16 Year Old ARRESTED and Suspended for Not Wearing Mask in School

[animalcule]

Just gonna leave this little thread here:

View: https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1446666065178660865


A Wyoming high schooler politely, calmly refused to comply with the school's mask mandate. She was arrested and suspended. Included in the thread is a video of the superintendent...

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1446675765114949633


How many hours a day do you think the superintendent wears a mask? Maybe he slaps it on when he walks in the office, takes it off when he sits down to work? Slaps it on a again for a meeting, pops it off as soon as possible? I really, really, really would love for one of these people who makes these mandates for the little people to follow, to wear a mask for 8 hours STRAIGHT. None of them do. They ALL have jobs where they can either avoid public settings and work from home/private office, or they're positions of power where no one will enforce their own rules to a T (unlike in say, a food service or retail worker who will be fired for noncompliance). So when they make/encourage/enforce these mask mandates, they know they won't really be that affected by them. And children are the easiest targets of all.

I am impressed by the young woman's composure during the whole ordeal.

 

[JamesGatz]

She must've seen the thread I created on masks ruining the jaws ! Haha just joking - very sad to see this happen - students should stage a school-wide mask refusal - I'd imagine if enough schools nationwide participated in such a thing there cannot possibly be many repercussions and we can hopefully see the crumbling of this plan

 

[animalcule]

She must've seen the thread I created on masks ruining the jaws ! Haha just joking - very sad to see this happen - students should stage a school-wide mask refusal - I'd imagine if enough schools nationwide participated in such a thing there cannot possibly be many repercussions and we can hopefully see the crumbling of this plan

They really should. Minimal repercussions, no threat of losing income ... Maybe Grace's case can help kickstart things.

 

[OccamzRazer]

If parents continue to keep their kids in public schools despite these endless red flags...

...then they've failed completely as parents. In a sense they're getting exactly what their inaction demands.

Still sad stuff tho.

 

[Doc Sandoz]

Just gonna leave this little thread here:

View: https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1446666065178660865


A Wyoming high schooler politely, calmly refused to comply with the school's mask mandate. She was arrested and suspended. Included in the thread is a video of the superintendent...

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1446675765114949633


How many hours a day do you think the superintendent wears a mask? Maybe he slaps it on when he walks in the office, takes it off when he sits down to work? Slaps it on a again for a meeting, pops it off as soon as possible? I really, really, really would love for one of these people who makes these mandates for the little people to follow, to wear a mask for 8 hours STRAIGHT. None of them do. They ALL have jobs where they can either avoid public settings and work from home/private office, or they're positions of power where no one will enforce their own rules to a T (unlike in say, a food service or retail worker who will be fired for noncompliance). So when they make/encourage/enforce these mask mandates, they know they won't really be that affected by them. And children are the easiest targets of all.

I am impressed by the young woman's composure during the whole ordeal.

I read the comments section as far as I could stand it. My god, the self-righteouls fascist morons out there...

 

[freyasam]

So much for "Your rights will be respected in conservative states."

 

[InChristAlone]

So much for "Your rights will be respected in conservative states."

Some counties in conservative states are very much liberal minded and can mandate the mask for public schools whereas right down the street in a another county might not be. This is very much a local issue.

 

[Kayaker]

Wyoming? ******* Wyoming? The state with the lowest population density.

I thought I had it bad when I was in school. Imagine not only not having time in between classes, but also having to be squeezed into a mask. The environment was already suffocating.

More students should refuse, especially because they can pull stunts like locking down the building, not in spite of it. It's a place of education and there are a lot of students, so it's not worth it for a school to do this because of disrupting the learning environment.

It should ideally be timed during important moments, like standardized testing, for maximum effect.

 

[Doc Sandoz]

Some counties in conservative states are very much liberal minded and can mandate the mask for public schools whereas right down the street in a another county might not be. This is very much a local issue.

Laramie is a small town in WY that houses the University of Wyoming. Apparently, the state has not banned useless mask mandates, so one of the very few Democratic bastions in the state can have its way with the kids.

