Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If you want the freedom to take risk, then you bear the liability for that decision.

And that is where the entire argument falls apart.

Because the result of this whole anti-vaxxers idiocy is that "your freedom to take risk" places not only the child at direct risk of harm, but also everybody around that child that cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. The parent who is to stupid to vaccinate their child does not bear the liability for their decision, that liability is born by their child.

and increases the liability of those around them. I know this from experience with GC.

 d-usa wrote:
The visceral scenario should be the spike in tiny coffin sales due to idiotic parents.

If I am provided with two possible scenarios where parents shed tears because their child is gone, I will choose the one where a healthy child is alive over the one where a child is dead.

So... are we seeing this spike now?

Dunno about coffins, but for measles alone...

The United States experienced a record number of measles cases during 2014, with 644 cases from 27 states reported to CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD). This is the greatest number of cases since measles elimination was documented in the U.S. in 2000.

How about Whooping Cough?

Mumps had a moment to shine a few years back because of an unvaccinated kid.

Short answer: it's only a matter of time if we continue to see an increase in the number of people not getting vaccinated.

I agree, we should let the problem happen instead of trying to prevent it.

Best for everyone.

Is it truly a public heath crisis? Is it so grave that it demands we begin stripping away people's freedoms? Or worse yet, TAKE YOUR CHILDREN away from you?

I mean, if ebola truly became a wide spread epicdemic, you'd bet your ass that I'll be first in line for that vaccine shot.

Again... I go back to the idea that the only freedom that matters is the Freedom-To-Be-Wrong.

No other freedom matters one bit... because if you're "right" in the eyes of those in power, your freedom will never be challenged, and hence you have no need of any right to belief or right to speech.

Right?

The Freedom to be Wrong would only be fine if it was wrong and only you suffer the consequences.

Why are you refusing to get that? Is it because if you accepted that you'd have zero fething argument? That's what it sounds like.

Why are they taking MY CHILD away if I tattoo my child?

What about my right to have tattoos?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
The Freedom to be Wrong would only be fine if it was wrong and only you suffer the consequences.

Why are you refusing to get that? Is it because if you accepted that you'd have zero fething argument? That's what it sounds like.

That's a straw man argument.

I'm all for public pressure to participate in vaccinations, but not at the threat of having your children taken from you.

No, it's not a straw man, it's just that you are literally wrong.

The Freedom to be Wrong is only a good thing if the consequences only affect you.

You're advocating that people should be allowed to affect OTHERS by being WRONG.

No thanks.

Exactly, it's one thing if I, and I alone, pay the price for my mistakes.

But it's something else entirely when someone else pays the price for my mistakes.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
No, it's not a straw man, it's just that you are literally wrong.

The Freedom to be Wrong is only a good thing if the consequences only affect you.

You're advocating that people should be allowed to affect OTHERS by being WRONG.

No thanks.

But that's just it dude... we ARE affected when OTHER people makes the wrong decision. It's called fething life.

And laws usually end up having you be punished when you do that.

See: Neglecting your child.

If you decide to say "I believe the man in the moon is real", you are wrong, but ultimately it can have no real effect on me.

If you decide to believe in Russel's Teapot and worship it, you are wrong, but ultimately it can have no real effect on me.

If you decide you want to waive your right to a trial, or a lawyer, or just want to incriminate yourself willy nilly, you are dumb, but ultimately it can have no real effect on me.

If you decide that you'd rather allow infectious and potentially fatal diseases to resurge in the US despite decades of efforts in eradicating said diseases, you are wrong and your decision can have a very real effect on me.


Do you see how one of these things is not like the other?

 whembly wrote:
But that's just it dude... we ARE affected when OTHER people makes the wrong decision. It's called fething life.

By Your Logic©, I should be able to go home, lock a 30 round mag of steel-core ammo into my AK, and just let fly with one arm while grabbing my junk with the other, and screaming SECOND AMENDMENT YEAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!1!!

It was my choice to make a bad decision, and if some toddler catches a hot one, then, well, "that's fething life".

