So your a misandrist then. That isn't any better than a misogynist. Maybe someday, you will realize that you should defend "equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for PEOPLE."
You can rationalize why being a misandrist is OK because there work misogynists in the past, but that doesn't change the fact that my 6 year old son is at a distinct disadvantage because of the sexism that is leveled against him. Little girls are being raised to disrespect men, and that men are inferior. Little boys are being taught that they should be disrespected because they are inferior. Social changes take time. Right now, the groundwork is being laid for the current children to grow up to be highly discriminatory against men.
That makes no sense. Just in case you were really confused, I can guarantee you that no matter what you look up on Wikipedia, you will NEVER get the perspective of 50% of the people. In fact, you will NEVER get the perspective of 1% of the people. I really doubt that even as high profile of a site as Wikipedia could handle the volume of traffic necessary for even on article to get the perspective of 50% of the people.
And out comes the misandrists. No, women are NOT notoriously more sane than men. It's just that any time it is pointed out that a common behavior by women is insane, the person pointing it out is called a misogynist, and women's misandry is openly accepted and encouraged in our society. There simply isn't that much difference between men and women. The biggest difference is that here in the first world, one group spends their life knowing that no matter how bad things get, there is always someone that will pay your way if you sleep with them. This knowledge that is instilled from a very young age, brings about a very different set of behaviors than what you see in people who are taught from a very young age that in the end, they will have to do for themselves.
I would never say I was in the 'anti-vaccine' group. It is important to understand that the 'pro-vaccine' group is just as bad. In fact there are MORE people who believe that all vaccines are good because you are either for or against vaccines as a whole than there are people who are against them for the same reason. That fact is, the crazy 'pro-vaccine' people do lump anyone that dares question even one vaccine into the crazy 'anti-vaccine' group. These people can frequently get vicious, as they believe that anyone who chooses not to get even one vaccine is a child abusing murderer. Acting just like the 'pro-vaccine crazies' doesn't help the situation. It also doesn't help rational people take you seriously. In this thread, you discuss it rationally, but in other threads, you just resort to name calling if someone doesn't just support vaccines as a group.
You obviously feel it is. That is what you thought you were doing with the previous post. Unfortunately, you failed at it because you don't understand the issues. You obviously just like to call people names, and think that this is a way you can do it AND feel good about yourself.
You can count yourself as part of the anti-vaccine movement, as you public comments are can do nothing but confirm their beliefs.
Well of course they are a psuedo-science cult that is convinced that vaccines cause autism. Most of them believe that it is mercury in the vaccine that causes this. The fact that they are wrong does not change the fact that they are consistent in their concerns and beliefs. It also doesn't change the fact that there will always be a few oddballs that go way beyond the party line. Even in psuedo-science cults.
The pro-vaccine groups don't do anyoone any favors by becoming a psuedo-science cult themselves. If the anti-vaccine people think mercury in vaccines is causing autism, which do you think will be better for bringing them over to be in favor of vaccines. Mocking their misinformation, and calling them a psuedo-science cult, or calmly pointing out that there is not mercury in vaccines with a suggestion on where they can verify it?
Of course if they went to the CDC's website, they would find that you were wrong. They would find that it is only used in flue vaccines though.
As for being a psuedo-science cult, go to the CDC's website. The CDC is considered a gold standard in health care, yet when it comes to vaccines, it is loaded with a bunch of appeals to emotion. Stories about kids dying and and getting seriously ill. All of the wording is slanted to imply numbers that sometimes just are not there. The chicken pox vaccine is the case that I tend to point to as an example. Primarily because that is the vaccine that I believe will kill more than it will save. If you look at the numbers presented by the CDC, the chicken pox vaccine will kill more than it will save. In fact even in a perfect world, where the vaccine prevents 100% of deaths from chicken pox, you would only save 50 children a year. Of course, this would change the fact that you would be increasing the risk of death to adults by 20 times. All of the numbers for this are right on the CDCs site, yet somehow they come to the conclusion that it is a good idea. They then proceed to take extremely rare occurrences and use them as scare tactics against parents to trick them into doing the wrong thing for their child.
It is an unfortunate fact that everyone with a current financial stake in the decision for immunizing children for chicken pox makes money by pushing a childhood inconvenience into a deadly adult disease. This is the kind of behavior that encourages the anti-vaccine crowd.
