Cannot catch Covid outside says professor

[cancel2 2022]

You need to address that to Tommy.

Mr. Meoff is back!

 

[cancel2 2022]

So you never had a common sense?

Oh I knew that a long time back, if it's such common knowledge then why were so many countries demanding that people wear masks outdoors?

 

[Blackcat13th]

So you never had a common sense?

Define common sense.

That which everyone has been indoctrinated to accept case, or, that which people can commonly understand for themselves. "Common sense" is used as a bit of an equivocation fallacy with either of these two polar opposite meanings.

 

[cancel2 2022]

You need to address that to Tommy.

You should stop kissing arse then!

 

[AProudLefty]

Oh I knew that a long time back, if it's such common knowledge then why were so many countries demanding that people wear masks outdoors?

No clue about other countries. But here it's pretty obvious you do not need to wear masks outdoors. I've never seen anybody do that here except those who forgot they had them on. Blech.

 

[AProudLefty]

Define common sense.

That which everyone has been indoctrinated to accept or that which people can commonly understand for themselves. "Common sense" is used as a bit of an equivocation fallacy with either of these two polar opposite meanings.

Common sense in this case is wearing masks isn't necessary outdoors except in rare cases.

 

[cancel2 2022]

If you’re outside kissing someone with COVID, you’re going to catch COVID.

Such a profound observation, where do you get these unique insights.

 

[cancel2 2022]

No clue about other countries. But here it's pretty obvious you do not need to wear masks outdoors. I've never seen anybody do that here except those who forgot they had them on. Blech.

Oh dear, you just make stuff up. Washington had an outdoor mask wearing policy and I'm pretty sure it wasn't the only one.

https://mayor.dc.gov/release/mayor-...s-order-masks-extends-public-health-emergency

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...oo-paranoid-to-follow-the-science/ar-BB1fWFD8

 

[AProudLefty]

Oh dear, you just make stuff up. Washington had an outdoor mask wearing policy and I'm pretty sure it wasn't the only one.

https://mayor.dc.gov/release/mayor-...s-order-masks-extends-public-health-emergency

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...oo-paranoid-to-follow-the-science/ar-BB1fWFD8

Thank you for proving.

people must wear a mask when they leave their homes if they are likely to come into contact with another person for more than a fleeting moment.

a person who is actively eating or drinking; and a person who is engaged in vigorous outdoor exercise

maintaining social distance of at least six feet from other people

How does it feel to be owned by the very own source you linked to?

 

[cancel2 2022]

I don't know. He seems to be a permanent fixture here at JPP. How can you not appreciate cutting edge information about not catching COVID outside?

I've had that arsehole NotAllThere on ignore for many years, never see his bullshit unless some prick like you quotes him.

 

[Jack]

You should stop kissing arse then!

... and this is what I get for sticking up for you.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Thank you for proving.

people must wear a mask when they leave their homes if they are likely to come into contact with another person for more than a fleeting moment.

a person who is actively eating or drinking; and a person who is engaged in vigorous outdoor exercise

maintaining social distance of at least six feet from other people

How does it feel to be owned by the very own source you linked to?

Why do you go out of your way to be stupid?

 

[AProudLefty]

Why do you go out of your way to be stupid?

What do you mean? Nobody said you have to wear masks outdoors all the time.

 

[Jack]

I've had that arsehole NotAllThere on ignore for many years, never see his bullshit unless some prick like you quotes him.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Takes one to know one!

 

[Into the Night]

Means nothing.

It actually does. If you want to go against what is clearly seen on an electron microscope, and the works of Pasteur and Jenner, that's your choice. You just want to deny science.

Very obviously they can still be alive.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Define 'life'.

They have a structure that sorrounds and protects their internal dna insertion structures.

Buzzword fallacies. There is no such thing as a 'DNA insertion structure' in a virus, or even in a cell.

Whether or not you call it a cell wall or a polka dotted marmoset has no bearing whether it exists or not.

So...because a car has a body that surrounds an engine, it's alive as well?

False equivalency. A virus is nothing like the universe as a whole.

Never said it did. Fallacy fallacy. Pivot fallacy.

Thats the way your counterpoint looks, yes.

Inversion fallacy. Grow up.

you said it does not exist in the context of a virus. Red herring fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy. A virus is not alive.

That which exists independently of belief

Void definition. Try again. Define 'real'.

Repeated attemps to delegitimize reality itself. Why should you need to ask me?

Because you are using 'real' and 'reality' as a buzzword, without meaning. Define it. You're gonna need philosophy for this one!

pure unadulterated psycopathy.

Buzzword fallacy. I don't think you know the meaning of this word either.

First, define 'real'. Then define 'life'.

red herring fallacy.

No such fallacy. Denial of logic. Red herring fallacies are a group of fallacies.

Rhetoric

Nope. You are attempting to conduct a proof by buzzword. That's a fallacy, dude.

your dictionary sux.

I am not using a dictionary. What's your infatuation with dictionaries?

repetitious rhetoric

Nope. Define 'real'. You are going to get nowhere using this word until you define it.

psycopathy, i can clearly do whatever i please.

Buzzword fallacy. No, you can't. You cannot define any word using a dictionary. Dictionaries don't define any word. You must use philosophy.

If you're trying to prove something has no life then how can you say i need to prove the existence of life itself?

I'm not. You are, however, using 'life' as a buzzword, without meaning. Define it.

 

[Into the Night]

psucopathy doesnt relate to personality

I assume you mean 'psychopathy', and yes, it does.

and frankly, books do definitly have personality

Nope. They are just a hunk of paper with a binding of some sort. Most have writing in them. Some are blank.

if you can get to the intended meaning they present.

You are confusing 'book' with 'author'. No, they do not mean the same thing.

Everything in any and every book is complete psycopathy.

Buzzword fallacy. Compositional error fallacy.

The meanings it portrays exist independently of the meanings it attempts to portray.

Paradox. Irrational statement.

How could that not be a disconnection to reality and psychosis itself?

Buzzword fallacies. Define 'real'.

thats exactly what it is. How could either of us be right or wrong if it were otherwise?

Question based on void semantics. Irrelevant.

a squiggle, that's all

Denial of writing.

thats exactly what they're defined by.

Words are not defined by writing.

pretty well everyone would say their car died. My usage was perfectly well suitable

Irrational. You still have not resolved this paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. You must choose one or the other argument and utterly discard the other. That is the only way to resolve a paradox. Which is it, dude?

False dilemma fallacy. Theres no reason it couldn't be both.

Fallacy fallacy. The paradox was made by YOU. Only YOU can resolve it!

if words are defined by their usage then how is a dictionary not a citable usage?

A dictionary is not a usage.

challenge declined. Not worth the effort.

So you can't define 'real'. Thought so. I will continue to call on your buzzword use of it then.

Why delve into the ontology when even the most basic concepts require whole encyclopedias?

Because until you do, you are just using a buzzword.

The concept does not require any encyclopedia. Encyclopedias do not define any word either.

 

[Into the Night]

Define common sense.

Define 'real'. Define 'life'.

That which everyone has been indoctrinated to accept case, or, that which people can commonly understand for themselves. "Common sense" is used as a bit of an equivocation fallacy with either of these two polar opposite meanings.

No equivocation here. Fallacy fallacy. These are not opposite meanings either.

You seem to be having a lot of trouble with English.

 

[Into the Night]

Common sense in this case is wearing masks isn't necessary outdoors except in rare cases.

Paradox M. You can't argue both sides of a paradox, dude.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Thank you for proving.

people must wear a mask when they leave their homes if they are likely to come into contact with another person for more than a fleeting moment.

a person who is actively eating or drinking; and a person who is engaged in vigorous outdoor exercise

maintaining social distance of at least six feet from other people

How does it feel to be owned by the very own source you linked to?

You never miss an opportunity to be a dick, why?

"The science says ..." has become a national refrain that anyone can repeat to thwart, immediately and permanently, any criticism that might be coming their way.

For years we’ve been told to "listen to the science" on climate change. Since the coronavirus pandemic began, we’ve been told to "listen to the science" on how the virus spreads and what steps we should take to combat it.

This has led to some common-sense lifestyle changes: wear a mask indoors, let workers who can work remotely do so, etc. It has also led to some silly rules: restaurants barred from selling alcohol after 10 p.m. (because that’s when COVID-19 emerges for its nocturnal mischief!), national parks closed (so people can stay cooped up indoors for the good of their health), and outdoor mask mandates.

Even when we knew little about the virus, it was pretty obvious that passing someone on the sidewalk or relaxing, socially distanced, in the same park as your neighbor wasn’t going to contribute significantly to community spread. Yet that didn’t stop cities from implementing outdoor mask mandates — or stop citizens from taking these mandates extremely seriously.

Washington has had an outdoor mask mandate in place for nearly a year now, and while it makes an exception for "vigorous outdoor exercise" and "maintaining social distance of at least six feet from other people," you wouldn’t be able to tell by walking down the street.

As a D.C. resident, I have seen countless bikers in masks as well as clusters of Lululemon-wearing yoga observers, six feet apart in a park and fully masked. Runners wear masks, gaggles of friends in parks wear masks. You will likely get dirty looks if you step outside of your apartment, even for a moment, for an unmasked breath of fresh air.

For people in D.C. and other metro areas across the U.S., outdoor mask-wearing isn’t about following the science. It’s a lifestyle, and it’s about signaling to others that they’re taking this pandemic seriously.

But it’s not 2020 anymore. More than half of Americans are at least partially vaccinated. The economy is opening back up. The only signaling we should be doing now is signaling that we’re actually following the science, not following overzealous efforts to indicate our superiority.

Last week, Slate ran an article concluding that "it’s about time for us to stop wearing masks outside." In the article, an infectious diseases physician explains how unlikely it is to get COVID-19 from passing someone on the street:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...oo-paranoid-to-follow-the-science/ar-BB1fWFD8