). Yet for some odd reason you're trying to compare that to churches that people have been able to attend for months now.



The only reason this conversation has been so unproductive is the inability of people like nasty and you to have an honest conversation that involves religion.

:shrug:

---

Follow along.....prior to your mentioning you couldn't go to a Giants game someone said that churches were not categorized with bars and restaurants but instead were in a special category with sporting and other live events. Hence my comment on the number of people that would be involved in a game, regardless of whether there were fans allowed or not.

I was never looking to compare live sports with church services at ALL, somebody else was. I'VE all along been comparing them to bars and restaurants....which, like I've said, we haven't established what restrictions New York, which is where this started, now have for bars and restaurants prior to 10pm, their new time to cut off in-person services.

I have zero idea where I've EVER been anything but honest...whether religion or any other topic.