Sorry, but there is fundamentally areas of gray in this.
We agree on this. We are clearly in a shady area here. My principle says that I have to error on the side of freedom, religious freedom in this case. So like it or not, in the absence of a really compelling argument, you pick freedom...
Do parents have a right to ritually mutilate their children? Maybe (circumcision). Maybe not (female genital mutilation). Can you explain to me why religious freedom prevails in one of these cases and not the other? Can you produce a hard-and-fast rule that generalizes the answer for other similar issues?
Parental rights and religious freedom do have limits. I would draw the line for all parental rights question at "immediate danger of harm". Meaning that unless the parent's choice puts the child in imamate danger of harm, the state must not intervene. Lacking vaccinations does not generally present an immediate danger to the child so the parent has the right to choose, especially if there is a religious objection. Allowing a child to handle snakes or take drugs as part of a religious practice DOES present an immediate danger of harm and thus could be prevented by the state.
However, as with most rights, and how you draw the lines between what you are allowed to do, the state must have an iron clad reason which is compelling before they put limits on individuals rights and we must always error on the side of too much freedom.
You missed the part where he pays private school tuition right?
I don't think he's complaining about paying his taxes, but about being dinged twice (taxes then tuition) for the right to exercise his religious choice.
First, it IS an assault on religious freedom despite what proponents will tell you.
Baloney. Your religious rights do not and should not extend to the point where you can transmit dangerous and easily preventable pathogens compromising public safety. You can believe whatever looney nonsense you want as long as it does not hurt others. Claiming religious exemption to vaccination demonstrably hurts other people and therefore should be illegal.
Where I see your point (And I use this when I argue with the AntiVaxers I know) But I don't agree on principle. If I can make the argument that you have to do X because it puts others at risk and that gives me the right to demand you do X, we are on a VERY slippery slope. Where does this end?
In this case you are making the argument from a very weak place, at least legally. For a specific case, there is no way you can know that a vaccination would have made a difference. Usually you cannot even tell for sure that the infection came though a specific unvaccinated host. Sure the statistics are clear, but the specifics are NOT. I think that makes your blustery argument pretty weak. Then you couple that with the long standing religious objections of some religions in the country, which makes this a pretty clear stepping on religious rights. It is the principle of the thing.
Again, I advocate for vaccinations, but I must support the principle of religious objections because it is among the founding principles of our country and your argument based on public health is weak at best.
if you can dismiss long standing religious objections to vaccinations on various grounds then there truly is little left that is sacred to religious liberty.
You say that like it's a bad thing:-)
You say that with a smile on your face? What is this county coming to? If history is any indication of what happens when attitudes like this one of yours pervade society, it won't be good.
However in this case there are LONG STANDING religious belief systems that would object to vaccines for various reasons.
Don't care and neither should you.
Full stop. You have tipped your hand in a bad way. You don't believe in ANY religious freedom, except perhaps for what you agree with. This is wrong headed.
I'll caution you, learn from history. Rights and freedoms don't just end all at once, it is a slow progression of encroachments like this one, fueled by attitudes like yours that don't recognize the danger because you happen to agree with the cause. Eventually freedom is lost, not because it is taken, but because it is given up though thousands of "there should be a law" or "For the children" arguments that lead to laws like this one.
Hopefully you can see what I'm driving at. I'm not *supporting* the anti-Vaxers (I personally think it's a good idea) but I am supporting the freedom to choose. This is about freedom...
There are limits so I guess it's dependent on where you draw the line of parental rights.
Personally, I draw the line at "immediate danger of harm" meaning that unless the child is being put in immediate danger of harm, the state may not step in and take over the role of a parent. This means kids of stupid parents, as long as the "stupid" doesn't cause immediate harm to the kids, have to stay with their parents. As much as I don't like it, this means being able to choose not to vaccinate is allowed as it is not an immediate danger to the kids.
I'm not sure how you choose to draw that line, but I'm not sure how you can draw any other logical line and preserve parental rights and religious freedom in parenting.
I hear your point, but it's still not valid to force people into this.
Is it valid for you to force your diseases on the population without their consent? I would say no.
