Pool Tournaments During COVID Pandemic

jokrswylde

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
People like that are the worst kind. They cannot be reasoned with. Too dumb to know any better, and too arrogant to realize they don't know enough. They don't know the difference between lifestyle choices and a duty to your fellow human beings. Fuck 'em.

Are you old enough to be using grown up words, scooter? Ignorance like this is the reason people can't debate and disagree like gentlemen. You can't intelligently state your position, but dawg gone it, you just know you are right, and anybody that disagrees is dumb. Listen up snowflake, no need to get triggered. Live your life like you see fit, and ill do the same.
 

jokrswylde

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I know, I know.

Caring about your health and the health of your family and friends — so silly. Better to have big brass ones, live your life without fear, and risk potentially killing them all.

Lou Figueroa
you go!
Nobody said anything about caring being silly, nobody said anything about big brass ones. That is you unwilling to accept that others don't believe as you do.
 

justadub

Rattling corners nightly
Silver Member
I know, I know.

Caring about your health and the health of your family and friends — so silly. Better to have big brass ones, live your life without fear, and risk potentially killing them all.

Lou Figueroa
you go!
cuz 'murrica...
 

surlytempo

Member
Are you old enough to be using grown up words, scooter? Ignorance like this is the reason people can't debate and disagree like gentlemen. You can't intelligently state your position, but dawg gone it, you just know you are right, and anybody that disagrees is dumb. Listen up snowflake, no need to get triggered. Live your life like you see fit, and ill do the sa
ok boomer 🙄
 

Get_A_Grip

Truth Will Set You Free
Silver Member
And yet more evidence that since the emergence of COVID 19, the normal flu virus seems to have all but disappeared. What a wild coincidence....




_______
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
There are two persuasions of people, with two different basic fundamental value systems, and these fundamental value systems guide how you see the world, shape all of your beliefs and positions, and almost perfectly correlate with and predict which of the two major political parties your beliefs will be most aligned with.

There are those that believe that when rights and desires come into conflict, almost without exception the rights of people should always supersede and take precedence over the desires of people, even in cases when it is the right of one or a few against the desires of many. They do not feel it is ever acceptable to screw one guy to help the next. Rights reign supreme.

Then there are those people that feel that their desires should always supersede and take precedence over even the “rights” of others. While they almost never have the self awareness to realize it, in essence they essentially believe that there is no such thing as rights, because as soon as someone’s rights conflict with their desires they no longer see those rights as being a right, hence there really is no such things as absolute or inalienable or inherent rights in their minds when it comes down to it. The only "rights" they will ever recognize and honor are the ones that do not conflict with their current desires. They make judgments about who they would like to give help or benefit to and in what ways, and then those desires are always going to reign supreme and have importance above all else including anybody else’s rights. They find it both necessary and perfectly acceptable to screw one guy in order to help the next guy or themselves. Their desires are what always reigns supreme.

I can only speak from the perspective of the former (so those from the latter persuasion are likely to see things differently), the persuasion I happen to belong to, because it is the only perspective that is moral and logical and I cannot find any way to justify having positions or a value system that is not both moral and logical. Anyway, rights always win out over desires no matter how strong or justified you feel your desire is, so that generally makes things fairly easy to sort out (as long as you are careful not to falsely see desires as “rights” which is very tough trap not to fall into for many people because of bias born out of natural desire to act in self interest, aka selfishness).

Where things get complicated is when the actual rights of various people are in conflict and there is no way to fully enforce all of their rights at once. Fortunately it is actually pretty rare that this happens. When it does a good rule of thumb is that a person’s rights end at that point where they would start to infringe on somebody else’s rights. Even that can have exceptions though, and those are the cases where you have to make judgment calls about which rights are more important than other rights, how many people are affected in what ways depending on which rights get violated how much etc, and in these cases often a compromise of sorts where everybody’s rights get violated a bit is the best solution.

So the question with this whole covid and mask thing is, who has what rights, and which things are just people’s desires as opposed to actual rights even if they are really strong or desperate desires? If there are no conflicting rights to be found in the issue then it makes forming the correct positions much easier because all rights will always supersede all desires regardless of what the desires are. If there are conflicting rights though, then judgments and probably compromises that everybody will be unhappy with will have to be made (and that everybody is equally unhappy with it is one of the best ways to know that a compromise or deal is a good and fair one).

