I think it's pretty absurd to speculate about whether George Washington would have wanted John Doe to be able to own an AK-47 in a world where a national military faces off against other nations with F-16s and stealth bombers.
You can think that all you'd like, but you'd be more wrong than you know...
For all our military might, how effective was our modern weapons in Vietnam against a guy on a bicycle with an AK-47?
Answer: Not very...
How is Syria doing today against rebels with Toyota pickup trucks with machine guns mounted on the back? Syria has gunship helicopters, fighter bombers, and tanks.
Answer: 4 years later, the rebels are doing just fine, all things considered...
An armed population is a good thing, a disarmed population is a bunch of sheep.
My tax supports public schools, and I dont have kids. Where do I get my refund?
You don't get it, or you're choosing to ignore it.
Having an educated population does benefit you, which is why you have to pay for it.
If you choose to have kids, you'll have the right to send them to public school, free of charge.
No, public schooll can have rules. one of those rules can be you must be vaccinated, if medically safe to do so.
Which public schools have such a rule? I don't know of one, but I'm all ears if you can find one.
If you dont want to abide by those rules, you dont have to go, but you are not getting a refund. After all, you have chosen to exclude yourself.
No, it was not a choice to exclude, it was banishment by decree. In compensation for that banishment, compensation is due. Either in the form of money, or a voucher to pay for school somewhere else.
It is the same as trying to have a rule saying that vegetarians can't attend public school. After all, they are making the choice to not eat meat, so they are excluding themselves, right? No, that is absurd. You should know this, but if you don't, well fair enough, but you're still wrong.
My taxes pay for a lot of things I don't want, and in many cases don't use.
True, but they also benefit you. However you took my point out into left field.
I pay taxes to support universal education and public schools. Anyone who has children has the right to send their child to school, free of charge.
You're suggesting that right be removed, because of something that you don't like, without compensation.
You don't think this is any big deal, but it really is.
If you send an unvaccinated kid to school, you're endangering other people.
And if I send them to the mall, you could make the same point, but that isn't going to get banned. Worse, there are plenty of adults in the world who aren't vaccinated who you'll come across, and you can't exclude them either.
If you're arguing for what the Founders intended we should have, you should be arguing to disband the military as well.
Yes, in general I would agree with that. We have built up a military so large and so expensive, that we keep finding uses for it, even when it isn't the right solution.
Whenever something happens in the world, our first reaction these days seems to be "bomb them". But that often makes it worse, not better.
Personally, my studies of history have shown very few examples of successful civil resistance* against almost any armed force.
How is Bashar Al-Assad doing at crushing the rebels in Syria? How well did the US military do in Vietnam? How well did the USSR do against Afghanistan?
Yes, I'm aware that all had or have some outside help, but they are still massively outgunned. What they have is numbers and generally at least some local support of the people.
I believe that to defend a country, you need an army, and a couple centuries of American politicians seem to agree with me.
A small army, perhaps something like the National Guard units in each state. In the event of a major war, Congress could request each state send forces to the national Army to bolster its small ranks and you'd be able to deal with the problem.
Given globalization and modern technology, you probably need at least some standing Army, but perhaps it could be 10% of the current size. That, along with national guard units, could be used for short term direct threats to the US, longer term you can build up forces if needed.
The problem, as I said before, is when everyone has standing armies, they tend to get used sooner or later. If we're ever to get rid of war as a solution to problems, we also have to get rid of large armies. War is stupid, we really shouldn't be killing each other in the name of the state.
On that basis, I believe the Second Amendment to be deeply flawed, and while it has been restricted and reinterpreted by Congress and the courts, we should probably formalize those restrictions with another amendment.
It is flawed, in that modern people forget why it was written and read into it things that aren't there. Let me give you a quote from the US Supreme Court:
"The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
The Second Amendment should be changed to have wording closer to the First Amendment, perhaps we could use what in the New Hampshire Constitution:
"All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state."
And lots of gun violence... And Obama was asked about that during the ton hall meeting and his answer was crap, he basically said that you have to give the laws more time to work, like 20 or 30 years more time.
I say get rid of pennies, nickels, and dimes. I volunteer at a coffee house whose prices (incl. tax) are all multiples of $0.25. Both customers and volunteers love it. (They accept lower denominations as payment, but don't keep them in the register.)
^ This, all this...
