This page is dedicated to the response to an argument I recieved on July 5th, 2020 around midday via snapchat.
clearly, this individual was not in favor of my message.
"If you'll recall, however, I did call for an open forum to discuss. This means that I'm elevating all arguments sent to me to this page. They are all worthy of discussion. I want to understand what is going on."
In an effort to maintain my message, I have elevated their response to my website. I have removed all personally identifying information from their messages.
First, take the time to read in their arguments.
I have blurred out individual names as well as the the locations that the complaintant has indicated that they are traveling in their 9th point to preserve their anonymity. The individual has indicated that they are okay with all of their information and opinions being public, but I will only make them public if they tell me a second time. I don't think they really want their name on this.
Keep in mind, this individual is only rebutting the singular point I made about masks. So, the rest of the open letter remains unchallenged.
The initial point that the complaintant makes is that it is justifiable that I shouldn't get a say in the policy because people didn't get a say in whether they caught COVID.
They correctly addressed both that I didn't get a say in the mask policy and that people don't get a say in whether they catch covid, but they incorrectly make a bridge that one somehow justifies the other. People have never had a say in whether or not they contract a virus or perish from it. I personally find this to be an injustice. In fact, if anything, I think that this is all the more reason that we should *all* be actively participating in ways to make the world a better place.
Of course, perishing from a virus is not the only danger that ever befell mankind, so the argument is a little short-sighted to begin with.
They proceed to shame me for not looking out for my fellow employees at IU. Shaming, of course, is the usual tactic for someone who does not understand the premise of the argument and seeks to win it without the expensive work of bolstering their ideas. The reality is that I have done extensive research and find that my fellow employees would not be protected if I complied with the university policy. So, ironically, I am actually doing the exact thing that the complaintant is trying to shame me for not doing: I am protecting them. I am standing up for my fellow employees by sharing my opinion on policy that would strip their rights.
The complaintant then goes into noting that this is not about the individual, it is about others. Personally, I find this to be the most well- supported and commendable part of their argument, and judging by the numerous amount of times they repeat this, I think they would agree.
I would actually have to agree that masks reduce the spread of airborne germs. I think that's a reasonable proposition. The issue that I take is *to what degree* they accomplish this. Because that degree is not clear, I find it unreasonable to force individuals to comply. This complaintant seems to be misguided that our measures to stop COVID are somehow drastically effective. Though they never said that, I detect that this is an undercurrent of disagreement that led them to respond with such a passionate argument. However, I find that they are likely misguided. Simply stating that something is scientifically backed does not make it so. Unfortunately, I fear that this individual has fallen into the trap of tacitly believing sources that make these claims.
So, the question is not whether or not you should take action to help others, the question is whether or not you should be compelled to take action to help others, especially on limited scientific evidence. This is what the individual needs to address in order to have an effective argument. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks that people should ignore public health measures. The degree to which they are mandatory is what is up for debate here.
They proceed to make the point that while I may not be high risk, other people may be. This is another sound as reasonable point: the individual should consider others. However, despite what this individual seems the think, this point does not stand in the way of anything that I am saying. I completely agree. The question is whether or not this fact justifies an institution taking control over your health. And to that end, I'm afraid not. The individual should have some degree of control over their personal life.
They proceed to indicate that I am disrespecting my university becuse a department of the university helped to make PPE. However, I don't see a connection there. I'm actually quite glad that there exist employees at the university that make PPE and helped combat this virus. That has nothing to do with whether or not I should be compelled to wear a mask.
The complaintant then proceeds to remake the argument that others could be higher risk.
The complaintant then proceeds to remake the argument that it is not about the individual.
Then, they attacaked my analogy with everyone walking campus armed. I'm glad that I left that analogy in my letter, because I figured it would encourage conversation. Of course, this individual did nothing to explain *why* the analogy is poor. They simply claimed it was.
In their defense, it was put out there very boldly and unbased to the unwatchful eye. However, in the interest of encouraging good discussion, I'll unpack the analogy, even though they failed to.
The point of the analogy is to shine a light on how ridiculous it is to make sweeping requirements based on a "scientific study." Clearly, calling for the arming of all students would have drastic and possibly perilous side effects. Likewise, I have my suspicions that forcing all students into their homes, away from gatherings, and denying them the ability to see each other smile will also have drastic and possibly perilous side effects - particularly in the spheres of mental health and of sharing ideas.
They talk a little about a contact of theirs who is high risk, and indicate that they don't travel because they don't want to infect that contact. I find this to be reminiscient of a degree of personal responsibility that I respect about this individual. However, like most of the points they made, it has nothing to do with whether or not people should be compelled to wear masks. They claim that if people wore masks, that they would be able to visit this contact more. But this is flawed on two fronts. For one, as I mentioned, it is not clear how much all people wearing masks would actually help. Again, the undercurrent of scientific disagreement surfaces. However, the other reason why this train of thought falls flat is ironically because it reeks of a sense of entitlement, entirely undermining the only good argument this individual had. Their statement says "If only everyone else could do A, then I could do B." So... if everyone was compelled to do something, you'd benefit.
I suppose I could tell you the same thing you told me. It's not about you.
But me? This isn't about me either. This is about my fellow students, my peers, all future students, and all people fighting for what they believe is right everywhere.
I responded to this argument with a sarcastic remark because I found it to be baseless shaming and was ready to end the conversation there. However, they responded reminding me that I was looking for an open debate. At first, I was surprised by this. The argument didn't seem to hold any rhetorical value, and it just felt like I was being screamed at for holding a controvertial opinion. But, fair enough, this individual wants to pass this off as a debate.
I have an obligation to share their words. And now it they are here for anyone interested to see.
And, of course, even though this entire rebuttal was about masks, I want to remind any reader that masks are not the hill worth dying on, it's the app. And thankfully, this complaintant left my main point untouched.
So I indicated to the individual that I'd elevate their complaint. In fact, As always, I am open to any additional comments or arguments.
Daniel
An update: July 6th.
The individual has read my response and sent me a simple message on the platform again. It seems that they have no interest in trying to refute what I have to say, and hold out hope they can simply win the argument by claiming that they have won. Clearly, they are not incredibly confident, as they have decided that, indeed, their name does not belong on this page. Fair enough, I respect their effort and shall grant them the last word they desire.
In the future, I will not address arguments that are as disparaging as this individual's. In fact, though I respect all efforts to communicate, it may have not have been worth my time to address this one.