You do not understand the complaints well enough to be productive to the debate. Your statement encourages the anti-vaccine groups, as they correctly identify you as not being incapable of understanding their concerns, and dismissing them based on your lack of understanding. Your making a strawman fallacy argument. The sad part is that you don't seem to even realize that is what you are doing.
I made the quoted statement because of the previous post where you claimed that the pro-vaccine groups had to stick to the fact, which isn't true. They are just as guilty as the anti-vaccine group.
A big problem with the debate is that people are grouping everything into vaccination in general. It makes the discussion non-productive. It would be like a debate on whether eating is good for you. One side will show how not eating will kill you, and the other side will show how eating will kill you by pointing out how deadly arsenic is, or point to reports on heart disease.
As a concept, vaccines are very very good, but just like eating, that doesn't mean that you want to just start throwing just anything into your body. It also means that you should not just look at what this is going to do to you today, but what it is going to do to you in 20 years, as well as what your options are.
If the pro-vaccine group would stop calling the anti-vaccine group murders, and calling for imprisonment, and start discussing each vaccine as a separate medical procedure, they would gain a lot more traction. The Autism scare was over a 'study' on the MMR vaccine. How many parents didn't get the polio vaccine because when they heard the debate on Autism and and avoided ALL vaccines because nobody made it clear to them that it was only the MMR vaccine in question, and then it was only the combo version at that?
That is exactly my point. And, yes, I will acknowledge that there is a statistically insignificant number. It is a shame that most people don't understand that the chicken pox vaccine is likely going to kill more people than it saves. I opted out of that vaccine for my child. When my pediatrician tried to convince me to give it to my son, he explained that it really does prevent most cases, and how the child "might" need a booster at about 20. I don't think he realized that he was actually giving me arguments against it. 3 years later, it's estimated longevity was reduced to 10 years or less.
Unfortunately, everyone with a current monetary stake in the child makes money off of pushing for kids to get the chickenpox vaccine except the child. The parents, the doctors, the insurance companies, the schools, the pharma companies. They all have more money in their pocket if you convert that major childhood inconvenience into a life threatening adult disease.
I picked chicken pox because I think the polio vaccine is a good vaccine and the chicken pox is beyond weak, and actively harmful. The "pro-vaccine" group has one of the same problems as the "anti-vaccine" group. They seem to think that if one vaccine is good the all must be, or if one is bad, they all must be. This is an absurd idea whichever side you are on.
You make the claim that the anti-vaccine group lies and plays to emotion, and the pro-vaccine group must stick to the facts, but that is verifiable false. When I point to what is pretty universally considered a legitimate pro-vaccine site, and it shows them doing exactly what you are complaining about, you accuse me of being "conned into rigging the game". That makes you just one more example of the "pro-vaccine" group who will sacrificed your ethics to push your agenda.
The pro vaccine groups play the same game. The CDC has on there site Varicella: Unprotected Story. It is a a tear jerking tail of how your child might come close to dying if they don't get the vaccine.
A particularly poignant quote from it was
In total, Amy missed more than 2 weeks of work due to Zoe’s illness.
Oh poor Amy... How I feel for you.
The fact is that the CDC itself puts the number of yearly deaths due to the chicken pox prior to the vaccine at only about 100. 50% of those being in the 5% of adult cases. 50 deaths a year is statistical noise. Compare this to the 480 deaths a year caused by cooking at home. It is absurd to be worried about it. Even worse, as the CDC's own numbers show, it is approximately 20X more dangerous for an adult to catch the disease than it is a child. Since the vaccine is not permanent, it can actually increase the risk 20X.
Even though the data on the CDC's site contradicts their recommendation, they appeal to the emotions of parents, and play on their fears.
No one claimed that chicken pox cannot kill. It is just extremely unlikely. As you say. 50 children a year would die in the US from chicken pox prior to the vaccine. Look at how many die since the vaccine has been introduced. Almost as many. As sad as it might be to those that it happens to, that is statistical noise. A kid allowed to play high school football has approximately a 5X greater chance of dying from it than they do from dying due to a lack of immunization for chickenpox. The claims that it is a deadly disease are simply blown out of proportion to the point of being out right lies. One thing we know is that 100% immunization with 100% effectiveness, you would at best be able to save 50 kids lives a year. Tops.