What are you talking about? I personally don't object to vaccinations. I've had mine and my children have had all the recommended ones. I'm not advocating that people not take them, quite the opposite. I've had a number of arguments with the Anti-Vaxers I know and they didn't like what I had to say. All I'm doing here is supporting their right to be wrong about this.
People must be free to do even stupid things, or we don't really have freedom. You cannot protect everybody from foolishness though some law, you cannot legislate morality. You must allow freedom, even if you don't agree with the reasons people use for doing what they do.
Again, the issue in this case is that your stupidity has significant impact on others,
No, I'm only supporting the right to a religious objection. As I said before, I would recommend that everybody get their vaccinations.
Start affecting other people (who don't share your beliefs) against their will? Sorry. I can't support that.
I see your point and I use this very argument with the AntiVaxers. However, religious freedom DOES mean that I have to put up with other's seeming foolishness and others put me in danger everyday. We cannot keep people from doing stupid things that endanger others, say like driving on bald tires in the rain, or driving too fast for road conditions and pass me on the right.
However, as I've point out to others. There are long standing religious beliefs which are not uncommon in this country that would have a person choose not to vaccinate. It MUST be their right to choose for them and their children, or we are stepping on religious freedom.
Look, I strongly argue with people I know who refuse to vaccinate. I think they are usually misinformed and are making a mistake. However, I also recognize that THEY have the choice, and where I encourage them to vaccinate their kids, I must support their right to choose differently than I would.
Again, by not vaccinating your kids, you are taking away choice from other people beyond yourself and your kid(s).
Nowhere have I said I didn't vaccinate my kids or that I would support the arguments against vaccination. My kids where vaccinated as recommended. So your argument doesn't apply to me.
After all, it takes a village to raise a kid... Let's just take the kids away for the state to raise at birth... Parent's make stupid choices sometimes.
(Sarcasm off)
So now you want kids to be wards of the state from the moment of birth?
I know that's not what you are saying, but it IS the logical place you end up using the "parents do stupid things and endanger their kids" argument. Are kids better off being raised by parents or should we just round them all up and have the state raise them using experts? I've read some history, this kind of thinking never works out well.
I'm not sure what the stem cell thing is, but I'm guessing that they object to how stem cells are produced in some cases. They would argue that the use of embryos (or even just the unfertilized component part of one) is enough to constitute a murder. (And this is a MAJOR world religion I'm pointing at.)
However, there are religious groups that object to blood transfusions, the use of "modern" technology like cars, phones and a whole host of things that most find silly. These beliefs are long standing and would preclude the use of vaccinations on religious grounds.
Like it or not, agree with them or not, this law encroaches on some religious freedoms for some. As such, it should not become law. But this is California....
No, this doesn't have to be the limit.. In fact, if you can dismiss long standing religious objections to vaccinations on various grounds then there truly is little left that is sacred to religious liberty.
religiously founded or not, where MY right to not be exposed to deadly infections in civil society begins.
I have NO PROBLEM limiting freedom of religion for the defense of society. As someone pointed out, freedom of religion is NOT an unlimited right.
What civil society is free from deadly infections? People die from COLDS and Flu you know...
Religious freedom is NO limited, on that you are correct. However in this case there are LONG STANDING religious belief systems that would object to vaccines for various reasons. If this doesn't represent a valid objection reason to you on religious grounds, I'm not sure what does in your view. Remember Hobby Lobby? This is a similar issue. California simply doesn't have the power to do this.
I hear your point, but it's still not valid to force people into this.
People must be free to do even stupid things, or we don't really have freedom. You cannot protect everybody from foolishness though some law, you cannot legislate morality. You must allow freedom, even if you don't agree with the reasons people use for doing what they do.
Look, I strongly argue with people I know who refuse to vaccinate. I think they are usually misinformed and are making a mistake. However, I also recognize that THEY have the choice, and where I encourage them to vaccinate their kids, I must support their right to choose differently than I would.
You and I can argue about if it is or not, but it doesn't matter. First, this is Slashdot, Nothing really gets settled here. Second, this is now a political issue, so the debate will rage on, especially during election cycles. Finally, it is a question for the courts which will be argued by lawyers and adjudicated by judges, none of which likely read or care what to semi-anonymous posters on Slashdot decided, even if we came to some agreement.
