>But as a society, we could value reparability

Only if there is large enough individuals who value reparability.

>And laws are there to enforce what the society values

That laws exist when there is enough individuals to support it.

Yes, among all other thing I concern about, reducing the chance of infection passing between us is the least of my concern.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against reducing the chance of infection. I support reducing the chance of infection but not with mask.

Because mask has more downside than its ability (if any) to reduce the chance of infection.

>Is this the part where I discover you have a completely different view on the whole topic and this discussion was pointless from the beginning?

I don't know about you but I do not found this discussion to be pointless

No, you think you are doing good for me but reducing the chance of infection passing is not a concern for me at all so its not doing any good for me.

>I think we probably won't get any further benefit from this discussion. I've lost patience with a lot of people over this. I find it slightly depressing that this has become the identity issue it has.

Not surprising because you dismissing other people concern and treat it as 'not big deal'.

It's no big deal for you, fine. I acknowledge that but It is a big deal for me.

>I'm a grown up and I deal with it because it's a good thing to do for other people.

well not to me, when you wearing mask when interacting with me you are not doing a good thing for me.

I'm much prefer for you to not wear mask when you interact with me but still I wouldn't force you.

Its also one of the reason for me to not wear mask when interacting with other people, its a good thing to do for other people.

Maybe it is minor inconvenience for you but for me its a huge inconvenience.

The problem with N95 mask :

- communication barrier, it destroy ability to use facial expression to aid communication.

- uncomfortable

- inconvenience

- not free

- environmental waste

But if someone want to wear mask, I wouldn't stop you as long as you don't force it to other people.

Disagree, if anything its the contrary, human as like any other living organism always evolve, always changing. Its language, its culture is constantly evolving/changing, even its physique.

>You also write that some underlying issues need to be fixed. What issues do you mean by this? What is the root cause that you'd like to fix?

Lets take one example, assume I'm gay. Let say If people know I'm gay I will be discriminated. There is 2 way to solve this issue: Hide that I'm gay or fix the discrimination issue. I would much prefer the later approach.

When the underlying issue is fixed, I would not need for self-censoring.

Embracing and learning on how to adapt on transparency is the only feasible way. Technology is always progressing. As technology progresses information becoming easier, cheaper, faster to transmit.

Good luck trying to stop the progress of technology.

Yes someone will always try to hide they can try but its going to be come more and more difficult and increasingly costly.

>Also, I don't think you can embrace transparency, no matter how much you'd like to, because of how humans work

what do you mean by this ? How human works in this context according to you ?

>but the importance of privacy is recognized in places like the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights,

Just because its written there doesn't mean its set in stone.

I certainly disagree that privacy is a rights.

>Or, looking at the opposite, constant exposure can lead to things like the Chilling Effect,

It can lead to that but then we should fix those thing instead of privacy

I'm not saying that transparency can solve everything. I'm saying that we learn/adapt on living with transparency.

>which, in layman terms, means always-on self-censoring due to constantly being watched,

When the root of the issue is fixed, the need of self-censoring is disappear.

Information wants to be free.

Its simply more pragmatic approach to embrace and adapt to transparency.

> the powerful would still have ways to achieve it, while the less powerful wouldn't

The imbalance of power come from information asymmetry. e.g The government has more information then the citizen thus they are more powerful but if we strive for transparency for both side then the playing field is leveled.

Sure you can do that by privacy for both side but then you are fighting against the progress of technology.

>Assuming many people even learn about your arrest -

Thats why I argue for citizen to surveil the government too to level the playing field.

So where does their power come from ?

Information advantage ? No, if both side has the same information

Strength in number? there are more citizen then the government people.

The surveillance/transparency has to be on both side.

Government can't just do whatever they want if they also being surveilled.

Then I much rather for everyone to have no privacy so it level the playing field.

I don't have to worry about having to hide stuff.

So this is the actual issue then ?

Instead of resorting to hiding, should instead fix the root issue: change the law.

Why are you so concerned on this ? Isn't the goal of a paper is to communicate information?

>It only proves that they have copy and paste.

Yes they copy paste but it doesn't prove that they don't really understand it.

They may very well found your definition is the best way to describe it.

As long as the reader of the paper understand what being communicated, imo it should be fine?

I can understand if its a school assignment where the goal is specifically to prove that the author know their stuff.

For a scientific paper, requiring a concept to be described in different way for the sake of it seem to be inefficient and wasting time.

testing tests all patients being admitted to the hospital

no wonder they are overworked