For countingbeans:
Here’s that thread I was talking about in Hijack Haven.
Turns out I have a pretty danged good memory. Also reminds me how man good posters this forum has lost, seeing the posts from Mikeyali, tom63 and Varq (well, tom still pokes his head in from time to time).
apbt55 sounds pretty confident about those vaccines, but I still have gut suspicions. And I’m sure in a few months after he is born my next boy will get all the same vaccines my first did…
I did get swine… It wasn’t even the death it was the 10 days of work I missed. 10 days.
As for my stance on the issue:
I feel like the risks are worth the reward, and those that vacinate protect the heard. So, those that choose not to vacinate receive the protection without contributing to the system.
Wow, sorta sounds like welfare, haha.
I don’t judge those that don’t vacinate. I would prefer they not be around my child until she has had all her’s, but all in all, I suspect there are intelligent people who don’t and have good reason not to.
(As an aside, I tried to have this debate on facebook… What a joke. The other’s posts were all ad hominens, straw men, and appeals to authority. Then he went to personal attacks when I pointed out nothing he said actually proved anything… Oh well)
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
(As an aside, I tried to have this debate on facebook… What a joke. The other’s posts were all ad hominens, straw men, and appeals to authority. Then he went to personal attacks when I pointed out nothing he said actually proved anything… Oh well)[/quote]
Haha, I keep most of my internet political debating with opposing viewpoints confined to this forum in part because I won’t lose any friends over it here.
If the government is telling you it’s good for you it probably isn’t.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I feel like the risks are worth the reward, and those that vacinate protect the heard. So, those that choose not to vacinate receive the protection without contributing to the system.
[/quote]
Let me turn this argument around on you:
What if it’s the people who vaccinate that are weakening “the system”. For whatever reason certain weak humans are susceptible to diseases and other creepy stuff. By allowing them to live with vaccination we weaken the gene pool.
Modern medicine is a scam.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I feel like the risks are worth the reward, and those that vacinate protect the heard. So, those that choose not to vacinate receive the protection without contributing to the system.
[/quote]
Let me turn this argument around on you:
What if it’s the people who vaccinate that are weakening “the system”. For whatever reason certain weak humans are susceptible to diseases and other creepy stuff. By allowing them to live with vaccination we weaken the gene pool.
Modern medicine is a scam.[/quote]
LOL
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I feel like the risks are worth the reward, and those that vacinate protect the heard. So, those that choose not to vacinate receive the protection without contributing to the system.
[/quote]
Let me turn this argument around on you:
What if it’s the people who vaccinate that are weakening “the system”. For whatever reason certain weak humans are susceptible to diseases and other creepy stuff. By allowing them to live with vaccination we weaken the gene pool.
Modern medicine is a scam.[/quote]
As to modern medicine being a scam: I wouldn’t imagine we are at the apex of quality heath and human services at all. I mean shit, didn’t doctors just start washing their hands 100 years ago? Scam? No. Infant stages? Sure. Imperfect? Sure. Scam, nah.
That isn’t a view point that I can argue to be honest. If we are keeping the “weak” alive and hurting ourselves for it, well blame all us parents. Because there are very few that can stand by and let tehir kid become “one of the weak and taken”…
You may be right, but at the end of the day, I don’t really see letting people die in droves as “weak” becoming conventional wisdom anytime soon.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You may be right, but at the end of the day, I don’t really see letting people die in droves as “weak” becoming conventional wisdom anytime soon.[/quote]
I agree - especially since the American medical establishment pays lots of money to keep people believing in their witchcraft.
There is a high correlation between being sick and seeing the doctor but no one can answer which event causes which.
I will never understand how people think the government trying to stop a widespread transmission of disease is some egregious violation of our personal liberties.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
I will never understand how people think the government trying to stop a widespread transmission of disease is some egregious violation of our personal liberties. [/quote]
You dont understand why sticking a needle in your butt against your will that may or may not be filled with harmful substances is an “egregious violation of our personal liberties” ?
Pray tell, what part of that poses the problem?
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
I will never understand how people think the government trying to stop a widespread transmission of disease is some egregious violation of our personal liberties. [/quote]
So it’s all about intent?
So Back when being gay was considered a disease the government could dose unwilling people with drugs to prevent it?
It’s a violation because the government is wrong as often as anything.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I feel like the risks are worth the reward, and those that vacinate protect the heard. So, those that choose not to vacinate receive the protection without contributing to the system.
[/quote]
Let me turn this argument around on you:
What if it’s the people who vaccinate that are weakening “the system”. For whatever reason certain weak humans are susceptible to diseases and other creepy stuff. By allowing them to live with vaccination we weaken the gene pool.
Modern medicine is a scam.[/quote]
I have no words.
doubleDuce,
I was unaware that there was a moral/ethical issue around eliminating polio or protecting against measles mumps rubella, or vaccinations to prevent outbreaks of various strains of the flu. trying to force treatment on someone to prevent/eliminate a personal trait is not the same as insulating the community from the outbreak of a deadly disease.
It does become a bit harder for someone, who has already had all of his childhood shots, mind you, to take some ostentatious stand against vaccinations once he’s had a child of his own and actually had to put his money where his mouth is.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
I will never understand how people think the government trying to stop a widespread transmission of disease is some egregious violation of our personal liberties. [/quote]
the point is that vaccination doesnt “stop a widespreadtansmission of disease”.
It only forces a biological specie to mute and evolve. But bacteria and viruses usually evolve faster than our knowledge and our technology.
So it’s a short-term solution that will inevitably cause long-term problems and a vicious circle.
Another thing our grand-children will have to solve.
And the other main point is that this kind of policy give an enormous power to a enormous number of people and entities that we currently can not democratically control.
Not only “the government” but doctors, experts, statisticians, pharmaceutical companies, NGOs, etc. to cite but a few of them.
Historically, this collusion led to the development of something Michel Foucault called “biopower”.
Vaccines are not safe or effective, and the evidence proves it.
The Med Biz is rife with scientific fraud.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
I will never understand how people think the government trying to stop a widespread transmission of disease is some egregious violation of our personal liberties. [/quote]
the point is that vaccination doesnt “stop a widespreadtansmission of disease”.
It only forces a biological specie to mute and evolve. But bacteria and viruses usually evolve faster than our knowledge and our technology.
So it’s a short-term solution that will inevitably cause long-term problems and a vicious circle.
Another thing our grand-children will have to solve.
[/quote]
rubella, measles, small pox, polio, pertussis, etc; we have not had any real major issues with these diseases since we started immunizations for each one. These were pretty bad diseases to get and today the only issues we have with them are with pockets of people that refuse to immunize their kids.
My major issue with parents not immunizing their kids is that their kids can end up giving these diseases to my un-immunized new born. other than that, I have no issue at all.
we had a pertussis out break at my daughters school (major hippy school - my immunized kid is a minority) when my newborn was about 2 weeks old. this could have killed him had my daughter or one of her friends brought it home.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
doubleDuce,
I was unaware that there was a moral/ethical issue around eliminating polio or protecting against measles mumps rubella, or vaccinations to prevent outbreaks of various strains of the flu. trying to force treatment on someone to prevent/eliminate a personal trait is not the same as insulating the community from the outbreak of a deadly disease.[/quote]
According to whom? The government of the 1950s?
A disease is a personal trait.
DoubleDuce,
?