Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, and climate change deniers.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Originally posted by Wade View Post
    Of course you realize a big portion of the crow that is anti-vaccine is the far religious right
    Obviously

    Comment


      #42
      So we're talking about forcibly injecting some Jewish kids with the measles. Am I missing anything?

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by Wade View Post
        Of course you realize a big portion of the crow that is anti-vaccine is the far religious right, including Orthodox Jews. If you force Jews to take a vaccine, you'll be compared to the NAZI party in Germany.
        I'd say the real Nazi is the criminal that would send a dirty bomb into a school.

        Comment


          #44
          Originally posted by Wade View Post
          So we're talking about forcibly injecting some Jewish kids with the measles. Am I missing anything?
          We're talking about American parents refusing to get their kids vaccinated because they're negligent, stupid and abusive. Whether or not some of them are Jewish has nothing to do with anything, you're just racist.

          Comment


            #45
            have u actually been in space to prove that the Earth isn't flat?

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by Beholder View Post
              have u actually been in space to prove that the Earth isn't flat?
              Yes.

              Comment


                #47
                If a vaccinated kid catches a disease from a non-vaccinated kid then it sounds like the vaccine didn't do it's job in the first place. Isn't it supposed to make him immune to that shit?
                Originally posted by Kajin_Style
                I have this illness called "Having-a-Heart" and gives me this irrational sense of empathy and care for my fellow man.

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by Pocket Rocket View Post
                  If a vaccinated kid catches a disease from a non-vaccinated kid then it sounds like the vaccine didn't do it's job in the first place. Isn't it supposed to make him immune to that shit?
                  No vaccine is 100% successful. They're usually in the high 90s. But that's why we practice herd immunity. The more people that are vaccinated, the less likely it is that somebody will get it and the less likely it is to spread. It's how we basically wiped out polio.

                  But herd immunity is only successful if everyone is vaccinated. When these idiots stop giving their children the vaccines because billy-bob on Facebook said it causes autism, you weaken the herd and put everyone at risk.

                  Comment


                  • Cid
                    Cid commented
                    Editing a comment
                    OrganizationXV The idea wasn't that you'd "catch" autism, in all fairness. Some British doctor did a "study" with only 12 participants back in 1998 and claimed to have found a link between MMR vaccine and autism. But not only was the study conducted on far too small a sample size, but later checking if his work revealed that he screwed the data up.

                    Unfortunately, it wasn't caught before it was published and made public. So some people found it and blamed autism on vaccines and the sentiment grew.

                  • OrganizationXV
                    OrganizationXV commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Cid right, I've heard of that study, but like... Autism isn't a virus, it's embedded in your DNA. How the fuck does that add up to anyone that devotes so much energy to fighting against vaccines?

                  • Cid
                    Cid commented
                    Editing a comment
                    OrganizationXV I would imagine he linked the vaccine to autism thanks to the likelihood of fever. High fevers can cause brain damage. But I don't know for certain.

                  #49
                  Originally posted by Wade View Post
                  So we're talking about forcibly injecting some Jewish kids with the measles. Am I missing anything?
                  Since when are vaccines against anyone's religions?

                  Except that one sect of Christianity that doesn't believe in medicine so they just hope things work out. But they have more pressing issues to worry about tbh

                  Comment


                    #50
                    Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post

                    Since when are vaccines against anyone's religions?

                    Except that one sect of Christianity that doesn't believe in medicine so they just hope things work out. But they have more pressing issues to worry about tbh
                    It doesn't just apply to tinfoil christians but tinfoil religious folk that are allergic to science in general.

                    Comment


                      #51
                      Originally posted by Beholder View Post
                      have u actually been in space to prove that the Earth isn't flat?
                      Apparently to them Earth is flat but Mars is round.

                      Comment


                        #52
                        Originally posted by Max View Post

                        It doesn't just apply to tinfoil christians but tinfoil religious folk that are allergic to science in general.
                        But like... You can't really cite religious objections to something if your religion doesn't say anything about it. Or can you?

                        Comment


                          #53
                          Originally posted by Pocket Rocket View Post
                          If a vaccinated kid catches a disease from a non-vaccinated kid then it sounds like the vaccine didn't do it's job in the first place. Isn't it supposed to make him immune to that shit?
                          It's one of those things where it works the majority of the time but there is always that small tiny chance that it can still happen. Cid posted about it on page 1. Basically vaccines are are not 100% and without herd immunity you are at greater and greater risk of contracting the disease the less of it you have.

                          Mr.Sunshine Yes legislation is very important, but again this is still a case of "Yes the government can abuse their power but so can the parent". We absolutely need checks in place so the government doesn't abuse the system. But we also need checks on the parents so that they do not abuse their position as legal guardians. You don't have to trust your government's motivations for implementing such a thing but that's why you put checks on them. Who steps in when the parents don't have the best interest for their kid in mind?

                          The reason your two examples are not comparable here is because those people were exposed to your child willfully. Unless you told your child to specifically hang around these people and let them cough on your kids and all that while you know they have that disease, you shouldn't be held accountable like someone who does not vaccinate their kids. But I'd like to jump from that analogy and turn it around. Should these workers be allowed near your children if their condition is outright known? Do they have the right to be? If not, why are unvaxxed kids allowed to be near your kids just because their parent has convictions?

                          The problem with the fate argument is that it can be used to justify anything. For example what you advocate against right here. If the government gains tyrannical power from such a legislation eventually then that was the hand of fate. But I am confused, you seemingly hold to what you told Cid to be both fate and a tragic thing that could be prevented. If fate in malleable then why not apply it to this case with diseases? If it is not malleable then it is not preventable. But if it is not malleable, then we can only argue for nothing because it can't change anything. As for the limits? Well I'm not a policy maker so I couldn't tell you. But I think at least one aspect should be that parents' have obligation to mitigate harm as reasonably possible. Of course that bit shouldn't be the only bit of qualifying information, but I'm speaking as a layman here. Not policy language. For example tamper proof outlets are a reasonable mitigation from harm prevented if you have them. I think the NEC gives reasonable places they should be(but obviously this isn't direct law) or something that does the same basic task is reasonable. Vaccinating your kids from preventable diseases is reasonable. Having the government take your kid away for religious or political affiliation is not a reasonable mitigation measure save for some very serious circumstances. Usually if not all the time those would fall under the other reasonable measures though and wouldn't be targeting those things so much as saying "This is the reason they are doing x to harm their child"

                          Comment


                            #54
                            Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post
                            But like... You can't really cite religious objections to something if your religion doesn't say anything about it. Or can you?
                            Most of the time thier objections aren't really of a religious nature. Its just that alot of these people tend to be far right religious types. They're just scared of the government making thier kids autistic and turning thier frogs gay.

                            Comment


                              #55
                              Autism isn't as bad as physical diseases and you're joking if you disagree

                              Comment


                                #56
                                Originally posted by Chara View Post
                                Autism isn't as bad as physical diseases and you're joking if you disagree
                                I bet they don't even know what it means.

                                Comment


                                  #57
                                  I never understood why people think vaccines cause autism, it's literally just weakened/killed pathogens or antibodies. Seriously, what is even the argument for this?

                                  Comment


                                    #58
                                    Originally posted by Louay View Post
                                    I never understood why people think vaccines cause autism, it's literally just weakened/killed pathogens or antibodies. Seriously, what is even the argument for this?
                                    It's a mix of scare tactics and perceived correlation. "My son Jim was a normal kid then after he had his vaccines the doctor diagnosed him with autism." kind of thing. On the scare tactics thing, they could go as far to say there is more in vaccines than that too.

                                    Comment


                                      #59
                                      Originally posted by Ladd View Post

                                      What's your stance on abortion by the way?

                                      I'm Pro-Life!

                                      I stand by the position that the Father and Mother must share equal autonomy-authority when presiding over the fate of their developing child.

                                      I stand by the position that the fetus/child possesses just equal rights as any human being, and that it deserves the opportunity to live as it develops its organs and brain.