Personally doesn't matter to me. First, I don't live in California nor plan to. Second, I didn't put my kids in public schools when they where that age. So I have no dogs in this hunt and never will, but I do see it as an attack on religious liberty, albeit the freedoms of others. Your opinion can differ, but don't expect me to care that much.
Where I'm all for vaccinations and had my children vaccinated as their doctor recommended, not allowing for a religious exception is a bad idea for a number of reasons.
First, it IS an assault on religious freedom despite what proponents will tell you. You may think people with religious objections to vaccination (one or all of them) are nuts (and they may very well be) but that does not give the government the right to violate their freedom to do stupid things. It's called liberty. You may not like other's choices, but you MUST give them the choice.
But, more to the point, failing to put this exemption into the law will open it up to constitutional challenge. Such challenges will likely be successful.
Mark my words. This law will not stand... It might take 10 years, but this law will be struck down.
Teaching something is in itself not illegal (usually). However, teaching someone how to better break the law is called being an accessary to a crime.
Let me put it this way.
Teaching someone to shoot a gun and taking them to the range for target practice is perfectly legal, even if they go home and shoot their wife with the knowledge you gave them.
IF this person says "Teach me how to shoot so I can kill my wife!" and you take them out to the range and teach them to shoot, you become an accessary to the crime when they go home and shoot their wife.
No one should be coerced to plead guilty against the threat of huge sanctions.
Prosecutions are stacked against the defendant, particularly federal prosecutions. They are alone with their own resources against buildings full of government lawyers drawing a salary, with no incentive to seek justice, just convictions to pad their stats.
What you describe is professional misconduct for a prosecutor and they face sanctions if they engage in what you claim. They can loose their law license, their jobs and be charged with a serious crime for overcharging in order to plea bargain from a stronger position.
You see, overcharging is a recipe for getting yourself in trouble, big trouble. Where I'm sure there are cases where this has happened (like in Baltimore a few weeks ago and with the Zimmerman trial a few years back) it is seldom going to net you the desired outcome as a prosecutor. And as soon as word hits the street that you do this, nobody will deal with you anymore, take their chances at trial because you simply cannot prove charge for the bigger crime, gumming up the works and getting loads of folks off because you don't have the resources to give them a "speedy trial" so you will end up dropping a lot of charges, which looks bad. You will also loose a lot of your cases, which looks bad too.
Not nearly true... They ask you a series of questions that you know in advance and nothing the operator says need be taken personally. If they do anything else, it's not really a polygraph.
The man has to plead guilty for telling the truth. Lie test is just a scam to begin with, and the guy is just instructing people how to beat the scam.
Polygraphs are NOT scams, they are but a tool you can use to try and determine if somebody is lying or not. But like any tool, they have their limitations. Just like that stud finder in your tool box sometimes doesn't show the stud, or may report one that's not really there, polygraphs may have false triggers and fail to spot the real thing.
If you are intent on getting away with your lie, you don't beat the polygraph really, you trick the operator who's using the polygraph. He was training folks the methods you can use to fool the operator to not be able to calibrate the tool, or to fail to properly interpret the results by supplying confusing readings... It is the operator you are fooling, not the device.
How many of the "fraudulent" 70% are from small children who are given an old cell phone to play with.
How many parents don't know that any cell phone which previously had service can make 911 calls? How many of these just get handed to Jr. to shut him up when he's begging to play with Mom's smart phone? How many times does Jr. manage to press the right buttons to dial 911? I'm guessing it's a lot..
What if NSI phones when dialing 911 need to listen to a 2 second message indicating they're about to be put in touch with emergency services and to hang up if they do not need emergency services and otherwise to press 1 to continue. It's 1 extra button push and might filter out butt dials and other mistakes.
And small children who are playing with the "old" phone...
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but there is fundamentally areas of gray in this.
We agree on this. We are clearly in a shady area here. My principle says that I have to error on the side of freedom, religious freedom in this case. So like it or not, in the absence of a really compelling argument, you pick freedom...
Do parents have a right to ritually mutilate their children? Maybe (circumcision). Maybe not (female genital mutilation). Can you explain to me why religious freedom prevails in one of these cases and not the other? Can you produce a hard-and-fast rule that generalizes the answer for other similar issues?
Parental rights and religious freedom do have limits. I would draw the line for all parental rights question at "immediate danger of harm". Meaning that unless the parent's choice puts the child in imamate danger of harm, the state must not intervene. Lacking vaccinations does not generally present an immediate danger to the child so the parent has the right to choose, especially if there is a religious objection. Allowing a child to handle snakes or take drugs as part of a religious practice DOES present an immediate danger of harm and thus could be prevented by the state.
However, as with most rights, and how you draw the lines between what you are allowed to do, the state must have an iron clad reason which is compelling before they put limits on individuals rights and we must always error on the side of too much freedom.
You know, you MIGHT have an argument except for the truancy laws... School is mandatory in some form for all children of school age.
You missed the part where he pays private school tuition right?
I don't think he's complaining about paying his taxes, but about being dinged twice (taxes then tuition) for the right to exercise his religious choice.
First, it IS an assault on religious freedom despite what proponents will tell you.
Baloney. Your religious rights do not and should not extend to the point where you can transmit dangerous and easily preventable pathogens compromising public safety. You can believe whatever looney nonsense you want as long as it does not hurt others. Claiming religious exemption to vaccination demonstrably hurts other people and therefore should be illegal.
Where I see your point (And I use this when I argue with the AntiVaxers I know) But I don't agree on principle. If I can make the argument that you have to do X because it puts others at risk and that gives me the right to demand you do X, we are on a VERY slippery slope. Where does this end?
In this case you are making the argument from a very weak place, at least legally. For a specific case, there is no way you can know that a vaccination would have made a difference. Usually you cannot even tell for sure that the infection came though a specific unvaccinated host. Sure the statistics are clear, but the specifics are NOT. I think that makes your blustery argument pretty weak. Then you couple that with the long standing religious objections of some religions in the country, which makes this a pretty clear stepping on religious rights. It is the principle of the thing.
Again, I advocate for vaccinations, but I must support the principle of religious objections because it is among the founding principles of our country and your argument based on public health is weak at best.
if you can dismiss long standing religious objections to vaccinations on various grounds then there truly is little left that is sacred to religious liberty.
You say that like it's a bad thing :-)
You say that with a smile on your face? What is this county coming to? If history is any indication of what happens when attitudes like this one of yours pervade society, it won't be good.
However in this case there are LONG STANDING religious belief systems that would object to vaccines for various reasons.
Don't care and neither should you.
Full stop. You have tipped your hand in a bad way. You don't believe in ANY religious freedom, except perhaps for what you agree with. This is wrong headed.
I'll caution you, learn from history. Rights and freedoms don't just end all at once, it is a slow progression of encroachments like this one, fueled by attitudes like yours that don't recognize the danger because you happen to agree with the cause. Eventually freedom is lost, not because it is taken, but because it is given up though thousands of "there should be a law" or "For the children" arguments that lead to laws like this one.
Hopefully you can see what I'm driving at. I'm not *supporting* the anti-Vaxers (I personally think it's a good idea) but I am supporting the freedom to choose. This is about freedom...
There are limits so I guess it's dependent on where you draw the line of parental rights.
Personally, I draw the line at "immediate danger of harm" meaning that unless the child is being put in immediate danger of harm, the state may not step in and take over the role of a parent. This means kids of stupid parents, as long as the "stupid" doesn't cause immediate harm to the kids, have to stay with their parents. As much as I don't like it, this means being able to choose not to vaccinate is allowed as it is not an immediate danger to the kids.
I'm not sure how you choose to draw that line, but I'm not sure how you can draw any other logical line and preserve parental rights and religious freedom in parenting.
Technically, ink jets use an extrusion process too, but they print... Maybe he was talking about the TP?
Sorry, bad joke.. Back to work..
It's a Sensor HOUSING, not the sensor that goes in it.
[X] Can Opener
I hear your point, but it's still not valid to force people into this.
