uh yes. they have language police, which means they don't get new words, and have to borrow from other languages a lot. for instance, there's no french word for webpage.
Not everyone automatically believes every study they read but when you've gotten more than a dozen studies proving something to the contrary when do you... just accept that the knowledge is sane? Do you not believe in anything until witnessed by your own eyes? Do you not trust your fellow man? What do they gain out of harming a child?
This is what I don't get, if the anti-vaccination camp really believes that we are forcing children to have a chance of Autism then in their mind they must think that the doctor's KNOW of the issue and are saying "I don't care, it's not my child". Doctor's are human just like the rest of us and are prone to mistakes but when you've had 50 years of research leading you down one path you need to come up with a pretty good reason to why we have to turn around and re-think something.
I don't want your kid to get sick, and I don't want you to make my kid sick. You can't "catch" Autism (that's insulting to those who fall along the spectrum), so why the push back against something we as a species have created for the greater good?:(
Because it's not just "a dozen studies and everybody should agree". Things aren't over and tons of studies have been wrong. Thalidomide. Asbestos. Tobacco.
To quote myself from a facebook conversation: " There is probably no nuanced opinion that applies correctly for everyone. But I'd like to see the choice and freedom for individuals to do what they want to remain (to whatever reasonable extent can exist)."
Now, we have 2 of the major anti-autism link scientists linked to fraud. And oh look! A video of the former CDC Chief saying vaccines trigger autism! I know the wiggle room here is "if they already have it, it's going to eventually be triggered", but yeah. Not everybody wants to take that chance. The autism rate is increasing crazily in our society - until science can adequately explain the cause, the only people who try to do anything about it will ALL be guessing, but that should still be their freedom.
It's not just "Anti-science RAWRRRRR". There are people examining the science (and politics), and making their own decisions. They are not all kneejerk decisions. People tend to think things over with their kids. I'm glad I don't have any.
Also, they now want 29 vaccines. The vaccines a child is expected to get has doubled since 'we' grew up in the 70s/80s. It's not simply "same business as always". And again, the flu kills 3K-30K every year, so why are they not mandatory by law, if saving human life at the expense of taking away control of someone's body is so compelling? Is this just a case of "Wave a child around and everyone loses their rationality"?
Man, it would be amazing if society could somehow, I dunno, maybe designate a person or two to make those decisions a two year old at the pediatrician's office can do. Perhaps it would make sense to select their biological parents?
Your whole post flies in the face of the fact that no criminal action was taken (because, as I asserted, no law was broken). This is a civil tort. I could sue you right now for your post. I'd lose, but I could. Torts can be done for any reason. Wrongful death being the reason. You could hurt my feelings, I kill myself, sue you for wrongful death. You'd have to pay a lot of money to not lose, too. i'm gonna go do that now {JOKE! JOKE! I'M JOKING!}
No, we didn't criminalize drugs because of trends, we criminalized them because of racism, and because we the people were told that they caused direct violent crime - if you smoked pot, you would pick up an axe and go on a rampage. If you did cocaine, you would rape a white woman. If you did opium, you would lay in a den until you died. (Okay, that one's not violent.) In this particular slashdot article, someone said, "if you don't get your kid vaccinated, he should have to live in a bubble". Going on an axe rampage is quite different from increasing the chance of babies getting a disease. Especially when you have to actually take the increase (not total) number of babies contracting this, and then divide that by the number of people who don't get vaccines to get each person's actual liability. It would likely be less than a puff of secondhand smoke.
Not sure what trend has to do with ehthanasia either.
And I'm saying it's not obvious. Observing a trend is as obvious as "more children die of drunk driving accidents in states where people drink more". We don't override peoples' basic right to their body based on a fucking trend.
Now, the flu kills 250,000 to 500,000 people in the country every year. So anyone who ever doesn't get a flu shot is a filthy anti-science murderer who doesn't know the consequences of their actions, right? I'm sure you've gotten yours every year, right?
Interesting, I thought it was only double! Yay wikipedia!
Of course, a life killed is incredibly easy to measure, and a life saved is almost impossible to measure. (Like hell am I telling the cops if I have to brandish my gun to get someone to leave me alone.) And of course there are other factors, I agree.:)
Personal responsibility means being responsible for yourself, not others. If you want a vaccination, you're free to do so. The flu kills more people than whooping cough too, so why aren't people who don't get the flu shot equivocated into murderers by your worldview? What I am seeing here is the "SCIENCE!" banner being held up like a religion.
Anyway, lemme know when you find that case. Very interested.