People generally have the right to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with somebody else’s rights. You know, that whole life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness thing. People have an inherent right to choose whether or not they want to wear a mask. On the flip side, I also think people have a right to not have their lives put into potential danger by the actions of others. Kind of like how we don’t allow drunk driving to use an example given by someone else earlier, and pretty much everybody agrees not allowing drunk driving is a reasonable thing and you never hear a “if you don’t want to risk a drunk driver harming you then stay home but I have a right to drive drunk” argument. And both of those things seem like actual rights to me as opposed to desires.

So now we have one of those rare cases where actual rights and not just desires are in conflict. So the next logical argument, following in the “your rights end where mine begin” vein is, “well your right to choose not to wear a mask ends as soon as you are around others because now you are infringing on my right to not have my life put in the way of potential harm against my wishes”. But a valid argument back is that masks aren’t even proven to be very effective, or have a largely unknown effectiveness at best. Maybe if masks where incredibly effective they would have a good argument, but if masks aren’t even all the effective then that argument carries little weight. Problem is we really don’t know if they help a little or a ton or somewhere in between, and do you really have a right to violate somebody else’s right to choose whether or not they wear a mask, in pursuit of your right not to be put in the way of undue potential harm, if you don’t really know for sure how much it is helping or if it were only helping a little?

I don’t have all the answers here but what seems reasonably clear to me is a couple of things. First, those that are very strongly on either side of the issue are conveniently ignoring the rights of others based on their own biases and self interest and selfishness. Second, it seems likely to me that a compromise that neither side is going to be happy with is probably the most fair and just solution as is often the case when you get into conflicting rights. The question is just what that compromise should look like, but we are never going to be able to get there until we can all at least start acknowledging and valuing the rights of “the other side” because both sides do indeed seem to have valid rights that are being jeopardized and that are deserving of respect.

Maybe the compromise would look something like this. Masks required in “involuntary” and highest risk places, and not required in “voluntary” places or lowest risk places. Involuntary places would be things like the DMV, your work, the grocery store, pharmacy, etc, places you don’t have much choice but to have to go, and high risk being places like nursing homes etc. And voluntary places would be pool halls, bars, restaurants, social gatherings, the pool supplies store, etc, basically any place you would go to more out of desire than necessity, and low risk being schools, anything outdoors, etc. Everybody from both sides would hate it which means it is probably a good compromise, yet it would also actually have some focused common sense effectiveness as opposed to being just for show as a large number of current policies are. Pretty hard for the “I have a right not to wear a mask” crowd to complain about not being able to put people at risk in places those people have no choice but to have to go, and pretty hard for the “I have a right not to have my health jeopardized by non-mask wearers” crowd to complain about getting covid in voluntary places like the bar that they don't have to go to and are voluntarily accepting the risk if they do.
 
Last edited:

livemusic

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
There are two persuasions of people, with two different basic fundamental value systems, and these fundamental value systems guide how you see the world, shape all of your beliefs and positions, and almost perfectly correlate with and predict which of the two major political parties your beliefs will be most aligned with.

There are those that believe that when rights and desires come into conflict, almost without exception the rights of people should always supersede and take precedence over the desires of people, even in cases when it is the right of one or a few against the desires of many. They do not feel it is ever acceptable to screw one guy to help the next. Rights reign supreme.

Then there are those people that feel that their desires should always supersede and take precedence over even the “rights” of others. While they almost never have the self awareness to realize it, in essence they essentially believe that there is no such thing as rights, because as soon as someone’s rights conflict with their desires they no longer see those rights as a right, hence why there really is no such things as absolute rights in their minds when it comes down to it. The only "rights" they will ever honor are the ones that do not conflict with their current desires. They make judgments about who they would like to give help or benefit to and in what ways and then those desires are always going to reign supreme and have importance above all else including anybody else’s rights. They find it both necessary and perfectly acceptable to screw one guy in order to help the next guy or themselves. Desire reigns supreme.

I can only speak from the perspective of the former (so those from the latter persuasion are likely to see things differently), the persuasion I happen to belong to, because it is the only perspective that is moral and logical and I cannot find any way to justify having positions or value systems that are not both moral and logical. Anyway, rights always win out over desires no matter how strong or justified you feel your desire is, so that generally makes things fairly easy to sort out (as long as you are careful not to see desires as “rights” which is tough for many people because of bias and a desire to act in self interest, aka selfishness). Where things get complicated is when the actual rights of various people are in conflict and there is no way to fully enforce all of their rights at once. Fortunately it is actually pretty rare that this ever happens. When it does a good rule of thumb is that a person’s rights end at that point where they would start to infringe on somebody else’s rights. Even that can have exceptions though, and those are the cases where you have to make judgment calls about which rights are more important than other rights, how many people are affected in what ways depending on which rights get violated how much etc, and in such cases often a compromise of sorts where everybody’s rights get violated a bit is the best solution.

