equanimity for non-mask wearers (personal experience)

Some topics tend to get heated and go off track in unwholesome ways quite quickly. The "hot topics" sub-forum is a place where such topics may be moved so that each post must be manually approved by moderator before it will become visible to members.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 24168
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
salayatananirodha wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 2:56 am you're actually covering your nose and mouth though so even if it's a thin mask you might well be collecting some droplets maybe some aerosols.
Yes. In my state there are no minimum requirements for the mask. You can wear a scarf, a bandana or whatever.
salayatananirodha wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 2:56 am i'd like to know what condition actually makes it where you can't wear a mask, if it's too personal for you fine but i remain skeptical.
Asthma. Mostly it's "managed" through my current preventer Breo (which is far more effective than my previous preventer, Symbicort), but there can be times when it's what they classify as "unmanaged". It's when its unmanaged the mere physical effort to breathe is an undue exertion on the body, and cumulatively over time it can be exhausting. Add any kind of filter to that process, and that exertion increases in order to receive enough oxygen and airflow. That cumulative exertion manifests as chronic fatigue. My father, and his recently deceased mother have had similar experiences.
salayatananirodha wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 2:56 am but like i was trying to say in my original post it's my response that matters... anger is not legitimate in any way, nor fear, even tho they're to be expected.
Understood, which is why I've been happy to answer your questions.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view?" (SN 5.10)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 1088
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers

Post by salayatananirodha »

binocular wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 6:47 pm
santa100 wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 3:56 amSee if you're able to practice equanimity and disenchantment if you, due to your stupidity, did not wear a mask, caught Covid, became asymptomatic carrier who subsequently spread the virus to your 80 year-old parents, your 75-year-old in-laws, and killed them all.
Not his fault, because he didn't invent the virus. Besides, everyone needs to look out for themslves, who cares about others, even if they are one's own family.

:jawdrop:
from the standpoint of understanding kamma, i don't believe people are directly accountable for unknowingly (even if they are anti-mask karens) spreading covid. someone would have to know they have it and intend to infect someone for it to be that serious. even if they knew they had it but did not take proper precautions but didn't intend to infect someone then it would not be such a bad kamma. more like driving drunk?
16. 'In what has the world originated?' — so said the Yakkha Hemavata, — 'with what is the world intimate? by what is the world afflicted, after having grasped at what?' (167)

17. 'In six the world has originated, O Hemavata,' — so said Bhagavat, — 'with six it is intimate, by six the world is afflicted, after having grasped at six.' (168)

- Hemavatasutta


links:
https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadhamma/
https://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexe ... ta_toc.htm
https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/index.htm
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 1088
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers

Post by salayatananirodha »

I don't think seat belts should be compulsory. In fact, where i live, the vast majority do not fasten their seat belts and they seem to be functioning just fine.
i don't wear my seatbelt either, i dont think its the same thing because it doesnt involve other people in the same way. if my company doesn't want to enforce their own rule, i would rather go somewhere else, and i would rather go somewhere else anyway. anyway i guess most of the anti-mask people don't think it involves other people. but with prolonged indoor contact, it does. i don't know to what extent tho.
either i'm different from most pro-mask karens or pro-mask karens are actually more varied and not all about appealing to authority
i wanted to add, again referring to the original topic, that what stands out about this is that i'm afraid of catching corona and passing it to my household. mainly my mom, i would hate for her to die, and it has a lot to do with feeling guilt about having been an extremely bad son for years. she is diabetic and a smoker and has high blood pressure, but her weight is not that excessive and her a1c is under 6. and she's not on an ACE inhibitor, which supposedly increases your risk of coronavirus progression. if i got to a place where i felt i had made enough of a difference in my mom's life for good then i would be less worried. i think all the times i said things like 'i hope you die' i feel like it made my mind really low, so i am afraid for my future and hers, and i still criticize her excessively about the way she talks and we still get in arguments where ugly things are said.
16. 'In what has the world originated?' — so said the Yakkha Hemavata, — 'with what is the world intimate? by what is the world afflicted, after having grasped at what?' (167)

17. 'In six the world has originated, O Hemavata,' — so said Bhagavat, — 'with six it is intimate, by six the world is afflicted, after having grasped at six.' (168)

- Hemavatasutta


links:
https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadhamma/
https://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexe ... ta_toc.htm
https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/index.htm
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 10486
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers

Post by DooDoot »

salayatananirodha wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 3:20 am from the standpoint of understanding kamma
A Buddhist does not commit bad kamma by not agreeing with the directives of people who have a history of doing evil. Some of us do not trust certain governments. Instead, we consider a broader range of opinion on this matter. We do not respond from fear but from reason. Kind regards :mrgreen:
Last edited by DooDoot on Thu Jul 23, 2020 4:09 am, edited 4 times in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
sunnat
Posts: 710
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:08 am

OP

Post by sunnat »

'i try' - the payoff is in persisting with trying. Be patient with yourself. Keep trying. Mix it up with metta. It'll shift old clogged up irritation feelings/sensations and help in their passing.
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 1088
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers (personal experience)

Post by salayatananirodha »

my local thai temple has people who attend and do not wear masks. so i commented on their page and said i would not be coming anymore... sad
16. 'In what has the world originated?' — so said the Yakkha Hemavata, — 'with what is the world intimate? by what is the world afflicted, after having grasped at what?' (167)

17. 'In six the world has originated, O Hemavata,' — so said Bhagavat, — 'with six it is intimate, by six the world is afflicted, after having grasped at six.' (168)

- Hemavatasutta


links:
https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadhamma/
https://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexe ... ta_toc.htm
https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/index.htm
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 18340
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers

Post by mikenz66 »

[quote="Sam Vara" post_id=572404 time=1595455173 user_id=3795
A sound point, but there are a couple of differences. The first is that until recently, the Government in the UK were saying that wearing a mask was not necessary, ...
[/quote]
I know there are differences between wearing a mask and wearing a seatbelt, in that the former is mostly to protect others (and may or may not be effective), whereas the latter is mostly to protect oneself (but of course may prevent one from being a burden on others in case of a non-fatal accident).

And I understand that there are differences of opinion on how effective masks are. And that for some it would cause problems (and they should, of course, have exemptions).

However, my main reason for drawing a parallel is that I don't see how requiring someone to wear a mask, wear a seatbelt, drive at less than the speed limit, etc, (or not go naked for that matter) is some sort of heinous violation of rights. They are all in the category of minor inconvenience.

As for equanimity for people not wearing masks, it seems to me to be the same issue as equanimity for people speeding or engaging in various other annoying or dangerous behaviours.

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 10486
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers

Post by DooDoot »

mikenz66 wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:04 am I know ..
:roll:
Infectious diseases
Research
A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers

Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Hanoi, Vietnam
Institute for Clinical Pathology and Medical Research, Westmead Hospital and University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Beijing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China
Correspondence to Professor C Raina MacIntyre; [email protected]

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks.

Results. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.

Conclusions This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery

University of Oxford

The use of surgical facemasks is ubiquitous in surgical practice. Facemasks have long been thought to confer protection to the patient from wound infection and contamination from the operating surgeon and other members of the surgical staff. More recently, protection of the theatre staff from patient-derived blood/bodily fluid splashes has also been offered as a reason for their continued use. In light of current NHS budget constraints and cost-cutting strategies, we examined the evidence base behind the use of surgical facemasks.

Examination of the literature revealed much of the published work on the matter to be quite dated and often studies had poorly elucidated methodologies. As a result, we recommend caution in extrapolating their findings to contemporary surgical practice. However, overall there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination. More rigorous contemporary research is needed to make a definitive comment on the effectiveness of surgical facemasks

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558/
Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures

University of Hong Kong

Abstract
There were 3 influenza pandemics in the 20th century, and there has been 1 so far in the 21st century. Local, national, and international health authorities regularly update their plans for mitigating the next influenza pandemic in light of the latest available evidence on the effectiveness of various control measures in reducing transmission. Here, we review the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures and environmental hygiene measures in nonhealthcare settings and discuss their potential inclusion in pandemic plans. Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning. We identified several major knowledge gaps requiring further research, most fundamentally an improved characterization of the modes of person-to-person transmission.

Face Masks
In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2). One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group (33). Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months (9,10). The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies (9,10). Study designs in the 7 household studies were slightly different: 1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only (34), another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only (35), and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts (11–13,15,17). None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group (11–13,15,17,34,35). Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group.

Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

We did not consider the use of respirators in the community. Respirators are tight-fitting masks that can protect the wearer from fine particles (37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency. However, respirators, such as N95 and P2 masks, work best when they are fit-tested, and these masks will be in limited supply during the next pandemic. These specialist devices should be reserved for use in healthcare settings or in special subpopulations such as immunocompromised persons in the community, first responders, and those performing other critical community functions, as supplies permit.

