Yes, you have certain unalienable freedoms bestowed upon you. But these rights are not limitless.

Where does it say you can commit infanticide, which Democrats voted for on the record?

What the hell does infanticide have to do with protesting the stay at home order infecting yourself with covid 19 and spreading it to others?

Figure it out, Brainiac.
Killing an infant is 100% fatal and according to your Progressive masters, isn't even covered in the Constitution.
Coronavirus is fatal in a tiny percentage of cases, and higher risk groups should stay secluded, not everybody. So quit waving the Constitution around like you understand it or ever intend to abide by it.

If intentionally murdering a baby isn't prevented by the Constitution, neither is the very low chance you're going to be harmed by COVID. Stay at home, forever if possible.

I have no idea what sort of right wing conspiracy babble you’re speaking of. The Topic is Protesters not protecting themselves, getting the virus, and spreading it to dozens of people. Its called a PANDEMIC . If you’re such a brainiac, when you get the virus, track how many people you come in contact with and let me know the percentage of sickness vs death

What you are exhibiting is called PANIC.
This is the problem with you asshole's...you POLITICIZE everyf**kingthing.

As of this writing, https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ reports that there have been 3134199 reported cases of the virus, and 217596 deaths have occurred from it (and there are most likely more cases and deaths unreported). That's a death rate of almost 7%. That is not "very low".

Doesn't count untold millions of people that had it and never had symptoms, which means your 6.94% rate is bloated beyond belief. The numbers are cooked like a deep dish pizza and most of you can't think.
Not to mention the comorbidity factor.

Did you even read what I wrote? Did I not state quite clearly in parentheses that there are most likely more cases and deaths unreported? Maybe the numbers are more skewed towards 6.94% because of the unreported asymptomatic cases, but those are the numbers that are available.

I have that site bookmarked and look at it every day. Here's another.
https://graphics.reuters.com/HEALTH-CORONAVIRUS-USA/0100B5K8423/index.html

I read what you wrote. When you read things like 25% of New York City (pop. 8.3 million) have antibodies, what does that do to your worldwide numbers? Blows them out of the water.
https://www.livescience.com/covid-antibody-test-results-new-york-test.html
Done.

Whoever you were, I'm glad you're gone. Please never return.

There are two problems with the second link you posted. A. I quote directly: "However, that comes with "two big caveats," he said. This data is preliminary and is only a sample of 3,000 people. In addition, the state doesn't count people who died at home — not in a nursing home or hospital — or who were never tested for COVID-19, in their official tally of COVID-19 fatalities."
and B. again a direct quote: "But experts previously told Live Science that those numbers are likely to be too high, because the antibody tests used in these surveys had a high false-positive rate, making their prevalence estimates likely very uncertain."

deleted is totally right. You are totally wrong. And I can't improve on what deleted already told you, so don't bother asking me to give you reasons why...I am not going to get into a circle-jerk with you. You are wrong...period.

By your idiotic logic, you could have argued that kicking out a burglar after it's been made perfectly clear they're not welcome in your house is also cowardly.

So after thinking it over for about 5 seconds (the intervening time between the last post you made on here and now was spent doing far more important, unrelated things) I decided I valued your silence far more than your idiotic opinion, so I went ahead and blocked you.

Well, bye

No, he isn't. And if you're not going to give me any reasons why (not that I asked for any), feel free to not waste my time with any more asinine comments.

Yes, he is. You're just to ignorant to realize it. And I will comment whenever and to whomever I wish.
Now, you may choose to block me, but that the cowards way.
The question now is are you a poltroon on top of being ignorant on what the Constitution says and what it doesn't say and going to puss out and block me?
We'll see...

It doesn't say any of those.

FOOL

I wasn't arguing with you, fool. I was telling you. You don't know what you don't know and I don't have the time nor the inclination to explain to you what your teacher's should have taught you in Jr. High.

Good, then we're done here.

Getting yourself sick is your choice, although an arguably idiotic one. Getting other people sick is not your choice. Why is this so hard to understand?

Typical right-wing rhetoric, "it's not my problem". You rightists and your never-ending justification for being assholes.

And by the way, I'm not a leftist.

(I had to continue this from the other post because it wouldn't let me add to it beyond a certain point.)

4. The rights granted by the 1st Amendment are not themselves limitless. Some examples: the freedom of religion does not grant the right to impede anyone else's right to practice their religion, or to observe religious practices that may cause harm to another person. The freedom to peaceably assemble does not grant the right to impede public traffic, engage in riots or other violence, as well as certain other restrictions such as time, place, noise level, etc. The freedom of speech and of the press do not grant the right to incite people to commit crimes, provoke people into fighting or making physical threats, distributing child pornography, publicly display obscenity, engage in defamation through libel or slander, post false advertising, passing along classified information, etc.

The stay-at-home orders are meant to minimize the spread of Covid-19 as much as possible, and defying them puts other people at risk of getting the virus, plain and simple. A lot of people who get the virus end up not showing any symptoms, so they don't even know they have it. But everyone who gets the virus, without exception, can spread it to other people. We don't have any cure, vaccine, or any way of dealing with Covid-19 beyond managing the symptoms and putting people on ventilators if they become short of breath and minimizing the spread of the virus through social distancing.

Which is why the stay-at-home orders were implemented on state and local basis. Therefore, my argument stands.

"Rights granted by". "Rights that already exist by virtue of humanity". That's what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. Also, thank you for proving my second point earlier, and continuing to show your alleged superiority and actual condescension.

I meant you were wrong about my being condescending.

No, you *are* condescending. I'm not. Are you tired of being wrong yet?

You're the condescending sanctimonious prick, and I'm just defending myself. Your posts are annoying, so go away now.

Thank you for admitting it. Also, I'm not condescending.

Neither.

1. Not leaving the house won't protect me from Covid-19 if someone else I live with catches it and unknowingly passes it on to me while they're out running essential errands. Not leaving the house while living alone isn't an option unless I happen a stockpile of food and other essentials, or if I don't and want to risk starvation.

2. I don't start "lashing out in anger" until some would-be debater with a superiority complex starts posting comments full of condescension. Maybe you should try being a bit more constructive in your posts?

3. The stay-at-home orders aren't the same thing as house arrest. I'm not completely sure how much the different stay-at-home orders vary from state to state (or county or municipality level), but the ones I have looked at seem to have more or less the same pattern: to stay at home unless a) going to work to provide essential infrastructure services (food, agriculture, healthcare, financial, energy, communications, transportation, law enforcement, waste management, manufacturing, etc.), b) going to run essential errands (picking up groceries, ordering curbside and take-out from restaurants, getting healthcare services for themselves, a family member or a pet, engaging in religious services provided certain social distance guidelines are observed, getting gas for automobiles, going to the bank, etc.), and c) engaging in outdoor recreational activities such as walking, running or hiking, again, while bearing in mind the social distancing guidelines (staying 6 feet away, and avoiding gathering in groups).

House arrest is a punitive measure applied on an individual basis to criminals. The details vary, but it's generally understood that a person under house arrest is not allowed to leave their residence except for employment (usually this will require some verification of schedule), or for medical reasons, until the probationary period ends, and such a person is put under some form of surveillance (usually an ankle bracelet).

Stay-at-home orders and house arrest are not the same thing.

No, actually I deleted it because you turned it into a raging dumpster fire, just like you're trying to do with this one.