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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Ok, so if I made the comment that churches should be allowed to stay open if safe, and I got blow back for saying that, why should I be the one referencing the essential label? When people DID reference it, I replied in a manner to imply it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. The fact that you have "gotcha" on your mind should speak volumes as to why me and you keep having miscommunication.

Brother I'm sitting here talking to 5 to 6 people, I am making general comments regarding the idea of being an essential business vs not, yet you think you "got me". All this "getting people" is the cause of majority of miscommunication between us. Fix it.

Health experts are developing plans that are bringing pushback from numerous business industries across the board. I am.bringing up science, notice every time I mention a church being open it is within the context of doing so in a safe manner.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

You jumped into Crovash talking about it not being essential lol. You got blowback because you keep inserting yourself into a conversation you don't understand then making up ridiculous arguments/strawman instead of having an actual discussion. You can go back yourself and see where you argued it was essential after he claimed it wasn't and how the conversation unfolded but it wasn't you just saying what you claim it was literally discussed initially too.

I can't fix you not reading/understanding this conversation and making things up.

No one is arguing to shut down all churches or saying it isn't possible they open in a safe manner. You stating this is irrelevant to much of the actual conversation in this thread. You haven't actually provided science anyways though.

What people are arguing in this thread is that it is alright for Churches to be labeled as non essential just like many other businesses/activities that present similar risks/groupings of people and aren't providing an essential service of need in person. They can be restricted to the same level as these non essential businesses and there can be other businesses with lighter restrictions out there if they are essential businesses. IF you want to join in feel free but the only people who have provided science/data is me previously sharing the study on church spreading and asking but never getting a response from you or sitewolf when all of this has been covered more in depth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

You have a right to your opinion. Quite obviously mine differs.
You also understand that if you're not one who goes to church, you don't really know what a devout church goer is missing out on by not being allowed to go to in-person worship.

---

I am a person who belongs to several communities that are disrupted by this pandemic. You don’t think I’m not emotionally affected by not being able to live my life with the people that are important to me? I’ve been called condescending several times in this thread because I have an opinion about the rights of a community that I don’t belong to because the actions of that community affect my well being and the ability to enjoy my communities. I think it’s condescending to assume your community means more because it revolves around a religious belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Is target essential? Buying sofa pillows and legos in person is essential?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

This is why I usually ignore your posts. You quote me, but instead of making an argument against my quote you accuse me of making an argument I not only haven’t made anywhere in this discussion but have several times argued against. It’s like having a discussion with a bunch of people while having a drunk guy that keeps interjecting stuff that mostly doesn’t make sense. Back to ignore for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GasMan

So your solution to the social isolation cause by a global pandemic is to make the pandemic worse? And you’re advocating exposing elderly people to large gatherings of people? Churches are communities and that doesn’t end in a global pandemic and I would think it would accentuate the need for that community. But there are ways to look out for each other, provide solace and companionship without sitting in service together in a large group. And this isn’t just an 8 months later argument, some religious communities have been pushing back on limitations from the get go.

I never said bars are essential. If NY has deemed them as such then I am right there with you arguing that should be changed.

---

You've not followed me. Not once have I advocated for large gatherings in churches or anywhere else, nor did I just suggest it in my post to you. Why do some of you keep talking like it's an all or nothing deal? Like a church should be fully closed until it can be fully open? Like I'm suggesting churches be allowed to fill up their sanctuary on Sunday. ALL I've ever suggested is that, if a bar is allowed 25% capacity, a church should be allowed 25% capacity.

As I've said, at the few services I've been to in person these last months, we were encouraged not to sit directly or behind anyone, nobody's shaking hands, sanitizer as you enter and as you leave, no hymnals everything in the printed program you take with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GasMan

I am a person who belongs to several communities that are disrupted by this pandemic. You don’t think I’m not emotionally affected by not being able to live my life with the people that are important to me? I’ve been called condescending several times in this thread because I have an opinion about the rights of a community that I don’t belong to because the actions of that community affect my well being and the ability to enjoy my communities. I think it’s condescending to assume your community means more because it revolves around a religious belief.

---

I DON'T think my community means more and I apologize if you got caught in some crossfire.I repeated the word condescending and I shouldn't have. But that I'm aware, we weren't discussing your community. Again, I wasn't singling out churches, they were already singled out by the topic of the SCOTUS decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

You've not followed me. Not once have I advocated for large gatherings in churches or anywhere else, nor did I just suggest it in my post to you. Why do some of you keep talking like it's an all or nothing deal? Like a church should be fully closed until it can be fully open? Like I'm suggesting churches be allowed to fill up their sanctuary on Sunday. ALL I've ever suggested is that, if a bar is allowed 25% capacity, a church should be allowed 25% capacity.