Pennies, nickels, and dimes, really serve little purpose anymore. You can do electronic transactions to the penny, but there is little need to keep these three coins around.
Well I think that pretty much says it all, doesn't it. You have a completely irrational fear of vaccines, or needles, or the government, or whatever, and you have no logical defense for your reprehensible refusal to do one simple fucking thing that you don't like for the benefit of the rest of society, 'cuz freedoms and brownshirts or whatever. Libertarianism at its finest.
You might be surprised at how much I *DO* support various government rules about other stuff.
For example, I don't believe that I have any right to dump motor oil into a river. That is harming other people and while it saves me the cost of recycling it, it messes up the planet and we need rules to stop people from doing that.
But that is an external thing that limits my actions. You're restricting me from polluting the environment because it harms everyone.
Requiring me to get a vaccine is an internal thing that makes me DO an action. You're telling me that I MUST do a thing, and that I must do it to MYSELF.
There are occupations where you need to be vaccinated, if possible.
And actually I don't have a problem with that.
I totally get why a hospital might require all of its employees to get vaccinated.
The difference is, I don't have to work there.
I don't get a choice in my government. There is a mile of difference between a private employer saying "due to health reasons, if you wish to work here, you must be vaccinated", and the US Government saying "regardless of how you feel, we're going to take you by force, strap you to a table, and inject you against your will and there is nothing you can do about it".
I really, really hope you can see the difference between those two.
Why should we have to pay for special education for children whose parents, for no good reason, refuse to have them vaccinated?
Two points:
First, I'm paying too. If you're saying I get a refund of those tax dollars that went to education, then fine.
Second, you saying "no good reason" isn't true. You're making a judgement based on your viewpoint and opinion. My beliefs are "good reason enough".
Why should we let you work in any people contact job?
Who is this "we"? Last time I checked, I'm part of that "we". What you're missing is that you really want to be the decider, you want to rule other people's lives to such an extent that you use force to tell them how to live.
It is like the law in New York about the max size of a soft drink (since overturned by the courts). While the law was passed with the very best of intentions, the law was wrong. Telling people how to life is generally a really bad idea. It probably sounds good when it is YOUR way to live, but what happens when the shoe is on the other foot?
2) The "my body, my right" tugs at our feelings of freedom and individualism, but it's really not as secure a stance as it seems, because there are numerous examples where the greater good of society trumps an individuals rights (like traffic laws, selective service enrollment, voting laws, drugs, firearms, etc.). For vaccinations specifically real public health benefits are the herd immunity effect and I already touched on the slippery slope with children. Don't be shocked if someday society (i.e. government) decides vaccination benefits outweigh individual rights.
Driving is not a right, so traffic laws are perfectly reasonable.
Selective service (the draft) is evil and I'm glad it is gone. Any government that tells me "you have to serve or else" is one to fight against, not for.
Most drug laws are stupid. If I were President tomorrow, I'd pardon every single non-violent drug offender in prison. Going to jail because you smoke weed or snort cocaine is the dumbest idea of the century. You need treatment, not prison.
Most firearm laws are evil. Law abiding citizens don't commit crimes with guns, criminals don't care about gun laws. Just go to Chicago and ask the gangs there if they care about all the harsh gun laws they have. Then come to Texas and ask us why we don't have the gun violence problem Chicago does, yet we have far more liberal gun laws.
Don't be shocked if someday society (i.e. government) decides vaccination benefits outweigh individual rights.
I say this with all seriousness and without any snark.
If that day comes, it'll be time for another revolution. The day the government decides that it has the right to strap me to a table and inject whatever it wants into me because it deems it best, is the day to remove that government by force.
1) The "my body, my right" argument works for [US] citizens 18 years or older, however, most vaccinations occur in childhood with parental authorization. Let's just be clear that for many anti-vaxxers this argument is actually "my body, my child's body, my right." Is it fair that a child could suffer and possibly die from a preventable disease because of a parent's ignorance or negligence about vaccines? (That's a rhetorical question that the larger society may weigh in on someday)
First, thanks for the polite response. I'll try my best to return the favor.
To reply to the above, let me say that it is part of a larger question of, "what rights do parents have to raise their children as they see fit, vs. how everyone else sees fit?"
Can I raise my child as a Christian? A Pagan? Something else? Can I raise them to never eat meat? Always eat meat? What beliefs and values can I instill in them?