 

[InChristAlone]

Laramie is a small town in WY that houses the University of Wyoming. Apparently, the state has not banned useless mask mandates, so one of the very few Democratic bastions in the state can have its way with the kids.

In Florida some counties are still requiring masks for school while others are not.

 

[Dr. B]

She must've seen the thread I created on masks ruining the jaws ! Haha just joking - very sad to see this happen - students should stage a school-wide mask refusal - I'd imagine if enough schools nationwide participated in such a thing there cannot possibly be many repercussions and we can hopefully see the crumbling of this plan

why do the masks ruin the jaws, wouldnt they increase CO2 and help generally, especially if the mask material is cotton or a safe material, and is washed often.

the masks thing is likely here to stay and likely has legal basis the same way businesses/schools can have dress codes and require you to cover certain parts of the body... how are some people arguing in favor of dress code laws/regulations but against the masks specifically? I dont think there should be regulations as far as which clothes you can and cant wear, but im curious about why requiring masks is wrong/bad but mandating shirts or other clothing is fine.

if it simply comes down to personal/religious beliefs on how much of the body should be covered then that's still imposing your beliefs on others. if there ever was a logical/scientific basis for why wearing pants is required it probably also involved some sort of disease fear component. and in the future they may even require head coverings, eye coverings, or hand coverings under the guise of protection from some new toxic diseases related to those parts. this was bound to happen ever since dress code laws were mandated, because it's impossible to come to an agreement as to which articles of clothing should or shouldn't be required and why.

 

[JamesGatz]

why do the masks ruin the jaws, wouldnt they increase CO2 and help generally?

I go into that in this thread :

Why wearing a mask will LITERALLY KILL you and why masks where chosen for the PLANdemic

I wanted to make this topic because I see many users wanting to use masks to increase CO2 I will try my best to articulate my thoughts for why it KILLS you SLOWLY but SURELY and why I strongly believe it was CHOSEN for the P(l)andemic As I have articulated in other threads - THE JAWS MUST...

raypeatforum.com

 

[animalcule]

why do the masks ruin the jaws, wouldnt they increase CO2 and help generally, especially if the mask material is cotton or a safe material, and is washed often.

the masks thing is likely here to stay and likely has legal basis the same way businesses/schools can have dress codes and require you to cover certain parts of the body... how are some people arguing in favor of dress code laws/regulations but against the masks specifically? I dont think there should be regulations as far as which clothes you can and cant wear, but im curious about why requiring masks is wrong/bad but mandating shirts or other clothing is fine.

if it simply comes down to personal/religious beliefs on how much of the body should be covered then that's still imposing your beliefs on others. if there ever was a logical/scientific basis for why wearing pants is required it probably also involved some sort of disease fear component. and in the future they may even require head coverings, eye coverings, or hand coverings under the guise of protection from some new toxic diseases related to those parts. this was bound to happen ever since dress code laws were mandated, because it's impossible to come to an agreement as to which articles of clothing should or shouldn't be required and why.

You cannot be serious ... No, dress codes are not a slippery slope into mask mandates. A dress code is usually about presenting a uniform appearance, or about setting a certain aesthetic standard in the context of the business/school/space/wider society. No one needs to come up with a 'logical/scientific basis for why wearing pants is required' because it is a widely held, cross-cultural consensus that people should be clothed in public. If you want to go into the weeds about exactly why we wear clothing and aren't nudists, go nuts, but realize that that has no place in the mask debate conversation. It is convention to be clothed in public. It is NOT convention to cover one's face in public. In fact, the *opposite* is important: showing one's face, not concealing one's identity, displaying all of your facial expressions to the person you're talking to. Masking is unhealthy, ineffective, and obliterates identity.

I could go further into why your comparison between standards of dress and forcing people to cover their faces is incredibly inane, but I clicked on your profile and was unable to view it. I'm curious about the legitimacy of your (fairly new) account. If you're real I don't mean to be rude, but that was seriously one of the most inane comments I've ever read on this forum, and I'm skeptical of your motivations.