Is it valid for you to force your diseases on the population without their consent? I would say no.
What are you talking about? I personally don't object to vaccinations. I've had mine and my children have had all the recommended ones. I'm not advocating that people not take them, quite the opposite. I've had a number of arguments with the Anti-Vaxers I know and they didn't like what I had to say. All I'm doing here is supporting their right to be wrong about this.
People must be free to do even stupid things, or we don't really have freedom. You cannot protect everybody from foolishness though some law, you cannot legislate morality. You must allow freedom, even if you don't agree with the reasons people use for doing what they do.
Again, the issue in this case is that your stupidity has significant impact on others,
No, I'm only supporting the right to a religious objection. As I said before, I would recommend that everybody get their vaccinations.
Start affecting other people (who don't share your beliefs) against their will? Sorry. I can't support that.
I see your point and I use this very argument with the AntiVaxers. However, religious freedom DOES mean that I have to put up with other's seeming foolishness and others put me in danger everyday. We cannot keep people from doing stupid things that endanger others, say like driving on bald tires in the rain, or driving too fast for road conditions and pass me on the right.
However, as I've point out to others. There are long standing religious beliefs which are not uncommon in this country that would have a person choose not to vaccinate. It MUST be their right to choose for them and their children, or we are stepping on religious freedom.
Look, I strongly argue with people I know who refuse to vaccinate. I think they are usually misinformed and are making a mistake. However, I also recognize that THEY have the choice, and where I encourage them to vaccinate their kids, I must support their right to choose differently than I would.
Again, by not vaccinating your kids, you are taking away choice from other people beyond yourself and your kid(s).
Nowhere have I said I didn't vaccinate my kids or that I would support the arguments against vaccination. My kids where vaccinated as recommended. So your argument doesn't apply to me.
(Sarcasm on)
After all, it takes a village to raise a kid... Let's just take the kids away for the state to raise at birth... Parent's make stupid choices sometimes.
(Sarcasm off)
So now you want kids to be wards of the state from the moment of birth?
I know that's not what you are saying, but it IS the logical place you end up using the "parents do stupid things and endanger their kids" argument. Are kids better off being raised by parents or should we just round them all up and have the state raise them using experts? I've read some history, this kind of thinking never works out well.
I'm not sure what the stem cell thing is, but I'm guessing that they object to how stem cells are produced in some cases. They would argue that the use of embryos (or even just the unfertilized component part of one) is enough to constitute a murder. (And this is a MAJOR world religion I'm pointing at.)
However, there are religious groups that object to blood transfusions, the use of "modern" technology like cars, phones and a whole host of things that most find silly. These beliefs are long standing and would preclude the use of vaccinations on religious grounds.
Like it or not, agree with them or not, this law encroaches on some religious freedoms for some. As such, it should not become law. But this is California....
No, this doesn't have to be the limit.. In fact, if you can dismiss long standing religious objections to vaccinations on various grounds then there truly is little left that is sacred to religious liberty.
Feel free to disagree.... You will just be wrong.
religiously founded or not, where MY right to not be exposed to deadly infections in civil society begins.
I have NO PROBLEM limiting freedom of religion for the defense of society. As someone pointed out, freedom of religion is NOT an unlimited right.
What civil society is free from deadly infections? People die from COLDS and Flu you know...
Religious freedom is NO limited, on that you are correct. However in this case there are LONG STANDING religious belief systems that would object to vaccines for various reasons. If this doesn't represent a valid objection reason to you on religious grounds, I'm not sure what does in your view. Remember Hobby Lobby? This is a similar issue. California simply doesn't have the power to do this.
I hear your point, but it's still not valid to force people into this.
People must be free to do even stupid things, or we don't really have freedom. You cannot protect everybody from foolishness though some law, you cannot legislate morality. You must allow freedom, even if you don't agree with the reasons people use for doing what they do.
Look, I strongly argue with people I know who refuse to vaccinate. I think they are usually misinformed and are making a mistake. However, I also recognize that THEY have the choice, and where I encourage them to vaccinate their kids, I must support their right to choose differently than I would.
