4merper4mer Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Neither are condoms but people use them. Neither is the pill but women use them. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. BTW When it is referenced to secure the borders .... the majority of people think / refer to Mexico not Canada, Whatever dude. I never said don't get vaccinated. You said you can't get the disease if you are vaccinated. Remember? it was about 30 minutes ago. And what do I care what most people think anyway? I think both borders should be secure and all points of entry. So Canadians annoy me the most. Sue me. I'm sure some Mexicans brought measles in too. Maybe even more Mexicans because I'm not sure measles can even survive in the cold weather. Edited February 10, 2015 by 4merper4mer
Buffalo Barbarian Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 Look, unless all of your ideas simply revolve around furtive fallacies and Christian pre-millennial eschatology, there's anti-Semitism in there somewhere. Freemasons? Illuminati? Reptile people? Bilderbergers? Anything like that in there? But maybe there isn't in your case. If so that's fine, but vaccines aren't the mark of the Beast. Just so's ya knows. LOL of course not. so I'm not sure if you are for or against the Jews?
stevestojan Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 What the !@#$ did I just click into? Ahhh, crayonz. Almost got me.
Gugny Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Parents who don't get their children vaccinated are not good parents. Edited February 11, 2015 by Gugny
DC Tom Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Parents who don't get their children vaccinated are not good parents. What about the ones that buy their kids cancer-causing cell phones?
Gugny Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 What about the ones that buy their kids cancer-causing cell phones? Moderation
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 I am firmly in the vaccination camp... You have to get them! But, I am torn on the whole harm thing... Somebody WILL get harmed taking one for the herd. Who 'wins" that lottery should be compensated, I guess that's why we now have National Vaccination Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). What are the numbers for legit harm for various vaccines. Who takes the hit for the herd and how are they treated? How do we convince people to roll the dice (I know very good odds that nothing will happen) in a very selfish society? Let the diseases comeback and make people thankfull again is such a terrible idea. Forcing people in a "free society" also sets up all kinds of other issues,
4merper4mer Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Moderation Are the phones that use frequency moderation or amplitude moderation safer?
Gugny Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Are the phones that use frequency moderation or amplitude moderation safer? HD, you moron.
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 There is not a measles epidemic. Say it with me: "there is not a measles epidemic". There are roughly 150 cases limited to 14 states. Since when do we build public policy centered around the violation of rights based on such a diminishing my small sample of the larger population? Out of some 20 million global cases of measles, roughly 650 reported cases occurred within the United States in 2014. Sensationalism aside, why is this even a topic of discussion? The CDC will likely rule, as usual, the the pocket outbreaks were root caused by migration from a low vaccination country. The sky is not falling. As for the anti-vaxxers? They're morons, and everyone should get their children vaccinated, but forcibly doing so isn't just immoral from a rights perspective, it's also lazy public policy, which is almost as bad. The role of the government here should be partnership with caregivers and medical professionals as well as charities to educate, especially amongst the immigrant population.
Dibs Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 .....but forcibly doing so isn't just immoral from a rights perspective, it's also lazy public policy, which is almost as bad..... Yeah, I've always thought the same thing about having to drive on the right side of the road. People should be convinced to do so, not forced to.
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Yeah, I've always thought the same thing about having to drive on the right side of the road. People should be convinced to do so, not forced to. ... They are, in fact, convinced to drive on the right side of the road, rather than forced. You see people opt not to follow this convention with some frequency. This is one of the causes of roadway accidents. People are not taken from their parents and chipped with "drive on the right side of the road" hardware when they get their learners permit. Rather, they are educated about road safety. Strange how this policy of education as opposed to forced biological modification works on such a wide scale. You have prompted a question though: given the much higher statistical likely hood of individuals driving on the wrong side of the road when compared to the mere 650 cases of domestic measles in 2014, would you support a law mandating that chips be placed into the brains of all US residents of legal driving age which created a 92-94% chance that they'd never drive on the wrong side of the road? Edited February 11, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker
Dibs Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) ... They are, in fact, convinced to drive on the right side of the road, rather than forced. You see people opt not to follow this convention with some frequency. This is one of the causes of roadway accidents. People are not taken from their parents and chipped with "drive on the right side of the road" hardware when they get their learners permit. Rather, they are educated about road safety. That's bollocks. If I chose to drive on the wrong side of the road I will be fined, and if I persist on excersising my rights to do so I will have my licence revoked and I will possibly be incarcerated. Edited February 11, 2015 by Dibs
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 That's bollocks. If I chose to drive on the wrong side of the road I will be fined, and if I persist on excersising my rights to do so I will have my licence revoked and I will possibly be incarcerated.It seems that someone doesn't understand the word "choice". You just described possible consequences of making a choice, which you are entitled to make. The fact that you find the consequences too heavy to engage in the action speaks to the fact that education policy works. The same is not true of forced vaccinations. There is no choice involved. Individuals are not given the choice to examine the potential consequences and decide, as you have, not to be stupid. Do you see the difference?
Dibs Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) It seems that someone doesn't understand the word "choice". You just described possible consequences of making a choice, which you are entitled to make. The fact that you find the consequences too heavy to engage in the action speaks to the fact that education policy works. The same is not true of forced vaccinations. There is no choice involved. Individuals are not given the choice to examine the potential consequences and decide, as you have, not to be stupid. Do you see the difference? What are the consequences of choosing not to vaccinate ones children? As in what would the government do? Edited February 11, 2015 by Dibs
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 What are the consequences of choosing not to vaccinate ones children? As in what would the government do?There is no choice, as the government would forcibly vaccinate them. That's what forced vaccination means. You realize we're talking about a disease with a 0.3% domestic fatality rate according to WHO data, right? That means that last year, given the 650 or so cases, fewer than 2 people died, statistically speaking. For this, you seek to suspend people's rights?
FireChan Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 There is no choice, as the government would forcibly vaccinate them. That's what forced vaccination means. You realize we're talking about a disease with a 0.3% domestic fatality rate according to WHO data, right? That means that last year, given the 650 or so cases, fewer than 2 people died, statistically speaking. For this, you seek to suspend people's rights? So, let's say the government took you a gunpoint and said, "Vaccinate or we shoot you." Are you being convinced or forced? I mean, you can still make a choice, even if you die. The fact that the consequences are too heavy to consider shows that it is working. Thank goodness we cleared that up.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted February 11, 2015 Author Posted February 11, 2015 AMA code of ethics section 8.08 - informed consent: The patient’s right of self-decision can be effectively exercised only if the patient possesses enough information to enable an informed choice. The patient should make his or her own determination about treatment. The physician's obligation is to present the medical facts accurately to the patient or to the individual responsible for the patient’s care and to make recommendations for management in accordance with good medical practice. The physician has an ethical obligation to help the patient make choices from among the therapeutic alternatives consistent with good medical practice. Informed consent is a basic policy in both ethics and LAW that physicians must honor ... http://www.naturalnews.com/048571_mandatory_vaccines_code_of_ethics_American_Medical_Association.html
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) What are the consequences of choosing not to vaccinate ones children? As in what would the government do?Herd immunity doesn't have to be 100%. Depends on the disease. Around 5-10% can choose to not be vaccinated and be perfectly fine, protected by the rest of the herd... And remain natural. Just saying. Who would not want to be injected and still remain healthy and fine? Of course, like Tasker said, the anti-vaxxers are morons. He does make a point. You can chose not to drive and be perfectly fine. EDIT: Threshold for measles is 83-94% -Source: Wiki. Edited February 11, 2015 by ExiledInIllinois
Recommended Posts