....because it's mainly hispanics who refuse vaccination...?
....because it's mainly hispanics who refuse vaccination...?
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
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.
Last edited by ICantSpellDawg; 06-28-2014 at 12:15.
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-Eric "George Orwell" Blair
"If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
(Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
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.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-Eric "George Orwell" Blair
"If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
(Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-Eric "George Orwell" Blair
"If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
(Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
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.
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.
Last edited by HoreTore; 06-28-2014 at 13:26.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
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 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?
Last edited by ICantSpellDawg; 06-28-2014 at 13:31.
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-Eric "George Orwell" Blair
"If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
(Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
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![]()
Ja-mata TosaInu
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-Eric "George Orwell" Blair
"If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
(Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
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.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
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
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-Eric "George Orwell" Blair
"If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
(Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
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?
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
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.![]()
Last edited by Kadagar_AV; 06-28-2014 at 16:10.
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.
Last edited by Greyblades; 06-28-2014 at 17:02.
Hey, if God can create plenty of species just to lure 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.
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.
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.
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-Eric "George Orwell" Blair
"If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
(Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
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.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Coercive paternalism is really the only legitimate political ideology out there.Originally Posted by Strike For the South
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-Eric "George Orwell" Blair
"If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
(Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
"Enforce random things"? Like criminalization of murder?
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
And?I think you will find more or less 100% support for criminalization of murder.
Wow.Let's keep the debate in the sensible sphere, shall we?
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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.
Well...
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.
Last edited by Kadagar_AV; 06-29-2014 at 00:54.
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.
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.
Last edited by Tellos Athenaios; 06-29-2014 at 01:16.
- Tellos Athenaios
CUF tool - XIDX - PACK tool - SD tool - EVT tool - EB Install Guide - How to track down loading CTD's - EB 1.1 Maps thread
“ὁ δ᾽ ἠλίθιος ὣσπερ πρόβατον βῆ βῆ λέγων βαδίζει” – Kratinos in Dionysalexandros.
Good post :)
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?
Bookmarks