[8notes]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Not at all. You are comparing two different thoughts.
You have the right to wear a mask. You have no right to demand others wear a mask. If you feel that this is not sufficient, then you should avoid those that you feel are putting you in danger. If I have the right of way on a street, I still have to avoid hitting a pedestrian. However, if I am driving down the street and a pedestrian throws themselves in front of me, I am not at fault for running over that pedestrian. It was that person's fault for expecting me to be able to stop.
On the other hand, "losing humanity" has nothing to do with that subject of being subjected to others' demands. I have a great deal of humanity and will always assist the needy. However, I am not subject to a demand to assist the needy. Humanity is not be a slave to other's whims. Humanity is based on charity.
There seems to be a view by half of our country that believes that the haves must assist the have nots. If a person is forced to do something against one's will, it no longer becomes charity; it becomes a tax or law.
Therefore, by using the premise that humanity is based on the whims of others, those that must wear a mask SHOULD isolate themselves from those that do not. You should and must feel charitable towards those you do not agree with as being equal recipients of your charity as you deem must share their charity with you. That is "humanity."
So, stay away from me when I am not wearing my mask and I will keep my distance from you when you deem it necessary to wear a mask. But, do not presume to limit my mobility based on your presumption that you have the right of way and I do not.
Humanity is not based upon your definition of what others must do for you.

We DO have a right to require people to wear a mask if it is in the interest of public health. That is the same reason that smoking is prohibited by law in certain public areas. Your own supposed personal rights are superseded by what is deemed in the best interest of the general public. For example, you can say I have the right not to send my kids to school. But the government has decided it is in the best interest of society as a whole to have an educated populace, so kids are required to attend school for a certain period of time. Hopefully with the new administration in Washington, we will get some uniformity across the states as far as containing the pandemic until a vaccine is available.

[biker1]

I guess you are unfamiliar with the term "home schooling". You don't have to send your kids to school. You can teach them yourself. There are some guidelines you must follow but you do not have to send your kids to school.

Originally Posted by 8notes

We DO have a right to require people to wear a mask if it is in the interest of public health. That is the same reason that smoking is prohibited by law in certain public areas. Your own supposed personal rights are superseded by what is deemed in the best interest of the general public. For example, you can say I have the right not to send my kids to school. But the government has decided it is in the best interest of society as a whole to have an educated populace, so kids are required to attend school for a certain period of time. Hopefully with the new administration in Washington, we will get some uniformity across the states as far as containing the pandemic until a vaccine is available.