Forums >Health and Nutrition>The COVID-19 Wild West Thread
Problem Child
I’m more interested in what “wild west” means to the OP.
Back in the old days (early 90s) we all died of "dissin Terry" in the Wild West. Now we die positive for Covid 19 after 5 years of battling cancer or being run over by a bus.
Many of us aren't sure what the hell point you are trying to make and no matter how we guess, it always seems to be something else. Which usually means a person is doing it on purpose.
VDOT 53.37
5k18:xx | Marathon 2:55:22
Mmmm Bop
And I'm interested in your answer to my question.
I would say a wild west thread means that anything goes...no mods no rules.
I’m from the UK, so maybe it means something completely different in the US?
5k - 17:53 (4/19) 10k - 37:53 (11/18) Half - 1:23:18 (4/19) Full - 2:50:43 (4/19)
I would say a wild west thread means that anything goes...no mods no rules. I’m from the UK, so maybe it means something completely different in the US?
Everything means completely different in the US now-days - if you were not born in the US, the best advice you will get from freedom-loving Americans, who are obviously proud of having First Amendment in their constitution - "just shut up and listen"... Don't even think about what you are thinking. And don't ask questions... Because you don't understand - it is way too complicated for you who is not born here - our values are so different from where you were born and raised. So, where we are? Ah, yes - shut up and listen...
paces PRs - 5K - 5:48 / 10K - 6:05 / HM - 6:14 / FM - 6:26 per mile
an amazing likeness
Instead of being bristled about it, why don't you just go forward assuming Trent's definition and yours are fairly close. As the OP, he was pretty clear.
"...In general, this will be an unmoderated thread except for extreme comments that mods deem as outright dangerous. Please note, this thread is NOT a reliable place for COVID-19 related information and likely includes false information..."
Of course, if you're goal is to get to a NIGYSOB ('now I've got you, son of a bitch')...that approach will likely not be satisfying to you.
Acceptable at a dance, invaluable in a shipwreck.
While I appreciate your perspective as an immigrant, bringing your experience and perspective to the table...all very valuable -- let me offer to clarify the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America -- which is significantly different than what you've expressed here.
Specifically it states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The 1st Amendment of United States only applies to the US Government making laws. It has no application to interactions between citizens and/or abridgement of your rights to express your views, your opinions or your right to publish your words, thoughts or other expressions. Nothing the 1st Amendment says, implies or encourages "shut up and listen". In fact, the 1st Amendment codifies the opposite.
Good Bad & The Monkey
Which is to say, the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution bars the government or an arm of the government from gassing protesters when it disagrees with the protesters' message.
Oh wait.
Snap.
At least A1 does nothing to prohibit private entities such as Twitter or RunningAhead to moderate or block content.
I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.
Poor baby
While I appreciate your perspective as an immigrant, bringing your experience and perspective to the table...all very valuable -- let me offer to clarify the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America -- which is significantly different than what you've expressed here. Specifically it states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The 1st Amendment of United States only applies to the US Government making laws. It has no application to interactions between citizens and/or abridgement of your rights to express your views, your opinions or your right to publish your words, thoughts or other expressions. Nothing the 1st Amendment says, implies or encourages "shut up and listen". In fact, the 1st Amendment codifies the opposite.
Thank you for trying to educate naturalized US citizen on what you think is actual First Amendment really means. Your perspective is very valuable, all is good, but please, try to imagine that on the other side of the table there are intelligent people and they cannot just believe to everything what other people saying. Because what you are saying, if that were true, that would make little sense to mention to others, or to be proud of. Which I assure you many born in the US Americans are. Yes, the paragraph you referred to is correct, but I am not sure why you stopped there and made the whole unnecessary, incorrect interpretation - like that's it - you are not the government entity - sit in your little house, shut up and just listen (which is, unfortunately is a reality). Here is the interpretation you can find at plenty of trusted resources:
...
United States law allows people the right to practice religion freely, speak freely, for the press to speak freely, and for people to assemble or petition peacefully. These rights are foundational to the way the United States works, and they were exceptional when the founding fathers wrote them into the constitution.
Restrictions on free speech:
Sorry, that would not be worth of discussion if what you are saying were the whole meaning of the First Amendment. Though, unfortunately, you are right in current situation - Freedom of Speech in the US is almost absent and only blind doesn't see that. Fear of saying publicly anything that is not mainstream, fear to say anything unpopular. Utter fear...
