OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 23, 2014, 10:01:00 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Some Sanity!  (Read 5618 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,312


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« on: October 06, 2012, 11:28:54 AM »

U.S. States Make Opting Out of Vaccinations Harder

More than ten years after a study in The Lancet falsely linked autism to the measles, mumps and rubella triple vaccine, evidence of reduced immunization rates and rising incidence of disease are spurring politicians to try to make up lost ground.
 
California has tightened the laws that allow parents in the state to opt out of immunization for their children. It now joins Washington and Vermont in requiring parents who want an exemption to demonstrate that they have received factual information about the risks and benefits of vaccination from a health-care practitioner or the state’s health department...
Logged
Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,970


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2012, 11:42:34 AM »

I don't consider huge state control over people's daily lives to be an increase in sanity, but whatever floats your boat.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 11:49:21 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga come è, bisogna che tutto cambi."
-G.T di Lampedusa

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,312


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2012, 12:33:44 PM »

Saving lives floats my boat.
Logged
Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,970


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2012, 12:35:59 PM »

Join the coastguards.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 12:47:59 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga come è, bisogna che tutto cambi."
-G.T di Lampedusa

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,312


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2012, 12:38:40 PM »

I can't swim.
Logged
Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,970


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2012, 12:46:27 PM »

That's what the floating boat is for.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 12:47:53 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga come è, bisogna che tutto cambi."
-G.T di Lampedusa

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,312


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2012, 12:53:32 PM »

If I fell overboard I'd die. I'll stick with land. And pontificating on the internet.
Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2012, 01:45:18 PM »

Asteriktos, I think you may get more responses if you get rid of that scary avatar. Scared the crap out of me LOL.
     I remember when the scare over that vaccination was really casing some concern. I actually waited a few years to vaccinate my youngest. My feeling is that the real concern over Autism might actually be more related with the age of the reproductive parents verses and known agent. Many families these days don't start having children until the adults are in there late reproductive years. Sometimes in there late 40's and early 50's. The general mindset today is to form a career before starting a family and that sort of drives visions of a family life into those late years unfortunately.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,936


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2012, 02:10:50 PM »

Asteriktos, I think you may get more responses if you get rid of that scary avatar. Scared the crap out of me LOL.
     I remember when the scare over that vaccination was really casing some concern. I actually waited a few years to vaccinate my youngest. My feeling is that the real concern over Autism might actually be more related with the age of the reproductive parents verses and known agent. Many families these days don't start having children until the adults are in there late reproductive years. Sometimes in there late 40's and early 50's. The general mindset today is to form a career before starting a family and that sort of drives visions of a family life into those late years unfortunately.

My Mom once believed the urban legends about vaccinations. Then I got mumps. Then Dad made her take me for the shots.

Score one for science.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
JamesR
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 4,779


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2012, 05:02:07 PM »

I don't consider huge state control over people's daily lives to be an increase in sanity, but whatever floats your boat.

It's not your lives but the lives of your children. What I don't like is parents considering their children their property thinking that they can do/opt out of doing anything for their children just because it is 'their children' even when it harms their children.

I for one am happy that the state is finally doing something to crack down on crazy parents.  You don't know how many weirdo Evangelicals I've met who believe in all these weird conspiracies that vaccines are bad for you and that they should not get them for their children even though modern children have been getting them for years and nothing bad happens to them. Likewise, there are also the crazy religious parents who don't want to get their teenagers vaccinated for certain illnesses just because they can be contracted sexually or orally. These people should not have the right to put their teenagers in danger like that just because of their religious beliefs. Sure you have the right to teach your religion to your children, but to force your religion on them to the extent that it threatens their physical health is going too far.
Logged

Quote
Wherever goes JamesR goes, he is there.
-Orthonorm
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,116


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2012, 05:22:06 PM »

I don't consider huge state control over people's daily lives to be an increase in sanity, but whatever floats your boat.

I'm old enough to remember seeing kids in calipers, crippled by polio, at school. Of seeing kids and adults in iron lungs. And seeing others maimed or dying from other easily-preventable diseases. "Huge state control over people's daily lives"? My eye.  Angry

Young 'uns today have no historical awareness.
Logged
Tikhon.of.Colorado
But you can call me Trevor.
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,340



« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2012, 06:57:14 PM »

I don't consider huge state control over people's daily lives to be an increase in sanity, but whatever floats your boat.

It's not your lives but the lives of your children. What I don't like is parents considering their children their property thinking that they can do/opt out of doing anything for their children just because it is 'their children' even when it harms their children.

I for one am happy that the state is finally doing something to crack down on crazy parents.  You don't know how many weirdo Evangelicals I've met who believe in all these weird conspiracies that vaccines are bad for you and that they should not get them for their children even though modern children have been getting them for years and nothing bad happens to them. Likewise, there are also the crazy religious parents who don't want to get their teenagers vaccinated for certain illnesses just because they can be contracted sexually or orally. These people should not have the right to put their teenagers in danger like that just because of their religious beliefs. Sure you have the right to teach your religion to your children, but to force your religion on them to the extent that it threatens their physical health is going too far.

I know just what you mean.  My old science teacher was one of those conservative evangelical nutters, and she used to go on and on about "Obamacare" and the evils of the govt. forcing children to be vaccinated.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Maybe I'm posting, maybe I'm not.  Who knows...
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,796


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #12 on: October 06, 2012, 08:12:26 PM »

I don't get it. Why would anybody think that vaccinations are bad?

Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
Tikhon.of.Colorado
But you can call me Trevor.
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,340



« Reply #13 on: October 06, 2012, 08:55:37 PM »

I don't get it. Why would anybody think that vaccinations are bad?


It's not that people think that the vaccinations themselves are bad, it's the principle of the matter.  People don't like to be told what to do by the government.  Not everyone believes that the government always has our best interest at heart (fair enough).
Logged

Maybe I'm posting, maybe I'm not.  Who knows...
Ioannis Climacus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


"There is no religion higher than TRUTH"


« Reply #14 on: October 06, 2012, 09:05:27 PM »

Monsters. That is what these people are. Even if vaccines are as safe as the state claims, forcing society to accept such things is nothing short of tyrannical (no telling what the state will deem being properly "informed"). Orthodoxy is great for people too, but I am not exactly ready to ban heresy and force people into conversion at gunpoint (unless they have a "proper" theological understanding of the issues). The more you give to the temporal powers, the more they will expect and demand. Let the state force vaccines down the people's throat today and you will be paving the way to likewise have the state mandate whatever other things they perceive as "beneficial". This is an issue of freedom, not health.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 09:19:36 PM by Ioannis Climacus » Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,322


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2012, 09:13:36 PM »

Education is always the key to change for the better.

