CA Banning 'Personal Belief' Exemptions for Vaccinations

[DCal430]

Over 10 to 30 Million people are infected with Hep B a year in the world, Over 130,000 people will die from the acute infection a year, another 2 to 10 million a year will develop Chronic Hep B, and close to million people a year will die from Chronic Hep B.


Even in the U.S Hep B is still a problem, and we need to keep vaccinating people here, to make sure we eliminate this deadly disease.

This when the vaccine has been available for almost 35 Years. Sad really.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm sure it seems like dancing to you. Being that you seem to think that percentages should dictate human life. However, you completely missed the point. I did not argue whether one was greater than the other (as you are), merely that they both pose risks. It is not your right to tell people what they should and shouldn't do. That's their job because they have to live their life, not you.

In many cases, numbers do matter, and our society has only grown and prospered by accepting the fact that certain numbers do dictate certain behaviors and minor inconveniences if we wish to continue to live in a prosperous, free society.

The only reason to fear or reject vaccines, is if you fear overpopulation is the greatest threat to this earth. I think there are some true nutters out there that would rather cull the human herd. The only reason to deny the efficacy of vaccination and work to prevent its distribution, is if you support a massive culling of the human population.

 

[Moonbeam]

If it weren't for the fact that there are facts like the fact that the personal rights of a parent not to vaccinate their children would be fine, but when the facts are that parents who choose that option are dangerous to the children of those who accept the facts and protect their children and everyone else's by vaccination, we could just let the matter slide. Unfortunately, there is a point at which the existence of irrational belief becomes dangerous to the general community and when people start thinking that what you do is dangerous to their kids, they will make laws to have your children taken from you for their and other's sakes. It's too bad, but there actually are facts that are real and delusional beliefs. Everybody should have the right to be stupid, but only up to the point where stupid only affects the person who is stupid and not theirs or others kids. Life isn't always kind to irrational idiots.

This is also why people with a CBD have nightmares. They know they are walking that edge.

 

[DCal430]

Disapointed, someone on my FB liked some loony doctor anti vaccine comment, which urged parents to fight SB 277.

 

[Strk]

That's good info to present to a prospective patient which I encourage. Information can help make a decision, it just shouldn't be the sole reason.

Because actual information is better than anecdotal evidence? Your argument is asinine.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Because actual information is better than anecdotal evidence? Your argument is asinine.

What part, specifically, is 'anecdotal'?

 

[NoStateofMind]

In many cases, numbers do matter, and our society has only grown and prospered by accepting the fact that certain numbers do dictate certain behaviors and minor inconveniences if we wish to continue to live in a prosperous, free society.

Who said the numbers don't matter?

Can you define 'free society' in context of forced vaccinations? smh

The only reason to fear or reject vaccines, is if you fear overpopulation is the greatest threat to this earth. I think there are some true nutters out there that would rather cull the human herd. The only reason to deny the efficacy of vaccination and work to prevent its distribution, is if you support a massive culling of the human population.

Oh so there's only one reason why someone would reject a vaccine and that's if you want to kill off the human population? There could not possibly be any other reason? Or is this your attempt to paint those who don't share your perspective as monsters?

 

[zinfamous]

Who said the numbers don't matter?

Can you define 'free society' in context of forced vaccinations? smh

free and prosperous. pursuit of happiness, and all that. freedom and rights come with restrictions, and consequences, but then you probably already knew that, or you just don't read. It's baked right into our founding document.

Thing is, you are free to go off somewhere and live on a compound, but there are reasonable rules regarding essential responsibilities for participating in society.

Oh so there's only one reason why someone would reject a vaccine and that's if you want to kill off the human population? There could not possibly be any other reason? Or is this your attempt to paint those who don't share your perspective as monsters?

yes?

 

[abj13]

I'm sure it seems like dancing to you. Being that you seem to think that percentages should dictate human life. However, you completely missed the point. I did not argue whether one was greater than the other (as you are), merely that they both pose risks. It is not your right to tell people what they should and shouldn't do. That's their job because they have to live their life, not you.

All more avoidance of the issue. What are these complications of vaccination, and how often do they occur? Your fearmongering of vaccination is a horrible argument to make, especially when you are afraid to even talk about the truth about the risks of vaccination.

The decision to vaccinate or not, is not a personal decision, because it doesn't just affect the person getting/not getting vaccination. There are many children who cannot receive the protective benefit of a vaccine for various reasons including having an immune deficiency, immunosuppression, or undergoing treatment for diseases like leukemia. These children are reliant on OTHERS to help protect them from those illnesses.

Or are you saying that a person who is diagnosed with Tuberculosis, Ebola, SARS, MERS, etc should be allowed to freely walk around infecting others? Despite your argument for anarchy, we live in a society that uses a level of logic when it comes to trying to prevent spread of infections, public health is a recognized reason for public safety.

There's no interest, none whatsoever, of how your government has decided to deal with the consequences of the complications that arise. I asked you because what most try to do is shift blame and disassociate themselves from the consequences that may follow.

That's what I thought. You have zero understand of what the act entails, the vaccine court, and the support system in place for helping anyone who may have had a possible adverse reaction from a vaccine. Please stop talking about things you have zero understand about. These few children are taken care of despite your vague claims that they are somehow swept under the rug.

Are you in support of forced vaccinations? If so, how would you feel if after administering this wonder drug, that you advocated be forced upon them, causes a child to die?

Several hundred thousand child each year die of measles infection. How many die because of the vaccine?

But once again, you won't answer that question, because you want to be willfully ignorant.

 

[NoStateofMind]

free and prosperous. pursuit of happiness, and all that. freedom and rights come with restrictions, and consequences, but then you probably already knew that, or you just don't read. It's baked right into our founding document.

I'll agree that there are restrictions and consequences to your liberty and they stop where someone else's begins. When you force vaccinations you've crossed that line. That's your founding document not mine.

Thing is, you are free to go off somewhere and live on a compound, but there are reasonable rules regarding essential responsibilities for participating in society.

Yep and I'm free to be where I am as well. It's so telling when you advocate for the Right's of others and all they want is for you to go away. You guys are priceless haha

yes?

That's the extent of your thought capacity?

 

[NoStateofMind]

All more avoidance of the issue. What are these complications of vaccination, and how often do they occur? Your fearmongering of vaccination is a horrible argument to make, especially when you are afraid to even talk about the truth about the risks of vaccination.

Afraid to talk abotu the risks? Hell you're adamant you aren't responsible for the adverse reactions of forced vaccinations that you advocate. All the while blaming those who don't get a vaccine with causing harm tot heir children. Double standard as long as it doesn't effect you?

The decision to vaccinate or not, is not a personal decision, because it doesn't just affect the person getting/not getting vaccination. There are many children who cannot receive the protective benefit of a vaccine for various reasons including having an immune deficiency, immunosuppression, or undergoing treatment for diseases like leukemia. These children are reliant on OTHERS to help protect them from those illnesses.

There is nothing more personal that what one puts in their body. No one has a Right to your body but you. You'd have to have an understanding of self ownership. I can gather from your responses that you don't own yourself and neither does anyone else own themselves and all are subject to the collective whims.

Or are you saying that a person who is diagnosed with Tuberculosis, Ebola, SARS, MERS, etc should be allowed to freely walk around infecting others? Despite your argument for anarchy, we live in a society that uses a level of logic when it comes to trying to prevent spread of infections, public health is a recognized reason for public safety.

As long as you know that you've changed the narrative with this last paragraph I answer as follows.

If you are infected with an infectious disease then a couple of things would be readily apparent.

1. Probably not going to be in public due to needing medical care to live. Oops there goes your fear mongering.

2. If a person poses a real threat (confirmed diagnosis) of a highly contagious disease then it is in the best interest of all those involved ot have then quarantined. This is where you go off half cocked (because you don't understand Rights) and say "well isn't that infringing on their Rights"? The answer is, and always has been, your Rights end where anothers begins. Therefore the real danger (not supposed, not what if'd) posed to others must be mitigated.

That's what I thought. You have zero understand of what the act entails, the vaccine court, and the support system in place for helping anyone who may have had a possible adverse reaction from a vaccine. Please stop talking about things you have zero understand about. These few children are taken care of despite your vague claims that they are somehow swept under the rug.

Thats right, I do not know a thing about that act and as stated previous I care not and I never did claim to know anything about that act haha so how can I be talking about it?? smh

Several hundred thousand child each year die of measles infection. How many die because of the vaccine?