So the question with this whole covid and mask thing is, who has what rights, and which things are just people’s desires as opposed to actual rights even if they are really strong or desperate desires? If there are no conflicting rights to be found in the issue then it makes forming the correct positions much easier because all rights will always supersede desires regardless of what the desires are. If there are conflicting rights though, then judgments and probably compromises that everybody will be unhappy with will have to be made (and that everybody is unhappy with it one of the best ways to know that a compromise or deal was a good and fair one).

People generally have the right to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with somebody else’s rights. You know, that whole life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness thing. People have an inherent right to choose whether or not they want to wear a mask. On the flip side, I also think people have a right to not have their lives put into potential danger by the actions of others. Kind of like how we don’t allow drunk driving to use an example given by someone else earlier, and pretty much everybody agrees not allowing drunk driving is a reasonable thing and you never hear a “if you don’t want to risk a drunk driver harming you then stay home but I have a right to drive drunk” argument. And both of those things seem like actual rights to me as opposed to desires.

So now we have one of those rare cases where actual rights and not just desires are in conflict. So the next logical argument, following in the “your rights end where mine begin” vein is, “well your right to choose not to wear a mask ends as soon as you are around others because now you are infringing on my right to not have my life put in the way of potential harm against my wishes”. But a valid argument back is that masks aren’t even proven to be very effective, or have a largely unknown effectiveness at best. Maybe if masks where incredibly effective they would have a good argument, but if masks aren’t even all the effective then that argument carries little weight. Problem is we really don’t know if they help a little or a ton or somewhere in between, and do you really have a right to violate somebody else’s right to choose whether or not they wear a mask, in pursuit of your right not to be put in the way of undue potential harm, if you don’t really know for sure how much it is helping or if it were only helping a little?

I don’t have all the answers here but what seems reasonably clear to me is a couple of things. First, those that are strongly on both sides of the issue are conveniently ignoring the rights of others based on their own biases and self interest and selfishness. Second, it seems likely to me that a compromise that neither side is going to be happy with is probably the most fair and just solution as is often the case when you get into conflicting rights. The question is just what that compromise should look like, but we are never going to be able to get there until we can all at least start acknowledging and valuing the rights of “the other side” because both sides do indeed seem to have valid rights that are being jeopardized and that are deserving of respect.

Maybe the compromise would look something like this. Masks required in “involuntary” and highest risk places, and not required in “voluntary” places or lowest risk places. Involuntary places would be things like the DMV, your work, the grocery store, pharmacy, etc, places you don’t have much choice but to have to go, and high risk being places like nursing homes etc. And involuntary places would be pool halls, bars, restaurants, social gatherings, etc, basically any place you would go to more out of desire than necessity, and low risk being schools, anything outdoors, etc. Everybody from both sides would hate it, which means it is probably a good compromise, yet it would also actually have some focused common sense effectiveness as opposed to being just for show as a large number of current policies are. Pretty hard for the “I have a right not to wear a mask” crowd to complain about not being able to put people at risk in places those people have no choice but to have to go, and pretty hard for the “I have a right not to have my health jeopardized by non-mask wearers” crowd to complain about getting covid in voluntary places like the bar that they don't have to go to and are voluntarily accepting the risk if they do.

If you're not a lawyer, you missed your calling. Well-written, some good points. Peace.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Nobody said anything about caring being silly, nobody said anything about big brass ones. That is you unwilling to accept that others don't believe as you do.

You're right, I said it first to describe all the baloney.

Lou Figueroa
first to say "baloney"
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
And yet more evidence that since the emergence of COVID 19, the normal flu virus seems to have all but disappeared. What a wild coincidence....




_______

"Realist News" does not present "evidence."

It presents conspiracy theories and gives survivalists stuff to fantasize about.

Lou Figueroa
 

PoolPlayer4

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Nah, old folks SHOULD probably fear the covid. What is stupid is people presumptuous enough to think that the way THEY choose to live is how EVERYONE should choose to live.
How presumptuous of people to think that because THEY choose not to drive drunk, EVERYONE should choose not to drive drunk.
 

jokrswylde

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
There are two persuasions of people, with two different basic fundamental value systems, and these fundamental value systems guide how you see the world, shape all of your beliefs and positions, and almost perfectly correlate with and predict which of the two major political parties your beliefs will be most aligned with.

