Org Mobile Site
....because it's mainly hispanics who refuse vaccination...?
In the US? I would say so, without data driven evidence. It tends to be 3 kinds of people, from what I've read - people with reduced access to preventative healthcare, white baptists who think that the world is a couple thousand years old, and white liberals who think that they understand herd immunity and love organic foods.
Based on where these "epidemics" are popping up, the populations are overwhelmingly black and hispanic. The "blame black people for all of the horrible nonsense they are responsible for" bone in my body has been overworked, so I left them out of my bigoted prior post.
I would blame greasy Italians as well, but I can't think of how they might be responsible.
Based on where these "epidemics" are popping up, the populations are overwhelmingly black and hispanic. The "blame black people for all of the horrible nonsense they are responsible for" bone in my body has been overworked, so I left them out of my bigoted prior post.
I would blame greasy Italians as well, but I can't think of how they might be responsible.
Ah, just remembered that you silly yanks pay for your healthcare, and that this probably extends to vaccination as well...
If ever there was something society should pay for, it's vaccination. The main benefit of vaccinations are to society, not the individual. Thus, society should pay.
If ever there was something society should pay for, it's vaccination. The main benefit of vaccinations are to society, not the individual. Thus, society should pay.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Ah, just remembered that you silly yanks pay for your healthcare, and that this probably extends to vaccination as well...
If ever there was something society should pay for, it's vaccination. The main benefit of vaccinations are to society, not the individual. Thus, society should pay.
Correct. The main benefit of vaccination is to society. And yet, all known and unknown risks are born by individuals. So it is probably sensible and just to have a more conscientious and constructive argument than "you must".Ah, just remembered that you silly yanks pay for your healthcare, and that this probably extends to vaccination as well...
If ever there was something society should pay for, it's vaccination. The main benefit of vaccinations are to society, not the individual. Thus, society should pay.
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
Correct. The main benefit of vaccination is to society. And yet, all known and unknown risks are born by individuals. So it is probably sensible and just to have a more conscientious and constructive argument than "you must".
Since there is no credible counter-argument, I see no reason to bother coming up with an argument in favour.Correct. The main benefit of vaccination is to society. And yet, all known and unknown risks are born by individuals. So it is probably sensible and just to have a more conscientious and constructive argument than "you must".
In fact, engaging with them can actually validate their concerns.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Since there is no credible counter-argument, I see no reason to bother coming up with an argument in favour.
In fact, engaging with them can actually validate their concerns.
Classic leftist. "Close off debate - enact by force else we run the risk of potentially legitimate/illegitimate dialogue - the individual is subordinate to the State"Since there is no credible counter-argument, I see no reason to bother coming up with an argument in favour.
In fact, engaging with them can actually validate their concerns.
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
Classic leftist. "Close off debate - enact by force else we run the risk of potentially legitimate/illegitimate dialogue - the individual is subordinate to the State"
I'm not going to debate holocaust denial. I'm not going to debate NWO conspiracies. I'm not going to debate homeopathy. I'm not going to debate anti-vaccination.Classic leftist. "Close off debate - enact by force else we run the risk of potentially legitimate/illegitimate dialogue - the individual is subordinate to the State"
I will of course make fun of the loonies.
EDIT: This is, of course, in reference to their children, not the adults. The children should not have to suffer because their parents are idiots, that's a no-go. I can happily spread propaganda to convince the adults as well.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
I'm not going to debate holocaust denial. I'm not going to debate NWO conspiracies. I'm not going to debate homeopathy. I'm not going to debate anti-vaccination.
I will of course make fun of the loonies.
Are you equating holocaust denial with people who prefer not to use vaccines or have things injected into their bodies as a matter of principle? Will you soon force people to eat gm foods because they are not proven to be more harmful than organics, but have the major advantage of not wasting as many land resources? THUS ORGANIC FOODS ARE HARMING THE GREATER GOOD.I'm not going to debate holocaust denial. I'm not going to debate NWO conspiracies. I'm not going to debate homeopathy. I'm not going to debate anti-vaccination.
I will of course make fun of the loonies.