This seems to be your fundamental argument. I feel like your rights end at the tip of my nose, and once your unvaccinated snowflake gives my immunocompromised child measles and he goes blind, perhaps civil litigation or what have you is wholly inadequate to address this manifestly predictable sequence of events.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
And laws usually end up having you be punished when you do that.

See: Neglecting your child.

So, you're in the camp that not vaccinating your child (for whatever reason) is "neglecting your child".

So, do you advocate the state to intercept and remove the child from their parents?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But that's just it dude... we ARE affected when OTHER people makes the wrong decision. It's called fething life.

By Your Logic©, I should be able to go home, lock a 30 round mag of steel-core ammo into my AK, and just let fly with one arm while grabbing my junk with the other, and screaming SECOND AMENDMENT YEAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!1!!

It was my choice to make a bad decision, and if some toddler catches a hot one, then, well, "that's fething life".

Nice straw man.

But, no, that is not what I'm saying.

I know it's time to just ban myself from the OT section when someone is advocating that neglect of a child should be legal and that it's fething life when a child suffers from a preventable disease because they have stupid parents and that it's tragic when the state steps in to protect that child.

Would you support taking away a 9 year old if the parents gave the kid keys to a car and told him to drive to the mall to get something?

 whembly wrote:
So, you're in the camp that not vaccinating your child (for whatever reason*) is "neglecting your child".

I'm in that camp, yeah, It's a pretty good camp, I like it.

*Although I would add the codicil, "not immunizing your child for a reason other then on the advice of a medical professional".

Honestly? I would advocate they perform mandatory vaccinations.

Take the child long enough to vaccinate, and then return. Fine parents for the costs of police escort etc.

Also what Ouze said, nice try though.

 streamdragon wrote:
If you decide to say "I believe the man in the moon is real", you are wrong, but ultimately it can have no real effect on me.

If you decide to believe in Russel's Teapot and worship it, you are wrong, but ultimately it can have no real effect on me.

If you decide you want to waive your right to a trial, or a lawyer, or just want to incriminate yourself willy nilly, you are dumb, but ultimately it can have no real effect on me.

If you decide that you'd rather allow infectious and potentially fatal diseases to resurge in the US despite decades of efforts in eradicating said diseases, you are wrong and your decision can have a very real effect on me.


Do you see how one of these things is not like the other?

Of course.

So, are you advocating that vaccinations should be a mandatory action (within reasons of course). Meaning, to be an active participant of the United States of American, we ALL should have vaccinations against all possible infections?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So, you're in the camp that not vaccinating your child (for whatever reason*) is "neglecting your child".

I'm in that camp, yeah, It's a pretty good camp, I like it.

*Although I would add the codicil, "not immunizing your child for a reason other then on the advice of a medical professional".

So that I'm clear... the belief that "neglecting your child" here is enough to warrant the state to step in and take the child away?

It's such a shame that some of us here care more about a child's welfare than a parents right to feth their child.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
It's such a shame that some of us here care more about a child's welfare than a parents right to feth their child.

I've vaccinated my kids.

Stay with me here... I'm not done yet.

You know, if you're playing Devil's Advocate, sometimes it is literally the Devil's position and not just the opposing one, right?

 whembly wrote:
Of course.

So, are you advocating that vaccinations should be a mandatory action (within reasons of course). Meaning, to be an active participant of the United States of American, we ALL should have vaccinations against all possible infections?

I have never said all vaccinations because all vaccinations are not created equal. The flu shot is technically a vaccination, but to put it on par with the chickenpox vaccination, MMR or polio vaccinations would be intellectually dishonest. So no, that's not what I am saying and never what I have said. Same with "all people", because there are obviously people who are not medically able to get vaccinations, e.g. the immunocompromised. But the latest surge in unvaccinated people isn't because more people are immunocompromised.

For vaccinations against nearly eradicated diseases? Abso-frelling-lutely. MMR? Check. Chickenpox? Yup. Polio? Bet your butt. Smallpox? Oh wait, we don't get that one anymore because the disease was eradicated.

The list of completely eradicated diseases in that link is small. Two diseases, only one of which is a human disease. The list of "Almost Eradicated", however, is promising. Guess what's on that list? Measles.

 whembly wrote:
So that I'm clear... the belief that "neglecting your child" here is enough to warrant the state to step in and take the child away?

I think that a parent who does not vaccinate their children for other than medical reasons has neglected their child, and it should be appropriately remediated with by the local authorities, just like they would deal with a parent who decided not to feed their child or put them in adequate housing or clothe them appropriate for the current weather.

I am not an expert in child neglect cases but from my tangential dealings with Child Protective Services, "taking a child away" is generally not the first step, nor a permanent status. Whether or not you lose custody, as with all abuse cases, depends on the specific situation and details; it's not like they have a toolbox that only has that one single hammer in it: just as you don't sledgehammer every laptop that gets a virus.

Only on Dakka will you find people using "won't somebody think of the children" to argue against thinking of the children.

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Of course.

So, are you advocating that vaccinations should be a mandatory action (within reasons of course). Meaning, to be an active participant of the United States of American, we ALL should have vaccinations against all possible infections?

I have never said all vaccinations because all vaccinations are not created equal. The flu shot is technically a vaccination, but to put it on par with the chickenpox vaccination, MMR or polio vaccinations would be intellectually dishonest. So no, that's not what I am saying and never what I have said. Same with "all people", because there are obviously people who are not medically able to get vaccinations, e.g. the immunocompromised. But the latest surge in unvaccinated people isn't because more people are immunocompromised.

For vaccinations against nearly eradicated diseases? Abso-frelling-lutely. MMR? Check. Chickenpox? Yup. Polio? Bet your butt. Smallpox? Oh wait, we don't get that one anymore because the disease was eradicated.

The list of completely eradicated diseases in that link is small. Two diseases, only one of which is a human disease. The list of "Almost Eradicated", however, is promising. Guess what's on that list? Measles.

I agree with you. Whole heartedly.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So that I'm clear... the belief that "neglecting your child" here is enough to warrant the state to step in and take the child away?

I think that a parent who does not vaccinate their children for other than medical reasons has neglected their child, and it should be appropriately remediated with by the local authorities, just like they would deal with a parent who decided not to feed their child or put them in adequate housing or clothe them appropriate for the current weather.

I am not an expert in child neglect cases but from my tangential dealings with Child Protective Services, "taking a child away" is generally not the first step, nor a permanent status. Whether or not you lose custody, as with all abuse cases, depends on the specific situation and details; it's not like they have a toolbox that only has that one single hammer in it: just as you don't sledgehammer every laptop that gets a virus.

I'll admit that I've been engaging in Devil's Advocacy here in these last few posts...

But, now that I thought about it some more, CPS is more of a local agency, rather than some Federal entity mandating all sorts of mandates. I think I'd be okay with this sort of thing honestly.

I'd still enforce this policy at the public venues (ie, schools, physician offices, etc..) than simply having CPS knocking on random doors. (which they really don't do anyways).

As this is a political thread taking about potential candidates, I think the Christie criticism is a little unfair.

Rand Paul? My problem with him on this subject, like his father if I may add, is absolutely determined to flatter these anti-vaxxers and the weird fringe.

http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=354718


.. odd how .... similar one might even say word for word identical .. some of the comments and "thoughts" on there are to those certain posters on here appear to be posting as their own.



On the plus side think of all the time and effort you'll save eliminating every health code in existence.
After all if it's it what they believe or want then that's fine.



Least the lawyers will be happy.

..haha oh wow reds8n.

Oh my word.

Now I wonder how many of his other threads/posts are the result of copy pasting from blogs...

 reds8n wrote:


http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=354718


.. odd how .... similar one might even say word for word identical .. some of the comments and "thoughts" on there are to those certain posters on here appear to be posting as their own.

It's a massive, and worthwhile debate to have. RIght?

On the plus side think of all the time and effort you'll save eliminating every health code in existence.
After all if it's it what they believe or want then that's fine.

That's not what's being advocated here...

Least the lawyers will be happy.

Actually, lawyers thrives in regulations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
..haha oh wow reds8n.

Oh my word.

Now I wonder how many of his other threads/posts are the result of copy pasting from blogs...

I try not to as I'm neurotic in posting the whole thing and even then, posters complain when I post the whole opinion pieces, or forget that some of them are behind paywalls.