What if its one? Does that morally exempt you from responsibility?

But once again, you won't answer that question, because you want to be willfully ignorant.

You've sidestepped every question I've given you just to set the record straight

So will you answer? Do you have any responsibility to those adversely affected by your forced vaccinations?

You can't answer that because your argument becomes moot at that point. haha

 

[FelixDeCat]

lol

 

[abj13]

Afraid to talk abotu the risks? Hell you're adamant you aren't responsible for the adverse reactions of forced vaccinations that you advocate. All the while blaming those who don't get a vaccine with causing harm tot heir children. Double standard as long as it doesn't effect you?

So will you answer? Do you have any responsibility to those adversely affected by your forced vaccinations?

You can't answer that because your argument becomes moot at that point. haha

Hilarious. WTF are you talking about? Seriously, go back and read what is posted instead of making up strawmen over and over Responsibility is taken for an adverse reaction to a vaccine. See the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Oh yes, the very thing you know zero about, refuse to read about, and plead ignorance about. This is hilarious watching you go down in flames.

Ultimately, the fact is that the risks of vaccination are greatly outweighed by the benefit of vaccines. Nobody has stated vaccination is without risk. But what you cannot grasp since clearly you know nothing about vaccines, is that the risks of vaccination are tremendously small. The risks of disease is clear. I have posted them previously. We have hundreds of years worth of experience in fighting these infections, but your lame argument boils down to claiming nobody takes responsibility for that miscue minority who may have an adverse reaction.

They are taken care of despite your absurd claims.

1. Probably not going to be in public due to needing medical care to live. Oops there goes your fear mongering.

Clearly you haven't met anyone with those diseases then, let alone have a clue about those infections. If you had any understanding, you'd understand how problematic containing an infection like tuberculosis is. Many of those with acute infection who are contagious are more than healthy enough to be walking amongst the general population.

So, oops, there goes your lame attempt of trying to describe medical conditions you have zero understanding of. Just like how you don't understand vaccines, public healthy, or common sense.

The answer is, and always has been, your Rights end where anothers begins.

Hahahaha. Thanks for confirming exactly what I thought Mr Double Standard. Measles and other vaccine preventable diseases impact others. But you are so scared of the "boogyman" of vaccines, you cannot even grasp the complete contradiction you just said. Good work.

Thats right, I do not know a thing about that act and as stated previous I care not and I never did claim to know anything about that act haha so how can I be talking about it?? smh

Let's review this moronic discussion

Anti-vaxxer: "Nobody takes care of the children who have an adverse reaction to a vaccine."
Me: Yes those children are taken care of, the details of which are contained in the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. So stop saying nobody take responsibility.
Anti-vaxxer: "I refuse to read the contents of that act, and will continue to parade my ignorant point that nobody takes care of the kids."
Me: Wow you are oblivious.

What if its one? Does that morally exempt you from responsibility?

So you would rather let thousands of children die from a preventable infection? Thankfully we don't have dolts like you running the CDC, WHO, etc. As above, responsibility is taken.

But please answer for everyone, what are these risk of vaccination that you seem so knowledgeable about? Just what is the risk of receiving a vaccine? Or is your degree from Dr. Google and his online school all you can talk about?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Hilarious. WTF are you talking about? Seriously, go back and read what is posted instead of making up strawmen over and over Responsibility is taken for an adverse reaction to a vaccine. See the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Oh yes, the very thing you know zero about, refuse to read about, and plead ignorance about. This is hilarious watching you go down in flames.

Whats hilarious is that we've been over this several times and I have stated I know nothing of the report but that has nothing to do with whats being discussed. You completely miss the point. Again. Several times. My argument has never been what you claim it is and I stated as much is my first response. But instead of being able to comprehend that you continue on a tirade. Well if you wanna make up my argument for me then why even respond? As stated in my first post to you I am not arguing whether one is more effective or less effective, or that one is more beneficial than the other. <---read that again, cause you cannot grasp this for some reason. You seem hellbent on making all humans an equation. Removing humanity and forcing people to do what you think is best for them is insane and damn right fascist. Even if your figures show that 99 out of 100 or 1 out of 1 million is harmed it does not give you the right to decide for someone else. Sorry. You are not their owner.

moving on....

Ultimately, the fact is that the risks of vaccination are greatly outweighed by the benefit of vaccines. Nobody has stated vaccination is without risk. But what you cannot grasp since clearly you know nothing about vaccines, is that the risks of vaccination are tremendously small. The risks of disease is clear. I have posted them previously. We have hundreds of years worth of experience in fighting these infections, but your lame argument boils down to claiming nobody takes responsibility for that miscue minority who may have an adverse reaction.

Again arguing against what I have no quarrel with. You want to really see someone off base? Look at your responses to my posts. This is hilarious.

They are taken care of despite your absurd claims.

Yet you've removed your responsibility to the damage. What if the consequence is death? Again, you've sidestepped. But I expect as much from you now. So....

Clearly you haven't met anyone with those diseases then, let alone have a clue about those infections. If you had any understanding, you'd understand how problematic containing an infection like tuberculosis is. Many of those with acute infection who are contagious are more than healthy enough to be walking amongst the general population.

I'm sure this is true. There's no way to ensure everyone lives a healthy life.

So, oops, there goes your lame attempt of trying to describe medical conditions you have zero understanding of. Just like how you don't understand vaccines, public healthy, or common sense.

From someone who can't take responsibility for their actions I find this entirely too funny!

Hahahaha. Thanks for confirming exactly what I thought Mr Double Standard. Measles and other vaccine preventable diseases impact others. But you are so scared of the "boogyman" of vaccines, you can not even grasp the complete contradiction you just said. Good work.

Wow, so much for your ability to reason. Unable to see how your actions cause harm. The boogeyman statement is involved in this but not on my side. You're fear mongering everyone into capitulating which tells me the actions is based on emotion and not reason. I have no fear of vaccines....

Just so you know I am not necessarily against vaccines and haven't stated I was. But this sheds light on exactly why you're acting this way. My argument has never been that vaccines are bad but rather no one should be forced to take them. If you cannot figure that out by now we are all in deep shit. Especially if you work in this field. Good lord.

Let's review this moronic discussion

Anti-vaxxer: "Nobody takes care of the children who have an adverse reaction to a vaccine." - Thats not my contention at all. Clearly misrepresenting my statements to form your own strawman argument. There are two fundamental issues I've brought to the table. One is that if you advocate the forced vaccination, what is the consequence to you if that person is adversly affected? You sidestepped that by saying daddy guvment will step in. Well you've just removed yourself from fault by proxy! The second is self ownership and the right to decide for oneself.

Me: Yes those children are taken care of, the details of which are contained in the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. So stop saying nobody take responsibility. - The response to a strawman argument you created

Anti-vaxxer: "I refuse to read the contents of that act, and will continue to parade my ignorant point that nobody takes care of the kids."
Me: Wow you are oblivious.

Anyone who reads this thread will be able to easily understand that you've made your own argument to rail against. When you catch up let me know.

So you would rather let thousands of children die from a preventable infection? Thankfully we don't have dolts like you running the CDC, WHO, etc. As above, responsibility is taken.

Yeah I have been advocating the death of children all the while trying to get everyone to recognize personal ownership and individual Rights...

lol

But please answer for everyone, what are these risk of vaccination that you seem so knowledgeable about? Just what is the risk of receiving a vaccine? Or is your degree from Dr. Google and his online school all you can talk about?

As stated at the outset I am not on your level of distinction when it comes to education. Did you forget that too? No? ok

Read the following twice.

I don't have to look them up and number them. The mere fact that harm is caused to the patient means that if its done against their will then someone is to blame. You advocating forced vaccinations means you are to blame and so are all the ones with you. Personal responsibility dictates that if you did the harm it is on you to make recompense, not some third party incapable of being imprisoned for their heinous acts. Its a proxy in which you can inflict harm on others while shielding yourself from retribution. You cannot be an adult if you're sheltered responsibilities and the consequences of those crimes.

Lastly, I'm not against vaccines. Never said I was. However I am against those (like you) who seem to think they own other people and dictate their lives.

Next strawman argument please

 

[abj13]

Even if your figures show that 99 out of 100 or 1 out of 1 million is harmed it does not give you the right to decide for someone else. Sorry. You are not their owner.

My argument has never been that vaccines are bad but rather no one should be forced to take them. If you cannot figure that out by now we are all in deep shit. Especially if you work in this field. Good lord.

Perfect. This exchange just highlights the moving of the goalposts of your anarchist logic. And now we get the fascist sobstories. Boo Hoo. Going to equate vaccines to work of the Nazi's next? Nobody takes responsibility about vaccine reactions, and now suddenly the goalposts are about what one person can do on the internet on taking responsibility. Where will the goalposts be moved next?

But it is abundantly clear that not only do you harbor logic that makes no sense, the above statement BY YOU, shows exactly how illogical, non-sensical you are. So if 99% of people could be saved by a vaccine with only a risk of a one in a million risk of adverse effect, you think some mystical absolute right to do any crackpot thing to your body trumps that decision. But this is not some decision that only impacts one person. The decision to not vaccinate increases the risk for all the humans who are unable to receive vaccines. That decision impacts the health of others.

And here's why:
Person X does not vaccinate themselves against measles
Person X contract measles, and during the incubation period coughs in an elevator (measles is stable in air for hours)
Person Y walks in the elevated, and contracts measles because they have an immunodeficiency.
Person Y dies.

Bravo on your stupid logic.The decision to not vaccinate has directly lead to the death of another. By your own admission "The answer is, and always has been, your Rights end where anothers begins." Sorry, your crap argument means nothing when we are talking about a communicable infectious disease.

Because there is no absolute right, the balance between risks and benefits must be weighed. Vaccines clearly have a immense benefit over their risks.

I'm sure this is true. There's no way to ensure everyone lives a healthy life.

I suggest you go back and edit your post claiming that people with TB have to be sick to be in the hospital. You should clear up your dishonesty.

Yeah I have been advocating the death of children all the while trying to get everyone to recognize personal ownership and individual Rights...

Your horribly constructed logic means that instead of preventing millions of deaths from measles alone, we should adapt an argument that has no logical basis at all. Good work! Sorry, "personal responsibility" ends in the situation of communicable diseases.

Yet you've removed your responsibility to the damage. What if the consequence is death? Again, you've sidestepped. But I expect as much from you now. So....
I don't have to look them up and number them. The mere fact that harm is causedto the patient means that if its done against their will then someone is to blame. You advocating forced vaccinations means you are to blame and so are all the ones with you. Personal responsibility dictates that if you did the harm it is on you to make recompense, not some third party incapable of being imprisoned for their heinous acts. Its a proxy in which you can inflict harm on others while shielding yourself from retribution. You cannot be an adult if you're sheltered responsibilities and the consequences of those crimes.

More of the same old "nobody takes responsibility" shifting of the goalposts. When you take responsibility for killing someone with measles because the decision was not to vaccinate, get back to me. But on the flip side, any child who has an adverse reaction to a vaccine is taken care of. Yet of course you've never heard of that law, especially what entails in the "blame" you like to preach against. Too bad you'll never read or even understand it.

But this is fun watching someone who thinks they have the world completely figured out watch their lame logic get torn apart. Feel free to keep trying though, give it the old college try!

 

[NoStateofMind]

Perfect. This exchange just highlights the moving of the goalposts of your anarchist logic. And now we get the fascist sobstories. Boo Hoo. Going to equate vaccines to work of the Nazi's next? Nobody takes responsibility about vaccine reactions, and now suddenly the goalposts are about what one person can do on the internet on taking responsibility. Where will the goalposts be moved next?

But it is abundantly clear that not only do you harbor logic that makes no sense, the above statement BY YOU, shows exactly how illogical, non-sensical you are. So if 99% of people could be saved by a vaccine with only a risk of a one in a million risk of adverse effect, you think some mystical absolute right to do any crackpot thing to your body trumps that decision. But this is not some decision that only impacts one person. The decision to not vaccinate increases the risk for all the humans who are unable to receive vaccines. That decision impacts the health of others.

And here's why:
Person X does not vaccinate themselves against measles
Person X contract measles, and during the incubation period coughs in an elevator (measles is stable in air for hours)
Person Y walks in the elevated, and contracts measles because they have an immunodeficiency.
Person Y dies.

Bravo on your stupid logic.The decision to not vaccinate has directly lead to the death of another. By your own admission "The answer is, and always has been, your Rights end where anothers begins." Sorry, your crap argument means nothing when we are talking about a communicable infectious disease.

Because there is no absolute right, the balance between risks and benefits must be weighed. Vaccines clearly have a immense benefit over their risks.



I suggest you go back and edit your post claiming that people with TB have to be sick to be in the hospital. You should clear up your dishonesty.



Your horribly constructed logic means that instead of preventing millions of deaths from measles alone, we should adapt an argument that has no logical basis at all. Good work! Sorry, "personal responsibility" ends in the situation of communicable diseases.



More of the same old "nobody takes responsibility" shifting of the goalposts. When you take responsibility for killing someone with measles because the decision was not to vaccinate, get back to me. But on the flip side, any child who has an adverse reaction to a vaccine is taken care of. Yet of course you've never heard of that law, especially what entails in the "blame" you like to preach against. Too bad you'll never read or even understand it.

But this is fun watching someone who thinks they have the world completely figured out watch their lame logic get torn apart. Feel free to keep trying though, give it the old college try!

I'll give you one more chance at a constructive conversation, after that you can say what you like as its just wasted time. Even though I am sure this thread will open some eyes if its ever read.


Let's pretend for a moment I had contracted some horrible disease. There was no help out there and the doctors couldn't help me. But by some miracle I find a way to cure myself with my own vaccine. Heck I am healed, brand new! Woohoo! I later find out my neighbor down the street has the same illness so I go to him and explain what I can do to help him. He refuses stating that he's not sure about how it would effect him etc. Well I am convinced this is going to save his life so one day I catch him napping outside on his hammock. I sneak up and inject him with my cure. Immediately he grasps his chest and dies.

Now am I to blame for this killing? Yes I am. Why? Cause I forced him to take it without his consent. If he had taken this remedy of his own accord then that's on him.

This very simple concept has you befuddled. I know the nanny state will protect you but that doesn't take the place of being an adult and taking responsibility for one's actions.


I'll let you have the last word as I doubt you have anything constructive to say.

 

[abj13]

I'll give you one more chance at a constructive conversation, after that you can say what you like as its just wasted time. Even though I am sure this thread will open some eyes if its ever read.

Let's pretend for a moment I had contracted some horrible disease. There was no help out there and the doctors couldn't help me. But by some miracle I find a way to cure myself with my own vaccine. Heck I am healed, brand new! Woohoo! I later find out my neighbor down the street has the same illness so I go to him and explain what I can do to help him. He refuses stating that he's not sure about how it would effect him etc. Well I am convinced this is going to save his life so one day I catch him napping outside on his hammock. I sneak up and inject him with my cure. Immediately he grasps his chest and dies.

Now am I to blame for this killing? Yes I am. Why? Cause I forced him to take it without his consent. If he had taken this remedy of his own accord then that's on him.

This very simple concept has you befuddled. I know the nanny state will protect you but that doesn't take the place of being an adult and taking responsibility for one's actions.

I'll let you have the last word as I doubt you have anything constructive to say.

This is amazingly and utterly pointless example. You can't even construct a story that even remotely relates to anything to this thread. You might as well as posted a photo of a potato since that relates the same amount of what "applesauce" you wasted the time to type out. But let's reiterate the confusing and shockingly absurd statements produced by you:

1) The decision to vaccinate only impacts the person refusing the vaccine.

It doesn't. When pointed out the vaccine refuser can cause infection and potential death in someone else, what is your response?

"..." =Silence

2) "Even if your figures show that 99 out of 100 or 1 out of 1 million is harmed it does not give you the right to decide for someone else. Sorry. You are not their owner."

Despite the absurd logic, you'd rather vote for personal choice, despite the problem of communicable infectious diseases affecting more than just the vaccine refuser.

3) Nobody takes responsibility for an adverse event to a vaccine

Problem is that there is an entire system established for vaccine reporting, determination of fault, and establishment of care for those affected.

4) When complaining that no one takes responsibility and the vaccine act is brought up, you refuse to ever read it or understand it

Just classic finger in ears level of ignorance

5) Many communicable diseases cause people to be so sick, they all have to be in the hospital

Thankfully we don't follow this internet doctor's insight on infections.

Ultimately, given the number of people already pointing out your lack of insight of this topic, it is more than fitting for you to keep on dodging the core thoughts behind this particular topic of vaccination. When you are actually ready to come back and talk about the topic, or at least even address the absurdities of your logic, feel free to give it another chance.