Forcing something on people generally creates other problems worse than the original issue.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 09:14:18 PM by Sinful Hypocrite » Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,936


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2012, 09:24:07 PM »

Monsters. That is what these people are. Even if vaccines are as safe as the state claims, forcing society to accept such things is nothing short of tyrannical (no telling what the state will deem being properly "informed"). Orthodoxy is great for people too, but I am not exactly ready to ban heresy and force people into conversion at gunpoint (unless they have a "proper" theological understanding of the issues). The more you give to the temporal powers, the more they will expect and demand. Let the state force vaccines down the people's throat today and you will be paving the way to likewise have the state mandate whatever other things they perceive as "beneficial". This is an issue of freedom, not health.

Yeah, it was great to have the freedom to catch mumps.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Ioannis Climacus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


"There is no religion higher than TRUTH"


« Reply #17 on: October 06, 2012, 09:29:53 PM »

Monsters. That is what these people are. Even if vaccines are as safe as the state claims, forcing society to accept such things is nothing short of tyrannical (no telling what the state will deem being properly "informed"). Orthodoxy is great for people too, but I am not exactly ready to ban heresy and force people into conversion at gunpoint (unless they have a "proper" theological understanding of the issues). The more you give to the temporal powers, the more they will expect and demand. Let the state force vaccines down the people's throat today and you will be paving the way to likewise have the state mandate whatever other things they perceive as "beneficial". This is an issue of freedom, not health.

Yeah, it was great to have the freedom to catch mumps.  Roll Eyes
Because no one catches mumps from the vaccine itself...

Regardless, I have the freedom to go to hell, why not the freedom to avoid vaccines?
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 09:33:12 PM by Ioannis Climacus » Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,936


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 06, 2012, 09:33:17 PM »

Monsters. That is what these people are. Even if vaccines are as safe as the state claims, forcing society to accept such things is nothing short of tyrannical (no telling what the state will deem being properly "informed"). Orthodoxy is great for people too, but I am not exactly ready to ban heresy and force people into conversion at gunpoint (unless they have a "proper" theological understanding of the issues). The more you give to the temporal powers, the more they will expect and demand. Let the state force vaccines down the people's throat today and you will be paving the way to likewise have the state mandate whatever other things they perceive as "beneficial". This is an issue of freedom, not health.

Yeah, it was great to have the freedom to catch mumps.  Roll Eyes
Because no one catches mumps from the vaccine itself...

No, they don't. I caught it before they gave me the vaccine. What do you not understand?

Opinions like yours aren't just the ones that don't matter (I like team xyz, I like such-and-such ice cream). They kill people.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Ioannis Climacus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


"There is no religion higher than TRUTH"


« Reply #19 on: October 06, 2012, 09:45:07 PM »

Monsters. That is what these people are. Even if vaccines are as safe as the state claims, forcing society to accept such things is nothing short of tyrannical (no telling what the state will deem being properly "informed"). Orthodoxy is great for people too, but I am not exactly ready to ban heresy and force people into conversion at gunpoint (unless they have a "proper" theological understanding of the issues). The more you give to the temporal powers, the more they will expect and demand. Let the state force vaccines down the people's throat today and you will be paving the way to likewise have the state mandate whatever other things they perceive as "beneficial". This is an issue of freedom, not health.

Yeah, it was great to have the freedom to catch mumps.  Roll Eyes
Because no one catches mumps from the vaccine itself...

No, they don't. I caught it before they gave me the vaccine. What do you not understand?

Opinions like yours aren't just the ones that don't matter (I like team xyz, I like such-and-such ice cream). They kill people.
All vaccines carry the risk of you actually catching the sickness itself.

But obesity kills, are you ready for a national diet? Heresy damns, are you ready for Orthodox totalitarianism?

Thanks for the offer of a dysatopic future though. I will stick with freedom.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 09:45:53 PM by Ioannis Climacus » Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.
JamesR
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 4,779


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #20 on: October 06, 2012, 09:46:42 PM »

Monsters. That is what these people are. Even if vaccines are as safe as the state claims, forcing society to accept such things is nothing short of tyrannical (no telling what the state will deem being properly "informed"). Orthodoxy is great for people too, but I am not exactly ready to ban heresy and force people into conversion at gunpoint (unless they have a "proper" theological understanding of the issues). The more you give to the temporal powers, the more they will expect and demand. Let the state force vaccines down the people's throat today and you will be paving the way to likewise have the state mandate whatever other things they perceive as "beneficial". This is an issue of freedom, not health.

So many fallacies that I do not even know where to start derailing your post. If you honestly think that forcing someone to get vaccinated/vaccinate their children is the same thing as forcing someone to convert to Orthodoxy then I feel sorrt with you. The difference is that when you do not receive vaccinations, not only do you put yourself at danger, but you put other people at danger of contracting particular illnesses. Therefore, the collective wellbeing of the people overrules the individual. On the other hand, forcing someone to convert to Orthodoxy is different because whether or not they are Orthodox will--in most cases at least--not affect/harm anyone else other than themselves. Likewise, children do not possess the intellectual capacity to decide for themselves whether or not they should receive vaccinations, so therefore it falls under the parents' responsibility to handle it. And parents should not be allowed to refuse their children vaccinations--which would harm their childrens' health, just because they are conspiracists or some religious nuts. And even further, should not send their unvaccinated children to public schools where they risk spreading illnesses to other children.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 09:48:03 PM by JamesR » Logged

Quote
Wherever goes JamesR goes, he is there.
-Orthonorm
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,936


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 06, 2012, 09:49:54 PM »

The government has an obligation to protect public safety. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't mean anything if you're dead. The government also has the right to pass laws. Read the Constitution sometime. Don't like it? Live somewhere else.

Would you have been ranting about absolutist 'freedom' during the flu epidemic of 1918? I guess not. I've never heard anyone say, "I like this horrible disease I've got. I want to die."

You go ahead and catch things and die. I like life. I don't believe in the 'freedom' of your children to pass on whooping cough to others. Sorry.

Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
JamesR
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 4,779


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2012, 09:50:47 PM »

But obesity kills, are you ready for a national diet? Heresy damns, are you ready for Orthodox totalitarianism?