As I've said, at the few services I've been to in person these last months, we were encouraged not to sit directly or behind anyone, nobody's shaking hands, sanitizer as you enter and as you leave, no hymnals everything in the printed program you take with you.

---

And I’ve never argued churches shouldn’t have equal treatment but I’m against special treatment like what was granted in the SCOTUS ruling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GasMan

And I’ve never argued churches shouldn’t have equal treatment but I’m against special treatment like what was granted in the SCOTUS ruling.

---

but that's the thing....did they? I think part of the problem in this entire discussion is that some people think that because the church 'wom' the case, they're getting special treatment...while others think that because they won, they're not getting unduly restricted.

"In the main, unsigned opinion, the majority ruled in favor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America that argued that the restrictions violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because the regulations treated the houses of worship more harshly than comparable secular facilities.
The majority said that the regulations are "far more restrictive than any Covid-related regulations that have previously come before the court, much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus" at the religious services in question."

the above is from here- https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/26/polit...vid/index.html

I dunno. I'm tired..lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

but that's the thing....did they? I think part of the problem in this entire discussion is that some people think that because the church 'wom' the case, they're getting special treatment...while others think that because they won, they're not getting unduly restricted.

"In the main, unsigned opinion, the majority ruled in favor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America that argued that the restrictions violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because the regulations treated the houses of worship more harshly than comparable secular facilities.
The majority said that the regulations are "far more restrictive than any Covid-related regulations that have previously come before the court, much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus" at the religious services in question."

the above is from here- https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/26/polit...vid/index.html

I dunno. I'm tired..lol

---

Well they are seeking preferential treatment from where they were placed as a non essential business.

This is the part of the discussion that is semantics but the key is they were only singled out on their own saying it was unfair they weren't given the same essential status. There was no singling out of churches as anything other than not being given the essential status and instead being put in the non essential grouping. They have been trying to claim you can't restrict them in the same ways as those other businesses and they should have the higher level status allowing fewer restrictions.

Your argument hinges on a subjective opinion that since something is considered essential (bars/restaurants) that you think is similar that means churches should be in the same category as them then. Others have broken down why there are obvious differences but at the very least this is opinion based not scientific reasoning. Others across the country in many different groups likely also believe if bars are essential so is their community/group events. None of this will ever be perfect so I don't think it's helpful or makes much sense, there should be legitimate reasoning outside of "I think it's the same as or should be treated like _____", especially when reality is there are obvious differences.

SCOTUS siding with one of these groups is interesting, especially given it's a reversal essentially of what previously was ruled on in Nevada and CA. The court has shifted seems to be the biggest reason moreso than anything else (not seeing different arguments/science other than these restrictions go further than others which would make sense since they were in place for most extreme of circumstances depending on the level reached).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

Well they are seeking preferential treatment from where they were placed as a non essential business.

This is the part of the discussion that is semantics but the key is they were only singled out on their own saying it was unfair they weren't given the same essential status. There was no singling out of churches as anything other than not being given the essential status and instead being put in the non essential grouping. They have been trying to claim you can't restrict them in the same ways as those other businesses and they should have the higher level status allowing fewer restrictions.

Your argument hinges on a subjective opinion that since something is considered essential (bars/restaurants) that you think is similar that means churches should be in the same category as them then. Others have broken down why there are obvious differences but at the very least this is opinion based not scientific reasoning. Others across the country in many different groups likely also believe if bars are essential so is their community/group events. None of this will ever be perfect so I don't think it's helpful or makes much sense, there should be legitimate reasoning outside of "I think it's the same as or should be treated like _____", especially when reality is there are obvious differences.

SCOTUS siding with one of these groups is interesting, especially given it's a reversal essentially of what previously was ruled on in Nevada and CA. The court has shifted seems to be the biggest reason moreso than anything else (not seeing different arguments/science other than these restrictions go further than others which would make sense since they were in place for most extreme of circumstances depending on the level reached).

---

"Bars, restaurants, gyms, house parties, that’s where it’s coming from, primarily," Cuomo said.
He says this, and the reaction is just to close at 10pm?

No, I'm done. You guys are going to believe it's special treatment by SCOTUS and it's a whole different discussion I know wouldn't go well here to talk about why SCOTUS going the other way would have been worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

You jumped into Crovash talking about it not being essential lol. You got blowback because you keep inserting yourself into a conversation you don't understand then making up ridiculous arguments/strawman instead of having an actual discussion. You can go back yourself and see where you argued it was essential after he claimed it wasn't and how the conversation unfolded but it wasn't you just saying what you claim it was literally discussed initially too.

