Mandatory Vaccinations (Part 2)
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 21:57
VIEWED: 12509
PAGE 12 of 16
You are a very silly person Rue. I'll tell you what. Why don't you come over to my house with a needle and inject me and see how far that goes?
I promise you that I will shoot you before you come within 10 feet of me with that needle, just like I would shoot anyone else who tried. Because you're a Browncoat, I will give you the courtesy of shooting your kneecaps out. Any government agent would have 2 in the chest and 1 in the head.
End of story...
Edit: I would like to add to this by saying that this is not a death threat Rue. I view somebody forcing a foreign object into my body against my will as a very hostile action, just as I suspect you would object to somebody putting a bullet in yours. I am far from alone in this belief, so good luck getting all of us to get the vaccinations. Your entire argument about the validity or success rates of vaccines is moot, because for many people this issue is much deeper.
This is not a threat Rue, this is a promise. If somebody comes at me with a needle, and I am not in agreement with why they feel I should be injected, I will put them in the hospital or the morgue, and I will defend myself with my own life in court over why it had to happen that way. I am not a prisoner and I will not be treated as such.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I apologize Rue. I came off pretty harshly and said some things that weren't necessary at all to be said. On the net I tend to dramatize things some times... okay, more than a few.
I won't take the post down because I'm not ashamed of what I said, as a figurative point. I'm also not one who wants to come off as secretive in any way, because I knew I was posting that on a public forum when I sent it. Once you've posted it, it's floating out there in limbo somewhere. No matter what server you may think you have deleted it from forever, you can't stop the signal. I don't think it would be right to censor my own words anyhow, especially from friends and Browncoats (which I hope we all Browncoats can be friends.
I sincerely apologize to you if that came off really offensive in any way, it was meant defensively. I am not a violent person in real life. I'm not a fighter at all, really. I've had my share of scraps back in the highschool and a few here and there at bars, but the were all in self defense or defence of my friends. I actually won't even sit through a movie like "The Hills Have Eyes" because for whatever reason it bothers me even seeing pretty much anything that I've been told happens in that movie, or several other movies that have come out recently. Not sure if you watch Futurama, but Bender once said "Once you watch it, you can't unwatch it.", and that's kind of stuck with me ever since.
Bottom line is, I really believe that if you're not harming somebody and you're not stealing from them... you work a 9 to 5 job or do something more adventurous to earn your take, you realize that while you're weak as a human sometimes you try do good by people for the most part, and you just don't spend your spare time scheming ways of doing bad things to people, well... you're alright by me. I think we good folk have enough laws already anyhow. We been abiding by them now for a long time... for several civilized generations now, in fact. I think maybe it's time we get people we have elected into power enforcing the laws and finishing projects that are already established and then, when they finish all of that, they can concern themselves with and collaborate with the public on new laws that might be made to better mankind. I think we've all just got way to damn much to think about right now.
I'm assuming, and I could be wrong so sorry ahead of time if I am, that you're older than me. Not much, I'm guessing, but old enough to remember a simpler time in the world for all of us. One where we didn't concern ourselves every single day with politics and issues and all of the worlds happenings. I don't belive that's just because I was a child 20 years ago. Life without computers and lightning fast travel of information allowed us to live at a slower pace then, and concern ourselves with more immediate and intimate things. If nothing else, we spent our time arguing with our own familys about political issues rather than hearing celebrities and FOX news argue with each other, then taking whatever sides speak our truths and then logging on to go argue with complete strangers about it online.
I like you Rue. I like all of the Browncoats I've met in here since I joined back in April when I first saw the show. Even the ones that I tend to disagree with seemingly all the time. This is a place that's very engaging and wonderful because we can have differences in opinion and argue with each other till we're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, we're Browncoats and we have some level of respect for each other because even if we don't agree, we do have that. We've all obviously cared enough to share and defend our positions to each other. I've been witness to concessions on issues in here from time to time before too. I've even given on things myself before.
I've never been a die hard fan of anything before. I've never even watched Firefly since the first Serenity weekend yet, other then half an episode here or there when Sci Fi runs it. I dont' suppose I really am a die hard Firefly fan in t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"but there isn't one of them that is intrusive on my body"
Every time you swallow, every time you breathe, you are taking in government-controlled subtances. Taking them into your body, for better or worse, whether you agree with it or not. That is FAR more intrusive than the odd vaccination.
You think too small. You agree with it so you don't see it. Minion.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:PROVE where I have ever said vaccines are more dangerous than the disease. Copy and paste please.
Originally posted by rue:
Summary: getting vaccines is more dangerous than disease"
Quote:The myth of eradication refers to the fact that the same clinical disease as smallpox is still walking around. Referring to facts does not make me antivaccine. It means the disease hasn't been eradicated. It doesn't mean the the vaccine was not effective at all (maybe it helped along with other things like sanitation), and it doesn't mean I am advocating smallpox vaccines not be used by anyone just because it failed to eradicate a disease.
and 'the myth of eradication'
Again, this argument tries to corner me into an extreme position that I have never made.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You are saying the phrase, "IF VACCINES WORK" is an anti-vaccine position?
Originally posted by rue:
As a further analysis of flaws in CTS's arguments, consider 'if vaccines work, vaccinated people have nothing to fear' (a small sampling of CTS's oft-repeated 'argument' is below).
It is like with the Christian fundamentalists. "IF God exists" automatically means you are saying God doesn't exist, and therefore no one must believe in God. Questioning or underscoring the assumption automatically makes you anti-God.
I am a scientist. Identifying and questioning assumptions is part of science. It doesn't mean an anti- position is being advocated. If you don't get that, well, there's nothing I can do about it. I have made my position clear. The thrust of my argument is to identify assumptions about vaccines that not everyone shares, and point out that depending how you interpret data and which assumptions you hold, you can arrive at different defensible positions. Therefore people deserve choice--they should not be forced into assumptions believed by the manufacturers, retailers, and a government largely bought by the industry, simply because those assumptions are believed.
As far as the word "scam" goes, what would you call buying a product that doesn't work and not being able to get a refund? I call it a scam. Not everyone who gets a vaccine is scammed, but some of them are. Most people taking vaccines are willing to be scammed, and they bought the product fully willing to take the chance to be scammed. But they are scammed nonetheless. And you don't know for a fact that vaccines don't work in people because of the makeup of the recipient. Sometimes they are not effective for very long, or sometimes not effective because of the wrong strain, or sometimes not effective in preventing infection, only symptoms, and so forth. The fact is no one knows why vaccines is not 100% effective. The analysis has to come after the fact, and there are all sorts of different reasons.
OK, I have said all this before, several times. Obviously nothing I say means anything to you. You've made up your mind what I am and what I'm not. So this is my last post defending myself from the "anti-vaccine" accusation from you. If anyone else in this thread thinks I am anti-vaccine as a matter of general application or policy, feel free to speak up.
One of my best friends just got pregnant. We have been very close and she knows exactly where I stand on vaccination. She had told me before she agreed with me and would not vax her kids. She got married and is now pregnant. Her husband is pro-vax, and she says that they are planning to selectively vax. Good for them. I did not try to talk her out of it, or shove anti-vaccine literature down her throat, or make her feel bad about the decision in anyway. That would be like someone who wouldn't have an abortion personally finding out that her best friend is having one, and respecting that choice. How is that anti-abortion?
I am NOT anti-vaccine. That's the last time I am going to say that.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hear, hear. I raise my glass to ya.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Anyways... have a glass of mudders milk with me. We aren't going to let a few touchy issues divide us, are we? That just wouldn't be our style. I look forward to the next debate, no matter which side we be on.
And you make a very good point about the "just come on over and try to stick me with that needle." People who do not vaccinate will not change their choice simply because the law requires them to. I will move out of state before I let them stick my kids. I will move out of the country. I will move out into the bushes and hide if need be. It is not going to happen.
Mandatory vaccination law doesn't actually increase vaccination coverage. It doesn't even keep unvaccinated kids from being around other kids. My kids go to plenty of public classes (dance, gymnastics, etc) and public venues (playgrounds, parks, movie theatres, etc). It doesn't do anything except to make life more difficult for people who choose not to vaccinate, sort of like a punishment.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Baby,
Since you seem unable to carry on an argument based on vaccination merits vs risks, let me address the shortcomings of your post at length.
"There's actually a big difference. The government has set up laws for our own good that restrict us from indulging in what would be considered unhealthy behaviour ..."
So you think it's appropriate for government to restrict us for our own good. You'll need to take that up with 6-string. He says it's not about benefits, risks, or personal or societal well being - it's ALL abut total personal freedom.
"... but there isn't one of them that is intrusive on my body."
But they are - in a pervasive all-encompassing way. Government is there monitoring what you breathe, and determining what is acceptable and isn't. They are there with their hands on your water and your food far before you get to drink and eat. It's so big and so acceptable to you you don't see that your every breathe is regulated by government. It's just the big background to you.
"If you had read my entire post you'd know that I'd mentioned that."
Well, I did, and that was my response, which you are too small-minded to comprehend.
"But you'd rather simply throw up more smoke and mirrors to detract from the issue at hand."
And what is that issue? Is it freedom? We've already seen you give that up SO LONG AS YOU AGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT. Is it effectiveness? I haven't seen you bring up scientific arguments. What IS your issue?