Neither a person's obesity or heresy affects and/or harms anyone else other than themselves, so to answer your questions, no, we are not ready for a national diet or totalitarian Orthodox state. However, as I pointed out in your last post, not receiving your vaccines/not getting your children their vaccines carries the risk of not only harming the persons in question but other people as well. So for the collective state of the people, we should overrule the 'rights' of the individual and make vaccinations mandatory.
Logged

Quote
Wherever goes JamesR goes, he is there.
-Orthonorm
Ioannis Climacus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


"There is no religion higher than TRUTH"


« Reply #23 on: October 06, 2012, 09:59:19 PM »

The difference is that when you do not receive vaccinations, not only do you put yourself at danger, but you put other people at danger of contracting particular illnesses. Therefore, the collective wellbeing of the people overrules the individual. On the other hand, forcing someone to convert to Orthodoxy is different because whether or not they are Orthodox will--in most cases at least--not affect/harm anyone else other than themselves. Likewise, children do not possess the intellectual capacity to decide for themselves whether or not they should receive vaccinations, so therefore it falls under the parents' responsibility to handle it. And parents should not be allowed to refuse their children vaccinations--which would harm their childrens' health, just because they are conspiracists or some religious nuts. And even further, should not send their unvaccinated children to public schools where they risk spreading illnesses to other children.
Not true. The unconverted are quite apt at spreading heresy. Parents are likewise able to instruct their children in blasphemous teachings. All of these things are to the detriment of their immortal souls - something much more important than life.

And sorry, but I don't buy utilitarian BS about the collective good and its superiority to individual rights. Such is the talk of tyrants and despots. Life has risks.

Question though, why do you fear unvaccinated children spreading sickness to the vaccinated ones? Wouldn't that make the vaccination moot?
Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.
JamesR
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 4,779


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2012, 10:10:39 PM »

Not true. The unconverted are quite apt at spreading heresy. Parents are likewise able to instruct their children in blasphemous teachings. All of these things are to the detriment of their immortal souls - something much more important than life.

Spreading heresy is not the same as spreading illness. People possess the freedom of whether or not they want to accept heresy or not whereas in most cases people cannot choose whether they contract illnesses or not. Likewise, it is not the purpose nor the concern of the earthly government to interfere with the conditions of our 'immortal souls'--something in which we do not even know if it exists. That's the job of God and the Church.

Quote
And sorry, but I don't buy utilitarian BS about the collective good and its superiority to individual rights. Such is the talk of tyrants and despots. Life has risks.

Well I don't buy into the Ayn Rand BS about individual rights and spoiled individuals being able to negatively affect the entire population just because of their 'individual rights' crap. Such talk is the talk of Satan and is the philosophy of right-wing despots and tyrants. Satan was the ultimate objectivist.

Quote
Question though, why do you fear unvaccinated children spreading sickness to the vaccinated ones? Wouldn't that make the vaccination moot?

It is about taking precautions. Sure the vaccinations are supposed to prevent the illnesses from being contracted, and in most case they do prevent that from happening, but you can never be fully certain, and so it is better to make it mandatory for everyone who is going to be a part of the society to become vaccinated, so that we can further decrease the chances of other children contracting an illness.

Likewise, parents do not have the rights to refuse their children vaccinations either in my mind. I don't give a hell about your 'but it's my religious freedom hur hurr' bullcrap that religious nut parents say when they try to force their religion upon their child or mistreat their child because of differing religions.
Logged

Quote
Wherever goes JamesR goes, he is there.
-Orthonorm
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #25 on: October 06, 2012, 10:12:53 PM »

If you don't believe forced immunizations cause problems, ask some veterans.

At one point, the FDA actually made companies do more reasearch before making medicine available, like 20+ years.  Now, not so much, and we see the results.  Law suits, people dying and those same "great" meds getting shelfed.  I will now forever be weary of any new medical development.  Give it 5 to 10 years and see what happens.
Logged
Ioannis Climacus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


"There is no religion higher than TRUTH"


« Reply #26 on: October 06, 2012, 10:13:08 PM »

The government has an obligation to protect public safety. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't mean anything if you're dead. The government also has the right to pass laws. Read the Constitution sometime. Don't like it? Live somewhere else.
Liberty doesn't mean anything unless you actually have it. Sorry, but I don't worship the Constitution (not that it grants vaccine fanatics the right to pursue their agenda anyway - Amendments IV, V, and XIV). I also don't ally myself with the Washington regime either. I am much more happy with biding time until we can get a real secessionist movement going again, so I will kindly decline your offer of "leaving".

Would you have been ranting about absolutist 'freedom' during the flu epidemic of 1918? I guess not. I've never heard anyone say, "I like this horrible disease I've got. I want to die."

You go ahead and catch things and die. I like life. I don't believe in the 'freedom' of your children to pass on whooping cough to others. Sorry.
Actually, you just don't believe in freedom. Freedom is risky thing. You seem much more content with serfdom and your chains. I prefer freedom and all the risks/dangers it affords. That is superior to slavery, regardless of the safety it provides.
Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #27 on: October 06, 2012, 10:16:23 PM »

The government has an obligation to protect public safety. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't mean anything if you're dead. The government also has the right to pass laws. Read the Constitution sometime. Don't like it? Live somewhere else.

Would you have been ranting about absolutist 'freedom' during the flu epidemic of 1918? I guess not. I've never heard anyone say, "I like this horrible disease I've got. I want to die."

You go ahead and catch things and die. I like life. I don't believe in the 'freedom' of your children to pass on whooping cough to others. Sorry.


Perhaps we should lice powder and shave bald every child in school as well?

You suggested we read the Constitution.  I actually keep a copy on my desk.  When I read it, I see the limits of government.  Can you show me where it says big brother can force is into getting any medical procedure?
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 10:19:38 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Ioannis Climacus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


"There is no religion higher than TRUTH"


« Reply #28 on: October 06, 2012, 10:24:41 PM »

Spreading heresy is not the same as spreading illness. People possess the freedom of whether or not they want to accept heresy or not whereas in most cases people cannot choose whether they contract illnesses or not. Likewise, it is not the purpose nor the concern of the earthly government to interfere with the conditions of our 'immortal souls'--something in which we do not even know if it exists. That's the job of God and the Church.
How much "freedom" do children possess in accepting/rejecting the teachings of their parents?

Well I don't buy into the Ayn Rand BS about individual rights and spoiled individuals being able to negatively affect the entire population just because of their 'individual rights' crap. Such talk is the talk of Satan and is the philosophy of right-wing despots and tyrants. Satan was the ultimate objectivist.