What about the Amish? Are they not hurting their children by not exposing them to modern society? What if I teach my kids that medicine in general is bad and to let God decide?
What makes you right and me wrong when it comes to such things? It is a very dangerous idea to suggest that government should be picking and choosing how to raise your kids. Look at what happened in China 50 years ago when people were pulled from their homes and sent to the countryside by the government by force and told they were now going to be a farmer or whatever, and they had no say.
The idea that the government will protect us is a noble one, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Let me toss another thought. When my kids get sick, I don't instantly take them to see a doctor, unless they have a 104 degree temp. Generally chicken soup, some rest, and love, is enough for most colds and such. Of course, if the fever gets really bad or they have serious symptoms, I'm not against going to a doctor. But generally I think medicine is overused.
Do you want to take my kids away from me for that? Because antibiotics aren't my "go-to" solution for every cold? Where do you draw the line when it comes to my child's health? What if I feed them too many cheeseburgers and they get fat? Should the government be telling parents what food they can serve their kids and if it isn't healthy enough, away the kids go?
And what is their response to someone saying "I won't submit to your tyranny!"? That you must remove yourself from 'their' society, just as our ancestors were forced to. They can't even understand the disgusting irony of the situation.
Quoted for truth...
Amen, you speak the truth of the situation, and you're right, it is so sad that the irony sails so far over their heads.
Compulsory vaccination does not mean G-men strapping you down for the needle. It works from the other end. It means that if you refuse to get your child vaccinated, then you need to home school them
If you're happy to pay for it, I would be fine with that option.
Or you can pay for private school, that is also fine.
It means that enough places institute policies requiring vaccines that it becomes overwhelmingly inconvenient for you to not have them.
"Papers please"? Is that what you want to hear? You want everyone to be required to walk around with a national ID card that has been stamped with "vaccinated" on it before you're allowed admission anywhere?
Then yes, you are absolutely liable for that. Criminally or civilly doesn't matter to me, but that shit is your fault for making a willfully negligent decision.
Thankfully saner people are in charge, because that is a load of crap. It is right up there with Italy holding scientists responsible for not predicting an earthquake.
Many schools have a vaccine requirement for entry - they don't want the presence of the contagious ones, endangering the entire student body.
I don't know of any public schools that actually require it, but I imagine you could find one, somewhere.
Our school system requires either that they be vaccinated, or that the parents sign a form that they are aware of it and have chosen for personal reasons to skip it.
But I would consider it equally valid self-defense for the rest of us to point guns at willingly unvaccinated individuals and tell them to keep the hell away from us
You have it backwards... We're not sick, we're simply at risk of getting sick... You pointing guns is an actual threat, one that legally can be responded to...
Schools are another matter: supposed your child shows up one day with the symptoms of smallpox. Should school officials (public or private) be prohibited from sending it home because of the danger to other students, simply because you're paying?
Any actively sick child of course should stay home until they get better. If a child has a cold, that child should stay home until better.
A child who simply lacks a vaccine is not sick.
If you wish to exclude all children who haven't been vaccinated, then you need to provide them with school vouchers so they can take that tax money to another school that is happy to have them.
Frankly, I think if we had such a system, public schools would get better due to competition from private schools. But that is another subject.
In any case, the whole school thing is missing the point. You meet adults in your life who haven't been vaccinated and don't even know it. The only way for you to avoid it is to remove yourself from society.
It takes serious patience to remain polite when those are the stakes and the opposition has dug in and is willing to move the goalposts no matter what evidence you bring to the table.
The flaw is in your very sentence...
"evidence"... This isn't ABOUT evidence...
You keep thinking you'll change people's minds with facts.
Let me be clear. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM.
There, happy?
Good, and I still don't care, and still don't want them in my body.
My body, my right.
----
Once you accept that point, then we can talk about it. Maybe I'll change my mind. Maybe you'll convince enough people to take them. That's fine, you can argue your pro points all you like, so long as you respect the right to refuse.
Do that, and we can be civil about it. Don't, and you're in for a fight, because you have no right to force the issue and you'll end up with violence resistance if you try.
I like a good public discourse on many subjects, but vaccination is public health issue and treating these sides like equal positions has the potential to do more harm to the public health than good.
That is a fair point... but it doesn't matter... you miss the key point...
My body, my right...
Do I think vaccines cause autism? No, that has clearly been debunked.
Do I have the right to refuse them anyway, because I don't want them? Yes, I do.