In lower-income settings, it is more likely that reusable cloth masks will be used rather than disposable medical masks because of cost and availability (38). There are still few uncertainties in the practice of face mask use, such as who should wear the mask and how long it should be used for. In theory, transmission should be reduced the most if both infected members and other contacts wear masks, but compliance in uninfected close contacts could be a problem (12,34). Proper use of face masks is essential because improper use might increase the risk for transmission (39). Thus, education on the proper use and disposal of used face masks, including hand hygiene, is also needed.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
Mask box label says it can't promise protection: https://imgur.com/HYKIHaG
Attachments
mASK.png
Last edited by DooDoot on Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:08 am, edited 7 times in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 8065
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers

Post by Sam Vara »

mikenz66 wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:04 am my main reason for drawing a parallel is that I don't see how requiring someone to wear a mask, wear a seatbelt, drive at less than the speed limit, etc, (or not go naked for that matter) is some sort of heinous violation of rights. They are all in the category of minor inconvenience.

As for equanimity for people not wearing masks, it seems to me to be the same issue as equanimity for people speeding or engaging in various other annoying or dangerous behaviours.

:heart:
Mike
Yes, I certainly agree with the first quoted paragraph. Wearing a mask is easy and I will be doing so. With regard to the equanimity, I tend to differ on the second bit. I guess I should strive for equanimity towards dangerous drivers (they're just heedless; their boss has given them a tight schedule; etc.) but I find it difficult because most people deemed competent to drive should be able to see how obviously dangerous it is.

In the case of those not wearing masks, though, there is more scope for genuine confusion, due to changed messages from the government, and a justified belief that - as they have been told - the benefits are merely marginal. For this reason, I find it much easier to have compassion for the barefaces. If they stopped and thought about it, I don't think many of them would genuinely think they were harming anyone.
Bundokji
Posts: 3465
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers

Post by Bundokji »

salayatananirodha wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 3:54 am
I don't think seat belts should be compulsory. In fact, where i live, the vast majority do not fasten their seat belts and they seem to be functioning just fine.
i don't wear my seatbelt either, i dont think its the same thing because it doesnt involve other people in the same way. if my company doesn't want to enforce their own rule, i would rather go somewhere else, and i would rather go somewhere else anyway. anyway i guess most of the anti-mask people don't think it involves other people. but with prolonged indoor contact, it does. i don't know to what extent tho.
either i'm different from most pro-mask karens or pro-mask karens are actually more varied and not all about appealing to authority
i wanted to add, again referring to the original topic, that what stands out about this is that i'm afraid of catching corona and passing it to my household. mainly my mom, i would hate for her to die, and it has a lot to do with feeling guilt about having been an extremely bad son for years. she is diabetic and a smoker and has high blood pressure, but her weight is not that excessive and her a1c is under 6. and she's not on an ACE inhibitor, which supposedly increases your risk of coronavirus progression. if i got to a place where i felt i had made enough of a difference in my mom's life for good then i would be less worried. i think all the times i said things like 'i hope you die' i feel like it made my mind really low, so i am afraid for my future and hers, and i still criticize her excessively about the way she talks and we still get in arguments where ugly things are said.
Your fear about passing the virus to your mom is understandable. I think the pandemic presents a great opportunity for the contemplation of our own death, the death of a loved one and the constant danger of being a cause of harm to other beings. When the lord Buddha spoke to monks on their deathbeds, he asked them if they had any regrets.

When a certain risk is normalized or incorporated, there is a less room for guilt and more room for compassion. For example, not wearing a seat belt might increase the risk of injury and death, but when the risk is incorporated by being accepted by a large portion of the population, it will no longer be a part of a blame game that causes guilt.

On the social level, if each attempt to create a new norm goes unchallenged, this would be a recipe for totalitarianism and a slippery slope. While we are naturally inclined to care more about our relatives, the well-being of the society we live in would eventually affect us and our loved ones. Fixation in this particular instance is a form of oversimplification equating "well-being" with not being infected or passing on the virus to others.

My cousin passed away last month at 40 years old. He suffered from OCD and his fear from germs (including COVID) prevented him from staying long enough in a hospital to seek treatment for a problem with his liver caused by over drinking alcohol.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 1088
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers

Post by salayatananirodha »

retrofuturist wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 3:15 am Greetings,
salayatananirodha wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 2:56 am you're actually covering your nose and mouth though so even if it's a thin mask you might well be collecting some droplets maybe some aerosols.
Yes. In my state there are no minimum requirements for the mask. You can wear a scarf, a bandana or whatever.
salayatananirodha wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 2:56 am i'd like to know what condition actually makes it where you can't wear a mask, if it's too personal for you fine but i remain skeptical.
Asthma. Mostly it's "managed" through my current preventer Breo (which is far more effective than my previous preventer, Symbicort), but there can be times when it's what they classify as "unmanaged". It's when its unmanaged the mere physical effort to breathe is an undue exertion on the body, and cumulatively over time it can be exhausting. Add any kind of filter to that process, and that exertion increases in order to receive enough oxygen and airflow. That cumulative exertion manifests as chronic fatigue. My father, and his recently deceased mother have had similar experiences.
salayatananirodha wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 2:56 am but like i was trying to say in my original post it's my response that matters... anger is not legitimate in any way, nor fear, even tho they're to be expected.
Understood, which is why I've been happy to answer your questions.