So anyone who arrives at a decision contrary to popular belief is an idiot piece of shit? This isn't something cut and dried like evolution, y'know. Not everyone automatically believes every study they read, and the freedom of that belief is a basic human right. I mean, we allow people to believe in fucking magic sky fairies for chrissake (pun intended).
So you don't like it when someone else's choices affect you, but are quite willing to do the same in reverse? Sounds like the point of freedom for you is "freedom if you agree with me".
I don't even have kids, btw. Gross things, they are. And sometimes they die. But that's no reason for me, a healthy being, to have my body forcefully *ANY*thing. Drunk driving kills more children than non-vaccination, and while that is already illegal, it's clear that we should also prohibit the production and consumption of alcohol, because people have shown that allowing them to make a personal choice WILL kill some of us.
News flash, buddy. Freedom comes at a price. If big brother forced us to exercise every morning, we'd all be heathier and live longer. But you know what? I'd bomb the nearest school if that's what society became.
If that is the case, I'm sure you would be able to point to a case where someone who was mentally insane during a crime was criminally charged for causing himself to go insane by not taking his meds, but not actually charged the crime (being guilty by insanity). If you can find such a case, I'll have to reconsider how fucked up things are that that happened, but will also have to word my future arguments differently. If you can't, then I'm right (which is my default position anyway, unless convinced otherwise. A piece of news to that effect would convince me.).
Why not force us all to exercise, then? Would make a lot more of a difference. And that's the point: Diminishing returns vs personal rights. If you can't see it, I don't really want to explain it to you, I'd rather just view you as an enemy and be done with this.
Choosing not to take your meds isn't criminal. He would have been insane when committing the crime. The legality basically boils down to: does the person know what they are doing is wrong when they do it? Not taking pills is not a crime, and not taking pills prior to commuting another crime is not a crime either: Though maybe you want legislation to that affect. (Pre-crime legislation sucks ass, though.)
p.s. my karma is actually excellent:) And maybe if your child is too fragile to be exposed to the public safely, then you should homeschool it, or perhaps stop breeding out inferior stock.
You're using a law not currently on the books, which caused people to either leave the country in droves, or lose a bullshit war (much like the current ones), as an example of how things should be done in a free country? Great job, buddy.
Slashdot Mirror
uh yes. they have language police, which means they don't get new words, and have to borrow from other languages a lot. for instance, there's no french word for webpage.
I have a ghost lawyer!
What about car metaphors?
bad writing
Not everyone automatically believes every study they read but when you've gotten more than a dozen studies proving something to the contrary when do you... just accept that the knowledge is sane? Do you not believe in anything until witnessed by your own eyes? Do you not trust your fellow man? What do they gain out of harming a child? This is what I don't get, if the anti-vaccination camp really believes that we are forcing children to have a chance of Autism then in their mind they must think that the doctor's KNOW of the issue and are saying "I don't care, it's not my child". Doctor's are human just like the rest of us and are prone to mistakes but when you've had 50 years of research leading you down one path you need to come up with a pretty good reason to why we have to turn around and re-think something. I don't want your kid to get sick, and I don't want you to make my kid sick. You can't "catch" Autism (that's insulting to those who fall along the spectrum), so why the push back against something we as a species have created for the greater good? :(
Because it's not just "a dozen studies and everybody should agree". Things aren't over and tons of studies have been wrong. Thalidomide. Asbestos. Tobacco.
To quote myself from a facebook conversation: " There is probably no nuanced opinion that applies correctly for everyone. But I'd like to see the choice and freedom for individuals to do what they want to remain (to whatever reasonable extent can exist)."
Now, we have 2 of the major anti-autism link scientists linked to fraud. And oh look! A video of the former CDC Chief saying vaccines trigger autism! I know the wiggle room here is "if they already have it, it's going to eventually be triggered", but yeah. Not everybody wants to take that chance. The autism rate is increasing crazily in our society - until science can adequately explain the cause, the only people who try to do anything about it will ALL be guessing, but that should still be their freedom.
It's not just "Anti-science RAWRRRRR". There are people examining the science (and politics), and making their own decisions. They are not all kneejerk decisions. People tend to think things over with their kids. I'm glad I don't have any.
Also, they now want 29 vaccines. The vaccines a child is expected to get has doubled since 'we' grew up in the 70s/80s. It's not simply "same business as always". And again, the flu kills 3K-30K every year, so why are they not mandatory by law, if saving human life at the expense of taking away control of someone's body is so compelling? Is this just a case of "Wave a child around and everyone loses their rationality"?
3K-30K. But saying the k twice seems redundant because, as you point out, 3 would not be a reasonable number. I see what you did there ;)
Not even. The flu kills 3 to 30,000 people a year in the US. Mumps kills something like 30 (Couldn't get the exact stat)
Man, it would be amazing if society could somehow, I dunno, maybe designate a person or two to make those decisions a two year old at the pediatrician's office can do. Perhaps it would make sense to select their biological parents?
Fair enough. :)
Also, it would be pretty hard for me to sue you after killing myself. Will have to find a ghost lawyer...
Your whole post flies in the face of the fact that no criminal action was taken (because, as I asserted, no law was broken). This is a civil tort. I could sue you right now for your post. I'd lose, but I could. Torts can be done for any reason. Wrongful death being the reason. You could hurt my feelings, I kill myself, sue you for wrongful death. You'd have to pay a lot of money to not lose, too. i'm gonna go do that now {JOKE! JOKE! I'M JOKING!}
No, we didn't criminalize drugs because of trends, we criminalized them because of racism, and because we the people were told that they caused direct violent crime - if you smoked pot, you would pick up an axe and go on a rampage. If you did cocaine, you would rape a white woman. If you did opium, you would lay in a den until you died. (Okay, that one's not violent.) In this particular slashdot article, someone said, "if you don't get your kid vaccinated, he should have to live in a bubble". Going on an axe rampage is quite different from increasing the chance of babies getting a disease. Especially when you have to actually take the increase (not total) number of babies contracting this, and then divide that by the number of people who don't get vaccines to get each person's actual liability. It would likely be less than a puff of secondhand smoke. Not sure what trend has to do with ehthanasia either.
Now, the flu kills 250,000 to 500,000 people in the country every year. So anyone who ever doesn't get a flu shot is a filthy anti-science murderer who doesn't know the consequences of their actions, right? I'm sure you've gotten yours every year, right?
Of course, a life killed is incredibly easy to measure, and a life saved is almost impossible to measure. (Like hell am I telling the cops if I have to brandish my gun to get someone to leave me alone.) And of course there are other factors, I agree. :)
Personal responsibility means being responsible for yourself, not others. If you want a vaccination, you're free to do so. The flu kills more people than whooping cough too, so why aren't people who don't get the flu shot equivocated into murderers by your worldview? What I am seeing here is the "SCIENCE!" banner being held up like a religion. Anyway, lemme know when you find that case. Very interested.
So basically, you think we need more laws, because there are no laws for this. It is a civil matter. No crime was broken.
So anyone who arrives at a decision contrary to popular belief is an idiot piece of shit? This isn't something cut and dried like evolution, y'know. Not everyone automatically believes every study they read, and the freedom of that belief is a basic human right. I mean, we allow people to believe in fucking magic sky fairies for chrissake (pun intended).
I don't even have kids, btw. Gross things, they are. And sometimes they die. But that's no reason for me, a healthy being, to have my body forcefully *ANY*thing. Drunk driving kills more children than non-vaccination, and while that is already illegal, it's clear that we should also prohibit the production and consumption of alcohol, because people have shown that allowing them to make a personal choice WILL kill some of us.
News flash, buddy. Freedom comes at a price. If big brother forced us to exercise every morning, we'd all be heathier and live longer. But you know what? I'd bomb the nearest school if that's what society became.
If that is the case, I'm sure you would be able to point to a case where someone who was mentally insane during a crime was criminally charged for causing himself to go insane by not taking his meds, but not actually charged the crime (being guilty by insanity). If you can find such a case, I'll have to reconsider how fucked up things are that that happened, but will also have to word my future arguments differently. If you can't, then I'm right (which is my default position anyway, unless convinced otherwise. A piece of news to that effect would convince me.).
Why not force us all to exercise, then? Would make a lot more of a difference. And that's the point: Diminishing returns vs personal rights. If you can't see it, I don't really want to explain it to you, I'd rather just view you as an enemy and be done with this.
Choosing not to take your meds isn't criminal. He would have been insane when committing the crime. The legality basically boils down to: does the person know what they are doing is wrong when they do it? Not taking pills is not a crime, and not taking pills prior to commuting another crime is not a crime either: Though maybe you want legislation to that affect. (Pre-crime legislation sucks ass, though.)
p.s. my karma is actually excellent :) And maybe if your child is too fragile to be exposed to the public safely, then you should homeschool it, or perhaps stop breeding out inferior stock.
No, by my argument, nobody should be compelled to wear seatbelts simply using the reasoning that it makes another driver in another car safer.
We also compelled slaves to risk their lives working in the fields to benefit us! Therefore the concept is fine!
You're using a law not currently on the books, which caused people to either leave the country in droves, or lose a bullshit war (much like the current ones), as an example of how things should be done in a free country? Great job, buddy.