Now, the down side of the vaccine. It is temporary. It simply does not offer life long immunity. Look at the numbers of chicken pox cases. 95% of them were in children, yet you had the same number of deaths in the 5% group of adults. That means that the disease is approximately 20X more dangerous for adults than it is for children. Since the protection offered by the chicken pox vaccine is not permanent, by mass vaccinating kids, you have just increased the risk of death by 20X for all of the children that you gave it to. Of course when they die from it, they won't be kids any more, so you can say you 'save children lives' even if that means you killed them as adults.
Just to put it in perspective, approximately 480 people a year die do to cooking fires each year. That means that little Sebastian has more than 5 times the chance of dying due to his parents performing the negligent act of cooking at home than he does of dying because his parents decided not to get him vaccinated.
I presume that with this new found knowledge, you will stop cooking in your home, and start warning parents to stop exposing their children to such dangers acts as well. Yes?
You miss read my post. I didn't say that the anti-vaccine crowd was right. I said that their argument was consistent. There is a huge difference. The way to convince a person who has a consistent disagreement with you isn't to claim that they are inconsistent. That will only validate their belief that you don't know what you are talking about. The OP said that they kept changing their story. This is untrue. Their claims, right or wrong, are consistent.
Then explain how parents can be allowed to put their child in a car and drive them for non-emergency purposes. Parents do things that put their children at risk all the time. Children are regularly killed and maimed by their parents doing things that are dangerous to their children. The difference is that if you do something different, and your child gets hurt, you are called a monster. Getting most vaccines is the best bet for kids, but your claim is simply ridiculous.
Yes, anything you breath into your lungs that isn't air is bad for you.
That being said, the crap that pours out of the back of your car is 10 times worse than any second hand smoke you would be exposed to. Anyone that drives, or uses services made possible by driving is being a hypocrite complaining about second hand smoke.
Yes, technically second hand smoke is bad for you, but in practice, it's ill effects are just noise compared to all the other crap we all breath in every day. Thus, claims like the TV ad that says you will kill a baby three doors down if you smoke a cigarette in your apartment, are a crock.
Yeah, then try going up to the next woman, and forcing her to sit in a chair in your house until you tell her she can get up. You are likely to get an even stiffer sentence. The worst abuses you can do to a child, do not have to leave bruises. The modern mentality that if it doesn't leave bruises, it isn't abuse is down right scary. Punishment is about associating bad behavior with discomfort. Whether that is mental discomfort of physical. Some children respond well to one, other children respond well to the other. A good parent can tell which is appropriate for their child. A bad parent will just blindly punish their child without effect.
You claim that causing physical discomfort for a long term benefit is bad, and then argue for vaccination. Clearly, you don't even understand your own arguments. So, you go ahead and keep feeling good about the mental abuse you put your children through. Without bruises, there will no doubt be a whole army of people ready to pay you on the back about how good of a parent you are for keeping your abuse hidden.
Your not real bright if you couldn't figure out that the people who argue against vaccines are saying that the mercury based preservatives are causing autism, and while MMR is the biggest culprit, one can also get the same results with less dangerous vaccines by taking a bunch of them.
Right or wrong, their argument is consistent. When people like you try to reword their argument and accuses them of being stupid because your strawman makes no sense, you validate their concerns. You can officially count yourself among the anti-vaccine crusaders.
Of course, it is also important to not be as radically ignorant in favor of vaccines as the people who are radically ignorant against them. For example, while it is clear that the Polio vaccine has been an amazing boon to humanity, the chicken pox vaccine has the potential to do exactly the opposite. Converting a childhood inconvenience into a deadly adult disease doesn't make a huge amount of sense.
The concept of vaccines is a great one. But with all good ideas, it can be implemented badly, and it can be implemented well. That means that it isn't a question of whether 'vaccines are good' or 'vaccines are bad' It is a question of 'is vaccine X a good', and as a completely separate question, 'is vaccine Y good'.
I see this even in the classroom. My son (6) signed up for a science class. (Outside of school, not part of the school curriculum, but run by an elementary school teacher.) The second project was to make stalagmites and stalactites by draping a piece of yarn between two cups filled with baking soda dissolved in water. The teachers hypothesis was that the water would travel up the string, and as it dripped from the dip in the string between the cups, it would deposit the baking soda in the same spots, creating a stalagmite and a stalactite.
What ended up happening was that the baking soda deposited in a crystalline structure jutting out in all direction along the length of the string. What baking soda was still in the water when it did make it on to the plate made it's own crystalline structure horizontally as a thin film across the plate. I saw this as an opportunity, and discussed with my son, what he/the teacher expected to happen, what did happen, and what might be the reasons that the experiment didn't go as planned. We took a bunch of pictures, and told him that at the next class, he can ask the instructor, what may have caused the experiment to produce different results from what was predicted.
What he got at the next class was an explanation that 'it should have worked', a rudimentary explanation of how stalactites and stalagmites are formed, and they moved on to the next project. Unfortunately, that pretty much put an end to that class for us. The 'science teacher' wasn't teaching the kids science. She was teaching them 'appeal to authority', even when the statements are experimentally false. It was the exact opposite of science.
You are just as bad as the judges that awarded him the win. You suggest telling the child that his project was "a good improvisation", yet you had nothing to indicate that the child improvised anything. You just made up something to say nice, and you didn't care if you were lying to the child. So, you would have simply reinforced that doing the least work possible to scrape by and doing it in a shoddy fashion was "good improvisation". It isn't. Figuring out a different material to use when the one that your project calls for is unavailable is good improvisation. Slapping together something you copied out of an encyclopedia the night before the project is due, is not.
I think that part of the problem in this discussion is that there are science fairs, and then there are science fairs. As a kid, the science fairs that were at my schools were a complete joke. Some of the projects were not even science. The students were only given a week or two to come up with something, and expectations were set very low. I have seen some reports on other science fairs that are an entirely different event. Some of the projects look like they might even be multi-year events. So, depending on where you are at, you will see to completely different things. Who is to blame for the failur fairs? Students, teachers, administrators, parents, simply access to the tools necessary to do a decent project? That is a whole different debate, but there are both types of events. Ones where it is truly worthwhile, and ones that are a waste of time at best.
Yeah, and he could use shops offering hobby every step done for you. Yep, he could go down to his local store, and just buy the stuff pre-made. Your suggestion is akin to suggesting someone who's hobby is woodworking that he can get a table already built.
Slashdot Mirror
So your a misandrist then. That isn't any better than a misogynist. Maybe someday, you will realize that you should defend "equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for PEOPLE."
You can rationalize why being a misandrist is OK because there work misogynists in the past, but that doesn't change the fact that my 6 year old son is at a distinct disadvantage because of the sexism that is leveled against him. Little girls are being raised to disrespect men, and that men are inferior. Little boys are being taught that they should be disrespected because they are inferior. Social changes take time. Right now, the groundwork is being laid for the current children to grow up to be highly discriminatory against men.
That makes no sense. Just in case you were really confused, I can guarantee you that no matter what you look up on Wikipedia, you will NEVER get the perspective of 50% of the people. In fact, you will NEVER get the perspective of 1% of the people. I really doubt that even as high profile of a site as Wikipedia could handle the volume of traffic necessary for even on article to get the perspective of 50% of the people.
Luckily Wikipedia has an article on that for you.
Not to mention that the articles were generally of about the same quality as those on Wikipedia.
And out comes the misandrists. No, women are NOT notoriously more sane than men. It's just that any time it is pointed out that a common behavior by women is insane, the person pointing it out is called a misogynist, and women's misandry is openly accepted and encouraged in our society. There simply isn't that much difference between men and women. The biggest difference is that here in the first world, one group spends their life knowing that no matter how bad things get, there is always someone that will pay your way if you sleep with them. This knowledge that is instilled from a very young age, brings about a very different set of behaviors than what you see in people who are taught from a very young age that in the end, they will have to do for themselves.
I would never say I was in the 'anti-vaccine' group. It is important to understand that the 'pro-vaccine' group is just as bad. In fact there are MORE people who believe that all vaccines are good because you are either for or against vaccines as a whole than there are people who are against them for the same reason. That fact is, the crazy 'pro-vaccine' people do lump anyone that dares question even one vaccine into the crazy 'anti-vaccine' group. These people can frequently get vicious, as they believe that anyone who chooses not to get even one vaccine is a child abusing murderer. Acting just like the 'pro-vaccine crazies' doesn't help the situation. It also doesn't help rational people take you seriously. In this thread, you discuss it rationally, but in other threads, you just resort to name calling if someone doesn't just support vaccines as a group.
You obviously feel it is. That is what you thought you were doing with the previous post. Unfortunately, you failed at it because you don't understand the issues. You obviously just like to call people names, and think that this is a way you can do it AND feel good about yourself.
You can count yourself as part of the anti-vaccine movement, as you public comments are can do nothing but confirm their beliefs.
Well of course they are a psuedo-science cult that is convinced that vaccines cause autism. Most of them believe that it is mercury in the vaccine that causes this. The fact that they are wrong does not change the fact that they are consistent in their concerns and beliefs. It also doesn't change the fact that there will always be a few oddballs that go way beyond the party line. Even in psuedo-science cults.
The pro-vaccine groups don't do anyoone any favors by becoming a psuedo-science cult themselves. If the anti-vaccine people think mercury in vaccines is causing autism, which do you think will be better for bringing them over to be in favor of vaccines. Mocking their misinformation, and calling them a psuedo-science cult, or calmly pointing out that there is not mercury in vaccines with a suggestion on where they can verify it?
Of course if they went to the CDC's website, they would find that you were wrong. They would find that it is only used in flue vaccines though.
As for being a psuedo-science cult, go to the CDC's website. The CDC is considered a gold standard in health care, yet when it comes to vaccines, it is loaded with a bunch of appeals to emotion. Stories about kids dying and and getting seriously ill. All of the wording is slanted to imply numbers that sometimes just are not there. The chicken pox vaccine is the case that I tend to point to as an example. Primarily because that is the vaccine that I believe will kill more than it will save. If you look at the numbers presented by the CDC, the chicken pox vaccine will kill more than it will save. In fact even in a perfect world, where the vaccine prevents 100% of deaths from chicken pox, you would only save 50 children a year. Of course, this would change the fact that you would be increasing the risk of death to adults by 20 times. All of the numbers for this are right on the CDCs site, yet somehow they come to the conclusion that it is a good idea. They then proceed to take extremely rare occurrences and use them as scare tactics against parents to trick them into doing the wrong thing for their child.
It is an unfortunate fact that everyone with a current financial stake in the decision for immunizing children for chicken pox makes money by pushing a childhood inconvenience into a deadly adult disease. This is the kind of behavior that encourages the anti-vaccine crowd.
You do not understand the complaints well enough to be productive to the debate. Your statement encourages the anti-vaccine groups, as they correctly identify you as not being incapable of understanding their concerns, and dismissing them based on your lack of understanding. Your making a strawman fallacy argument. The sad part is that you don't seem to even realize that is what you are doing.
I made the quoted statement because of the previous post where you claimed that the pro-vaccine groups had to stick to the fact, which isn't true. They are just as guilty as the anti-vaccine group.
A big problem with the debate is that people are grouping everything into vaccination in general. It makes the discussion non-productive. It would be like a debate on whether eating is good for you. One side will show how not eating will kill you, and the other side will show how eating will kill you by pointing out how deadly arsenic is, or point to reports on heart disease.
As a concept, vaccines are very very good, but just like eating, that doesn't mean that you want to just start throwing just anything into your body. It also means that you should not just look at what this is going to do to you today, but what it is going to do to you in 20 years, as well as what your options are.
If the pro-vaccine group would stop calling the anti-vaccine group murders, and calling for imprisonment, and start discussing each vaccine as a separate medical procedure, they would gain a lot more traction. The Autism scare was over a 'study' on the MMR vaccine. How many parents didn't get the polio vaccine because when they heard the debate on Autism and and avoided ALL vaccines because nobody made it clear to them that it was only the MMR vaccine in question, and then it was only the combo version at that?
That is exactly my point. And, yes, I will acknowledge that there is a statistically insignificant number. It is a shame that most people don't understand that the chicken pox vaccine is likely going to kill more people than it saves. I opted out of that vaccine for my child. When my pediatrician tried to convince me to give it to my son, he explained that it really does prevent most cases, and how the child "might" need a booster at about 20. I don't think he realized that he was actually giving me arguments against it. 3 years later, it's estimated longevity was reduced to 10 years or less.
Unfortunately, everyone with a current monetary stake in the child makes money off of pushing for kids to get the chickenpox vaccine except the child. The parents, the doctors, the insurance companies, the schools, the pharma companies. They all have more money in their pocket if you convert that major childhood inconvenience into a life threatening adult disease.