I can't fix you not reading/understanding this conversation and making things up.

No one is arguing to shut down all churches or saying it isn't possible they open in a safe manner. You stating this is irrelevant to much of the actual conversation in this thread. You haven't actually provided science anyways though.

What people are arguing in this thread is that it is alright for Churches to be labeled as non essential just like many other businesses/activities that present similar risks/groupings of people and aren't providing an essential service of need in person. They can be restricted to the same level as these non essential businesses and there can be other businesses with lighter restrictions out there if they are essential businesses. IF you want to join in feel free but the only people who have provided science/data is me previously sharing the study on church spreading and asking but never getting a response from you or sitewolf when all of this has been covered more in depth.

---

I argued it was essential to make the point that "essential" vs "non essential" is just semantics, what really matters is the science and the spread, and the manner in how these businesses operate and its effect on spread.

Numerous people have made comments and comparisons of church not needing to take place in person. Follow the conversation.

Whether something is technically labeled as essential or non essential is not important, what's important is how each specific industry is regulated. Diff industries will have wildly different thresholds for distance vs spread.






Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GasMan

This is why I usually ignore your posts. You quote me, but instead of making an argument against my quote you accuse me of making an argument I not only haven’t made anywhere in this discussion but have several times argued against. It’s like having a discussion with a bunch of people while having a drunk guy that keeps interjecting stuff that mostly doesn’t make sense. Back to ignore for you.

---

No, my argument is that you keep acting like whats essential is black and white. It's not, it's a lot of grey area.

Why this post got you emo, I have no clue..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

"Bars, restaurants, gyms, house parties, that’s where it’s coming from, primarily," Cuomo said.
He says this, and the reaction is just to close at 10pm?

No, I'm done. You guys are going to believe it's special treatment by SCOTUS and it's a whole different discussion I know wouldn't go well here to talk about why SCOTUS going the other way would have been worse.

---

That is great he said that and this is still irrelevant to basically everything I said.

Alright you can be done if you choose, all the points made here still stand though and haven't really been countered in any way. The SCOTUS decision going the other way would have just been continuing along with other decisions and didn't seem to be an issue at all. The issue now is the preferential treatment being requested here without a basis in science/health, that created issues with many who are concerned with the virus and countries well being surrounding it. I don't think ruling the other way would have created nearly as many questions, it didn't when they ruled that way in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

Well they are seeking preferential treatment from where they were placed as a non essential business.

---

What specifically would this do for them? and in turn on spread? One thing is capacity goes from 10% to 25%, what else..?

How does this spread compare to other essential and non essential business spread?

I see the semantics of why you're complaining about this, but what's the substance of why you're complaining?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

I am pointing it out and that is what other people who you have been arguing with have done as well earlier in the discussion. Crovash mentioned it and you also discussed it with Gasman. You asked about who cares if essential or not... That's why people don't think you have understood the conversation. It's not reaching lol it is the discussion at hand in the SCOTUS decision as the label given will determine the level of restrictions. You aren't following along/listening to what others have been pointing out throughout, we are basing our discussions on reality while you have been ranting about made up things.

I already stated I disagree with allowing indoor dining in a comment to Sitewolf just above. You now claim I say it is necessary. Even when there is contrary posted right above you still feel the need to make up your own arguments for us while ignoring everything said and reality in general.

Health Experts helped develop the plan which placed Church as a higher risk/non essential business forcing harsher restrictions. If you were on the side of science you wouldn't be arguing this hard against it without ever providing actual science.

---

Was this meant to make people laugh? Because I’m cracking up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

I argued it was essential to make the point that "essential" vs "non essential" is just semantics, what really matters is the science and the spread, and the manner in how these businesses operate and its effect on spread.

Numerous people have made comments and comparisons of church not needing to take place in person. Follow the conversation.

Whether something is technically labeled as essential or non essential is not important, what's important is how each specific industry is regulated. Diff industries will have wildly different thresholds for distance vs spread.






Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

It isn't semantics when the label has specific requirements that need to be followed depending on which label you have the requirements may be different. Part of that evaluation is done in the essential vs non essential labeling (what is the service, what is the risk factors etc). In labeling it non essential there was likely consideration of the risk larger church gatherings have cause.

Not needing to take place in person is not shutting it down lol. You need to follow the conversation yourself and start quoting people when you make these claims. Multiple people have seen you making things up/putting words in their mouth not just me. That you then tell others to follow the conversation when you can't even follow it/make things up is ridiculous.

It is important in that the restrictions that go along with the labels differ. That is reality. You can't just ignore reality if it doesn't fit your narrative. Each industry will also have their own specific regulations sure that is also part of the point others have been making (it's different than restaurants for example).