There are those that believe that when rights and desires come into conflict, almost without exception the rights of people should always supersede and take precedence over the desires of people, even in cases when it is the right of one or a few against the desires of many. They do not feel it is ever acceptable to screw one guy to help the next. Rights reign supreme.

Then there are those people that feel that their desires should always supersede and take precedence over even the “rights” of others. While they almost never have the self awareness to realize it, in essence they essentially believe that there is no such thing as rights, because as soon as someone’s rights conflict with their desires they no longer see those rights as a right, hence why there really is no such things as absolute rights in their minds when it comes down to it. The only "rights" they will ever honor are the ones that do not conflict with their current desires. They make judgments about who they would like to give help or benefit to and in what ways and then those desires are always going to reign supreme and have importance above all else including anybody else’s rights. They find it both necessary and perfectly acceptable to screw one guy in order to help the next guy or themselves. Desire reigns supreme.

I can only speak from the perspective of the former (so those from the latter persuasion are likely to see things differently), the persuasion I happen to belong to, because it is the only perspective that is moral and logical and I cannot find any way to justify having positions or value systems that are not both moral and logical. Anyway, rights always win out over desires no matter how strong or justified you feel your desire is, so that generally makes things fairly easy to sort out (as long as you are careful not to see desires as “rights” which is tough for many people because of bias and a desire to act in self interest, aka selfishness). Where things get complicated is when the actual rights of various people are in conflict and there is no way to fully enforce all of their rights at once. Fortunately it is actually pretty rare that this ever happens. When it does a good rule of thumb is that a person’s rights end at that point where they would start to infringe on somebody else’s rights. Even that can have exceptions though, and those are the cases where you have to make judgment calls about which rights are more important than other rights, how many people are affected in what ways depending on which rights get violated how much etc, and in such cases often a compromise of sorts where everybody’s rights get violated a bit is the best solution.

So the question with this whole covid and mask thing is, who has what rights, and which things are just people’s desires as opposed to actual rights even if they are really strong or desperate desires? If there are no conflicting rights to be found in the issue then it makes forming the correct positions much easier because all rights will always supersede desires regardless of what the desires are. If there are conflicting rights though, then judgments and probably compromises that everybody will be unhappy with will have to be made (and that everybody is unhappy with it one of the best ways to know that a compromise or deal was a good and fair one).

People generally have the right to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with somebody else’s rights. You know, that whole life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness thing. People have an inherent right to choose whether or not they want to wear a mask. On the flip side, I also think people have a right to not have their lives put into potential danger by the actions of others. Kind of like how we don’t allow drunk driving to use an example given by someone else earlier, and pretty much everybody agrees not allowing drunk driving is a reasonable thing and you never hear a “if you don’t want to risk a drunk driver harming you then stay home but I have a right to drive drunk” argument. And both of those things seem like actual rights to me as opposed to desires.

So now we have one of those rare cases where actual rights and not just desires are in conflict. So the next logical argument, following in the “your rights end where mine begin” vein is, “well your right to choose not to wear a mask ends as soon as you are around others because now you are infringing on my right to not have my life put in the way of potential harm against my wishes”. But a valid argument back is that masks aren’t even proven to be very effective, or have a largely unknown effectiveness at best. Maybe if masks where incredibly effective they would have a good argument, but if masks aren’t even all the effective then that argument carries little weight. Problem is we really don’t know if they help a little or a ton or somewhere in between, and do you really have a right to violate somebody else’s right to choose whether or not they wear a mask, in pursuit of your right not to be put in the way of undue potential harm, if you don’t really know for sure how much it is helping or if it were only helping a little?

I don’t have all the answers here but what seems reasonably clear to me is a couple of things. First, those that are strongly on both sides of the issue are conveniently ignoring the rights of others based on their own biases and self interest and selfishness. Second, it seems likely to me that a compromise that neither side is going to be happy with is probably the most fair and just solution as is often the case when you get into conflicting rights. The question is just what that compromise should look like, but we are never going to be able to get there until we can all at least start acknowledging and valuing the rights of “the other side” because both sides do indeed seem to have valid rights that are being jeopardized and that are deserving of respect.