                                      I stand by the position that- when in labor, the child should be prioritized over the Mother, if there exists any complications that may endanger either the Mother or Child.

                                      I could go on, but that should do for now as is a bit Off-Topic. ^_^

                                      Originally posted by Helly View Post

                                      But then what is the point of law and order at that point? If you say these things should be left up to the dice roll of the universe, this will lead to a much more devastating outcome. Nevermind vaccinations; stripping people of their autonomy altogether, discrediting everything as simply an inevitability, these all carry some very brutal implications. And sure, as a genetic predeterminist, I believe those statements to be true, but from a pragmatic standpoint it is much more useful to act as if you believe in the potential for change and so work for a better outcome. It improves everyone's mood, it gives people a sense of responsibility for their actions, and preordained or not the results insofar as life expectancy are always better.

                                      Fate is not a singular point in time, or at the very least it simply isnt useful to think of it that way - there are better outcomes to each subset of inevitable occurrences, and we must try to set the best one in place. In this case, we should seek out the one that won't cause as many child deaths.

                                      As a hardcore Anti-Vaccinator may argue- so what?

                                      All human beings are bound to die eventually- in one way or another, so why prolong the inevitable and futilely attempt to change what's already ordained in Nature?

                                      Only the fittest and most adaptive to their environment will survive, and where's the harm in such a logical outcome?

                                      --------------------------------------------
                                      I'm truly grateful that we're having such a productive conversation, Helly. ^_^

                                      I genuinely believe that the only way we're ever going to bring everyone- from all positions and extremities of the argument-spectrum, to the table as civilized adults, and sensibly reach a decision for all participating constituents of our society is engage in an open dialogue where our ideals-thoughts-attitudes are challenged through rational arguments and the drive to unite as a single Nation- a single community.

                                      I understand that there exist certain individuals/people in our society/nation that don't share my beliefs nor positions- in this case, the Anti-Vaccinators, so I genuinely strive to bring awareness to our larger community the existence of arguments-beliefs-positions and statements that oppose our own as that's the only way to bridge our cultural-ideological divide within our Nation/Country/Society.

                                      I genuinely don't believe that resorting to pathetic insults, and having childish temper-tantrums will net any positive progress to our Nation- let alone heal the differences that laying within our communities/neighborhoods as it only serves to push people away from the table of discussion, so please continue to bring forth more rational arguments to the table as I'll try my best to state even more positions that the Anti-Vaccinators have when defending their world-view. ^_^

                                      Originally posted by Chibz View Post


                                      Mr.Sunshine Yes legislation is very important, but again this is still a case of "Yes the government can abuse their power but so can the parent". We absolutely need checks in place so the government doesn't abuse the system. But we also need checks on the parents so that they do not abuse their position as legal guardians. You don't have to trust your government's motivations for implementing such a thing but that's why you put checks on them. Who steps in when the parents don't have the best interest for their kid in mind?

                                      The reason your two examples are not comparable here is because those people were exposed to your child willfully. Unless you told your child to specifically hang around these people and let them cough on your kids and all that while you know they have that disease, you shouldn't be held accountable like someone who does not vaccinate their kids. But I'd like to jump from that analogy and turn it around. Should these workers be allowed near your children if their condition is outright known? Do they have the right to be? If not, why are unvaxxed kids allowed to be near your kids just because their parent has convictions?

                                      The problem with the fate argument is that it can be used to justify anything. For example what you advocate against right here. If the government gains tyrannical power from such a legislation eventually then that was the hand of fate. But I am confused, you seemingly hold to what you told Cid to be both fate and a tragic thing that could be prevented. If fate in malleable then why not apply it to this case with diseases? If it is not malleable then it is not preventable. But if it is not malleable, then we can only argue for nothing because it can't change anything. As for the limits? Well I'm not a policy maker so I couldn't tell you. But I think at least one aspect should be that parents' have obligation to mitigate harm as reasonably possible. Of course that bit shouldn't be the only bit of qualifying information, but I'm speaking as a layman here. Not policy language. For example tamper proof outlets are a reasonable mitigation from harm prevented if you have them. I think the NEC gives reasonable places they should be(but obviously this isn't direct law) or something that does the same basic task is reasonable. Vaccinating your kids from preventable diseases is reasonable. Having the government take your kid away for religious or political affiliation is not a reasonable mitigation measure save for some very serious circumstances. Usually if not all the time those would fall under the other reasonable measures though and wouldn't be targeting those things so much as saying "This is the reason they are doing x to harm their child"
                                      If that's the case, is it truly necessary to involve any bureaucratic power into the fold, if this can be peacefully resolved by on-going dialogues within in our local communities as a whole?

                                      Why is it so pivotal that legislation be signed into State/Nation law, if there exists a much natural process to deal with the situation at hand?

                                      Wouldn't it be healthier and meaningful, if our local communities rallied together to culturally-enforce their values- vaccinating your children is for the best, by using shaming-social pressure into pushing Anti-Vaccinate!Parents to vaccinate their children as there exists a social consequence to not vaccinating your children, at that point?

                                      Wouldn't the introduction of any legislation that so adamantly denies and scorns individuals for their minute differences-preferences be detrimental to the unification of our Nation/Society, Chibi?

                                      Wouldn't that strengthen the cultural and ideological divide that already exists within our communities throughout all states?

                                      Are the ramifications/consequences of such course of actions be worth it, if it inadvertently leads to a Second Civil War, Chibi?

                                      I believe that he's where we should turn our discussion into a new direction, if you don't mind, Chibi. ^_^

                                      ------------------------------------
                                      Wonderfully done, Chibi!

                                      Your arguments were truly engrossing and digestible, and that's the proper way to bring even more people into the greater discussion when situated in a open dialogue that involves individuals positioned all over the spectrum of the issue.

                                      I genuinely believe that's the only way to bridge everyone together in a sensible manner, and finally unite as a strong community that shares a long-lasting cultural-ideological bond established by mutual understanding and rational arguments.

                                      I fear that people have forgotten the fact that there will always exist an individual(s) that don't share your perspective-ideals-thoughts-opinions, and that they've forgotten how to amicably challenge-debate such positions with sensible, rational arguments that benefit us all as a Nation/Country/Society/Community.

                                      They're only concerned with establishing their moral-high ground and spewing pitiful insults- attempting to debase and slander a person's name-character, and that's of no good for our Nation/Society, Chibi.

                                      That will only divide our Communities/States/Nation/Country even further apart, and generate bitterness and hatred, which are all horrible things.

                                      That's why I think that its so crucial to listen and discuss all arguments-positions as these are the perspectives that exist within the common-man, Chibi.

                                      I'm not an Anti-Vaccinator, but I possess the self-awareness to realize that not everyone shares my thoughts-ideals-perspectives-opinions, which is why I'm the Devil Advocate for the moment.

                                      I want to bring forth a healthy conversation regarding Vaccinations with everyone in the spectrum present, so I'll have to represent the Anti-Vaccinators as everyone else is clearly on the other side of the spectrum, for the moment.

                                      I truly appreciate your invaluable perspective on the issue, and continue to offer rational arguments to the table as I'll be brining even more positions that Anti-Vaccinator may share within their little group. ^_^

                                      Comment


                                        #60
                                        Originally posted by Max View Post

                                        It doesn't just apply to tinfoil christians but tinfoil religious folk that are allergic to science in general.
                                        For as much shit as Christians get, it’s a bit disappointing that so many of the same ones flinging the poo don’t dislike Muslims at least just as much...

                                        They are literally just as ridiculous and have all the same problems Christians do, if not more so, but I’ll never see a ferocity directed towards them like with Christians. Quote an unsavory verse of the Bible, and you’ll prove Christians suck and you are then a paragon of awesomeness, but if you do the same for the Quran...well, that goes too far, and you’re labeled an “Islamaphobe.”

                                        They have literally the same folks opposed to evolution and all that as Christians do.
                                        Last edited by RussianCoffeeAddict; February 16th, 2019, 07:33 PM.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X