 

[Dr. B]

You cannot be serious ... No, dress codes are not a slippery slope into mask mandates. A dress code is usually about presenting a uniform appearance, or about setting a certain aesthetic standard in the context of the business/school/space/wider society. No one needs to come up with a 'logical/scientific basis for why wearing pants is required' because it is a widely held, cross-cultural consensus that people should be clothed in public. If you want to go into the weeds about exactly why we wear clothing and aren't nudists, go nuts, but realize that that has no place in the mask debate conversation. It is convention to be clothed in public. It is NOT convention to cover one's face in public. In fact, the *opposite* is important: showing one's face, not concealing one's identity, displaying all of your facial expressions to the person you're talking to. Masking is unhealthy, ineffective, and obliterates identity.

I could go further into why your comparison between standards of dress and forcing people to cover their faces is incredibly inane, but I clicked on your profile and was unable to view it. I'm curious about the legitimacy of your (fairly new) account. If you're real I don't mean to be rude, but that was seriously one of the most inane comments I've ever read on this forum, and I'm skeptical of your motivations.

I mean a private business/homeowner/whatever can set any rules they want, including a mask requirement or clothing requirement. But if you're referring to whether government should be able to control and regulate what people can and can't wear, then it should be no, that includes general clothing, as well as masks, head coverings, wrist coverings, gloves, eye goggles or anything else. I haven't looked into how dress code laws came about, but I am assuming there was probably a logical/scientific basis presented for the existence of those, something like certain parts of the body need to be covered due to bacteria from them spreading to other areas or coming into contact with others etc. I doubt the reason given for the passing of dress code laws was simply something like "X religion demands we cover up X parts of the body".
regarding "widely held, cross cultural consensus that people should be clothed in public" are you saying the morality of mask mandates is simply dependent on whether the majority of people/voters agree that masks should or shouldn't be required?

your argument basically boils down to "being forced to be clothed in public is acceptable because I believe it's in line with my beliefs, and being forced to be masked is unacceptable because its not in line with my beliefs". that isn't how anything in society is determined. if you believe the government has the right to regulate what you can and can't wear, then you can do so. But that obviously means everyone will have their own thoughts and ideas as to what articles of clothing should or shouldn't be mandated. It was shirts initially, masks now, could be eye goggles or head coverings in the future, and you can always make the excuse of bacterial spread/morality/infection to mandate basically any article of clothing.

I don't know what you mean about not viewing the profile, or legitimacy of the account, it should list when I created the account? I also don't know what you mean by "skeptical of your motivations", like what motivations exactly? I'm more skeptical of your motivations than you are mine, and my comments were nowhere near as inane as yours. I don't agree with vaccine mandates (I think all of them are dangerous) and I don't personally agree with mask mandates, but I don't see the difference with mask mandates to clothing mandates (I think people should have the freedom to wear what they want). How come there's nowhere near the outrage when it comes to clothing mandates, besides something like the free the nipple movement? It's inconsistencies on both sides, you have one side whom is generally pro mask mandate, but then pro freedom of choice when it comes to other types of clothing, then you have another side which is anti mask mandate, but anti freedom of choice when it comes to other types of clothing.

 

[burtlancast]

She's basing her actions on her constitutional rights, yet the Supreme Court just ruled forced vaccinations for government employees was legal.

Justice is corrupt to the core and i don't really see the point of going that route anymore.

 

[animalcule]

I mean a private business/homeowner/whatever can set any rules they want, including a mask requirement or clothing requirement. But if you're referring to whether government should be able to control and regulate what people can and can't wear, then it should be no, that includes general clothing, as well as masks, head coverings, wrist coverings, gloves, eye goggles or anything else. I haven't looked into how dress code laws came about, but I am assuming there was probably a logical/scientific basis presented for the existence of those, something like certain parts of the body need to be covered due to bacteria from them spreading to other areas or coming into contact with others etc. I doubt the reason given for the passing of dress code laws was simply something like "X religion demands we cover up X parts of the body".
regarding "widely held, cross cultural consensus that people should be clothed in public" are you saying the morality of mask mandates is simply dependent on whether the majority of people/voters agree that masks should or shouldn't be required?

your argument basically boils down to "being forced to be clothed in public is acceptable because I believe it's in line with my beliefs, and being forced to be masked is unacceptable because its not in line with my beliefs". that isn't how anything in society is determined. if you believe the government has the right to regulate what you can and can't wear, then you can do so. But that obviously means everyone will have their own thoughts and ideas as to what articles of clothing should or shouldn't be mandated. It was shirts initially, masks now, could be eye goggles or head coverings in the future, and you can always make the excuse of bacterial spread/morality/infection to mandate basically any article of clothing.