Maybe the compromise would look something like this. Masks required in “involuntary” and highest risk places, and not required in “voluntary” places or lowest risk places. Involuntary places would be things like the DMV, your work, the grocery store, pharmacy, etc, places you don’t have much choice but to have to go, and high risk being places like nursing homes etc. And voluntary places would be pool halls, bars, restaurants, social gatherings, etc, basically any place you would go to more out of desire than necessity, and low risk being schools, anything outdoors, etc. Everybody from both sides would hate it, which means it is probably a good compromise, yet it would also actually have some focused common sense effectiveness as opposed to being just for show as a large number of current policies are. Pretty hard for the “I have a right not to wear a mask” crowd to complain about not being able to put people at risk in places those people have no choice but to have to go, and pretty hard for the “I have a right not to have my health jeopardized by non-mask wearers” crowd to complain about getting covid in voluntary places like the bar that they don't have to go to and are voluntarily accepting the risk if they do.
That is a well hashed out position. The thing is, if you were to read back through any post I've ever made, I wear a mask in public. In fact, as a teacher, I would wager that I wear a mask as much or more than most people. Doesn't matter to these people coming from your "deisires" group. It is not enough to wear the mask. You have to scream, yell, belittle, and tell ANYONE that doesn't believe the way you do that they are responsible for murdering innocent mask wearers.

Your compromise idea might be where we are headed, but I have a major difference of opinion on that. Instead of classifying high risk vs. low risk, how about we classify private vs. public property? If a privately owned business does not require masks, then ANYONE who enters is making an informed decision...likewise with a business that chooses to require masks. Then the folks dead set against wearing them have a choice to either walk through the door, or not. Why should the government get EVEN more control over our lives by mandating this in a PRIVATE business. We have given them enough control already!

IF the government feels so strongly that they mandate masks in all government owned spaces, so be it. Keep out of privately owned, free business.
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
Overall death rates are surprisingly flat but the reason is simple. In trying to avoid covid we are curtailing voluntary activities. I was stunned to get my last auto insurance bill. I didn't do the math but about a 30% reduction! Seems that in the time of covid people aren't driving nearly as much. Benefits all around in terms of injuries, deaths, and property damage. I hadn't intended to name them but I sure as hell would have had things went the other way, State Farm did something right!

With all of the canceled events I am sure all types of accidents are way down. We aren't dying from many of the medical issues that kill people, all nonessential surgeries postponed, no risk there and no risk from the congregating at the hospital. My last couple trips, nobody allowed to accompany me indoors.

Of course some die from covid that would have died from other causes but for the most part, covid is making us live smarter lower risk lives. I don't doubt that covid related causes have killed over 300,000, I think the number is much higher, but oddly enough, covid related reductions in activities are saving roughly the same number of lives. If we went back to normal activities then we would have the normal number of deaths plus the 3000 or so more a day covid is killing.

I have to wonder if we are going to slowly return to near normal over a span of years or are we going to see the equivalent of the roaring 20's?

Hu
 

jokrswylde

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
How presumptuous of people to think that because THEY choose not to drive drunk, EVERYONE should choose not to drive drunk.
Well you know dude, we could stop drunk driving. Easy. Not one other innocent person has to die from DD. First, we ban alcohol. Then just to be extra safe, we MANDATE that ALL cars be retrofitted with Interlock ignitions so that in order to start, you have to blow into a breathalyzer and prove you are not drunk.

How far are YOU willing to go in order to stop drunk driving. It can be done. Just a few more government mandates and lost freedoms. A minor inconvenience, a small price to pay, right?
 

HNTFSH

Birds, Bass & Bottoms
Silver Member
Could you link your favorite Covid19 resources?
I note a very strong similarity between what you say and what my daughter says.

I would like to read the original opinions from the talking point sites.
Reminds me the Dermatologist requires the temperature be taken before entering their facility for an allergy shot but the surgical center of the major area Hospital network does not because it's not an indicator. "Opinions" and "Science" abound.
 

jokrswylde

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Reminds me the Dermatologist requires the temperature be taken before entering their facility for an allergy shot but the surgical center of the major area Hospital network does not because it's not an indicator. "Opinions" and "Science" abound.
We take the temp of every kid that comes in school. Those fancy forehead scanners. I have yet to have one read over 97.0. Sometimes I will take it at their wrist just to change things up. Still haven't had anyone approach a "normal" 98.6. Every kid wears a mask. Every kid gets their temp. taken. We have had a bunch of positive cases. Not one was caught at the door with a thermometer. "Science" abounds.
 
Top