FlipWilson wrote: “Hey, during WWII, quarantining all Japanese Americans in the name of “public safety” seemed like a great idea.”
This did not apply to al Japanese only those living in a very small defined area along the Pacific coast. Those affected were given the choice of moving out of the area or to a camp. This was not justified on the basis of public safety but as a means to prevent warlike activities by those affected.
FlipWilson wrote: “Under the proposed statute one can be involuntarily detained (we used to call that jailed) if “clear and convincing evidence” is shown to a panel. Per your question/example, a speeding ticket requires that the state prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that I am guilty in a court of law. One then can appeal that ruling and if adverse, appeal again. There is no appeal here. There is nothing but one person deciding it is for your own good and off to ze camps. Arbeit Macht Frei!!!”
Anyone who invokes a Nazi metaphor is losing the discussion.
That’s a very poor analogy. Quarantine to prevent infection requires action now, not after an indefinite number of appeals. Now if you want to allow quarantine while the appeal process plays out, that’s another thing but I doubt that is what you wish.
FWIW, I’m not afraid of the virus. This unconditional opposition to vaccines and other public health measures if far more concerning.
Your dodging questions and only advancing rhetoric at this point. I have answered your question honestly and without an ambiguity. You have been asked questions repeatedly and don’t answer them. Instead you just quibble. But to your quibbling:
Your assertion about the quarantine of the Japanese Americans is wrong and playing semantics. I have read numerous books about the subject and public safety was the justification. Your assertion? It wasn’t public safety but a means to prevent warlike activities. Really, preventing warlike activities isn’t a matter of public safety. Oh, Ok. Its ta maaat toe, not tow may tow.
Next up on the hit list, you fail to address this point:
Under the proposed statute one can be involuntarily detained (we used to call that jailed) if “clear and convincing evidence” is shown to a panel. Per your question/example, a speeding ticket requires that the state prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that I am guilty in a court of law. One then can appeal that ruling and if adverse, appeal again. There is no appeal here. There is nothing but one person deciding it is for your own good.
You fail to address that because I threw in a Nazi reference. Can you please address it?
Again, you are dodging. But seriously, I realize the Nazi references are overdone. I mean, “everything I don’t like is HItler” is a favorite of the Left. But, in this case, camps, quarantine, public health. You don’t think it might actually fit. No?
You have been asked this question in one form or another and failed to answer, repeatedly:
Given the abuses of power we saw with Whitmer, Murphy, Cuomo, etc. do you really think it is a good idea to trust them with the power to declare a public health emergency and place people into camps?
What is to stop them from declaring gun owernship a public health emergency? You do realize that they are already saying that out loud?
As for losing the discussion. I can do this with someone like you all day and night. I love taking victory laps. Anyone who puts forth a position, is answered but refuses to answer counterpoints isn’t interested in intellectual discussion.
Again, I have answered your question clearly and unambiguously. You have answered mine by playing semantics and using one reference to discount having to deal with counterpoints.
My point about the Japanese Americans and the justifications given at the time for quarantining them. 100% accurate. My point about law and the burden of proof to establish a violation. 100% accurate. My question to you: 100% legitimate.
Your response to any of that: 100% missing in action.