I don't know what you mean about not viewing the profile, or legitimacy of the account, it should list when I created the account? I also don't know what you mean by "skeptical of your motivations", like what motivations exactly? I'm more skeptical of your motivations than you are mine, and my comments were nowhere near as inane as yours. I don't agree with vaccine mandates (I think all of them are dangerous) and I don't personally agree with mask mandates, but I don't see the difference with mask mandates to clothing mandates (I think people should have the freedom to wear what they want). How come there's nowhere near the outrage when it comes to clothing mandates, besides something like the free the nipple movement? It's inconsistencies on both sides, you have one side whom is generally pro mask mandate, but then pro freedom of choice when it comes to other types of clothing, then you have another side which is anti mask mandate, but anti freedom of choice when it comes to other types of clothing.

Well apologies for being blunt, but there are instances of people infiltrating forums/threads for the purposes of derailing conversations. Making false comparisons and getting people to justify things to the point of absurdity are common tactics. I've seen this happen on other websites, and I wondered if such things may be happening here as well. Your account was made within the last year and you limit who can view your profile, so I have no way of seeing your previous posts, their content and tenor, etc. The best response usually is to ignore these types of comments in this scenario, but unfortunately, I did not.

If I were in high school I might find a debate over the basis, legitimacy and limits of the convention of wearing clothing to be an interesting one. But I'm not. To me, especially in the context of comparing that to mask mandates imposed to give the appearance of controlling a virus, it is inane. To me, when you see a teenage girl being led away in handcuffs because she wouldn't put a piece of cotton over her mouth, pondering "how did dress codes come about and how might that justify this action?" seems absurd and daft.

Conventions are not just "things I believe and will therefore defend." They don't spring from my belief or your belief, or my desires or your desires -- they are a creation of a society and its culture over time, and all of the many interactions between people and environment that entails. They are complex and cannot be reduced to a single causal factor, and they often influence society in more ways than just the obvious. And so when you see convention being challenged suddenly and forcefully and aggressively, you should sit up and take note. When you see convention changing through fear and coercion, you should be cynical of this change. Instead, you take the position that if you can identify the logic of modern convention, then you can follow that logic to support the present attempt at changing convention via coercion and fear. (Btw, separate issue, but when I see people doing this type of thing nowadays, I can't help but think they might as well carry around a sign that says "I am easy to manipulate." Such people can destroy a society if fed the right 'logic' and equivalencies. I'm not saying this is you, but I'm suggesting that this is a more dangerous path to take, even though it might appear more sophisticated than the path of convention and tradition.)

Here's something to think about: Most regulations (usually) must be at least somewhat in line with what enough citizens find reasonable according to, in part, yes, convention. That's the shaky line. You cannot logic yourself out of it. We have our laws and legal system, but the first principles are shakier than you might imagine. At some point the buck stops at "This should be so, because we (a large enough group of people, or people with enough influence, or the ruling/administrative class) think it should be so. This is not just coming from me btw - I've a lawyer friend who works for Congress who essentially admits as much. He and his colleagues have a particular point of view, a particular vision, and they will use legal means to further this vision. When faced with actions of the 'other' side, no matter how to-the-letter legal they may be, he will still see them as wrong. He will still desire to work to change the law or use the law so that this wrongness will not be allowed to flourish. The law, and 'logic,' are just tools for particular ends. This is what we're seeing now. Convention, culture, ideology, power, will ... Coherence, logic and reason are harder to find, harder to sustain, than you imagine.

Getting back to your post, to finish this briefly:

No, a private business cannot set any rules they want. In recent years in fact there have been court cases over people wearing headscarfs, restaurants setting specific dress codes for female waitstaff, etc. There has been a tension between employer demands and individual rights. In fact there has always been tension between authorities and individuals. The answers are not clear cut and obvious.

You also don't need to know the genesis of 'dress code laws' to understand that we have a societal consensus that we should be clothed in public and pre-2020 that did not include masking. Viewing faces is essential to communication, expression, connection, etc. We do not cover our faces. But even that is besides the larger point that masking does not stop Covid from spreading, and the whole 'wear a mask' charade is more about control and the appearance of 'doing something' than it is about actually stopping the virus from spreading. A bare butt on a barstool is not the same as bare face smiling and talking, unobstructed. So. No masks. Absurd, distracting comparison.

And no, I'm not saying the "morality of mask mandates is simply dependent on whether the majority of people/voters agree that masks should or shouldn't be required." Morality has nothing to do with this. I've no idea how anyone could think that was my point. See above.

You seem to have some confusion about the difference between negative and positive freedoms as well. And because you've also forsaken one of the few patches of firm ground from which to view the world (convention, tradition, the familiar), you're spinning off into arguments of your own making, going down paths and then asking I defend them, creating equivalencies that don't exist but it would be nice for your train of thought if they did ... Not interested.

 

[animalcule]

She's basing her actions on her constitutional rights, yet the Supreme Court just ruled forced vaccinations for government employees was legal.

Justice is corrupt to the core and i don't really see the point of going that route anymore.

I agree it does seem to be corrupted. Still, I hope she wins her legal battle, and I think she may have a chance.

The most effective action against all of this, however, would not be going through the court system. It would be mass non-compliance.

 

[Dr. B]

Well apologies for being blunt, but there are instances of people infiltrating forums/threads for the purposes of derailing conversations. Making false comparisons and getting people to justify things to the point of absurdity are common tactics. I've seen this happen on other websites, and I wondered if such things may be happening here as well. Your account was made within the last year and you limit who can view your profile, so I have no way of seeing your previous posts, their content and tenor, etc. The best response usually is to ignore these types of comments in this scenario, but unfortunately, I did not.

If I were in high school I might find a debate over the basis, legitimacy and limits of the convention of wearing clothing to be an interesting one. But I'm not. To me, especially in the context of comparing that to mask mandates imposed to give the appearance of controlling a virus, it is inane. To me, when you see a teenage girl being led away in handcuffs because she wouldn't put a piece of cotton over her mouth, pondering "how did dress codes come about and how might that justify this action?" seems absurd and daft.

Conventions are not just "things I believe and will therefore defend." They don't spring from my belief or your belief, or my desires or your desires -- they are a creation of a society and its culture over time, and all of the many interactions between people and environment that entails. They are complex and cannot be reduced to a single causal factor, and they often influence society in more ways than just the obvious. And so when you see convention being challenged suddenly and forcefully and aggressively, you should sit up and take note. When you see convention changing through fear and coercion, you should be cynical of this change. Instead, you take the position that if you can identify the logic of modern convention, then you can follow that logic to support the present attempt at changing convention via coercion and fear. (Btw, separate issue, but when I see people doing this type of thing nowadays, I can't help but think they might as well carry around a sign that says "I am easy to manipulate." Such people can destroy a society if fed the right 'logic' and equivalencies. I'm not saying this is you, but I'm suggesting that this is a more dangerous path to take, even though it might appear more sophisticated than the path of convention and tradition.)

Here's something to think about: Most regulations (usually) must be at least somewhat in line with what enough citizens find reasonable according to, in part, yes, convention. That's the shaky line. You cannot logic yourself out of it. We have our laws and legal system, but the first principles are shakier than you might imagine. At some point the buck stops at "This should be so, because we (a large enough group of people, or people with enough influence, or the ruling/administrative class) think it should be so. This is not just coming from me btw - I've a lawyer friend who works for Congress who essentially admits as much. He and his colleagues have a particular point of view, a particular vision, and they will use legal means to further this vision. When faced with actions of the 'other' side, no matter how to-the-letter legal they may be, he will still see them as wrong. He will still desire to work to change the law or use the law so that this wrongness will not be allowed to flourish. The law, and 'logic,' are just tools for particular ends. This is what we're seeing now. Convention, culture, ideology, power, will ... Coherence, logic and reason are harder to find, harder to sustain, than you imagine.

