Conavirus......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

The term, I believe, is "Assumes Facts Not in Evidence", and it is from the lofty realm of law, not science :-)

---

LOL, attributing the concept to science fit the contextual flow better. I try to be nimble like that. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Another example of an assumption not in evidence. I believe that my desire to set the terms for my interactions with a business must also allow the business to do the same with me. We can both then choose whether to do business with each other or not. A municipality or county or state or national government issuing edicts for how we both will interact removes both our options.

---

As part of one of my day jobs, I do the required fire inspections of businesses. And note violations of the code. Which are frequent.

I think the government isn't overstepping terribly in requiring businesses to do certain things for fire safety. Many of the required items are a bit technical, the customers have no idea if the fire safety situation is up-to-snuff, and indeed the business owner may not be aware of the requirements or the need to continue to follow them on an ongoing basis.

I gather the same sort of situation applies to health inspections of restaurants.

From the customer's point of view, there's very little transparency about these sorts of issues - the casual visitor to a theater might not have the time, expertise, or interest to verify that the Exit doors in the theater aren't locked shut, for instance, and by the time they discover that, well, the opportunity to consent to doing business is well past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Another example of an assumption not in evidence.

---

Except that it is in evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Personally I think it's appropriate for states to leave that sort of thing for localities to decide.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

Except that it is in evidence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

That part doesn’t baffle me so much. It’s the part where you want to define Taco Bell or Safeway as a municipality.

---

No, actually it's not. I've previously noted that I'd prefer that all government edicts be issued on as local a basis as possible rather than being derived from the top of the pyramid. I've also noted that I believe that a business should be able to set the terms of how it interacts with its customers, but neither of those noted beliefs defines a business as a government entity. I remain baffled by your bafflement.

So you didn't say "Personally I think it's appropriate for states to leave that sort of thing for localities to decide."?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

So you didn't say "Personally I think it's appropriate for states to leave that sort of thing for localities to decide."?

---

Yes, I believe I did say that. I still don't see where you made the leap of me defining Safeway or Taco Bell as municipalities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I'm not familiar with that, and it doesn't sound like something he would do or say to me. If it's true, I'd be disappointed.

---

Said it. Put it in writing. Signed it. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/03...-mask-mandate/

In particular I call your attention to this paragraph: "But officials lambasted the latest order because it does not allow local leaders to enforce their own mask mandates. The latest order also removes a previous option available to local leaders: compel businesses to require that customers wear face masks."

Gov Abbot clearly believes in state government dominance, not local control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeorgeParker

Said it. Put it in writing. Signed it. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/03...-mask-mandate/

In particular I call your attention to this paragraph: "But officials lambasted the latest order because it does not allow local leaders to enforce their own mask mandates. The latest order also removes a previous option available to local leaders: compel businesses to require that customers wear face masks."

Gov Abbot clearly believes in state government dominance, not local control.

---

I believe the actual executive order limits local judges from imposing fines or jail terms for not wearing a mask while other commentary within the order encourages everyone to continue masking in public. I think we can all agree that there will come a time when every politician will endorse the same, I guess it's just a matter of timing at this point. I'm sure once a Democratic Governor does the same, all will be well.

The difference is that the democratic governors will likely wait until vaccination rates and case rates make it a reasonably safe decision to do so instead of doing it as a distraction from their party’s failed energy policies that resulted in a bunch of dead people and a lot of frozen pipes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I believe the actual executive order limits local judges from imposing fines or jail terms for not wearing a mask while other commentary within the order encourages everyone to continue masking in public.

---

This is the actual order: https://static.texastribune.org/medi...267.1614975952

The language you're looking for is in page 2, section 1, part b:
Attachment 3669
And in page 2, section 2, part iii:
Attachment 3670

That seems pretty unambiguous. He's saying no local government can impose a mask mandate or require any business to require masks.