Certainly, you have removed all of the electrical wires running through every wall in your home then, right?
I picked chicken pox because I think the polio vaccine is a good vaccine and the chicken pox is beyond weak, and actively harmful. The "pro-vaccine" group has one of the same problems as the "anti-vaccine" group. They seem to think that if one vaccine is good the all must be, or if one is bad, they all must be. This is an absurd idea whichever side you are on.
You make the claim that the anti-vaccine group lies and plays to emotion, and the pro-vaccine group must stick to the facts, but that is verifiable false. When I point to what is pretty universally considered a legitimate pro-vaccine site, and it shows them doing exactly what you are complaining about, you accuse me of being "conned into rigging the game". That makes you just one more example of the "pro-vaccine" group who will sacrificed your ethics to push your agenda.
A particularly poignant quote from it was
In total, Amy missed more than 2 weeks of work due to Zoe’s illness.
Oh poor Amy... How I feel for you.
The fact is that the CDC itself puts the number of yearly deaths due to the chicken pox prior to the vaccine at only about 100. 50% of those being in the 5% of adult cases. 50 deaths a year is statistical noise. Compare this to the 480 deaths a year caused by cooking at home. It is absurd to be worried about it. Even worse, as the CDC's own numbers show, it is approximately 20X more dangerous for an adult to catch the disease than it is a child. Since the vaccine is not permanent, it can actually increase the risk 20X.
Even though the data on the CDC's site contradicts their recommendation, they appeal to the emotions of parents, and play on their fears.
No one claimed that chicken pox cannot kill. It is just extremely unlikely. As you say. 50 children a year would die in the US from chicken pox prior to the vaccine. Look at how many die since the vaccine has been introduced. Almost as many. As sad as it might be to those that it happens to, that is statistical noise. A kid allowed to play high school football has approximately a 5X greater chance of dying from it than they do from dying due to a lack of immunization for chickenpox. The claims that it is a deadly disease are simply blown out of proportion to the point of being out right lies. One thing we know is that 100% immunization with 100% effectiveness, you would at best be able to save 50 kids lives a year. Tops.
Now, the down side of the vaccine. It is temporary. It simply does not offer life long immunity. Look at the numbers of chicken pox cases. 95% of them were in children, yet you had the same number of deaths in the 5% group of adults. That means that the disease is approximately 20X more dangerous for adults than it is for children. Since the protection offered by the chicken pox vaccine is not permanent, by mass vaccinating kids, you have just increased the risk of death by 20X for all of the children that you gave it to. Of course when they die from it, they won't be kids any more, so you can say you 'save children lives' even if that means you killed them as adults.
Just to put it in perspective, approximately 480 people a year die do to cooking fires each year. That means that little Sebastian has more than 5 times the chance of dying due to his parents performing the negligent act of cooking at home than he does of dying because his parents decided not to get him vaccinated.
I presume that with this new found knowledge, you will stop cooking in your home, and start warning parents to stop exposing their children to such dangers acts as well. Yes?
You miss read my post. I didn't say that the anti-vaccine crowd was right. I said that their argument was consistent. There is a huge difference. The way to convince a person who has a consistent disagreement with you isn't to claim that they are inconsistent. That will only validate their belief that you don't know what you are talking about. The OP said that they kept changing their story. This is untrue. Their claims, right or wrong, are consistent.
And having your child sit in a child proofed livingroom is not 100% protection against them getting run over by a car. Your argument isn't valid.
Then explain how parents can be allowed to put their child in a car and drive them for non-emergency purposes. Parents do things that put their children at risk all the time. Children are regularly killed and maimed by their parents doing things that are dangerous to their children. The difference is that if you do something different, and your child gets hurt, you are called a monster. Getting most vaccines is the best bet for kids, but your claim is simply ridiculous.
Yes, anything you breath into your lungs that isn't air is bad for you.
That being said, the crap that pours out of the back of your car is 10 times worse than any second hand smoke you would be exposed to. Anyone that drives, or uses services made possible by driving is being a hypocrite complaining about second hand smoke.
Yes, technically second hand smoke is bad for you, but in practice, it's ill effects are just noise compared to all the other crap we all breath in every day. Thus, claims like the TV ad that says you will kill a baby three doors down if you smoke a cigarette in your apartment, are a crock.