It is preference. When nobody around you or that you have ever met contracts the measles, it might not be senseless to forego vaccination. Should we all be vaccinated against yellow fever?
Another vote for mandatory.
At least until the age of 18, and any person engaged in public service and/or employed/residing in a public facility.
The herd is all
At least until the age of 18, and any person engaged in public service and/or employed/residing in a public facility.
The herd is all
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny:
Another vote for mandatory.
At least until the age of 18, and any person engaged in public service and/or employed/residing in a public facility.
The herd is all
"I vote for others to not have a vote"Another vote for mandatory.
At least until the age of 18, and any person engaged in public service and/or employed/residing in a public facility.
The herd is all
I'd say fine, but is it?
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
Are you equating holocaust denial with people who prefer not to use vaccines or have things injected into their bodies as a matter of principle? Will you soon force people to eat gm foods because they are not proven to be more harmful than organics, but have the major advantage of not wasting as many land resources? THUS ORGANIC FOODS ARE HARMING THE GREATER GOOD
It's not about their bodies. That's the point. They can make whatever decision they want to their own bodies. I will not have them make those decisions for others.Are you equating holocaust denial with people who prefer not to use vaccines or have things injected into their bodies as a matter of principle? Will you soon force people to eat gm foods because they are not proven to be more harmful than organics, but have the major advantage of not wasting as many land resources? THUS ORGANIC FOODS ARE HARMING THE GREATER GOOD
And yes, I am equating the validity of anti-vaccination arguments with the validity of holocaust denial arguments. The insanity level is the same.
The anti-GMO arguments are mostly the same, but fortunately the government doesn't pay much attention to them and GMO foods doesn't have a lot of restrictions. Organic foods are ridiculous, but on the same level as, say, driving a very fuel-inefficient car.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
It's not about their bodies. That's the point. They can make whatever decision they want to their own bodies. I will not have them make those decisions for others.
And yes, I am equating the validity of anti-vaccination arguments with the validity of holocaust denial arguments. The insanity level is the same.
The anti-GMO arguments are mostly the same, but fortunately the government doesn't pay much attention to them and GMO foods doesn't have a lot of restrictions. Organic foods are ridiculous, but on the same level as, say, driving a very fuel-inefficient car.
We will see, people love the idea of compulsion lately. I'd rather lose on this issue than on gun control or something,It's not about their bodies. That's the point. They can make whatever decision they want to their own bodies. I will not have them make those decisions for others.
And yes, I am equating the validity of anti-vaccination arguments with the validity of holocaust denial arguments. The insanity level is the same.
The anti-GMO arguments are mostly the same, but fortunately the government doesn't pay much attention to them and GMO foods doesn't have a lot of restrictions. Organic foods are ridiculous, but on the same level as, say, driving a very fuel-inefficient car.
With enough caving in the idea of "force other people to do the things that we think are a good idea", my only hope is that one day, things that you like and think are a good idea are banned and the things that you hate compelled. That was a modern curse
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
We will see, people love the idea of compulsion lately. I'd rather lose on this issue than on gun control or something,
With enough caving in the idea of "force other people to do the things that we think are a good idea", my only hope is that one day, things that you like and think are a good idea are banned and the things that you hate compelled. That was a modern curse
Compulsion? I am not arguing in favour of compulsion. I am arguing in favour of not allowing people to decide over others. I can see that this is an issue you do not wish to engage with, but I'll try one last time:We will see, people love the idea of compulsion lately. I'd rather lose on this issue than on gun control or something,
With enough caving in the idea of "force other people to do the things that we think are a good idea", my only hope is that one day, things that you like and think are a good idea are banned and the things that you hate compelled. That was a modern curse
Could you explain why a child should have no rights if given stupid parents? Why do you want to take away this individuals right to get vaccinated?
I don't think the state should be able to order people to do stuff... That's a very slippery slope, and we know governments haven't exactly been 100% trustworthy historically speaking.
However, parents should be educated about vaccine.
What says that the state makes better decisions than parents, even stupid ones?
Say there came a vaccine with the unfortunate, and not predicted, side effect that you can't have children... Then it would be pretty good to have those Christian loons around, wouldn't it. To save the human race and all...