That sir, is a strawman. Not once did I advocate objectivism. If you think individualism is limited to Randianism, then you are sadly mistaken. The founders, for instance, would be horrified by such collectivism.

What right-wing despots and tyrants supported individualism?

Quote
It is about taking precautions. Sure the vaccinations are supposed to prevent the illnesses from being contracted, and in most case they do prevent that from happening, but you can never be fully certain, and so it is better to make it mandatory for everyone who is going to be a part of the society to become vaccinated, so that we can further decrease the chances of other children contracting an illness.

Likewise, parents do not have the rights to refuse their children vaccinations either in my mind. I don't give a hell about your 'but it's my religious freedom hur hurr' bullcrap that religious nut parents say when they try to force their religion upon their child or mistreat their child because of differing religions.
You must really dislike the First Amendment. You know, the religious freedom "hu hurr' bullcrap".
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 10:47:22 PM by Ioannis Climacus » Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,936


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 06, 2012, 10:26:55 PM »

Yeah, like the religious freedom of Jehovah's Witnesses who let their kids die because they don't believe in blood transfusions. Or the Christian Scientists who let their kids die of viral infections because it's better to 'sweat it out' in prayer.

Excuse me, but St. Luke was a physician, and Our Lord was pleased to call him as an apostle. That's good enough for me.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,936


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #30 on: October 06, 2012, 10:27:42 PM »

The government has an obligation to protect public safety. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't mean anything if you're dead. The government also has the right to pass laws. Read the Constitution sometime. Don't like it? Live somewhere else.

Would you have been ranting about absolutist 'freedom' during the flu epidemic of 1918? I guess not. I've never heard anyone say, "I like this horrible disease I've got. I want to die."

You go ahead and catch things and die. I like life. I don't believe in the 'freedom' of your children to pass on whooping cough to others. Sorry.


Perhaps we should lice powder and shave bald every child in school as well?

You suggested we read the Constitution.  I actually keep a copy on my desk.  When I read it, I see the limits of government.  Can you show me where it says big brother can force is into getting any medical procedure?

I've never heard of anyone getting into the military without getting a physical. The Constitution gives the government power over the military.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #31 on: October 06, 2012, 10:30:18 PM »

The government has an obligation to protect public safety. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't mean anything if you're dead. The government also has the right to pass laws. Read the Constitution sometime. Don't like it? Live somewhere else.

Would you have been ranting about absolutist 'freedom' during the flu epidemic of 1918? I guess not. I've never heard anyone say, "I like this horrible disease I've got. I want to die."

You go ahead and catch things and die. I like life. I don't believe in the 'freedom' of your children to pass on whooping cough to others. Sorry.


Perhaps we should lice powder and shave bald every child in school as well?

You suggested we read the Constitution.  I actually keep a copy on my desk.  When I read it, I see the limits of government.  Can you show me where it says big brother can force is into getting any medical procedure?

I've never heard of anyone getting into the military without getting a physical. The Constitution gives the government power over the military.
You aren't reading the posts, rather skimming over them.  Additionally, many medical procedures can be refused for military members, but not all, so it isn't slavery.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 10:31:35 PM by Kerdy » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,904


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #32 on: October 06, 2012, 10:45:37 PM »

This is an interesting debate.  Let's suppose we are trying to eradicate a debilitating disease that is easily communicable.  Can you say you can use the Constitution just to give that person the freedom to not get treated despite how dangerous he is to others?

If the answer is yes, then what the state did is wrong.
If the answer is no, then there should even be forced vaccinations.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,936


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #33 on: October 06, 2012, 10:53:27 PM »

The government has an obligation to protect public safety. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't mean anything if you're dead. The government also has the right to pass laws. Read the Constitution sometime. Don't like it? Live somewhere else.

Would you have been ranting about absolutist 'freedom' during the flu epidemic of 1918? I guess not. I've never heard anyone say, "I like this horrible disease I've got. I want to die."

You go ahead and catch things and die. I like life. I don't believe in the 'freedom' of your children to pass on whooping cough to others. Sorry.


Perhaps we should lice powder and shave bald every child in school as well?

You suggested we read the Constitution.  I actually keep a copy on my desk.  When I read it, I see the limits of government.  Can you show me where it says big brother can force is into getting any medical procedure?

I've never heard of anyone getting into the military without getting a physical. The Constitution gives the government power over the military.
You aren't reading the posts, rather skimming over them.  Additionally, many medical procedures can be refused for military members, but not all, so it isn't slavery.

Lie. I read the posts. How would you even know?  Huh
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #34 on: October 06, 2012, 11:03:02 PM »

The government has an obligation to protect public safety. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't mean anything if you're dead. The government also has the right to pass laws. Read the Constitution sometime. Don't like it? Live somewhere else.

Would you have been ranting about absolutist 'freedom' during the flu epidemic of 1918? I guess not. I've never heard anyone say, "I like this horrible disease I've got. I want to die."

You go ahead and catch things and die. I like life. I don't believe in the 'freedom' of your children to pass on whooping cough to others. Sorry.


Perhaps we should lice powder and shave bald every child in school as well?

You suggested we read the Constitution.  I actually keep a copy on my desk.  When I read it, I see the limits of government.  Can you show me where it says big brother can force is into getting any medical procedure?

I've never heard of anyone getting into the military without getting a physical. The Constitution gives the government power over the military.
You aren't reading the posts, rather skimming over them.  Additionally, many medical procedures can be refused for military members, but not all, so it isn't slavery.

Lie. I read the posts. How would you even know?  Huh

Because you don't respond to them all.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #35 on: October 06, 2012, 11:19:23 PM »

The government has an obligation to protect public safety. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't mean anything if you're dead. The government also has the right to pass laws. Read the Constitution sometime. Don't like it? Live somewhere else.

Would you have been ranting about absolutist 'freedom' during the flu epidemic of 1918? I guess not. I've never heard anyone say, "I like this horrible disease I've got. I want to die."

You go ahead and catch things and die. I like life. I don't believe in the 'freedom' of your children to pass on whooping cough to others. Sorry.


Perhaps we should lice powder and shave bald every child in school as well?

You suggested we read the Constitution.  I actually keep a copy on my desk.  When I read it, I see the limits of government.  Can you show me where it says big brother can force is into getting any medical procedure?

I've never heard of anyone getting into the military without getting a physical. The Constitution gives the government power over the military.
You aren't reading the posts, rather skimming over them.  Additionally, many medical procedures can be refused for military members, but not all, so it isn't slavery.

Lie. I read the posts. How would you even know?  Huh
Oh my!!!  You called me a liar.  Perhaps incorrect, but not a liar. 

How would I know?  Based off you lack of response to what is posted.  So, one of four things.  You aren't reading completely.  You don't understand (which I do not believe).  You don't care.  Or, you are attempting to respond in a shady manner.  In any event, it doesn't bother me if you want to cherry pick which parts of a post to want to address.  I sometimes do the same thing.  I just try to provide a more complete response is all.

But for clarification, entrance examinations into the military have absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,709


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #36 on: October 06, 2012, 11:20:28 PM »

Monsters. That is what these people are. Even if vaccines are as safe as the state claims, forcing society to accept such things is nothing short of tyrannical (no telling what the state will deem being properly "informed"). Orthodoxy is great for people too, but I am not exactly ready to ban heresy and force people into conversion at gunpoint (unless they have a "proper" theological understanding of the issues). The more you give to the temporal powers, the more they will expect and demand. Let the state force vaccines down the people's throat today and you will be paving the way to likewise have the state mandate whatever other things they perceive as "beneficial". This is an issue of freedom, not health.

I AGREE COMPLETELY.

5 children, no vaccines, and there are OTHER studies linking Autism to them.   Amazing how the money of big pharma keeps "debunking" the truth.  No problems either in my children's health at ALL.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,709


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #37 on: October 06, 2012, 11:24:19 PM »

This is an interesting debate.  Let's suppose we are trying to eradicate a debilitating disease that is easily communicable.  Can you say you can use the Constitution just to give that person the freedom to not get treated despite how dangerous he is to others?

If the answer is yes, then what the state did is wrong.
If the answer is no, then there should even be forced vaccinations.

This is different.

If 90% of the people chose vaccinations
and 10% chose NOT to vaccinate, the 10% are the ones at risk, not the 90%

It's about the freedom.
We chose NOT to vaccinate after multitudes of hours of study.

There are more sides to the argument that "whacky conspiracies" that people often accuse those against vaccines of following.  http://www.nvic.org/
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,116


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #38 on: October 06, 2012, 11:30:15 PM »

For those of you far too young to remember:

Iron Lung:



A polio ward full of them:

« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 11:31:19 PM by LBK » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,904


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #39 on: October 06, 2012, 11:45:43 PM »

This is an interesting debate.  Let's suppose we are trying to eradicate a debilitating disease that is easily communicable.  Can you say you can use the Constitution just to give that person the freedom to not get treated despite how dangerous he is to others?

If the answer is yes, then what the state did is wrong.
If the answer is no, then there should even be forced vaccinations.

This is different.

If 90% of the people chose vaccinations
and 10% chose NOT to vaccinate, the 10% are the ones at risk, not the 90%

It's about the freedom.
We chose NOT to vaccinate after multitudes of hours of study.

There are more sides to the argument that "whacky conspiracies" that people often accuse those against vaccines of following.  http://www.nvic.org/

Yes, but on my way of trying to get the vaccine, it would be too late, and thanks to the 10%, my child got a disease that could have been prevented if they weren't 20 feet close to my child.

In this country, a person with known multiresistance TB can be forced to be hospitalized if not compliant with physicians, because he has become a potential danger to others.

If you're a walking unpredictable trigger, the Constitution does not protect you to be free to shoot around your bullet anywhere.

And I say this with the most respect possible.  It it at most times the really ignorant of people who prevent vaccines.  Forgive me, but Jenny McCarthy is not a good representative of mothers who wish to prevent autism for her children.  Rather than her promiscuous history, she should have gotten a science education.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 11:52:18 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #40 on: October 07, 2012, 01:28:50 AM »

U.S. States Make Opting Out of Vaccinations Harder

More than ten years after a study in The Lancet falsely linked autism to the measles, mumps and rubella triple vaccine, evidence of reduced immunization rates and rising incidence of disease are spurring politicians to try to make up lost ground.
 
California has tightened the laws that allow parents in the state to opt out of immunization for their children. It now joins Washington and Vermont in requiring parents who want an exemption to demonstrate that they have received factual information about the risks and benefits of vaccination from a health-care practitioner or the state’s health department...
A large contributor for the spread of disease is travel.  I wonder how long before people are forced to stay in their respective countries or in the USA, their respective states.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #41 on: October 07, 2012, 01:30:34 AM »

For those of you far too young to remember:

Iron Lung:



A polio ward full of them:


An epidemic tends to have that effect.  Pandemic or less usually does not.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #42 on: October 07, 2012, 01:34:24 AM »

This is an interesting debate.  Let's suppose we are trying to eradicate a debilitating disease that is easily communicable.  Can you say you can use the Constitution just to give that person the freedom to not get treated despite how dangerous he is to others?

If the answer is yes, then what the state did is wrong.
If the answer is no, then there should even be forced vaccinations.

This is different.

If 90% of the people chose vaccinations
and 10% chose NOT to vaccinate, the 10% are the ones at risk, not the 90%

It's about the freedom.
We chose NOT to vaccinate after multitudes of hours of study.

There are more sides to the argument that "whacky conspiracies" that people often accuse those against vaccines of following.  http://www.nvic.org/

Yes, but on my way of trying to get the vaccine, it would be too late, and thanks to the 10%, my child got a disease that could have been prevented if they weren't 20 feet close to my child.

In this country, a person with known multiresistance TB can be forced to be hospitalized if not compliant with physicians, because he has become a potential danger to others.

If you're a walking unpredictable trigger, the Constitution does not protect you to be free to shoot around your bullet anywhere.

And I say this with the most respect possible.  It it at most times the really ignorant of people who prevent vaccines.  Forgive me, but Jenny McCarthy is not a good representative of mothers who wish to prevent autism for her children.  Rather than her promiscuous history, she should have gotten a science education.
Would you be for or against forcible confinement of those with none curable STDs?  They regularly engage in intercourse without ever telling their current partner of their disease, thus the massive spread of STDs.  What about fatal diseases?  Lock them up on an island for the safety of others?
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 01:35:16 AM by Kerdy » Logged
JamesR
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 4,779


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #43 on: October 07, 2012, 02:08:12 AM »

How much "freedom" do children possess in accepting/rejecting the teachings of their parents?

Not very much at all. It really comes down to how much the parents are willing to let them--as I know from personal experience. It may interest you to know that I do actually oppose parents forcing their religion (especially heretical religions) onto their children and if it were a practical possibility to prevent them from doing it, then I would support that. But seeing that I cannot think of a practical way to prevent parents from religiously abusing their child, I am conceding political defeat to that, which is why instead I am advocating that the government stop parents from doing anything that physically harms and/or puts their children at a physical risk--even if it is motivated by their religion.

Quote
That sir, is a strawman. Not once did I advocate objectivism. If you think individualism is limited to Randianism, then you are sadly mistaken. The founders, for instance, would be horrified by such collectivism.

And that 'sir' is the pot calling the kettle black. In your previous post, you can dismiss my altruistic views about the collective population overruling individual rights as 'utilitarianist BS' then why can't I dismiss your individualism as 'Randianist BS'? Likewise, why are we even debating labels and names of philosophical systems of thought? Debate the philosophical systems in themselves. You say that you are an individualist, then explain and defend your individualism--whether it is Randian or not.

Quote
What right-wing despots and tyrants supported individualism?

Try this guy along with Adolf Hitler and Mussolini.

Quote
You must really dislike the First Amendment. You know, the religious freedom "hu hurr' bullcrap".

I actually don't give a hell about what a document written 400 years ago specifically addressing problems and circumstances that people were facing 400 years ago by fallible men 400 years ago has to say. I've said it before and I will say it again that the Constitution is merely a list of guidelines in my eyes opposed to absolute authority. Going further though, yeah, religious freedom is a good thing, but only to an extent. You Christians in America are spoiled whiny brats too used to the whole country favoring you and favoring your ideological views. Religious freedom ends when it physically harms and/or impedes upon the lives and rights of other people--including your children. This is why we don't allow those crazy Jehova Witness/Christian Science types to reject blood transfusions to their children and why hopefully we will outlaw Jews and Muslims from circumcising their children.
Logged

Quote
Wherever goes JamesR goes, he is there.
-Orthonorm
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #44 on: October 07, 2012, 02:16:57 AM »

Quote
What right-wing despots and tyrants supported individualism?
Adolf Hitler and Mussolini.

That is the most absurd thing I've ever read. Those people were against individualism more than about anyone in history...

Hitler was all about unifying the German people under one idea (ie Aryanism and/or a Germany for Germans only). Mussolini was about unifying the Italians under one government (ie Idea).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race#Aryanism_and_Nazism

« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 02:17:33 AM by celticfan1888 » Logged

Forgive my sins.
JamesR
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 4,779


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #45 on: October 07, 2012, 02:19:53 AM »

Quote
What right-wing despots and tyrants supported individualism?
Adolf Hitler and Mussolini.

That is the most absurd thing I've ever read.

Hitler was all about unifying the German people under one idea (ie Aryanism and/or a Germany for Germans only). Mussolini was about unifying the Italians under one government (ie Idea).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race#Aryanism_and_Nazism



It was imperialist individualism. Individualism on a grand, nationwide scale. Adolf Hitler was the ultimate individualist because he wanted to separate the German people from the rest of the world because he saw them as being a special individual racial group. I'm not so sure about Mussolini, but from what I know about him, I would say the same thing applies to him. Likewise, they were both HEAVY fascists--which is the ultimate right-wing political philosophy.
Logged

Quote
Wherever goes JamesR goes, he is there.
-Orthonorm
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #46 on: October 07, 2012, 02:25:38 AM »

Quote
What right-wing despots and tyrants supported individualism?
Adolf Hitler and Mussolini.

That is the most absurd thing I've ever read.

Hitler was all about unifying the German people under one idea (ie Aryanism and/or a Germany for Germans only). Mussolini was about unifying the Italians under one government (ie Idea).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race#Aryanism_and_Nazism



It was imperialist individualism. Individualism on a grand, nationwide scale. Adolf Hitler was the ultimate individualist because he wanted to separate the German people from the rest of the world because he saw them as being a special individual racial group. I'm not so sure about Mussolini, but from what I know about him, I would say the same thing applies to him.

Um...no. There is no such thing as Individualism "on a grand scale". That contradicts its definition:

individualism
noun
1. a social theory advocating the liberty, rights, or independent action of the individual.
2. the principle or habit of or belief in independent thought or action.
3. the pursuit of individual rather than common or collective interests; egoism.
4. individual character; individuality.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/individualism


Oh and...: "The unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual; and that the higher  interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual." -- Adolph Hitler


Likewise, they were both HEAVY fascists--which is the ultimate right-wing political philosophy.

What does that have to do with the price of rice in China?
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 02:27:20 AM by celticfan1888 » Logged

Forgive my sins.
Ioannis Climacus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


"There is no religion higher than TRUTH"


« Reply #47 on: October 07, 2012, 02:38:17 AM »

Not very much at all. It really comes down to how much the parents are willing to let them--as I know from personal experience. It may interest you to know that I do actually oppose parents forcing their religion (especially heretical religions) onto their children and if it were a practical possibility to prevent them from doing it, then I would support that. But seeing that I cannot think of a practical way to prevent parents from religiously abusing their child, I am conceding political defeat to that, which is why instead I am advocating that the government stop parents from doing anything that physically harms and/or puts their children at a physical risk--even if it is motivated by their religion.
Why not just abolish the family unit so we can all live on giant polyamorous state compounds? That way, all children could be raised in the exact same environment.

And that 'sir' is the pot calling the kettle black. In your previous post, you can dismiss my altruistic views about the collective population overruling individual rights as 'utilitarianist BS' then why can't I dismiss your individualism as 'Randianist BS'? Likewise, why are we even debating labels and names of philosophical systems of thought? Debate the philosophical systems in themselves. You say that you are an individualist, then explain and defend your individualism--whether it is Randian or not.
That is the definition of utilitarianism is it not? The greater good triumphs that of the individual. Seems accurate to me. My views, however, are not entirely relevant to the discussion, but for the sake of dialogue, I am a libertarian with anarcho-capitalist leanings. Rand, as I am sure you know, did not think very highly of libertarians.

No, your views are not altruistic - they are despotic.

Try this guy along with Adolf Hitler and Mussolini.
Huh I have never in my life heard a single speech or recording, read a single writing, excerpt, quotation, citation, or any thing to slightly suggest that either Hitler or Mussolini were supporters of individualism. Do you understand that nationalism is collectivism? Those are perhaps some of the best examples of people who were opposed individualism.

Il Duce : "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." (Speech to Chamber of Deputies - 9 December 1928)

Der Führer : "The unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual; and that the higher  interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual."

I actually don't give a hell about what a document written 400 years ago specifically addressing problems and circumstances that people were facing 400 years ago by fallible men 400 years ago has to say. I've said it before and I will say it again that the Constitution is merely a list of guidelines in my eyes opposed to absolute authority. Going further though, yeah, religious freedom is a good thing, but only to an extent. You Christians in America are spoiled whiny brats too used to the whole country favoring you and favoring your ideological views. Religious freedom ends when it physically harms and/or impedes upon the lives and rights of other people--including your children. This is why we don't allow those crazy Jehova Witness/Christian Science types to reject blood transfusions to their children and why hopefully we will outlaw Jews and Muslims from circumcising their children.
Not to nitpick, but the Constitution was not written even close to 400 years ago. And yes, I am not the biggest fan of it (the Articles of Confederation were much better), but its the reality of the society we live in. If you want to abolish religious freedoms, then you need to abolish the Constitution (or at least the first amendment). Until then, you can keep the tyranny. I will stick with liberty.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 02:55:10 AM by Ioannis Climacus » Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,796


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #48 on: October 07, 2012, 06:06:39 AM »

Monsters. That is what these people are. Even if vaccines are as safe as the state claims, forcing society to accept such things is nothing short of tyrannical (no telling what the state will deem being properly "informed"). Orthodoxy is great for people too, but I am not exactly ready to ban heresy and force people into conversion at gunpoint (unless they have a "proper" theological understanding of the issues). The more you give to the temporal powers, the more they will expect and demand. Let the state force vaccines down the people's throat today and you will be paving the way to likewise have the state mandate whatever other things they perceive as "beneficial". This is an issue of freedom, not health.

I AGREE COMPLETELY.

5 children, no vaccines, and there are OTHER studies linking Autism to them.   Amazing how the money of big pharma keeps "debunking" the truth.  No problems either in my children's health at ALL.
Autism?

Your vaccinations must be different from ours.
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,116


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #49 on: October 07, 2012, 06:30:35 AM »

For those of you far too young to remember:

Iron Lung:



A polio ward full of them:


An epidemic tends to have that effect.  Pandemic or less usually does not.

My dear kerdy, do you know the difference between an epidemic and a pandemic? And I might also remind you that these kids (and many adults) had to spend months (if they were lucky) or years (more likely), or the rest of their lives (ugh!) in these contraptions.

Thanks to polio vaccination, iron lungs have become relics of history, curiosities for medical and nursing students. Thank God!

And don't get me started on whooping cough, rubella (German measles), tuberculosis, and other diseases that maim and kill. I'm old enough to have seen the effects of many of 'em.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,913


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #50 on: October 07, 2012, 07:30:36 AM »

Quote
What right-wing despots and tyrants supported individualism?
Adolf Hitler and Mussolini.

That is the most absurd thing I've ever read.

Hitler was all about unifying the German people under one idea (ie Aryanism and/or a Germany for Germans only). Mussolini was about unifying the Italians under one government (ie Idea).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race#Aryanism_and_Nazism



It was imperialist individualism. Individualism on a grand, nationwide scale. Adolf Hitler was the ultimate individualist because he wanted to separate the German people from the rest of the world because he saw them as being a special individual racial group. I'm not so sure about Mussolini, but from what I know about him, I would say the same thing applies to him. Likewise, they were both HEAVY fascists--which is the ultimate right-wing political philosophy.
There is so much wrong with this post that just must stand here due to posting restrictions in public forum areas.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,143



« Reply #51 on: October 07, 2012, 08:12:40 AM »

Monsters. That is what these people are. Even if vaccines are as safe as the state claims, forcing society to accept such things is nothing short of tyrannical (no telling what the state will deem being properly "informed"). Orthodoxy is great for people too, but I am not exactly ready to ban heresy and force people into conversion at gunpoint (unless they have a "proper" theological understanding of the issues). The more you give to the temporal powers, the more they will expect and demand. Let the state force vaccines down the people's throat today and you will be paving the way to likewise have the state mandate whatever other things they perceive as "beneficial". This is an issue of freedom, not health.

I AGREE COMPLETELY.

5 children, no vaccines, and there are OTHER studies linking Autism to them.   Amazing how the money of big pharma keeps "debunking" the truth.  No problems either in my children's health at ALL.

There's no problem in your children's health at all because of herd immunity. The people who actually vaccinate their kids are providing a measure of protection for your children. When more and more people refuse their kids' vaccinations, herd immunity is jeopardized. Then we see a resurgence of diseases, many of them deadly.
Logged

"As there is drunkenness for God, which doesn’t see the world in its ugliness, there is also a drunkenness of the world, which does not see in its ugliness the holiness of God." - Fr. Dumitru Staniloae
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #52 on: October 07, 2012, 09:11:33 AM »

For those of you far too young to remember:

Iron Lung:



A polio ward full of them:


An epidemic tends to have that effect.  Pandemic or less usually does not.

My dear kerdy, do you know the difference between an epidemic and a pandemic? And I might also remind you that these kids (and many adults) had to spend months (if they were lucky) or years (more likely), or the rest of their lives (ugh!) in these contraptions.

Thanks to polio vaccination, iron lungs have become relics of history, curiosities for medical and nursing students. Thank God!

And don't get me started on whooping cough, rubella (German measles), tuberculosis, and other diseases that maim and kill. I'm old enough to have seen the effects of many of 'em.

I know the difference, I see how I've confused you by putting them in the wrong place.  I should exercise more caution in the future.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 09:16:22 AM by Kerdy » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,904


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #53 on: October 07, 2012, 01:03:49 PM »

This is an interesting debate.  Let's suppose we are trying to eradicate a debilitating disease that is easily communicable.  Can you say you can use the Constitution just to give that person the freedom to not get treated despite how dangerous he is to others?

If the answer is yes, then what the state did is wrong.
If the answer is no, then there should even be forced vaccinations.

This is different.

If 90% of the people chose vaccinations
and 10% chose NOT to vaccinate, the 10% are the ones at risk, not the 90%

It's about the freedom.
We chose NOT to vaccinate after multitudes of hours of study.

There are more sides to the argument that "whacky conspiracies" that people often accuse those against vaccines of following.  http://www.nvic.org/

Yes, but on my way of trying to get the vaccine, it would be too late, and thanks to the 10%, my child got a disease that could have been prevented if they weren't 20 feet close to my child.

In this country, a person with known multiresistance TB can be forced to be hospitalized if not compliant with physicians, because he has become a potential danger to others.

If you're a walking unpredictable trigger, the Constitution does not protect you to be free to shoot around your bullet anywhere.