Yeah, then try going up to the next woman, and forcing her to sit in a chair in your house until you tell her she can get up. You are likely to get an even stiffer sentence. The worst abuses you can do to a child, do not have to leave bruises. The modern mentality that if it doesn't leave bruises, it isn't abuse is down right scary. Punishment is about associating bad behavior with discomfort. Whether that is mental discomfort of physical. Some children respond well to one, other children respond well to the other. A good parent can tell which is appropriate for their child. A bad parent will just blindly punish their child without effect.
You claim that causing physical discomfort for a long term benefit is bad, and then argue for vaccination. Clearly, you don't even understand your own arguments. So, you go ahead and keep feeling good about the mental abuse you put your children through. Without bruises, there will no doubt be a whole army of people ready to pay you on the back about how good of a parent you are for keeping your abuse hidden.
Your not real bright if you couldn't figure out that the people who argue against vaccines are saying that the mercury based preservatives are causing autism, and while MMR is the biggest culprit, one can also get the same results with less dangerous vaccines by taking a bunch of them.
Right or wrong, their argument is consistent. When people like you try to reword their argument and accuses them of being stupid because your strawman makes no sense, you validate their concerns. You can officially count yourself among the anti-vaccine crusaders.
Of course, it is also important to not be as radically ignorant in favor of vaccines as the people who are radically ignorant against them. For example, while it is clear that the Polio vaccine has been an amazing boon to humanity, the chicken pox vaccine has the potential to do exactly the opposite. Converting a childhood inconvenience into a deadly adult disease doesn't make a huge amount of sense.
The concept of vaccines is a great one. But with all good ideas, it can be implemented badly, and it can be implemented well. That means that it isn't a question of whether 'vaccines are good' or 'vaccines are bad' It is a question of 'is vaccine X a good', and as a completely separate question, 'is vaccine Y good'.
I see this even in the classroom. My son (6) signed up for a science class. (Outside of school, not part of the school curriculum, but run by an elementary school teacher.) The second project was to make stalagmites and stalactites by draping a piece of yarn between two cups filled with baking soda dissolved in water. The teachers hypothesis was that the water would travel up the string, and as it dripped from the dip in the string between the cups, it would deposit the baking soda in the same spots, creating a stalagmite and a stalactite.
What ended up happening was that the baking soda deposited in a crystalline structure jutting out in all direction along the length of the string. What baking soda was still in the water when it did make it on to the plate made it's own crystalline structure horizontally as a thin film across the plate. I saw this as an opportunity, and discussed with my son, what he/the teacher expected to happen, what did happen, and what might be the reasons that the experiment didn't go as planned. We took a bunch of pictures, and told him that at the next class, he can ask the instructor, what may have caused the experiment to produce different results from what was predicted.
What he got at the next class was an explanation that 'it should have worked', a rudimentary explanation of how stalactites and stalagmites are formed, and they moved on to the next project. Unfortunately, that pretty much put an end to that class for us. The 'science teacher' wasn't teaching the kids science. She was teaching them 'appeal to authority', even when the statements are experimentally false. It was the exact opposite of science.
You are just as bad as the judges that awarded him the win. You suggest telling the child that his project was "a good improvisation", yet you had nothing to indicate that the child improvised anything. You just made up something to say nice, and you didn't care if you were lying to the child. So, you would have simply reinforced that doing the least work possible to scrape by and doing it in a shoddy fashion was "good improvisation". It isn't. Figuring out a different material to use when the one that your project calls for is unavailable is good improvisation. Slapping together something you copied out of an encyclopedia the night before the project is due, is not.
I think that part of the problem in this discussion is that there are science fairs, and then there are science fairs. As a kid, the science fairs that were at my schools were a complete joke. Some of the projects were not even science. The students were only given a week or two to come up with something, and expectations were set very low. I have seen some reports on other science fairs that are an entirely different event. Some of the projects look like they might even be multi-year events. So, depending on where you are at, you will see to completely different things. Who is to blame for the failur fairs? Students, teachers, administrators, parents, simply access to the tools necessary to do a decent project? That is a whole different debate, but there are both types of events. Ones where it is truly worthwhile, and ones that are a waste of time at best.
Yeah, and he could use shops offering hobby every step done for you. Yep, he could go down to his local store, and just buy the stuff pre-made. Your suggestion is akin to suggesting someone who's hobby is woodworking that he can get a table already built.