This isn't a debate (or shouldn't be) about the effects of vaccines, it is about what rights do you have as a human being.
For these people, I fully approve of skipping the vaccine. That's what herd immunity is for. However, it needs to be an actual medical condition and not "I'm not vaccinating my kids because they have Jenny-McCarthy-itis."
Then the question has to be... "or else what?"
So lets say that someone doesn't want it, just because... You don't approve of that, fair enough, but most people don't give a crap what you think.
Do you plan to try and use force? Strap people to tables against their will and inject them anyway?
I don't have much of a problem with, say, the compulsory smallpox vaccinations that used to occur, since willingly unvaccinated individuals would be putting me in huge danger simply by breathing the same air.
Your right to not be in danger does not remove my right to be secure in my body and self against forced government injections.
In other words, while I understand your concern, you don't get to harm me to keep yourself safe.
---
Here is the thing. Do I think the smallpox vacieene is effective? Yes, of course, it was amazingly effective.
However, do I think that people have the right to refuse it? Yes, they do.
Let me put this another way. If you think you have the right to force an injection into me, then I have the right to shoot you in self-defense.
---
Second point: Public Schools. I completely understand the concerns over public schools and vaccines. That being said, since my tax dollars support public schools, you can't just exclude my children because of your fears without compensating me.
However, that problem actually is easy to solve. Simply provide school vouchers, so that parents can send their kids to the school of their choice, using the tax dollars already set aside for them. If public schools want to ban kids who aren't vaccinated, fair enough, there will be private schools as options, and they can accept the vouchers
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's pretty absurd to speculate about whether George Washington would have wanted John Doe to be able to own an AK-47 in a world where a national military faces off against other nations with F-16s and stealth bombers.
You can think that all you'd like, but you'd be more wrong than you know...
For all our military might, how effective was our modern weapons in Vietnam against a guy on a bicycle with an AK-47?
Answer: Not very...
How is Syria doing today against rebels with Toyota pickup trucks with machine guns mounted on the back? Syria has gunship helicopters, fighter bombers, and tanks.
Answer: 4 years later, the rebels are doing just fine, all things considered...
An armed population is a good thing, a disarmed population is a bunch of sheep.
My tax supports public schools, and I dont have kids. Where do I get my refund?
You don't get it, or you're choosing to ignore it.
Having an educated population does benefit you, which is why you have to pay for it.
If you choose to have kids, you'll have the right to send them to public school, free of charge.
No, public schooll can have rules. one of those rules can be you must be vaccinated, if medically safe to do so.
Which public schools have such a rule? I don't know of one, but I'm all ears if you can find one.
If you dont want to abide by those rules, you dont have to go, but you are not getting a refund. After all, you have chosen to exclude yourself.
No, it was not a choice to exclude, it was banishment by decree. In compensation for that banishment, compensation is due. Either in the form of money, or a voucher to pay for school somewhere else.
It is the same as trying to have a rule saying that vegetarians can't attend public school. After all, they are making the choice to not eat meat, so they are excluding themselves, right? No, that is absurd. You should know this, but if you don't, well fair enough, but you're still wrong.
And you might want to learn what "gun" and "arms" meant in the 1700s.
Or you could read what the US Supreme Court has ruled in 2008 and 2010 and then you'd have even more of a clue.
You're on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of freedom and liberty. You don't even know that you're a Fascist.
My taxes pay for a lot of things I don't want, and in many cases don't use.
True, but they also benefit you. However you took my point out into left field.
I pay taxes to support universal education and public schools. Anyone who has children has the right to send their child to school, free of charge.
You're suggesting that right be removed, because of something that you don't like, without compensation.
You don't think this is any big deal, but it really is.
If you send an unvaccinated kid to school, you're endangering other people.
And if I send them to the mall, you could make the same point, but that isn't going to get banned. Worse, there are plenty of adults in the world who aren't vaccinated who you'll come across, and you can't exclude them either.
Your focus on schools is misguided.
If you're arguing for what the Founders intended we should have, you should be arguing to disband the military as well.
Yes, in general I would agree with that. We have built up a military so large and so expensive, that we keep finding uses for it, even when it isn't the right solution.
Whenever something happens in the world, our first reaction these days seems to be "bomb them". But that often makes it worse, not better.
Personally, my studies of history have shown very few examples of successful civil resistance* against almost any armed force.
How is Bashar Al-Assad doing at crushing the rebels in Syria? How well did the US military do in Vietnam? How well did the USSR do against Afghanistan?
Yes, I'm aware that all had or have some outside help, but they are still massively outgunned. What they have is numbers and generally at least some local support of the people.
I believe that to defend a country, you need an army, and a couple centuries of American politicians seem to agree with me.
A small army, perhaps something like the National Guard units in each state. In the event of a major war, Congress could request each state send forces to the national Army to bolster its small ranks and you'd be able to deal with the problem.
Given globalization and modern technology, you probably need at least some standing Army, but perhaps it could be 10% of the current size. That, along with national guard units, could be used for short term direct threats to the US, longer term you can build up forces if needed.
The problem, as I said before, is when everyone has standing armies, they tend to get used sooner or later. If we're ever to get rid of war as a solution to problems, we also have to get rid of large armies. War is stupid, we really shouldn't be killing each other in the name of the state.
On that basis, I believe the Second Amendment to be deeply flawed, and while it has been restricted and reinterpreted by Congress and the courts, we should probably formalize those restrictions with another amendment.
It is flawed, in that modern people forget why it was written and read into it things that aren't there. Let me give you a quote from the US Supreme Court:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
The Second Amendment should be changed to have wording closer to the First Amendment, perhaps we could use what in the New Hampshire Constitution:
"All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state."
If they are not vacinated; they should not be allowed to join society.
And how would you accomplish that?
Execute them? Build a glass box around their house and lock them in to die?
Your idea is not reasonable, not practical, and frankly it is rather evil.
And lots of gun violence... And Obama was asked about that during the ton hall meeting and his answer was crap, he basically said that you have to give the laws more time to work, like 20 or 30 years more time.
who were trained in drill and combat by the standards set by congress (that's the well regulated part)
No, it isn't... Well regulated meant well equipped and skilled in the use...
You have to read it in the time it was written, not 2016...
Even the US Supreme Court agrees with that...
That's fine, so long as the military has to do the same.
I say get rid of pennies, nickels, and dimes. I volunteer at a coffee house whose prices (incl. tax) are all multiples of $0.25. Both customers and volunteers love it. (They accept lower denominations as payment, but don't keep them in the register.)
^ This, all this...
Pennies, nickels, and dimes, really serve little purpose anymore. You can do electronic transactions to the penny, but there is little need to keep these three coins around.
Or, you know, interpret the second amendment as written and require gun owners to be part of a well regulated militia.
Or, you know, you could learn what "well regulated militia" meant in the 1700s and you could then buy a clue...
It doesn't mean what your 2016 brain thinks it means, BTW...
Well I think that pretty much says it all, doesn't it. You have a completely irrational fear of vaccines, or needles, or the government, or whatever, and you have no logical defense for your reprehensible refusal to do one simple fucking thing that you don't like for the benefit of the rest of society, 'cuz freedoms and brownshirts or whatever. Libertarianism at its finest.
You might be surprised at how much I *DO* support various government rules about other stuff.
For example, I don't believe that I have any right to dump motor oil into a river. That is harming other people and while it saves me the cost of recycling it, it messes up the planet and we need rules to stop people from doing that.
But that is an external thing that limits my actions. You're restricting me from polluting the environment because it harms everyone.
Requiring me to get a vaccine is an internal thing that makes me DO an action. You're telling me that I MUST do a thing, and that I must do it to MYSELF.
Yea, thanks but no thanks.
There are occupations where you need to be vaccinated, if possible.
And actually I don't have a problem with that.
I totally get why a hospital might require all of its employees to get vaccinated.
The difference is, I don't have to work there.
I don't get a choice in my government. There is a mile of difference between a private employer saying "due to health reasons, if you wish to work here, you must be vaccinated", and the US Government saying "regardless of how you feel, we're going to take you by force, strap you to a table, and inject you against your will and there is nothing you can do about it".
I really, really hope you can see the difference between those two.
Why should we have to pay for special education for children whose parents, for no good reason, refuse to have them vaccinated?
Two points:
First, I'm paying too. If you're saying I get a refund of those tax dollars that went to education, then fine.
Second, you saying "no good reason" isn't true. You're making a judgement based on your viewpoint and opinion. My beliefs are "good reason enough".
Why should we let you work in any people contact job?
Who is this "we"? Last time I checked, I'm part of that "we". What you're missing is that you really want to be the decider, you want to rule other people's lives to such an extent that you use force to tell them how to live.
It is like the law in New York about the max size of a soft drink (since overturned by the courts). While the law was passed with the very best of intentions, the law was wrong. Telling people how to life is generally a really bad idea. It probably sounds good when it is YOUR way to live, but what happens when the shoe is on the other foot?
2) The "my body, my right" tugs at our feelings of freedom and individualism, but it's really not as secure a stance as it seems, because there are numerous examples where the greater good of society trumps an individuals rights (like traffic laws, selective service enrollment, voting laws, drugs, firearms, etc.). For vaccinations specifically real public health benefits are the herd immunity effect and I already touched on the slippery slope with children. Don't be shocked if someday society (i.e. government) decides vaccination benefits outweigh individual rights.
Driving is not a right, so traffic laws are perfectly reasonable.
Selective service (the draft) is evil and I'm glad it is gone. Any government that tells me "you have to serve or else" is one to fight against, not for.
Most drug laws are stupid. If I were President tomorrow, I'd pardon every single non-violent drug offender in prison. Going to jail because you smoke weed or snort cocaine is the dumbest idea of the century. You need treatment, not prison.
Most firearm laws are evil. Law abiding citizens don't commit crimes with guns, criminals don't care about gun laws. Just go to Chicago and ask the gangs there if they care about all the harsh gun laws they have. Then come to Texas and ask us why we don't have the gun violence problem Chicago does, yet we have far more liberal gun laws.
Don't be shocked if someday society (i.e. government) decides vaccination benefits outweigh individual rights.
I say this with all seriousness and without any snark.
If that day comes, it'll be time for another revolution. The day the government decides that it has the right to strap me to a table and inject whatever it wants into me because it deems it best, is the day to remove that government by force.
1) The "my body, my right" argument works for [US] citizens 18 years or older, however, most vaccinations occur in childhood with parental authorization. Let's just be clear that for many anti-vaxxers this argument is actually "my body, my child's body, my right." Is it fair that a child could suffer and possibly die from a preventable disease because of a parent's ignorance or negligence about vaccines? (That's a rhetorical question that the larger society may weigh in on someday)
First, thanks for the polite response. I'll try my best to return the favor.
To reply to the above, let me say that it is part of a larger question of, "what rights do parents have to raise their children as they see fit, vs. how everyone else sees fit?"
Can I raise my child as a Christian? A Pagan? Something else? Can I raise them to never eat meat? Always eat meat? What beliefs and values can I instill in them?
What about the Amish? Are they not hurting their children by not exposing them to modern society? What if I teach my kids that medicine in general is bad and to let God decide?
What makes you right and me wrong when it comes to such things? It is a very dangerous idea to suggest that government should be picking and choosing how to raise your kids. Look at what happened in China 50 years ago when people were pulled from their homes and sent to the countryside by the government by force and told they were now going to be a farmer or whatever, and they had no say.
The idea that the government will protect us is a noble one, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Let me toss another thought. When my kids get sick, I don't instantly take them to see a doctor, unless they have a 104 degree temp. Generally chicken soup, some rest, and love, is enough for most colds and such. Of course, if the fever gets really bad or they have serious symptoms, I'm not against going to a doctor. But generally I think medicine is overused.
Do you want to take my kids away from me for that? Because antibiotics aren't my "go-to" solution for every cold? Where do you draw the line when it comes to my child's health? What if I feed them too many cheeseburgers and they get fat? Should the government be telling parents what food they can serve their kids and if it isn't healthy enough, away the kids go?
---
I'll reply to the rest in another post
And what is their response to someone saying "I won't submit to your tyranny!"? That you must remove yourself from 'their' society, just as our ancestors were forced to. They can't even understand the disgusting irony of the situation.
Quoted for truth...
Amen, you speak the truth of the situation, and you're right, it is so sad that the irony sails so far over their heads.
The ends don't justify the means, no matter how noble sounding your goals are.
Liberty and freedom are more important than you not getting sick.
Compulsory vaccination does not mean G-men strapping you down for the needle. It works from the other end. It means that if you refuse to get your child vaccinated, then you need to home school them
If you're happy to pay for it, I would be fine with that option.
Or you can pay for private school, that is also fine.
It means that enough places institute policies requiring vaccines that it becomes overwhelmingly inconvenient for you to not have them.
"Papers please"? Is that what you want to hear? You want everyone to be required to walk around with a national ID card that has been stamped with "vaccinated" on it before you're allowed admission anywhere?
Then yes, you are absolutely liable for that. Criminally or civilly doesn't matter to me, but that shit is your fault for making a willfully negligent decision.
Thankfully saner people are in charge, because that is a load of crap. It is right up there with Italy holding scientists responsible for not predicting an earthquake.
Many schools have a vaccine requirement for entry - they don't want the presence of the contagious ones, endangering the entire student body.
I don't know of any public schools that actually require it, but I imagine you could find one, somewhere.
Our school system requires either that they be vaccinated, or that the parents sign a form that they are aware of it and have chosen for personal reasons to skip it.
But I would consider it equally valid self-defense for the rest of us to point guns at willingly unvaccinated individuals and tell them to keep the hell away from us
You have it backwards... We're not sick, we're simply at risk of getting sick... You pointing guns is an actual threat, one that legally can be responded to...
Schools are another matter: supposed your child shows up one day with the symptoms of smallpox. Should school officials (public or private) be prohibited from sending it home because of the danger to other students, simply because you're paying?
Any actively sick child of course should stay home until they get better. If a child has a cold, that child should stay home until better.
A child who simply lacks a vaccine is not sick.
If you wish to exclude all children who haven't been vaccinated, then you need to provide them with school vouchers so they can take that tax money to another school that is happy to have them.
Frankly, I think if we had such a system, public schools would get better due to competition from private schools. But that is another subject.
In any case, the whole school thing is missing the point. You meet adults in your life who haven't been vaccinated and don't even know it. The only way for you to avoid it is to remove yourself from society.
It takes serious patience to remain polite when those are the stakes and the opposition has dug in and is willing to move the goalposts no matter what evidence you bring to the table.
The flaw is in your very sentence...
"evidence"... This isn't ABOUT evidence...
You keep thinking you'll change people's minds with facts.
Let me be clear. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM.
There, happy?
Good, and I still don't care, and still don't want them in my body.
My body, my right.
----
Once you accept that point, then we can talk about it. Maybe I'll change my mind. Maybe you'll convince enough people to take them. That's fine, you can argue your pro points all you like, so long as you respect the right to refuse.
Do that, and we can be civil about it. Don't, and you're in for a fight, because you have no right to force the issue and you'll end up with violence resistance if you try.
I like a good public discourse on many subjects, but vaccination is public health issue and treating these sides like equal positions has the potential to do more harm to the public health than good.
That is a fair point... but it doesn't matter... you miss the key point...
My body, my right...
Do I think vaccines cause autism? No, that has clearly been debunked.
Do I have the right to refuse them anyway, because I don't want them? Yes, I do.
This isn't a debate (or shouldn't be) about the effects of vaccines, it is about what rights do you have as a human being.
For these people, I fully approve of skipping the vaccine. That's what herd immunity is for. However, it needs to be an actual medical condition and not "I'm not vaccinating my kids because they have Jenny-McCarthy-itis."
Then the question has to be... "or else what?"
So lets say that someone doesn't want it, just because... You don't approve of that, fair enough, but most people don't give a crap what you think.
Do you plan to try and use force? Strap people to tables against their will and inject them anyway?
I don't have much of a problem with, say, the compulsory smallpox vaccinations that used to occur, since willingly unvaccinated individuals would be putting me in huge danger simply by breathing the same air.
Your right to not be in danger does not remove my right to be secure in my body and self against forced government injections.
In other words, while I understand your concern, you don't get to harm me to keep yourself safe.
---
Here is the thing. Do I think the smallpox vacieene is effective? Yes, of course, it was amazingly effective.
However, do I think that people have the right to refuse it? Yes, they do.
Let me put this another way. If you think you have the right to force an injection into me, then I have the right to shoot you in self-defense.
---
Second point: Public Schools. I completely understand the concerns over public schools and vaccines. That being said, since my tax dollars support public schools, you can't just exclude my children because of your fears without compensating me.
However, that problem actually is easy to solve. Simply provide school vouchers, so that parents can send their kids to the school of their choice, using the tax dollars already set aside for them. If public schools want to ban kids who aren't vaccinated, fair enough, there will be private schools as options, and they can accept the vouchers
I don't see what's wrong with the government forcing people to inject this particular stuff into their bodies.
Then you are a complete moron...