Btw, I am not going to continue arguing with you guys because you are obviously condescending - just the so many times mentioning by you people the origin where I cam from - which I find almost equal to racist - because it based on an external factors - not related to the subject of the matter. Using such argument is unfair and just pathetic.
Condescending was not my intent. If my expression was condescending, that is a failure on my part.
1. From your previous posts stating you had been in the USA for 13 years, I presumed you were a US citizen. I only referenced it because you made it a topic by saying that you assumed you were missing some cultural reference.
Sorry to all who might be offended by my questions - just to clarify - I was not born in the US, I am Russian and came here when I was already 40+ yo. Honestly, just trying to understand what is going on.
2. Despite your implication that I offered some form of an interpreted version I did not, in any manner, edit , limit or restrict the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States -- I posted the full, accurate and actual text. (reference)
Or, coincidentally, for a business to establish no shirts, no shoes, no pants or no mask...no service.
Nobody is condescending. If that is what you take away from this, that's on you. You asked a question, and MT answered it. And this is the Wild West thread, so folks gonna respond.
Thank you for trying to educate naturalized US citizen on what you think is actual First Amendment really means.... I am not going to continue arguing with you guys because you are obviously condescending
Interval Junkie --Nobby
United States law allows people the right to practice religion freely, speak freely, for the press to speak freely, and for people to assemble or petition peacefully. These rights are foundational to the way the United States works, and they were exceptional when the founding fathers wrote them into the constitution. ...
Milktruck is correct. The first amendment cites restrictions on government power. It is "The Bill of Rights" that people have in relation to their government. It's a pretty powerful document. The government, for example, cannot jail you for burning its flag, nor for expressing your opinion about the President.
However, the Bill of Rights does not place any restrictions on individuals, organizations, nor companies. For example, forums like this one may silence users who abused the rules the forum has in place. In fact, the forum owner could be completely arbitrary about who they silence. You could not take any legal action against them. You can tell other people not to use the forum. Or that the owner is a jerk. But there is no legal way for you to force the owner to unsilence you. In short, users do not have the "right" to speak on a forum. They only have the privilege, which can be taken away at any time.*
Perhaps if you think we are incorrect, you could point to a Supreme Court case that illustrates your interpretation of the 1st Amendment? I mean, I'm not a lawyer. So, there could be a case I don't know about that favors your interpretation. But if you look at your quote: yes, the US law "allows". That is: it makes no law forbidding. For example, if I allow you to date my daughter, but she doesn't want to, there's nothing I can do about it.
* Fortunately, Eric , who owns this forum, is pretty liberal.
2021 Goals: 50mpw 'cause there's nothing else to do
Maybe it’s time for you to move to New Zealand.....no bullshit AND they’ll be racing again soon.
Most people who complain about their "free speech" have a poor understanding of it's legal aspects. Thanks for clarifying.
ie; the person who gets kicked off a private social media website for making inflammatory comments then bellowing "they violated my right to free speech!". The same person going into a private business or someone's house and shouting inflammatory rhetoric and being forced to leave, "they violated my right to free speech!". Wrong on both counts.
Something that always stuck in my head, a teacher said the Constitution was a document to keep GOVERNMENT in check, not citizens. Those old white guys who drafted it were very concerned about government over-reach at the time, cuz England and all. So, it's mainly a set of rules the government has to abide by. It's no wonder the government (and all the political parties that infiltrate it to it take over for their own purposes) want to re-write it to make it a list of rules for CITIZENS to abide by.
Currently: Here's what the government can, and mainly cannot do, to citizens (for the most part)
Desired government revision: Here's what the citizens can, and mainly cannot do, to government (for the most part)
60-64 age group - University of Oregon alumni - Irreverent and Annoying
As the shut up and listens applies to what I said, you were constantly yammering from a perspective of white privilege. I get it, you were not born here. Yet you benefit from it too. But mostly, damn dude, post after post after long post. Meanwhile people are explaining stuff and you are like OH NO NO NO.So ok then.
Now that we've cleared up any confusion around the meaning of "wild west" and the first amendment, can someone tell me why we don't just treat the virus with "very strong" antibiotics?
Prec'!
Runners run