I'm not saying vaccines will lead to infertility, I am saying that the state should in no way be able to dictate what goes into your body, or your childrens bodies.
EDUCATION is the answer, not forceful measures.
But by all means, disallow unvaccinated kids to go to public schools, I have no problems with that. Heck, unvaccinated kids are probably those with christian loons as parents, and as teacher I am more than happy to not have to deal with them on a professional basis.
However, parents should be educated about vaccine.
What says that the state makes better decisions than parents, even stupid ones?
Say there came a vaccine with the unfortunate, and not predicted, side effect that you can't have children... Then it would be pretty good to have those Christian loons around, wouldn't it. To save the human race and all...
I'm not saying vaccines will lead to infertility, I am saying that the state should in no way be able to dictate what goes into your body, or your childrens bodies.
EDUCATION is the answer, not forceful measures.
But by all means, disallow unvaccinated kids to go to public schools, I have no problems with that. Heck, unvaccinated kids are probably those with christian loons as parents, and as teacher I am more than happy to not have to deal with them on a professional basis.
You know if a vaccine could hide symptoms of infertility from the exhaustive testing phases health systems conduct, which are specifically designed to detect such side effects, I think extinction would be inevitable regardless of abstainers. I say this only because the existence of such an insidious chemical would stand as proof that god is not only real but actively trying to kill us in the most inefficient yet ironic manner possible.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
You know if a vaccine could hide symptoms of infertility from the exhaustive testing phases each nations health systems conduct, that specifically designed to detect such side effects, I think extinction would be inevitable regardless of abstainers. I say this only because the existence of such an insidious chemical would stand as proof that god is both real and actively trying to kill us.
Hey, if God can create plenty of species just to lure us...You know if a vaccine could hide symptoms of infertility from the exhaustive testing phases each nations health systems conduct, that specifically designed to detect such side effects, I think extinction would be inevitable regardless of abstainers. I say this only because the existence of such an insidious chemical would stand as proof that god is both real and actively trying to kill us.
Anyway, vaccines don't get tested over, say, 10 years... Right? So a vaccine leading to infertility later on might go under the radar.
Or if it had a negative impact on... Whatever (brain functions)?
The state has done mistakes before, they will do it again, people are more than in their right to say NO to what the state wants them to do. You know, the state should serve the population, the population shouldnt serve the state and all that.
I take my vaccines, and I'd be glad to get rid of overly christian people at work... so for me it's a win-win.
It's about the principle, the state should never be able to force things on people.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Compulsion? I am not arguing in favour of compulsion. I am arguing in favour of not allowing people to decide over others. I can see that this is an issue you do not wish to engage with, but I'll try one last time:
Could you explain why a child should have no rights if given stupid parents? Why do you want to take away this individuals right to get vaccinated?
Not at all, if the child wished over the objections of the parents to inoculation then by all means. The law could absolutely say that, no qualms.Compulsion? I am not arguing in favour of compulsion. I am arguing in favour of not allowing people to decide over others. I can see that this is an issue you do not wish to engage with, but I'll try one last time:
Could you explain why a child should have no rights if given stupid parents? Why do you want to take away this individuals right to get vaccinated?
I understand what you are arguing, but I am arguing that the parents have right of refusal. You are saying that neither the parent or child has the choice, you are clearly arguing for compulsion.
Let's be frank about where we are, as the human race.
We think spacecraft is strapping several tons of explosives on ones back, to jump to... The moon. That's what we know about the universe.
We think handling our bodys waste is done by using paper made of trees to smear up the worst of the... You know what.
We still have no answer to several life threatening or terminal diseases, and we only just now start to get a very vague grasp of what the human body and brain really is.
Should I in this era trust the state to enforce random things on me? Naaaaaah... They are elected by the majority... I find the average person extremely stupid, and let's remember that 50% are even more stupid than that.
I agree vaccinations should be opt-out, not opt-in, though.
I also believe the state should be able to dictate what goes for public schools, as it's what the majority wants.
