>>14554409 ( /lb)
The judge who previously put a stay on the mask ban used logic that did not imply a 'default' that masks should be mandatory 'until critics proved otherwise'.
But the judge assumed that anyway. He said that in the absence of information, there is no justified reason to impose a ban.
Oh no you stupid judge, the correct logic is that in the absence of information there is no justified reason to impose a ban where there otherwise would be maskless people.
Happy the appeals court ruled logically.
But the question is…who the fuck is driving these lawsuits in the first place?
If they think masks work, then they can wear a mask.
Others not wearing masks don't cause (supposedly working) masks to suddenly not work.
The dumbass logic of this 'if you don't wear a mask then mine won't work' is so low IQ it hurts.