The Ethics of Outdorr Recreation in Times of COVID-19

[Canada1]

The whole, I have a constitutional right to be here argument must be driving law enforcement crazy. Because the whole Health Safety and Welfare exception just isn’t going to be central to the thinking of most that are hearing it and frankly, the cop probably doesn’t want to deal with the kid anymore than the kid wants to deal with the cop. I did just have a conversation with one of my kids about how the ending of ski season doesn’t suddenly turn the lease of our local ski area off and waive the rights and duties of the resort. He had come off of some social media convinced the local resorts had no right to tell him to stay away now that the final day of the season had passed.

[cravenmorhead]

Here's a fairly long analysis of the constitutional issues, at least when it comes to recreation: https://endlesswaves.net/2020/04/11/...y-of-closures/

[Danno]

Here's a fairly long analysis of the constitutional issues, at least when it comes to recreation: https://endlesswaves.net/2020/04/11/...y-of-closures/

You should post it in those Facebook groups where people complain about "muh freedoms".

[Kinnikinnick]

Here's a fairly long analysis of the constitutional issues, at least when it comes to recreation: https://endlesswaves.net/2020/04/11/...y-of-closures/

He says in summation:

“This is a long way of getting to this: there are legitimate arguments to be made that various stay-at-home orders and closures are unconstitutional. But simply arguing that “it’s unconstitutional” or “the Fifth Amendment says I can surf” is lazy and mostly wrong.”

So actually he’s not saying that there arent constitutional issues. He could have just as easily concluded : ‘Simply arguing that “its constitutional” is lazy and mostly wrong’

In fact it basically says nothing of authority in the end.




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Danno]

He says in summation:

“This is a long way of getting to this: there are legitimate arguments to be made that various stay-at-home orders and closures are unconstitutional. But simply arguing that “it’s unconstitutional” or “the Fifth Amendment says I can surf” is lazy and mostly wrong.”

So actually he’s not saying that there arent constitutional issues. He could have just as easily concluded : ‘Simply arguing that “its constitutional” is lazy and mostly wrong’

In fact it basically says nothing of authority in the end.




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

It's the standard lawyer answer, "it depends". But the fact that you think it says nothing of authority means you really don't get how the law works.

[Kinnikinnick]

Edited to shut down discussion

[Ottime]

Naw. He is just explaining that you don't understand the law, likely because you have not studied the law. Amazingly, life is like that. Like, I've got a friend who is a really good snowboarder, but a shitty skier.... wait for it... because he has only skied once. Surprising, but true.

[Danno]

And there you go with the standard lawyerly condescension... as if lawyering is the highest of intellectual callings

If you want to opine on a medical question, do you expect to have the same degree of knowledge as a doctor? Would you talk to the doctor like you understand medicine as well as he and other doctors do? And if you did, and said something stupid, would you expect to receive some condescension in return?

Why then do you expect different when it's the law? You would not have received any condescension if you had not posted something stupid in response to a legal analysis that was posted, a legal analysis that you clearly didn't entirely understand based on your takeaway.

Lawyering is absolutely not the highest of intellectual callings. But at the constitutional law level, it certainly is an intellectual pursuit (although one generally rooted in real-life events and facts). It may not be Kant or Rawls or Aristotle, but con law is definitely an intellectual pursuit that requires knowledge and training (not necessarily law school training, but training nonetheless). So yeah, when someone displays their lack of knowledge and training on the subject, but wants their opinion to be treated as equal to one offered by someone with knowledge and training, what do you expect?

[skifishbum]

ski bums
ski
babblin dipshits
you dont haz to wait for it
the babble never ceases

[Kinnikinnick]

Edit to close down discussikn

[old goat]

He says in summation:

“This is a long way of getting to this: there are legitimate arguments to be made that various stay-at-home orders and closures are unconstitutional. But simply arguing that “it’s unconstitutional” or “the Fifth Amendment says I can surf” is lazy and mostly wrong.”

So actually he’s not saying that there arent constitutional issues. He could have just as easily concluded : ‘Simply arguing that “its constitutional” is lazy and mostly wrong’

In fact it basically says nothing of authority in the end.




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I don't see that conclusion as justified by what preceded it. I read the article as saying that generally speaking the state has the right to issue stay at home orders and forbid certain activities, as long as there is a rational basis for doing so.

If you want to opine on a medical question, do you expect to have the same degree of knowledge as a doctor? Would you talk to the doctor like you understand medicine as well as he and other doctors do? And if you did, and said something stupid, would you expect to receive some condescension in return?

Patients sometimes do know more than their doctors, especially about a chronic condition that the patient has researched extensively and especially if the person is sophisticated enough to be able to identify reliable sources of information (ie Pubmed). And regardless of whether the patient is right or wrong, condescension on the part of the doctor is never the right approach. (That said I didn't see anything condescending or lawyerly about Danno's response, just standard issue internet asshattery, of the sort we are all guilty of.)

[Wymontchoppers]

Without getting into the argument of what's OK to do and what's not OK, it seems to me that the decent thing to do, while patients, and EMT's, and cops, and nurses, and doctors and grocery store workers, and people who work in food plants are dying of this thing, is to keep your outdoor adventures--anything more than walking the dog--to yourself. Not out of fear of encouraging others to do the same--people don't need encouragement to do the same--but out of respect for the people who are risking their lives for you. Discretion is a virtue here, as in most things.

Quoted for posterity. Thanks for this, from an ICU RN.

[Ski220]

https://unofficialnetworks-com.cdn.a...errain-park%2F

"Just going to go play in the park. No biggie"

[pureantigravity]

https://unofficialnetworks-com.cdn.a...errain-park%2F

"Just going to go play in the park. No biggie"

Well ... With a badly injured back, it isn't likely that he will be able to use all the TP that he stockpiled.

On the other hand, the first responders say that "... this was the best call we had lately. Not visiting a seniors home full of infected people, getting some fresh air, driving with sirens on, and otherwise having a good time teasing the loser for crashing on a perfectly groomed half-pipe. If only, more of our calls were like this lately!"

[m2711c]

yep.

[skizix]

If you want to opine on a medical question, do you expect to have the same degree of knowledge as a doctor? Would you talk to the doctor like you understand medicine as well as he and other doctors do? And if you did, and said something stupid, would you expect to receive some condescension in return?

Why then do you expect different when it's the law? You would not have received any condescension if you had not posted something stupid in response to a legal analysis that was posted, a legal analysis that you clearly didn't entirely understand based on your takeaway.

Lawyering is absolutely not the highest of intellectual callings. But at the constitutional law level, it certainly is an intellectual pursuit (although one generally rooted in real-life events and facts). It may not be Kant or Rawls or Aristotle, but con law is definitely an intellectual pursuit that requires knowledge and training (not necessarily law school training, but training nonetheless). So yeah, when someone displays their lack of knowledge and training on the subject, but wants their opinion to be treated as equal to one offered by someone with knowledge and training, what do you expect?

Bob Loblaw indeed. Ethics and the law are only vaguely related (ok sometimes more than others, but for sure in the context of this thread). Legal discussion is making this thread more tiresome than it has already become (not to say it isn't a worthy discussion). Please put it aside.

[skiballs]

Wait until millions of women are told they can't go to the beach this summer, shits gonna get real ugly then.

[GiBo]

State of California delayed the Sierra fishing opener. Just read the Eastern Sierra fly fishing and Ken's Sporting Goods FB pages. Lot's of constitutional scholars fish apparently. Bunch of people saying they're going anyway.

[pipedream]

My 'yakyard has been turning into a DIY terrain park over the past few weeks. Booters in perfect places. Properly-built hips extending sidehits. QPs scattered about and one sick wallride on the beer can.

I guess the park crew's gotta stay busy doing something since they're not digging features 'til next season

[summit]

[SorryBro]

^Perfect. Summit, I hope you are doing okay and taking care of yourself. Be safe.

[klauss]

crazy times



https://yovenice.com/2020/04/16/veni...led-with-sand/

[frorider]

Shit’s getting real.

[Elkhound Odin]

Shit’s gotten stupid


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[pfluffenmeister]

^^^ Yeah, my brain couldn't even make sense of the picture until I linked to the article,