We think spacecraft is strapping several tons of explosives on ones back, to jump to... The moon. That's what we know about the universe.
We think handling our bodys waste is done by using paper made of trees to smear up the worst of the... You know what.
We still have no answer to several life threatening or terminal diseases, and we only just now start to get a very vague grasp of what the human body and brain really is.
Should I in this era trust the state to enforce random things on me? Naaaaaah... They are elected by the majority... I find the average person extremely stupid, and let's remember that 50% are even more stupid than that.
I agree vaccinations should be opt-out, not opt-in, though.
I also believe the state should be able to dictate what goes for public schools, as it's what the majority wants.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
Let's be frank about where we are, as the human race.
We think spacecraft is strapping several tons of explosives on ones back, to jump to... The moon. That's what we know about the universe.
We think handling our bodys waste is done by using paper made of trees to smear up the worst of the... You know what.
We still have no answer to several life threatening or terminal diseases, and we only just now start to get a very vague grasp of what the human body and brain really is.
Should I in this era trust the state to enforce random things on me? Naaaaaah... They are elected by the majority... I find the average person extremely stupid, and let's remember that 50% are even more stupid than that.
I agree vaccinations should be opt-out, not opt-in, though.
I also believe the state should be able to dictate what goes for public schools, as it's what the majority wants.
Good heavens, are you posting while sober?!? You're making reasonable sense and I agree.Let's be frank about where we are, as the human race.
We think spacecraft is strapping several tons of explosives on ones back, to jump to... The moon. That's what we know about the universe.
We think handling our bodys waste is done by using paper made of trees to smear up the worst of the... You know what.
We still have no answer to several life threatening or terminal diseases, and we only just now start to get a very vague grasp of what the human body and brain really is.
Should I in this era trust the state to enforce random things on me? Naaaaaah... They are elected by the majority... I find the average person extremely stupid, and let's remember that 50% are even more stupid than that.
I agree vaccinations should be opt-out, not opt-in, though.
I also believe the state should be able to dictate what goes for public schools, as it's what the majority wants.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Good heavens, are you posting while sober?!? You're making reasonable sense and I agree.
I'm working on correcting it... Good heavens, are you posting while sober?!? You're making reasonable sense and I agree.
Originally Posted by Strike For the South:
I am a firm believer that people need to be protected from themselves sometimes.
Coercive paternalism is really the only legitimate political ideology out there.I am a firm believer that people need to be protected from themselves sometimes.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
Let's be frank about where we are, as the human race.
We think spacecraft is strapping several tons of explosives on ones back, to jump to... The moon. That's what we know about the universe.
We think handling our bodys waste is done by using paper made of trees to smear up the worst of the... You know what.
We still have no answer to several life threatening or terminal diseases, and we only just now start to get a very vague grasp of what the human body and brain really is.
Should I in this era trust the state to enforce random things on me? Naaaaaah... They are elected by the majority... I find the average person extremely stupid, and let's remember that 50% are even more stupid than that.
I agree vaccinations should be opt-out, not opt-in, though.
I also believe the state should be able to dictate what goes for public schools, as it's what the majority wants.
Kadagar is crushing it with the sense making lately.Let's be frank about where we are, as the human race.
We think spacecraft is strapping several tons of explosives on ones back, to jump to... The moon. That's what we know about the universe.
We think handling our bodys waste is done by using paper made of trees to smear up the worst of the... You know what.
We still have no answer to several life threatening or terminal diseases, and we only just now start to get a very vague grasp of what the human body and brain really is.
Should I in this era trust the state to enforce random things on me? Naaaaaah... They are elected by the majority... I find the average person extremely stupid, and let's remember that 50% are even more stupid than that.
I agree vaccinations should be opt-out, not opt-in, though.
I also believe the state should be able to dictate what goes for public schools, as it's what the majority wants.
"Enforce random things"? Like criminalization of murder?
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
"Enforce random things"? Like criminalization of murder?
Oh come on... You know that that isn't what I mean, as well as you know that that's another issue completely. I think you will find more or less 100% support for criminalization of murder. No? Let's keep the debate in the sensible sphere, shall we?"Enforce random things"? Like criminalization of murder?
