Nebraska Announces Face Covering Policy For Home Athletics Events

[Daddy]

I can only assume that reading comprehension is difficult for you. Here is what I posted:

1. Making an assumption that "Most of the biggest donors are hard right nut jobs" without any factual basis behind this. It may be true that most of the biggest donors tend to be Conservative in nature, but that doesn't make them "hard right nut jobs". Note that no where do I say that it's an assumption to call the biggest donors right wing. In fact, I conceded that most of the biggest donors tend to be Conservative in nature. I stated that just because they are Conservative in nature, doesn't make them "hard right nut jobs". It looks like you conceded that painting them as "nut jobs" was over the line, so we'll just go ahead and put this point in the win column for me.
2. Making an assumption that said donors will "pull their money if they have to wear masks" without any factual basis behind this. While there may be one or two donors that possibly might hold this opinion, you've generalized this to be "most", which is factually incorrect and irresponsible. You respond to this without giving any factual information backing up your opinion that MOST donors will "pull their money if they have to wear masks". Once again, a generalization using the word MOST when in reality, it could be 0, 1, or more...
3. Lastly, you cast the Owners of a fairly large company in Lincoln in a negative light because they have/may (sounds like you don't know for sure and are just using conjecture once again) withhold their donations to the Catholic Schools and the Archdiocese of Lincoln if a decision about mask wearing is made that doesn't line up with their belief. Last I checked, their money is their money and they can do with it what they want. I don't begrudge someone that doesn't want to patron a business that may not hold the same beliefs/values as that person. Here you concede that "they are obviously free to do whatever they want with their money", yet when they do that and their reasoning/belief doesn't match up to yours, then you cast them in a negative light? Which is it? Are they free to do what they want with their money or are they only free to do what they want with their money as long as you agree with it?

The last thing I wrote was this:

Do I agree with mask mandates? No. Did I wear one today when I went to the store? Yes. Did I bitch/moan to anyone that would listen that I had to wear one? No. You respond with some diatribe regarding "personal freedoms". There's not one mention of personal freedoms in my response to you, yet here you go again with generalizations or something that is non-substanitive.

You claim that you want to have fact-based discussions/debates, yet the majority of what you post is simply your opinion with little to no fact to back it up.

We'll call number 1 a wash. There's a difference between hard right folks and conservative folks.

Number 2, yea, it's an assumption based on what we know about folks that are both hard right and folks that are conservative. They hate to wear masks and they aren't afraid to throw their weight around to prove their point. Most might be a reach. We'll know before too long.

3? Yea, they're free to do whatever they want with their money. That doesn't inherently make what they're doing the right thing to do nor does it shield them from criticism. Also, I never said they weren't free to do whatever they want with their money. So that isn't really a concession on my part.

The comment about personal freedoms was a call back to a post you made on page 1 about personal freedoms where you say 'Apparently exercising your personal freedoms is now a bad thing...' I would hardly call 4 sentences a 'diatribe' though.