Getting back to your post, to finish this briefly:

No, a private business cannot set any rules they want. In recent years in fact there have been court cases over people wearing headscarfs, restaurants setting specific dress codes for female waitstaff, etc. There has been a tension between employer demands and individual rights. In fact there has always been tension between authorities and individuals. The answers are not clear cut and obvious.

You also don't need to know the genesis of 'dress code laws' to understand that we have a societal consensus that we should be clothed in public and pre-2020 that did not include masking. Viewing faces is essential to communication, expression, connection, etc. We do not cover our faces. But even that is besides the larger point that masking does not stop Covid from spreading, and the whole 'wear a mask' charade is more about control and the appearance of 'doing something' than it is about actually stopping the virus from spreading. A bare butt on a barstool is not the same as bare face smiling and talking, unobstructed. So. No masks. Absurd, distracting comparison.

And no, I'm not saying the "morality of mask mandates is simply dependent on whether the majority of people/voters agree that masks should or shouldn't be required." Morality has nothing to do with this. I've no idea how anyone could think that was my point. See above.

You seem to have some confusion about the difference between negative and positive freedoms as well. And because you've also forsaken one of the few patches of firm ground from which to view the world (convention, tradition, the familiar), you're spinning off into arguments of your own making, going down paths and then asking I defend them, creating equivalencies that don't exist but it would be nice for your train of thought if they did ... Not interested.

It should still show the posts ive made, you can click the numerical value on "messages". I dont know about the viewing profile, that seems to happen anytime I click someones profile picture or profile, but if I click the number where it says messages, it shows their posts.

"No, a private business cannot set any rules they want. In recent years in fact there have been court cases over people wearing headscarfs, restaurants setting specific dress codes for female waitstaff, etc. There has been a tension between employer demands and individual rights. In fact there has always been tension between authorities and individuals. The answers are not clear cut and obvious."

Oh i agree that is how things are, but now how things should be. In a free society, private businesses would be able to set the rules for trade, it would be up to the people involved to decide whether they want to do trade with them or not. Property that you own includes your car, house, business, watch, shoes, everything, so you (should) get to control who can and can't use any of those things, how they can be used, etc.

What were the court cases over headscarfs? The fact that businesses can't set their own rules is just further evidence of government over reach, regulating things that shouldn't be regulated. If you own a business you should get to decide who can enter, when they can enter, why they can enter, how they can enter, etc just like you can decide the same as far as who you make friends with, who can enter your house or car, etc. Trade is supposed to be voluntary.

I don't think the public schools should exist in the first place, but if they do exist, there shouldn't be dress code laws nor mask mandates as far as anything public is concerned. The mask mandates are just an extension of pre existing dress code laws.

"You also don't need to know the genesis of 'dress code laws' to understand that we have a societal consensus that we should be clothed in public and pre-2020 that did not include masking."

I don't know that there is a societal consensus on that, it's just the dress code laws have been around longer than many of us were born, while the mask mandates are a very new thing. Even if there is a societal consensus, laws shouldn't be based on societal consensus or what the majority wants, they should be based on allowing the maximum amount of freedom possible without violating anyone's rights.

"And because you've also forsaken one of the few patches of firm ground from which to view the world (convention, tradition, the familiar)"

I just don't agree mate, I don't think convention, tradition or the familiar should have any bearing on right vs wrong, or which laws should or shouldnt be passed...

 

[Peatness]

Face coverings have been made mandatory for everyone working in the House of Commons except MPs.

Covid: Masks mandatory for everyone in the Commons - except MPs

Parliamentary staff and visitors have been told to cover their faces to combat the spread of Covid.

www.bbc.co.uk