Originally Posted by :
I think you will find more or less 100% support for criminalization of murder.
And? I think you will find more or less 100% support for criminalization of murder.
Originally Posted by :
Let's keep the debate in the sensible sphere, shall we?
Wow.Let's keep the debate in the sensible sphere, shall we?
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
And?
Lemon.And?
Originally Posted by :
Wow.
Lamp.Wow.
Why are we doing random words all of a sudden? Use your words...
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Think of it like this: Every unvaccinated person is potentially a breeding ground for diseases that otherwise would have been eradicated. Every preventable death from diseases like Measles, or Mumps, or Polio, or Whooping Cough, or whatever that could have been prevented by enforced vaccination is a death that supports equating it with murder, in the public health sense (though obviously not the legal sense. Obviously).
Hey, I have never said people can't make the WRONG choice. Think of it like this: Every unvaccinated person is potentially a breeding ground for diseases that otherwise would have been eradicated. Every preventable death from diseases like Measles, or Mumps, or Polio, or Whooping Cough, or whatever that could have been prevented by enforced vaccination is a death that supports equating it with murder, in the public health sense (though obviously not the legal sense. Obviously).
I am saying that the wrong choice might be the right choice, in those weird instances when modern science and politicians simply are in the wrong. In the long run.
Let's allow those people to be around, for the better of humanity at large.
If we all were the same, a virus could easily wipe us out.
If some people go off the expected path, we as a race have a chance to survive.
I for one celebrate diversity, and I think diversity is the best way forward. Someone mentioned something along "the 10th view", if 9 people agree on something the tenth should do everything and anything to prove them wrong, and plan thereafter.
Government might be right in 99,99999999999 of the cases... But it only takes one mistake towards nature to **** us up completely. Pretty damn good in those situations to have people around with tin foil hats, or whatever.
And as we all know, nature is a pretty damn powerful force. I for one try not to mess around with it too much.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Its not the un-vaccinated people that I worry about, its everyone else. One person with the wrong virus and no vaccinations, mixed with a fortuitous bit of viral evolution within our lone and un-vaccinated hero, could spark a pandemic (though highly unlikely). slightly more likely is the possibility that our lone anti-vaxxer spawns a slightly upgraded virus that kills or harms a few people, because their vaccinations are out of date--thanks to home-slice and his anti-vaxxing beliefs. This is why it is a public health issue: because its not protecting one person's right to be stupid, its protecting everyone else from that person's right to be stupid.
Well... Its not the un-vaccinated people that I worry about, its everyone else. One person with the wrong virus and no vaccinations, mixed with a fortuitous bit of viral evolution within our lone and un-vaccinated hero, could spark a pandemic (though highly unlikely). slightly more likely is the possibility that our lone anti-vaxxer spawns a slightly upgraded virus that kills or harms a few people, because their vaccinations are out of date--thanks to home-slice and his anti-vaxxing beliefs. This is why it is a public health issue: because its not protecting one person's right to be stupid, its protecting everyone else from that person's right to be stupid.
First of all I think we are both out on thin ice here... I am no medical expert.
But from what I have understood, nature has a way to bypass or go around whatever shields we put up.
I don't know about other countries, but Sweden try their best to not give anti-whatever stuff (unless REALLY needed)... Just because the more you give the more nature finds a way around it.
Until our scientists are more comfortable in battling viruses and bacteria and stuff, I would be hesitant to pick a fight with nature at large.
I think Swedens principle is right. If anyone can source why it wouldn't be though, I am eager to listen.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
Hey, I have never said people can't make the WRONG choice.
I am saying that the wrong choice might be the right choice, in those weird instances when modern science and politicians simply are in the wrong. In the long run.
Let's allow those people to be around, for the better of humanity at large.
If we all were the same, a virus could easily wipe us out.
If some people go off the expected path, we as a race have a chance to survive.
I for one celebrate diversity, and I think diversity is the best way forward. Someone mentioned something along "the 10th view", if 9 people agree on something the tenth should do everything and anything to prove them wrong, and plan thereafter.
Government might be right in 99,99999999999 of the cases... But it only takes one mistake towards nature to **** us up completely. Pretty damn good in those situations to have people around with tin foil hats, or whatever.
And as we all know, nature is a pretty damn powerful force. I for one try not to mess around with it too much.
Nobody asks for experimental medicine to be mandated. We ask for what is more or less settled science. The measles vaccine is pretty damn well understood by now. No it does not cause autism. No it won't kill you. No it won't leave you infertile. What might leave you infertile as an adult male is the actual disease (measles) itself.Hey, I have never said people can't make the WRONG choice.
I am saying that the wrong choice might be the right choice, in those weird instances when modern science and politicians simply are in the wrong. In the long run.
Let's allow those people to be around, for the better of humanity at large.
If we all were the same, a virus could easily wipe us out.
If some people go off the expected path, we as a race have a chance to survive.
I for one celebrate diversity, and I think diversity is the best way forward. Someone mentioned something along "the 10th view", if 9 people agree on something the tenth should do everything and anything to prove them wrong, and plan thereafter.
Government might be right in 99,99999999999 of the cases... But it only takes one mistake towards nature to **** us up completely. Pretty damn good in those situations to have people around with tin foil hats, or whatever.
And as we all know, nature is a pretty damn powerful force. I for one try not to mess around with it too much.
Us all taking a vaccine means that specific (cocktail) of pathogen strains is dealt with. It means those viruses will not be doing the wiping out. It does not make us all the same, and the risk of a hypothetical new virus doing us in remains the same as it ever was. In fact, the risk of a virus in general wiping us all out is reduced by taking out the threat of those pathogens. That's the whole point of (mandatory) vaccination!
If some people go "off the expected path" in this case, some people now actually reintroduce the risk of that cocktail of viruses wiping us out. That is all they accomplish: to risk the lives of others. Now since we're not dealing with population wide epidemics or pandemics we can afford to be relaxed about this and say it's their own decision to expose themselves to disease and us to a lesser degree to that risk as well.
But why on earth that should be a carte blanche for parents to do the same to their children (or indeed, for anyone to do it to anyone else) still escapes me.
To round off a post full of misunderstanding you apply classic scope insensitivity: failure to multiply. If there is a chance of only 10^-11 that the decision for mandatory vaccination is catastrophic, then based on the total human population which ever will exist (estimated to be < 10^10) we should go with the 10^-11 chance of error over the demonstrably vastly more likely alternative which is already causing minor epidemics in a well funded, highly vaccinated population today (USA!) -- simply because the herd immunity is no longer as powerful as it once was.
In simple terms: the numbers don't add up to admit any kind of utilitarian argument for allowing parents not to get their children vaccinated. There is simply no fringe benefit to be had outweighing the primary benefits from vaccination on a national or global scale.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Well you're right about being on thin ice. I don't know much about medical science beyond what you would consider common knowledge (like the differences between Viruses and Bacteria, and perhaps more importantly the differences between how one or the other becomes immune to what we're putting out there). There's surely merit to the idea that ignoring nature's ebbs and flows is a recipe for disaster, however what you're talking about is almost certainly anti-biotics, not vaccinations. Very different.
Good post :)Well you're right about being on thin ice. I don't know much about medical science beyond what you would consider common knowledge (like the differences between Viruses and Bacteria, and perhaps more importantly the differences between how one or the other becomes immune to what we're putting out there). There's surely merit to the idea that ignoring nature's ebbs and flows is a recipe for disaster, however what you're talking about is almost certainly anti-biotics, not vaccinations. Very different.
Bacteria of course don't act in the same way as viruses, and my previous point was directed towards the latter. Brain slip of mine, I attest.
Remember the thing I said about working on it
However:
1. I heard you should treat bacteria with some respect regardless... Not because of immunity, but because work-arounds. It's on the same evolvement cycle as we are (but granted not on the scale of viruses). Did I get this wrong?
2. This has absolutely nothing to do with my main point, that we barely know what what we are doing around these key issues, and it would be unwise to put all eggs in one basket...
My points is "all eggs in one basket being unwise"... Do you think that perspective is wrong?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO