Mandatory Vaccinations (Part 2)
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 21:57
VIEWED: 12509
PAGE 7 of 16
Listen Rue. I see the point you're trying to make here, and all doublethink aside I do believe it's a valid one.
I can't even say that if I had a child I definately not allow a doctor to give them shots for polio or small pox. I would do my Fatherly duty and do my own research on these topics and I would discuss the issue with my wife/fiencee/girlfriend and we would make the decision for our child together, without BigGov threatening me with prison time or fines if I choose not to have my child vaccinated.
What I am saying here, is that I would rather my child grow up in a world where choices, such as this, are still left in the hands of the individual and not the collective.
In my eyes, if we don't have freedom to make these choices for ourselves, then none of the other questions you ask me would matter at all. I would be little more than a robot and none of my opinions would matter if they were not shared with the collective.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
A small percentage of unvaccinated can put a number of others at risk.
If yon vaccine is so damned effective, why would the vaccinated be at risk from those who aren't?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Because vaccines, while effective, aren't 100% effective. I think that's been explained several times already.
There is a huge logical gap in the anti-vaccine contingent: vaccines aren't effective, and therefore I'm not going to vaccinate. But if vaccines AREN'T effective (as they claim) then the chances of getting the actual disease SHOULD be quite high. And the disease itself is FAR more dangerous than the vaccine. It seems there's a bit of doublethink going on... while backhandedly counting on vaccine effectiveness (my kid will never get smallpox) they disparage the vaccination process. Just look at CTS' argument about smallpox: It's not that bad. It didn't wipe out 95-99% of the population, it "only" wiped out 80-90%. WTF???? Who CARES if it's "only" 40% fatal? It's still a tremendously dangerous, contagious disease that used to kill people by the tens of thousands.
And I still haven't heard a possible mechanism to show how vaccines of ALL types are so very very "dangerous".
Some people focus on mercury. But there are many other sources of mercury- including fish- and it mercury were such an issue why aren't they getting on King George's case for letting coal-fired power plants and (just yesterday) cement kilns continue to emit vast quantities? Besides, I have a feeling that even if thimeroseal were eliminated (as it was in Britain) they'd still be against vaccines (as people still are in Britain)
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maybe you, 6string, or you baby, can quote where I was anti choice before crucifying me for it, or maybe give it up and crucify me for what I actually said. Oh I see CTS said the same thing, since you're constantly bitching about people having to expressly quote everything maybe you can for once return the favour?
So you tell me, is saying my position is something I've flatout said it is not lying, not bothering to get your fact straight or merely deamonsing anyone who doesn't carbon copy all your opinions?
I saw a quote being misrepresented, and I said so, and you bunch of knee jerk reactionaries pulled out the crucifix, then imply I'm a facist, bravo.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Siggy, I really don't think either end of the continuum here is gonna be reasonable enough about it to discuss it rationally, from what I have seen - I made my point about risks versus benefit earlier, when I pointed out that my employment necessitates taking greater risks in order to ensure the safety of my customers, although I do draw the line at a dubiously effective flu shot.
I take a bit of ribbing from other drivers about having a bucket of Scrubs Hand Sanitizer Wipes in my cabs cupholder, and using them, but you know, since I have done so - I've not come down with the flu even once.
But then, I actually keep a clean cab too, so I guess imma bit of a weirdo in that respect.
My issue with this, as it is with just about anything, is that scary little word "mandatory" - because it would involve entities that I feel to be wholly untrustworthy making personal decisions for me that they have no business doing, especially when they have a history of mucking such things up via incompetence, collusion, or just plain stupidity.
When folks bring up the idea of the FedGov and Big Pharma wanting to mandate any medication, be it vaccines, psychotropics, or what have you, it's gonna set me off because the whole concept is a scary, slippery slope we do not ever wanna find ourselves on.
"For your own good" is the worst of all possible tyrannies.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm really not sure where I ever singled you out Citizen. I'm not sure what you're asking me to do.
My stance on this is that it is not your choice that I let them stick the needle in my arm, nor is it their choice. I'm through even discussing the effectiveness of any of the vaccinations. I've already said that I'm not sure what I'd do and that I would do my own research on the subject before making my decision.
The quickest way to make me not get a shot is by telling me that I have to get a shot under duress.
It's bad enough we have to worry about our phone conversations being unconstitutionally invaded. I'm not going to sit by and do nothing while they invade our homes and our bodies and tell us that it's for our own good. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm really not sure where I ever singled you out Citizen. I'm not sure what you're asking me to do.
Quote:So, which type of Nazi am I?
Please tell me that you are not one of those Anti-Smoking Nazis.... if you are, then you are no different than Citizen is, and we would just be pitted against each other when that thread comes along.
EDIT:
I read BabyWithThePowers post, then yours which named me specifically as anti-choice. I realise there was some confusion earlier in part one of this thread group caused by my poor wording, but I specifically cleared that up. I don't know if either you or BabyWithThePower saw that, but CTS was posting in that thread, so I can only assume she chose to ignore those comments. And frankly given Frems continued desire to not listen to my reasons for saying what I did and misrepresent my comments I don't think an accusation of lying is completely uncalled for.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I never said it isn't "that bad." I said it wasn't as infectious as people think it was. This point was to compare smallpox's infectiousness with the infectiousness of monkeypox, to show how they may not differ as much as they say. It was not a commentary to dismiss the severity of the disease. Put things in context please--and if you are going to say what I am arguing, please do what I asked Rue to do: copy and paste. And the 80-90% was ONE statistic in Central Mexico. I pointed that out to show how it was not UNIVERSAL. Again, read my comments in context. I didn't point it out to show how a 10% difference makes it "not that bad." WTF back at ya!
Originally posted by SignyM:
Just look at CTS' argument about smallpox: It's not that bad. It didn't wipe out 95-99% of the population, it "only" wiped out 80-90%. WTF????
Quote:I've been so far focused on questioning vaccine effectiveness. I haven't gotten to vaccine side effects yet. Vaccine side effects constitute a weak argument, because the truth is, just as there are no conclusive studies proving high vaccine effectiveness, there are no conclusive studies proving high vaccine dangers. I can bring in all sorts of correlations found between vaccines and adverse events, but those correlations don't prove ANYTHING. One has to use the same standards in evaluating the evidence, on both sides (effectiveness and dangers).
And I still haven't heard a possible mechanism to show how vaccines of ALL types are so very very "dangerous".
I have to say I am very disappointed that the arguments you and Rue are resorting to is to distort what I say. There is no integrity in this debate when you have to change my position to make a case against it.
-------------------
And one last thing. We all KNOW vaccines are not 100% effective. (Isn't that the thrust of my position, that effectiveness is not as high as they make it out to be?) What we want to know is HOW not being 100% effective makes unvaccinated people a threat to vaccinated people? Common mechanisms for this threat include the following arguments.
1. Infection. Unvaccinated people contract the disease and infect failed-vaccine recipients.
Problem 1: Vaccinated people in whom the vaccine failed can contract the disease themselves and infect other failed-vaccine recipients. This is evidenced by the fact that outbreaks occur in highly or fully vaccinated populations. This argument attempts to scapegoat unvaccinated people for the failures of the vaccine itself.
Problem 2: Vaccinated people contract the disease subclinically and infect failed-vaccine recipients. At the height of hypocrisy, mandatory vaccine proponents ignore an army of Typhoid Mary's to scapegoat a few unvaccinated people. They make easy targets since symptoms are highly visible in them.
2. Herd immunity. Unvaccinated people threaten the herd immunity protecting failed-vaccine recipients.
Problem 1: The fact that outbreaks occur in highly and fully vaccinated populations illustrate that herd immunity is unpredictable and doesn't work the way people think it does. This argument scapegoats unvaccinated people for a failure in herd immunity that can happen anyway.
Problem 2: People choosing not to vaccinate has never been in large enough numbers to threaten herd immunity. This fear is hysterical and groundless in reality.
3. Eradication. Unvaccinated people maintain a reservoir for the pathogen, making it impossible to eradicate the disease. THIS IS THE REAL REASON behind mandatory vaccination policies. As we have shown before, both the infection and herd immunity arguments obviously do not hold water under critical scrutiny. The real reason behind requiring everyone to vaccinate, the real reason behind the emotional vehemence against unvaccinated people, is that unvaccinated people are perceived as stubborn obstacles, the selfish holdouts that prevent "eradication heaven" for everyone. Smallpox and polio are the examples used to demonstrate the success of eradication.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Your tone of ridicule and wanting to put restrictions on choice implied to me that you were anti-choice. Allowing choice under specific conditions that are unlikely to happen is not prochoice.
Originally posted by Citizen:
Hell lets make everything choice. Why should chefs be forced to washing their hands before preparing food if they don't want to? Maybe their religion bans hand washing....
Sure no mandatory vaccinations, but if YOUR choice leads to YOU getting that disease your health service or medical insurer is under no obligation to pay for your treatment.
(And why can't I use the health insurance I paid for? I'll agree not to use health insurance for treatment of vaccine-prescribed diseases, if I can get a discount on my insurance premiums for not vaccinating and using those services. I also want a discount on my insurance to not pay for treatment of children who were injured by vaccines. If no one has to pay for my choice, I don't want to pay for their choice.)
So citizen, I'll ask you point blank what I asked Rue. If you could vote on it, would you 1) vote against mandatory vaccination for school attendance and 2) vote against any AMA initiative to rescind nonmedical exemptions from all 48 states that have them? No addendums, amendments, or anything. It's come for vote the way it is and you have to decide. If your answer is yes, I will apologize to you for mischaracterizing your position.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quit acting like a prat, Cit.
You demanded evidence, didn't bother to read it and then went off half-cocked, and then when you got called on it - jam your fingers in your ears and call someone a liar ?
Doesn't do wonders for your credibility, that.
I'm not the one who keeps changing their story.
You own actions in this thread condemn you more than anything I could say.
The only person around here who even seems to understand my position on the issue is Jack, and that because he holds the exact same one for many of the same reasons.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME