Protip: Freedom to assembly doesnt mean you can break out your coleman tent and requisition a park for two months against the wishes of the park owner and throw sanitation laws to the wind.
Not getting vaccinated does not directly cause someone to get sick, which is why I think there is a difference. This isnt refusing a bleeding child sutures, its refusing to take a preventative measure that would boost their immune system. There is to my mind a world of difference, mainly because of the slippery slope: Once you get out of the realm of "imminent danger as a justification", the sky seems to be the limit..
No, its not, because until recently (and in many cases, still) you do / did not have to have insurance to be a human being living in the states, and I assume it is the same in Australia.
If you dont see how this all fits together, by the way-- more government involvement, mandated insurance, mandated vaccinations-- you should reexamine how the pieces are falling. The government really would like license to declare individuals too irresponsible to make decisions about how they live their lives, and would love to mandate it through fines, threatened jail time, etc.
The topic seems to have long since strayed away from the article onto whether it is OK to mandate vaccinations. I am arguing against mandated medical procedures, except PERHAPS if the child is so young that they cannot have a say and the parent will be making a decision that will cause an imminent loss of the child's life. Any other exceptions seem to open the door way too wide for the government to dictate intensely personal decisions.
The tax benefits thing I have other issues, but theyre more related to the idea of the government taking money it didnt need so that it could then hand it back in the form of tax benefits if people alter their lifestyle. When a private entity does that, its generally called extortion. But all this is not relevant to either the thread or the article.
It could very easily become that. You should read Stephen Conroy's comments during an interview on the net filter, where he remarked that parents were generally incapable of raising their kids and that task should be left to the state. You dont think the government would love to do that? Can you think of anything more scary than that?
Yeah, a tyranny when children aren't forced to die of childhood ailments that are easily preventable because their parents are either misguided or outright ignorant
Im not arguing against the idea of vaccination, Im arguing against the idea that the government in whatever form can determine when someone makes bad decisions and therefore no longer has the right to make their own choices. Freedom means the freedom to do stupid things.
we can't just let people do whatever they fuck they want to their children in the name of liberty. What about the liberty of the child?
I fear a government that believes it can mandate medical procedures and whatever else far more. What if they were to decide for the greater good that children with ADD must be forcibly medicated with ritalin?
Slippery slope is EXACTLY what I am worried about. Exclude non vaccinated kids from school and make the parent homeschool them. If the country has socialized medicine, lower the family's benefits. None of these take away a right. Making it mandatory however is a whole other issue.
The real question is whether the courts view denying vaccinations to be equivalent to denying proper medical care.
Im still trying to sort that out in my mind. I understand the arguments, but something seems badly wrong when government mandate steps in on something like this. It stinks of initiatives like China's one child policy, and if you really want to know the basis for my fear, read up on the Nazi forced sterilization and eugenics programs-- all for the greater good. I understand to some small degree what a people can do when they determine that personal rights are secondary to the good of society, and it is a scary thought.
Posts like these make me lose hope in democracy; the consensus seems that there is no tyranny that cannot be justified by the phrase "the greater good".
you are imposing your will on my body when you don't get vaccinated
Thats a reach and you know it. Imposing my will means making you do something you dont want to. Getting sick is a direct result of bacteria or viruses, not because I didnt get vaccinated.
If your pseudo-scientific justification for not vaccinating your child could potentially impact my own progeny due to the reduced efficacy of herd immunity, you're damn right the government should mandate it.
You misunderstand my objection in your eagerness to attack. My fear is not autism, but tyranny, and the arbitrary removal of rights in the name of the greater good..
Lets also keep in mind that when the parent's can't seem to raise their kids correctly, it's the states job to step in and do what's right for the child.
Congratulations, you just proved the very thing I was worried about happening. Once you can arbitrarily determine that someone is living their life incorrectly or badly, and can use that as a justification to strip them of their rights, you really have begun down the path to tyranny.
Sometimes TDP is the most important thing. There is a datacenter Im looking at with incredible pricing ($400 / mo, with 100mbit line on a backbone included) who has a maximum power draw of 2 amps. Thats 240 watts.
So I could either go get a kicking Xeon E3 processor with a 20w TDP and performance that slaughters anything AMD could throw at it, or I could go AMD in the name of saving about $150 up front and use at least double the power for around half the performance-- which in reality means quadruple the energy consumption.
Theres not even a comparison there, its not even funny.
the freedom to live, and for others to live, free from disease
There is no such right, and there never has been. Disease is a fact of life. Vaccines are a wonderful way to mitigate that, and you are free to get them for yourself-- bodily autonomy IS a true right and freedom.
Imposing your will upon my body outside of a judicial setting, however, is not a freedom that you are granted.
the one and only righteous man in all of Sodom offered up his underage daughters to be gang-raped by an angry mob
David (also called righteous) was an adulturer, murderer, and abused his position of king to carry out those two crimes. Being called "righteous" in the bible is not meant as an absolute term when applied to man. His actions were not condoned, and they were wrong.
for the female victim if she doesn't "cry out".
The implication is that she was a willing participant. Incidentally, the word rape is neither used nor implied there. It simply speaks of a "nightime encounter" in which the woman has intercourse with the man and does not raise any alarm.
The problem with the definition of freedom, as defined by teenagers (not chronological teenagers, but psychological teenagers) is that it does not take into account how some "freedoms" naturally and automatically impinge on the freedoms of others.
Yea, see, the problem is there IS no "freedom from worrying about disease", but there ARE freedoms of religion (some faiths, like Jehovah's Witness, forbid vaccinations) and "to be secure in your persons..", which in the case of parents, extends to their children. Choosing to accept or decline medical procedures to be performed on your own or your child's body would also seem to be a good deal more of an essential right than your right to feel safe.
And since we now apparently have a right to privacy (which the Supreme court ruled on in support of abortion), I would wonder how you can POSSIBLY see that used to defend abortion and not defend a parent's right to refuse vaccinations for their child.
Because its not your right to dictate medical procedures to a child's parents?
What if the parents were to say "Im a Jehovah's Witness, and my religion forbids vaccinations"? To hell with their rights as a parent and their religious freedoms, youre going to impose a vaccine on their child?
Once you can start brushing aside rights that many countries recognize as fundamental (right of personal faith, for one) in the name of "the greater good", you are well on your way to a tyranny.
Doesnt change that theres a serious issue of personal rights and the rights of a parent at stake here, the government has no right to mandate any medical procedure. If its such a big issue, just have the public schools refuse admission to children who are not vaccinated, and make sure the kids are either privately or home schooled.
Problem solved, the government doesnt get to dictate ANYTHING that personal, and the "herd" doesnt have to worry about a disease-ridden child.
Requiring immunization is fundamentally no different than requiring people not dump their raw sewage on the curb
Not really, it isnt. I dont think anyone has a problem saying "if you dont immunize your child, he/she cannot attend public school or libraries"; but saying "even if they are homeschooled, you MUST perform this medical procedure on your child" crosses a line.
Lets keep in mind that it is the parent's job to raise their kid, not the state's.
Slashdot Mirror
Protip: Freedom to assembly doesnt mean you can break out your coleman tent and requisition a park for two months against the wishes of the park owner and throw sanitation laws to the wind.
So in other words, it has higher system requirements for baseline performance than Gnome 2?
See, where Im from, thats generally called performing worse.
Not getting vaccinated does not directly cause someone to get sick, which is why I think there is a difference. This isnt refusing a bleeding child sutures, its refusing to take a preventative measure that would boost their immune system. There is to my mind a world of difference, mainly because of the slippery slope: Once you get out of the realm of "imminent danger as a justification", the sky seems to be the limit..
No, its not, because until recently (and in many cases, still) you do / did not have to have insurance to be a human being living in the states, and I assume it is the same in Australia.
If you dont see how this all fits together, by the way-- more government involvement, mandated insurance, mandated vaccinations-- you should reexamine how the pieces are falling. The government really would like license to declare individuals too irresponsible to make decisions about how they live their lives, and would love to mandate it through fines, threatened jail time, etc.
The topic seems to have long since strayed away from the article onto whether it is OK to mandate vaccinations. I am arguing against mandated medical procedures, except PERHAPS if the child is so young that they cannot have a say and the parent will be making a decision that will cause an imminent loss of the child's life. Any other exceptions seem to open the door way too wide for the government to dictate intensely personal decisions.
The tax benefits thing I have other issues, but theyre more related to the idea of the government taking money it didnt need so that it could then hand it back in the form of tax benefits if people alter their lifestyle. When a private entity does that, its generally called extortion. But all this is not relevant to either the thread or the article.
I simply googled for religions that were against vaccines; the particulars were not important, and I apologize if I misrepresented your faith.
Child Protective Services =! Tyranny.
It could very easily become that. You should read Stephen Conroy's comments during an interview on the net filter, where he remarked that parents were generally incapable of raising their kids and that task should be left to the state. You dont think the government would love to do that? Can you think of anything more scary than that?
Yeah, a tyranny when children aren't forced to die of childhood ailments that are easily preventable because their parents are either misguided or outright ignorant
Im not arguing against the idea of vaccination, Im arguing against the idea that the government in whatever form can determine when someone makes bad decisions and therefore no longer has the right to make their own choices. Freedom means the freedom to do stupid things.
we can't just let people do whatever they fuck they want to their children in the name of liberty. What about the liberty of the child?
I fear a government that believes it can mandate medical procedures and whatever else far more. What if they were to decide for the greater good that children with ADD must be forcibly medicated with ritalin?
Slippery slope is EXACTLY what I am worried about. Exclude non vaccinated kids from school and make the parent homeschool them. If the country has socialized medicine, lower the family's benefits. None of these take away a right. Making it mandatory however is a whole other issue.
The real question is whether the courts view denying vaccinations to be equivalent to denying proper medical care.
Im still trying to sort that out in my mind. I understand the arguments, but something seems badly wrong when government mandate steps in on something like this. It stinks of initiatives like China's one child policy, and if you really want to know the basis for my fear, read up on the Nazi forced sterilization and eugenics programs-- all for the greater good. I understand to some small degree what a people can do when they determine that personal rights are secondary to the good of society, and it is a scary thought.
Posts like these make me lose hope in democracy; the consensus seems that there is no tyranny that cannot be justified by the phrase "the greater good".
What if their failure is predictable after a certain number of hours? Feel like having a whole array go down in one night?
you are imposing your will on my body when you don't get vaccinated
Thats a reach and you know it. Imposing my will means making you do something you dont want to. Getting sick is a direct result of bacteria or viruses, not because I didnt get vaccinated.
If your pseudo-scientific justification for not vaccinating your child could potentially impact my own progeny due to the reduced efficacy of herd immunity, you're damn right the government should mandate it.
You misunderstand my objection in your eagerness to attack. My fear is not autism, but tyranny, and the arbitrary removal of rights in the name of the greater good..
Lets also keep in mind that when the parent's can't seem to raise their kids correctly, it's the states job to step in and do what's right for the child.
Congratulations, you just proved the very thing I was worried about happening. Once you can arbitrarily determine that someone is living their life incorrectly or badly, and can use that as a justification to strip them of their rights, you really have begun down the path to tyranny.
Sometimes TDP is the most important thing. There is a datacenter Im looking at with incredible pricing ($400 / mo, with 100mbit line on a backbone included) who has a maximum power draw of 2 amps. Thats 240 watts.
So I could either go get a kicking Xeon E3 processor with a 20w TDP and performance that slaughters anything AMD could throw at it, or I could go AMD in the name of saving about $150 up front and use at least double the power for around half the performance-- which in reality means quadruple the energy consumption.
Theres not even a comparison there, its not even funny.
the freedom to live, and for others to live, free from disease
There is no such right, and there never has been. Disease is a fact of life. Vaccines are a wonderful way to mitigate that, and you are free to get them for yourself-- bodily autonomy IS a true right and freedom.
Imposing your will upon my body outside of a judicial setting, however, is not a freedom that you are granted.
the one and only righteous man in all of Sodom offered up his underage daughters to be gang-raped by an angry mob
David (also called righteous) was an adulturer, murderer, and abused his position of king to carry out those two crimes. Being called "righteous" in the bible is not meant as an absolute term when applied to man.
His actions were not condoned, and they were wrong.
for the female victim if she doesn't "cry out".
The implication is that she was a willing participant. Incidentally, the word rape is neither used nor implied there. It simply speaks of a "nightime encounter" in which the woman has intercourse with the man and does not raise any alarm.
Thats not rape, its abduction, and regardless that is not "condoning", it is recording a historical event.
Or are you saying that the history books condone the jewish holocaust because it is recorded?
The problem with the definition of freedom, as defined by teenagers (not chronological teenagers, but psychological teenagers) is that it does not take into account how some "freedoms" naturally and automatically impinge on the freedoms of others.
Yea, see, the problem is there IS no "freedom from worrying about disease", but there ARE freedoms of religion (some faiths, like Jehovah's Witness, forbid vaccinations) and "to be secure in your persons..", which in the case of parents, extends to their children. Choosing to accept or decline medical procedures to be performed on your own or your child's body would also seem to be a good deal more of an essential right than your right to feel safe.
And since we now apparently have a right to privacy (which the Supreme court ruled on in support of abortion), I would wonder how you can POSSIBLY see that used to defend abortion and not defend a parent's right to refuse vaccinations for their child.
Because its not your right to dictate medical procedures to a child's parents?
What if the parents were to say "Im a Jehovah's Witness, and my religion forbids vaccinations"? To hell with their rights as a parent and their religious freedoms, youre going to impose a vaccine on their child?
Once you can start brushing aside rights that many countries recognize as fundamental (right of personal faith, for one) in the name of "the greater good", you are well on your way to a tyranny.
Actually, there is only one rational outcome here. And the basis for that is in your previous statement.
So the government should take away any choices that can result in selfish choices?
All true, and all good stuff.
Doesnt change that theres a serious issue of personal rights and the rights of a parent at stake here, the government has no right to mandate any medical procedure. If its such a big issue, just have the public schools refuse admission to children who are not vaccinated, and make sure the kids are either privately or home schooled.
Problem solved, the government doesnt get to dictate ANYTHING that personal, and the "herd" doesnt have to worry about a disease-ridden child.
What are you, afraid of numbers?
:( a little
Youre ridiculing someone for denying that the government has the right to mandate medical procedures?
And yet slashdot is supposed to get up in arms about government trampling on individual rights?
My mind is boggling.
Fuck ethics. Fuck individual rights. If something is for the betterment of the species, it should get done.
I seem to remember a number of governments who thought the same way....
Those all turned out lovely, by the way.
Requiring immunization is fundamentally no different than requiring people not dump their raw sewage on the curb
Not really, it isnt. I dont think anyone has a problem saying "if you dont immunize your child, he/she cannot attend public school or libraries"; but saying "even if they are homeschooled, you MUST perform this medical procedure on your child" crosses a line.
Lets keep in mind that it is the parent's job to raise their kid, not the state's.