Pat Nius, yes – lets try again.

I started by correcting a number of egreious errors in Jake Duesenberg’s “article”

You responded by using a false analogy.

STAYING ON TOPIC, I gave a citation debunking your notion that Walz orders are not legal – so much for “refusing to address” your concern.

You then attempt to hand-wave my ON TOPIC citation away as a logical fallacy.

I debunk that, saying you have to prove the person in question isn’t really an expert (so much for ‘changing the subject’)

You now double-down on your incorrect assertion that I’m repeating the fallacy.

Now, I will ask again: Can you provide me a citation (and ACTUAL citation from a reputable source) that shows that Walz orders are illegal?

“I think it’s fair to say a court judge knows a little bit more about the law than you or I.” So, our resident troll responds to my charge of a fallacious argument by simply repeating it. J Bird responds with this kind of thing because that’s all he’s got. There is no way, under a plain reading of the Federal constitution, or Minnesota’s laws for that matter, that Walz’s actions are legal. THAT is the issue, and J Bird’s sole purpose here is to change the subject. Watch him give it another try!

Pat Nius, I believe the fallacy you are attempting to assign to me is argumentum ab auctoritate, or Appeal to Authority.

Basically, it states that “a person in a positition of authority said ‘A’ is true, therefore ‘A’ is true.”

Unfortunately, its important to note that this fallacy can’t used to dismiss out of turn the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. In other words, its only a fallacy if it can be shown the person in question is actually NOT an authority on the matter in question.

In our discussion, I think it’s fair to say a court judge knows a little bit more about the law than you or I. Therefore it follows your attempt to dismiss my citation based solely on ‘Appeal to Authority’ alone does not follow.

So, sorry, NOT end of story.

Now, if you have a citation showing that the judge in question can be proven to NOT be an authority in this case, then we can talk. Or, if Lisa or someone else can show in a court of law that Walz is in the wrong, then we can talk.

Until then, you and others are certainly entitled to your opinions. But your NOT entitled to your own facts.

And J Bird once again demonstrates his lack of education, or his mendacity, by relying on another logical fallacy. Now it’s argument to authority. He cites a case where some judge sided with Walz in a court case and acts like that’s the final word on the matter, so we should all just accept his unlawful diktats. I don’t think so. The governor of an American state may not issue orders that violate the Federal constitution. End. Of. Story.

I actually agree with Lloyd that this should be more of a CIVIL matter. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want Lisa to wind up in jail. As I’ve said before, had Lisa filed her grievance with the courts to start with, as opposed to openly defying a rule just becuase she disagrees with it, it wouldnt have gone this far.

In the here and now, I would hope that Lisa might be willing to come clean and admit she was in the wrong – which might result in some leniancy where she might only pay a fine and that would be the end of it. But, if she continues to think shes an “out of work law professor” and maintains shes somehow in the right, I fear they might throw the book at her.

Never in my life have I read so many opinions from what seems to be out of work college law professors. The simple TRUTH and FACTS are that anything coming out of Walz’s office regarding COVID is a CIVIL matter. The RINOS and DEMS did try to change that into statute form law but thankfully it failed. The Sheriff involved could have done the right thing and quashed the arrest warrant but he seems to want to be the highway hero to the DEM Left Loonies. This whole mess has been and is purely political, end of story-period. People in a “created panic” are more than willing to give up their liberties by Executive Fiat, that’s what makes this story a real tragedy. You believed what the Government told you without question and that’s a terrible mistake on your parts.

Jack Overby, I appreciate your passion and conviction, even if I don’t appreciate being assigned opinions and things I didnt say or didn’t think. I will chalk it up to your not being aware of it, and being so strong in your position. No offence taken.

Appreciate your giving me the last word. In my hope to be as brief as possible, I wanted focus on only three items:

1) The logic behind those “extreme” analogies

In each of those analogies, I think it is fair to say people defying the government in those cases were doing so in the interest of saving lives. Conversely, what Lisa and the so-called ‘heroes’ like her had done did NOT save lives – in fact they endangered lives. I think the difference is clear – regardless of what ‘terminology’ you use.

2) Citation (still) needed

When I ask for a citation, a modified graph or chart posted by someone on Twitter rarely comes to mind. This is where the danger of all this lies. We ALL are tired of this pandemic and lockdowns, etc. Belive it or not, I get it. And to some degree, we are ALL looking for something that gives even the illusion of control over the whole thing.

But this is what conspriacy theorists bank on. And, if they show you something that looks ‘offical’ or ‘scientific,’ you’re more apt to gobble it up because you’re hungry for it – especially when looking at it through “admittingly partial eyes.”

But I would implore everyone to look at this thing objectively – and put any bias aside. In this case of your citation, it was pointed out that it focused on hospitalizations – not all COVID patients were hospitalized. It was also suggested that it was a RECENT snapshot – with 200 MILLION people having had at least one dose of vaccine, and 100 MILLION fully vaccinated.

Looking at states during the height of lockdowns, mandates, etc. (https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk):

States with more cumulative cases per capita than Minnesota (to name a few): Florida, South Dakota, Texas.

3) An impasse

You state you hope the US “splits up.” Actually, I would like to think that – if common ground can be found – that both sides of the issue could work together, and come up with mutally beneficail solutions. The inherient skeptism of your side could actually be of use – especially when shining a light on the other effects lockdowns can have. As long as skeptism doesn’t turn into denial in the face of verifiable data that justifies health and safety orders, I would think the energy used to raise people like Lisa up as heroes when they’re not, and instead holding fundraisers to help pay her bills versus paying for her criminal defence, who knows how many more people could have been helped?

The only other option would be, if you truly find how things are being run that unsavory, one of your freedoms IS the freedom to leave. Hope it doesnt come to that.

I pray that the truth one day reveils itself to all. Stay safe!

I am not consciously doing that, as I have repeatedly consciously acknowledged that lockdowns aren’t as bad as slavery or murder (duh!). The point was that legality does not imply morality, and vice versa. Perhaps you found my examples tasteless, but the logic is sound.

I wasn’t moving any goalposts- my underlying meaning was consistent, even if my terminology was not. By “illegitimate” I meant “immoral”- i.e., the executive order banning people from engaging in voluntary business transactions (operating a restaurant and allowing customers to enter) is not morally sound, even if our imperfect legal system legitimizes it.

As for evidence, here’s a graph that shows that not only did the strictness of COVID regulations (the Stringency Index, developed by Oxford) not correlated with decreasing hospitalization rates- in fact, the correlation was reversed!

https://twitter.com/IAmTheActualET/status/1384238522652000268/photo/1

When you look at hospitalization/death rates for different states within the same region (e.g. Midwest: Michigan/Minnesota/Illinois vs Dakotas), the curves all look damn near identical, regardless of what measures the states took. I think this is just statistical noise, and that there is simply no correlation. But that in and of itself is telling. If social distancing, mask mandates, capacity limits, forced closures of business etc. were truly effective, wouldn’t “open” states like Florida, South Dakota, Texas, etc. be doing catastrophically worse than heavily locked down states? The fact that no connection seems to exist suggests, to my admittedly partial eyes, that all this bullshit is for nothing. And this is focusing exclusively on COVID rates, while ignoring all the economic, financial, psychological and spiritual effects of prolonged isolation, which are not as easily quantifiable but still critical. The “monomaniacal” focus upon COVID, while ignoring everything else in life, is misguided.

I think we’ve reached an impasse. I believe in “man’s inalienable property right over his own being”. You don’t. You believe that indefinite restrictions in the name of public health are legitimate, and you think the State has the right to imprison people for not complying. I don’t. Honestly, that’s okay. This is why I hope the US splits up, so that my folk and your folk can live as we see fit, apart, without stepping upon each other’s toes.

I’ll let you have the last word. #GodBless, and #StaySafe!

Jack Overby, indeed we agree that the analogies were extreme. Common ground there. Analogies like that are often used in an attempt to vilify the opposing view out of turn when one is losing an argument. Not saying you’re consciously doing that, but just saying..

I note that you went from using the word “illegitimate” regarding Walzs orders to “immoral.” So, it sounds like you recognize that the orders are legit, but instead of conceding your error, are ‘moving the goalposts.’

The fact you or anyone belives them to be ‘immoral’ means nothing. As I’ve said before, you can disagree with rules all you want. There’s a number of rules I don’t agree with. But that doesn’t give me free reign to choose to ignore them. And Lisa is no different.

And lets get something right: Lisa was not arrested for “simply operating their business, and voluntarily interacting with willing customers,” she was arrested for violating a health and safety order put in place to protect people. Again, the fact you don’t think said order was ‘moral’ means nothing.

Finally, your claim that there is “evidence showing that all the government measures in the world haven’t done a damn thing to affect the spread of the coronavirus:”

Citation Needed.

The analogies were extreme, as I acknowledged, but not false. I wasn’t equating the extent of the violation; of course, slavery and genocide are infinitely worse than forcing business to close. I was merely pointing out that a country’s legal system can uphold actions even if they’re immoral- as I, and many other libertarians/conservatives, hold lockdowns to be. I don’t deny that the courts can drum up some sort of justification for Walz’ actions. Look at the Dred Scott decision, or Korematsu v. US., which somehow upheld even more egregious laws. What I’m saying is that arresting someone for simply operating their business, and voluntarily interacting with willing customers, is an abhorrent violation of the liberties that are essential for human society to flourish.

If people like you hadn’t submitted to the will of tyrants like Walz, America wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now: 13 months into 15 days to flatten the curve, isolated, miserable, financially ruined, deprived of many of the things that make life joyful and worth living… and with half the population supporting tyrannical measures by governors across the country, despite the evidence showing that all the government measures in the world haven’t done a damn thing to affect the spread of the coronavirus! I guess a year of nonstop, continual propaganda really does work.

I’m going to ignore the false (and extreme) analogies and get to the main assertion: The notion that Walzs orders were somehow ‘illegitimate.’

I see a lot of people, Lisa included, that exhitbit whats known as the Dunning Kruger effect. Where someone speaks with a false confidence – that they are somehow an expert about something they actually know very little to nothing about.

To parapharse a law professor interviewed in this story run in your local paper – Lisa should not have skimmed through a few google searches and then move forward thinking shes a lawyer.

I keep seeing the defence of ‘the order wasn’t legal, therefore Lisas in the right.’ The one thing I have YET to see is one credible citation backing that up.

Sorry, but you dont get to just make staetments – you have to be able to back it up.

And never let it be said that I dont follow my own advice:

https://www.valleynewslive.com/2020/09/03/judge-sides-with-gov-tim-walz-on-use-of-emergency-powers/

So, unfortunately (at least for you and Lisa). the order WAS legal an valid.

So, again, had she followed the rules, she wouldnt be the mess shes in now.

End. Of. Story.

Appalling! The actions this Governor takes to abolish freedom, when he should be freeing Minneapolis from mob rule…Lisa, thanks for taking a stand for our freedom🇺🇸

J Bird: so people who hid slaves in the South during the 1800s, or Jews in Germany during the 1940s, deserved to get arrested because they disobeyed the law? Of course, Walz’ violations of liberties are nowhere near slavery or mass murder, but the principle is the same: it is not only legitimate, but moral, to disobey illegitimate laws.

If you’re not disturbed by the fact that governors are locking people in cages for the crime of operating their businesses, well, then you reject all the values that have allowed the Western world to prosper over the past several centuries.

Are you aware that COVID prevention measure have zero correlation whatsoever to actually stopping the spread of the virus? So the ruining of society over the past 13+ months has been, literally, for nothing.

Have fun double masking at home until 2023, until you get your 30th round of the vaccine, at which point Fauci will maybe, if you get on your knees and beg. let you gather with up to five other 30fold-vaccinated family members, in your backyard, with only one mask apiece!

J Bird’s comments are based on the assumption that Walz’s orders are legal. They are not. That is our problem with them, and one that he repeatedly refuses to address. Instead we get an argument typical of wifebeaters: “If she hadn’t of pissed me off, she’d have been FINE!”

A couple of clarificiations Jake Duesenberg needs to be aware of:

- According to a local story, she was actually hiding out, not on “vacation”
- She has NOT YET been prosecuted. But that may be a formallity – nine counts in total each up to 90 days jail time

Its been said before but it bears repeating: Had she followed the rules, she’d have been fine. As the sherrif said, she should have never taken it this far.

I support Lisa 100%!