Metta,
Paul. :)
i get that people have asthma, but then scarves, bandanas, etc are an option. but sometimes i forget that i'm even wearing mine, which is a surgical mask, so it would be difficult for me to relate to, but i have walked up a hill before and been sucking in the mask which seemed like it made it hard to breathe, but couldn't that be psychological. anyway, i dont want anyone to be in pain or have trouble breathing - there are face shields as well. i'm sympathetic to what you're saying but i still don't see a legitimate reason not to don some kind of face covering except 'i dont want to'. and that's my burden to bear because it is my mental state. if i can't handle that, what will i do if someone directly threatens me. but i'm still going to tell on someone who is in close quarters with me at work if they insist on not wearing a mask. and i may complain to my company that no one is enforcing the policy at the front entrances. but i still feel like i'm looking at others too much rather than myself, even tho i perceive this to be a legitimate issue. basically, i'm still conflicted
mikenz66 wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:04 am As for equanimity for people not wearing masks, it seems to me to be the same issue as equanimity for people speeding or engaging in various other annoying or dangerous behaviours.

:heart:
Mike
Screen Shot 2020-07-23 at 10.47.15 AM.png
Last edited by salayatananirodha on Thu Jul 23, 2020 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
16. 'In what has the world originated?' — so said the Yakkha Hemavata, — 'with what is the world intimate? by what is the world afflicted, after having grasped at what?' (167)

17. 'In six the world has originated, O Hemavata,' — so said Bhagavat, — 'with six it is intimate, by six the world is afflicted, after having grasped at six.' (168)

- Hemavatasutta


links:
https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadhamma/
https://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexe ... ta_toc.htm
https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/index.htm
befriend
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:39 am

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers (personal experience)

Post by befriend »

The people not wearing masks may have covid and be non symptomatic they don't have moral shame or moral dread they are spending some time in hell so I would have compassion for them they don't know what they're doing will send them to afflicted spirit animal or Apaya realm in this case I would have compassion because they are evil and the torment of hell is way worse than any pain on earth. If they kill someone out of negligence they are breaking the first precept. Choosing to not wear a mask is volitional indifference to people who may come in contact with those with people susceptible to dying from it. All beings are owners of their actions heirs of their actions beings are owners of their kamma. Pity them because their sub human bound.
Take care of mindfulness and mindfulness will take care of you.
Laurens
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:56 pm

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers (personal experience)

Post by Laurens »

It's just something you have to accept. Both the people not wearing masks, and how it makes you feel.
"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 24168
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers (personal experience)

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
befriend wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 4:32 pm The people not wearing masks may have covid and be non symptomatic they don't have moral shame or moral dread they are spending some time in hell so I would have compassion for them they don't know what they're doing will send them to afflicted spirit animal or Apaya realm in this case I would have compassion because they are evil and the torment of hell is way worse than any pain on earth. If they kill someone out of negligence they are breaking the first precept. Choosing to not wear a mask is volitional indifference to people who may come in contact with those with people susceptible to dying from it. All beings are owners of their actions heirs of their actions beings are owners of their kamma. Pity them because their sub human bound.
That "kammic analysis" has no basis whatsoever in the suttas. It really is just aversion and superstition tarted up as being "Buddhist".

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view?" (SN 5.10)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: equanimity for non-mask wearers

Post by binocular »

Bundokji wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:56 pmIt does not have to be either indifference or care. This seems to be a false dilemma.
It's telling you call it a "dilemma", and not a mere dichotomy.
Bundokji wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:54 pmYour question about seat belts is a non-sequitur. Describing the incorporation of risk as doing just fine does not imply that those who choose to fasten their seat built are doing it out of obsession.
You started the obsession theme:
Bundokji wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:31 pmDoing just fine in that context is incorporating a certain risk into the system and not being fixated or obsessed about it.
I fail to see the relevance in the rest of your questions.
I'm trying to establish whether you're holding the position "my s**t don't stink", ie. a sense of superiority. Because deeming oneself superior, perfect and pure seems to underlie many people's aversion to wearing masks, or pretty much any other sanitary restriction, like the aversion to washing their hands after using the toilette.
Focusing on the risks is sometimes just a deflection.

Perfect hygiene isn't possible, and isn't even expected.
It's when people flat out refuse to make sanitary efforts in public spaces that shows that what is actually going on is a revolt against society, a conscious breech of the social contract. Anarchism. The closet anarchist is just hiding behind "risk analysis" and "reasonable level of sanitary measures".
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Post Reply