Should being within six feet of someone while Coronavirus going on be considered assault?

[Dennis Francis Blewett III]

So, I'm at this place called Community Action in Beloit, Wisconsin; and it bothers me that person get within six feet of me. I'm gridlocked by the space-time continuum; and there is nothing I am able to do about people coming within six feet of me, such as me being flanked by persons. And then there is the questionable ethics of going into some place of the building that does not appear to be designated for public access, etc.. And so, when people come within six feet of me, I'm tempted to whip them down; but I don't. I'm glad, too, because I consider well enough that police might come by being really ignorant and say what I did was antisocial and unlawful; and that if I want to make my point, then I need to do such in court. Really bad situation.

 

I think it's assault in the sense that it's like they're coming near me and striking me with their fist. No actual blow occurs, but I consider it might be an ecosystem disruption that enhances my proneness to coronoavirus or has some other kind of negative effects.

 

Thoughts?

[Phi for All]

12 minutes ago, Dennis Francis Blewett III said:

when people come within six feet of me, I'm tempted to whip them down;

Can you elaborate on the meaning of this term?

[Dennis Francis Blewett III]

Engage in self-defense by physically attacking them. However, upon some thought, it appears to me that such would be anti-thetical because one would hope to remain at least six feet from the individual as much as possible.

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, Dennis Francis Blewett III said:

Engage in self-defense by physically attacking them.

You're suggesting that breathing too close to someone else in public (which is the reason for distancing) be considered an assault that justifies physical self-defense? That sounds fairly one-dimensional for a law, even a temporary one, and I would prefer a solution aimed at keeping more people safe. Something that didn't take the possibility of hospitalization and turn it into a certainty.

 

12 minutes ago, Dennis Francis Blewett III said:

However, upon some thought, it appears to me that such would be anti-thetical because one would hope to remain at least six feet from the individual as much as possible.

... and because the exertion and yelling makes everyone breathe harder.

... and because others may intervene, turning an individual into a crowd.

... and because you're inviting retaliatory self-defensive behavior that might scale beyond your control. 

[Dennis Francis Blewett III]

 

13 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You're suggesting that breathing too close to someone else in public (which is the reason for distancing) be considered an assault that justifies physical self-defense? That sounds fairly one-dimensional for a law, even a temporary one, and I would prefer a solution aimed at keeping more people safe. Something that didn't take the possibility of hospitalization and turn it into a certainty.

 

No, I am not suggesting that.

"...which is the reason for distancing..."

Do you have a source for that being the reason for distancing?

 

I have been under the impression that we're in a computer simulation (if but something very much like it) and being within six feet of persons has a correlatory (I don't believe in causality relative to light cones) ecosystem effect that is adverse to one's self-interest. It's like the adverse aspects of the virus' code rubs off on a person in a negative way from being too close: As though someone's proneness to the virus enhances.

 

Proving the computer simulation aspect is difficult. My evidence is circumstantial. However, were scientists to throw a fair amount of effort at falsifying whether or not we are in such, I think that whether or not we are in such may well enough be unlocked. Maybe this thread is of it being examined.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Dennis Francis Blewett III

[iNow]

53 minutes ago, Dennis Francis Blewett III said:

Should being within six feet of someone while Coronavirus going on be considered assault?

No.

By this same logic, heating ones home in winter is manslaughter because of the way it pollutes the air.

Assault also generally requires intent. People merely standing beside you in public spaces cannot in most cases be considered to be “intentionally inflicting harm” on you, especially if they don’t believe themselves to be infected.

I think it’s you who needs to begin thinking about where you do and don’t stand and what PPE you use when encountering circumstances where the distance between people is smaller than you prefer. 

[CharonY]

28 minutes ago, Dennis Francis Blewett III said:

No, I am not suggesting that.

"...which is the reason for distancing..."

Do you have a source for that being the reason for distancing?

... have you been around for 2020? You know, the whole respiratory virus thing? The reason why sweatpants are the new business casual? 

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, Dennis Francis Blewett III said:

I'm tempted to whip them down;

If people being near you was assault (and I doubt it is) then assault and battery (or worse) would not be a legally reasonable response anyway.

34 minutes ago, CharonY said:

have you been around for 2020? You know, the whole respiratory virus thing?

Did you miss the 

 

1 hour ago, Dennis Francis Blewett III said:

I have been under the impression that we're in a computer simulation (if but something very much like it) and being within six feet of persons has a correlatory (I don't believe in causality relative to light cones) ecosystem effect that is adverse to one's self-interest. It's like the adverse aspects of the virus' code rubs off on a person in a negative way from being too close: As though someone's proneness to the virus enhances.

thing?

Let's just say I think this is a medical issue, but not a respiratory virus issue.

[CharonY]

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Did you miss the 

Yes, probably. I have been going through quite a few student theses recently and my brain just blanks out things that do not make sense for self-preservation, I think.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Dennis Francis Blewett III said:

I have been under the impression that we're in a computer simulation (if but something very much like it) and being within six feet of persons has a correlatory (I don't believe in causality relative to light cones) ecosystem effect that is adverse to one's self-interest. It's like the adverse aspects of the virus' code rubs off on a person in a negative way from being too close: As though someone's proneness to the virus enhances.

 

Proving the computer simulation aspect is difficult. My evidence is circumstantial. However, were scientists to throw a fair amount of effort at falsifying whether or not we are in such, I think that whether or not we are in such may well enough be unlocked. Maybe this thread is of it being examined.

Too much noise and not enough signal, even for the Politics section. 

You should start a different thread, in Speculations, if you want to pursue this non-mainstream idea (and support it with evidence, of course). It's off-topic in a thread about coronavirus distancing.

1 hour ago, Dennis Francis Blewett III said:

Do you have a source for that being the reason for distancing?

Airborne virus, right? Distancing also prevents contact, but the hand-washing and attention  to sanitary measures are supposed to cover most of that. Masks and distancing minimize breathing in aerosol droplets that may contain the virus.

Why do you think we're supposed to be staying far apart? 

[Dennis Francis Blewett III]

"Why do you think we're supposed to be staying far apart?" - Phi for All

 

Quote

"...Social distancing should be practiced in combination with other everyday preventive actions to reduce the spread of COVID-19, including wearing masks..."

"To practice social or physical distancing, stay at least 6 feet (about 2 arm lengths) from other people who are not from your household in both indoor and outdoor spaces."

"COVID-19 spreads mainly among people who are in close contact (within about 6 feet) for a prolonged period...." - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html

"Since people can spread the virus before they know they are sick, it is important to stay at least 6 feet away from others when possible, even if you—or they—do not have any symptoms. Social distancing is especially important for people who are at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19." - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html
 

<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html> Accessed on June 10th, 2021. Emphasis added.

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by Dennis Francis Blewett III