[ExI] for Henry

[spike at rainier66.com]

From: spike at rainier66.com <spike at rainier66.com> 
Subject: RE: [ExI] for Henry

 

 

 

>…From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org <mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> > On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat



 

>…Regarding masks: that one is complicated by a wide variation in how much people believe they are effective outdoors.  I have never convinced myself that they are a bit effective outside.  Staying back is way better.  With that model, not wearing a mask is a safety thing: the other proles see you not wearing one and they stay farther back, which protects both…spike

 

 

This way, we can all accuse each other of being anti-science for not accepting the scientific consensus.  On masks outdoors, there are three general camps or schools of thought on the efficacy of outdoor masks.  I call them the Yes School, the No School and the We Don’t Know School.

 

All three of these have internal consensus, for they generally agree with themselves.  So regardless of one’s views, you still generally reject the scientific consensus of the other two camps.  It is possible to be in two schools of thought, so long as one of them is the We Don’t Know group.  

 

I believe that outdoor masks are bad, because they encourage proles to come closer for intercourse, since the mask prevents reading lips.  I would think removing the mask enables reading lips from a greater distance during intercourse, and distancing is more effective than a mask.  So… be safe: lose the mask, enjoy intercourse from a respectful 4 meters rather than 2, everyone stays safer.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200806/8a736bb3/attachment.htm>