Until then, policy makers will continue to strive to move the country back towards protecting millions of children to problematic infections. Vaccines have saved millions, many of us are privileged to live in a countries where polio is no longer a scourge, smallpox is eliminated, and maybe someday we can push measles into the category of an infection that no longer takes thousands of lives each year.

 

[dawheat]

I'll agree that there are restrictions and consequences to your liberty and they stop where someone else's begins. When you force vaccinations you've crossed that line. That's your founding document not mine.

Yep and I'm free to be where I am as well. It's so telling when you advocate for the Right's of others and all they want is for you to go away. You guys are priceless haha

That's the extent of your thought capacity?

This is a pretty stupid argument. But just curious - what's your stance on the personal responsibility of an unvaccinated individuals interacting with others and putting them at risk, especially young children who often can't be vaccinated yet? Do you take responsibility if through you someone gets sick, much less dies?

Where do your rights end and responsibility start if you choose to interact with society and bring harm to others? It's no theoretical - the measles outbreak just a few months ago is a clear example.

 

[sandorski]

This is a pretty stupid argument. But just curious - what's your stance on the personal responsibility of an unvaccinated individuals interacting with others and putting them at risk, especially young children who often can't be vaccinated yet? Do you take responsibility if through you someone gets sick, much less dies?

Where do your rights end and responsibility start if you choose to interact with society and bring harm to others? It's no theoretical - the measles outbreak just a few months ago is a clear example.

No no no. As a 100% autonomous being, he nor his offspring need to worry about such things. Those are merely the concerns of us, the Conformist Collective, with our "Science" and our "Data". Such menial things don't apply him, because Freedom!

 

[1prophet]

The difference, of course, is that the left is embarrassed by our nuts, and they have no power...opposite to the right, where the nuts are the f-ing base.

Those nuts have a lot more power than you think and they exert it through the media,

most people can name them and tell you more about their lives than their local or state politicians, and carry more influence.

and if it wasn't for them you wouldn't have the acceptance of things like gay marriage today.

Case in point

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2438093

 

[crashtech]

If I understand the argument, it's proper for the government to force substances into its citizens bodies for the greater good. It could be that society will find that this concept will apply well to the mental as well as the physical, and ways should be found to prevent thoughts that might be harmful to others as well. I'm certain that eliminating things like aggressive behavior and anti-authoritarian sentiment would serve the greater good even better than vaccinations. This might seem revolutionary, but give it time. The technology to implement such a plan will inevitably arise, and its utility can't be denied.

 

[sandorski]

If I understand the argument, it's proper for the government to force substances into its citizens bodies for the greater good. It could be that society will find that this concept will apply well to the mental as well as the physical, and ways should be found to prevent thoughts that might be harmful to others as well. I'm certain that eliminating things like aggressive behavior and anti-authoritarian sentiment would serve the greater good even better than vaccinations. This might seem revolutionary, but give it time. The technology to implement such a plan will inevitably arise, and its utility can't be denied.

That's a huge leap. We can see the destruction of a Physical Disease. Our sense of Freedom/Liberty is largely based on Freedom of Thought.

 

[zinfamous]

I'll give you one more chance at a constructive conversation, after that you can say what you like as its just wasted time.

see, most of us gave up on your ever engaging constructive conversation long ago; which is why you are only talking to one or two people by now.

Even though I am sure this thread will open some eyes if its ever read.

Not likely.

You just don't get it.

 

[crashtech]

That's a huge leap. We can see the destruction of a Physical Disease. Our sense of Freedom/Liberty is largely based on Freedom of Thought.

Oh, well, I just figured if we are going to leap right past the proscription against unreasonable search and seizure and go right to injections, we may as well go for some constructive, minor, and beneficial mind-altering work as well. I don't think the latter tramples any enumerated right any more than the former. We have essentially ceded control over our bodies to those who know best.

 

[sandorski]

Oh, well, I just figured if we are going to leap right past the proscription against unreasonable search and seizure and go right to injections, we may as well go for some constructive, minor, and beneficial mind-altering work as well. I don't think the latter tramples any enumerated right any more than the former. We have essentially ceded control over our bodies to those who know best.

Arguing against vaccinations is not arguing against Control. It's arguing against Mathematics.