You and I can argue about if it is or not, but it doesn't matter. First, this is Slashdot, Nothing really gets settled here. Second, this is now a political issue, so the debate will rage on, especially during election cycles. Finally, it is a question for the courts which will be argued by lawyers and adjudicated by judges, none of which likely read or care what to semi-anonymous posters on Slashdot decided, even if we came to some agreement.
Personally doesn't matter to me. First, I don't live in California nor plan to. Second, I didn't put my kids in public schools when they where that age. So I have no dogs in this hunt and never will, but I do see it as an attack on religious liberty, albeit the freedoms of others. Your opinion can differ, but don't expect me to care that much.
Where I'm all for vaccinations and had my children vaccinated as their doctor recommended, not allowing for a religious exception is a bad idea for a number of reasons.
First, it IS an assault on religious freedom despite what proponents will tell you. You may think people with religious objections to vaccination (one or all of them) are nuts (and they may very well be) but that does not give the government the right to violate their freedom to do stupid things. It's called liberty. You may not like other's choices, but you MUST give them the choice.
But, more to the point, failing to put this exemption into the law will open it up to constitutional challenge. Such challenges will likely be successful.
Mark my words. This law will not stand... It might take 10 years, but this law will be struck down.
Teaching something is in itself not illegal (usually). However, teaching someone how to better break the law is called being an accessary to a crime.
Let me put it this way.
Teaching someone to shoot a gun and taking them to the range for target practice is perfectly legal, even if they go home and shoot their wife with the knowledge you gave them.
IF this person says "Teach me how to shoot so I can kill my wife!" and you take them out to the range and teach them to shoot, you become an accessary to the crime when they go home and shoot their wife.
You see, it's your intent that matters...
No one should be coerced to plead guilty against the threat of huge sanctions.
Prosecutions are stacked against the defendant, particularly federal prosecutions. They are alone with their own resources against buildings full of government lawyers drawing a salary, with no incentive to seek justice, just convictions to pad their stats.
What you describe is professional misconduct for a prosecutor and they face sanctions if they engage in what you claim. They can loose their law license, their jobs and be charged with a serious crime for overcharging in order to plea bargain from a stronger position.
You see, overcharging is a recipe for getting yourself in trouble, big trouble. Where I'm sure there are cases where this has happened (like in Baltimore a few weeks ago and with the Zimmerman trial a few years back) it is seldom going to net you the desired outcome as a prosecutor. And as soon as word hits the street that you do this, nobody will deal with you anymore, take their chances at trial because you simply cannot prove charge for the bigger crime, gumming up the works and getting loads of folks off because you don't have the resources to give them a "speedy trial" so you will end up dropping a lot of charges, which looks bad. You will also loose a lot of your cases, which looks bad too.
What spy novels are you reading...
Not nearly true... They ask you a series of questions that you know in advance and nothing the operator says need be taken personally. If they do anything else, it's not really a polygraph.
The man has to plead guilty for telling the truth. Lie test is just a scam to begin with, and the guy is just instructing people how to beat the scam.
Polygraphs are NOT scams, they are but a tool you can use to try and determine if somebody is lying or not. But like any tool, they have their limitations. Just like that stud finder in your tool box sometimes doesn't show the stud, or may report one that's not really there, polygraphs may have false triggers and fail to spot the real thing.
If you are intent on getting away with your lie, you don't beat the polygraph really, you trick the operator who's using the polygraph. He was training folks the methods you can use to fool the operator to not be able to calibrate the tool, or to fail to properly interpret the results by supplying confusing readings... It is the operator you are fooling, not the device.
Ahww That stinks you know...
How many of the "fraudulent" 70% are from small children who are given an old cell phone to play with.
How many parents don't know that any cell phone which previously had service can make 911 calls? How many of these just get handed to Jr. to shut him up when he's begging to play with Mom's smart phone? How many times does Jr. manage to press the right buttons to dial 911? I'm guessing it's a lot..
What if NSI phones when dialing 911 need to listen to a 2 second message indicating they're about to be put in touch with emergency services and to hang up if they do not need emergency services and otherwise to press 1 to continue. It's 1 extra button push and might filter out butt dials and other mistakes.
And small children who are playing with the "old" phone...