"As far as your rant about standing up for my rights to do a bunch of rediculous stuff, I have to chuckle and shake my head. What you use to try and debase my argument, everyone's argument, here is completely unreasonable. No reasonable human being would do any of those things, but except for crapping in the street, we have the right to do them."
No, I'm just taking your argument to its logical next step. It used to be that reasonable human beings did crap in the street (and empty their chamber pots there) as a matter of course - till big bad government decided it was unsanitary. And they used tax money to build sanitary sewers and MADE people use them - under penalty of law. They MADE people use regulated water supplies - under penalty of law. And so on.
"It's our choice to accept the risks involved with our actions, based on what we believe and what we know to be true. And the purified argument is rediculous as there are many communities (i happen to live in one) that still use well water."
Seriously - ALL water comes from either a well or from surface water*. Having a community that uses well-water is - uhm - normal. Even private-property wells are regulated. Your water is regulated, as is your waste-disposal, air and food. (*Unless your water is reclaimed in which case it comes from a sewer.)
"And there are some comunities where that water is still pumped directly from the ground into your tap ..."
Yes, I've lived in places like that. And it IS regulated - where you drill, how deep you drill, how much you take out - and monitored for nitrites, bacteria, arsenic and the like.
"End of story."
Yep - you 'finished' your own argument.
Where's the blindfold?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:1) There is a difference between regulation of voluntary products/activities and forcing one to purchase said products or engage in said activities. For example, the government regulates the pasteurization of milk, but doesn't force anyone to buy milk.
Originally posted by rue:
Baby,
"... but there isn't one of them that is intrusive on my body."
But they are - in a pervasive all-encompassing way.
And to address Signy's oft repeated "running the red light" analogy, the government regulates driving, but doesn't force anyone to drive. There are no compulsory driving laws. In addition, traffic lights are an arbitrary rule that drivers will take turns crossing intersections. The rule is not forced upon drivers, but is consentual. To my knowledge, there are no groups protesting the use of traffic lights. (If there were such groups, a democratic society should consider their arguments, but there aren't any.) People who run red lights are those who voluntarily agreed to the rule, but decided to break the rule/contract for whatever reason.
Regulation in itself is different from force to purchase. You can support one without supporting the other.
2) There is a difference between regulating an absence and forcing the presence of a substance. For example, regulating power plant emissions require an absence of certain substances deemed to be poisonous. (If you don't agree they are poisonous and find them desirable, you can always add it to your lifestyle on your own.) This is not the same thing as requiring power plant to emit certain substances and forcing people to breathe it.
Mandatory vaccination laws are unique amongst government regulation in general in that the government is forcing the purchase and consumption of substances. The only regulation that comes close to mandatory vaccinations is fluorinating water. By adding a substance into public water, the government is forcing people to consume it unless they can afford expensive fluorine removal systems, bottled spring water, or have access to a well. This type of regulation is just as wrong as mandatory vaccination, where people are forced to consume vaccines unless they can afford to homeschool.
If there were no compulsory schooling laws I'd have much fewer objections. If mandatory vaccination laws were limited to public schools, and allowed private schools to set their own standards, I'd probably not even waste time arguing this subject. Taken as a whole, mandatory vaccination laws are the most intrusive of all government regulations, bar none.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Been awfully busy, but here are two related articles:
One traveler tied to more than half '05 U.S. measles cases
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- The biggest U.S. measles outbreak in a decade -- 34 people stricken in Indiana and Illinois last year -- was traced back to a 17-year-old girl who had traveled to Romania without first getting vaccinated, government health officials said Thursday.
The outbreak accounted for more than half of the 66 measles cases in the United States in 2005... in 2004, there were just 37 cases, the smallest number in nearly 90 years of record-keeping... Thirty-two other people in Indiana and one from Illinois became infected. Three people were hospitalized, but no one died. Only two of the 34 people had been vaccinated against measles.
www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/21/measles.traveler.ap/index.html
This one is related to government regulation of what you eat, drink, breathe, wear, and are exposed to:
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals
The National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals provides an ongoing assessment of the U.S. population's exposure to environmental chemicals using biomonitoring. Biomonitoring is the assessment of human exposure to chemicals by measuring the chemicals or their metabolites in human specimens such as blood or urine.
www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"1) There is a difference between regulation of voluntary products/activities and forcing one to purchase said products or engage in said activities."
The government decides how clean (or dirty) the air is supposed to be. If you don't like government-quality air, what are you going to do - stop breathing? The same goes for water and food. And if you don't like the government's insistance on sanitary sewers, what are you going to do - crap on your lawn? You pay for (therefore purchase) and use these government-mandated goods every day.
"2)" is like "1)".
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME