> From someone else's perspective, maybe freedom is more important than lives, and they are willing to let some people (including themselves) die in order to avoid temporary or permanent limits on existing freedoms.
> (including themselves)
Including others, which is against any serious code of ethics.
> From your perspective, maybe lives are more important than freedoms and you are willing to limit some freedoms temporarily or permanently if it means saving more lives.
It's extremely difficult for me to imagine a more fallacious argument than this.
The closest I can come is imagining a mass movement against DUI checkpoints by people who refuse to show their license, but who purposely get drunk before speeding through the checkpoint.
It is not only philosophically consistent to protest mask laws while at the same time wearing a mask during this pandemic-- it's ethically required. The fact that you don't seem to realize you've hard-coupled a defense of freedom with wanton irresponsibility is legitimately worrisome. It reeks of the success of online filter bubbles dividing consumers into the most destructive two poles of potential behavior/opinion.
Luckily, in my own community, talking in person to other humans, I don't witness anything like these two poles. Rather, I see a lot of pandemic fatigue, results of shit messaging from the government, some disinformation, and the occasional asshole who must be addicted to a political feed like a degenerate gambler in Vegas.
Honestly, for most people it's not going to matter what side of the political spectrum they were on. Nearly everyone has made at least one critical safety mistake, failing to protect themselves or their loved ones. At least in the U.S., noses peeking out from masks is a bi-partisan issue. High ground is a luxury of social media self-delusion.