And I say this with the most respect possible.  It it at most times the really ignorant of people who prevent vaccines.  Forgive me, but Jenny McCarthy is not a good representative of mothers who wish to prevent autism for her children.  Rather than her promiscuous history, she should have gotten a science education.
Would you be for or against forcible confinement of those with none curable STDs?  They regularly engage in intercourse without ever telling their current partner of their disease, thus the massive spread of STDs.  What about fatal diseases?  Lock them up on an island for the safety of others?
An STD is not as easily communicable as measles, mumps, and rubella, so the answer to your question is no.  No need to quarantine such individuals. 

Quarantining is not the same as placing someone in an island.  Such statements reveal ignorance.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 01:05:12 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #54 on: October 07, 2012, 06:55:51 PM »

This is an interesting debate.  Let's suppose we are trying to eradicate a debilitating disease that is easily communicable.  Can you say you can use the Constitution just to give that person the freedom to not get treated despite how dangerous he is to others?

If the answer is yes, then what the state did is wrong.
If the answer is no, then there should even be forced vaccinations.

This is different.

If 90% of the people chose vaccinations
and 10% chose NOT to vaccinate, the 10% are the ones at risk, not the 90%

It's about the freedom.
We chose NOT to vaccinate after multituodes of hours of study.

There are more sides to the argument that "whacky conspiracies" that people often accuse those against vaccines of following.  http://www.nvic.org/

Yes, but on my way of trying to get the vaccine, it would be too late, and thanks to the 10%, my child got a disease that could have been prevented if they weren't 20 feet close to my child.

In this country, a person with known multiresistance TB can be forced to be hospitalized if not compliant with physicians, because he has become a potential danger to others.

If you're a walking unpredictable trigger, the Constitution does not protect you to be free to shoot around your bullet anywhere.

And I say this with the most respect possible.  It it at most times the really ignorant of people who prevent vaccines.  Forgive me, but Jenny McCarthy is not a good representative of mothers who wish to prevent autism for her children.  Rather than her promiscuous history, she should have gotten a science education.
Would you be for or against forcible confinement of those with none curable STDs?  They regularly engage in intercourse without ever telling their current partner of their disease, thus the massive spread of STDs.  What about fatal diseases?  Lock them up on an island for the safety of others?
An STD is not as easily communicable as measles, mumps, and rubella, so the answer to your question is no.  No need to quarantine such individuals. 

Quarantining is not the same as placing someone in an island.  Such statements reveal ignorance.
Ignorance?  Hardly.  STDs are easily spread.  If not true, a stagering percentage of the population (statistically) wouldn't have one.  I believe it's something like 1 in 3 people.  Because you want to differentiate between which is more or less communicable doesn't alter the reality that they are very communicable and spread at a deadly rate daily.  And we can never ignore many of these diseases are spread through other means such as drug use and sharing needles.

What do you think force relocation of people to an island is who are sick is called?  Quarantine.  The same as if they were force relocated to a warehouse or a camp.  Keeping your sick child home from school is also a quarantine.  Refusal to see the correlation reveals a measure of ignorance, if we are going to be honest about the entire thing. 

Lets compare numbers in, lets say Africa, between deaths related to HIV and the others you listed.  I have a feeling you would no longer call my statements ignorant.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,904


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #55 on: October 07, 2012, 07:03:33 PM »

Actually it is ignorance and I'll show you why.  Quarantining does not necessarily mean the quarantined is ignored.  That person is also treated as a patient and would be treated to the best of a clinician's ability.  Quarantines happen many time within hospital systems.

Diseases spread by respiratory droplets are one of those issues necessary for quarantine.  Your sensationalism comparing quarantine to some sort of expulsion or banishment reveals how ignorant you are.  Let's say someone with E. Bola is in the US, do you want him/her the freedom to roam around?

STDs are dealt with differently in a court of law, just as haring needles, etc.  these require education, not quarantine.  Your failure to see past my point in understanding the different transmissions of diseases show how you continue to judge based on your own limited understanding of different diseases.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
akimori makoto
正義の剣
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #56 on: October 07, 2012, 07:07:33 PM »

Quote
What right-wing despots and tyrants supported individualism?
Adolf Hitler and Mussolini.

That is the most absurd thing I've ever read.

Hitler was all about unifying the German people under one idea (ie Aryanism and/or a Germany for Germans only). Mussolini was about unifying the Italians under one government (ie Idea).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race#Aryanism_and_Nazism



It was imperialist individualism. Individualism on a grand, nationwide scale. Adolf Hitler was the ultimate individualist because he wanted to separate the German people from the rest of the world because he saw them as being a special individual racial group. I'm not so sure about Mussolini, but from what I know about him, I would say the same thing applies to him. Likewise, they were both HEAVY fascists--which is the ultimate right-wing political philosophy.

That, my friend, is the stupidest thing I have ever read.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #57 on: October 07, 2012, 07:12:52 PM »

Actually it is ignorance and I'll show you why.  Quarantining does not necessarily mean the quarantined is ignored.  That person is also treated as a patient and would be treated to the best of a clinician's ability.  Quarantines happen many time within hospital systems.

Diseases spread by respiratory droplets are one of those issues necessary for quarantine.  Your sensationalism comparing quarantine to some sort of expulsion or banishment reveals how ignorant you are.  Let's say someone with E. Bola is in the US, do you want him/her the freedom to roam around?

STDs are dealt with differently in a court of law, just as haring needles, etc.  these require education, not quarantine.  Your failure to see past my point in understanding the different transmissions of diseases show how you continue to judge based on your own limited understanding of different diseases.
And here I thought you were above playing semantics.  I suppose I could always be right too if I were the one who got to set the limits of the discussion.  You are right only within your limits to argue against my point.  Outside that limit, you are wrong.  And you also presume I'm am saying things I am not (I.e., not treating patients).  This type of debate is beneath you.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 07:14:53 PM by Kerdy » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,904


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #58 on: October 07, 2012, 07:23:22 PM »

Actually it is ignorance and I'll show you why.  Quarantining does not necessarily mean the quarantined is ignored.  That person is also treated as a patient and would be treated to the best of a clinician's ability.  Quarantines happen many time within hospital systems.

Diseases spread by respiratory droplets are one of those issues necessary for quarantine.  Your sensationalism comparing quarantine to some sort of expulsion or banishment reveals how ignorant you are.  Let's say someone with E. Bola is in the US, do you want him/her the freedom to roam around?

STDs are dealt with differently in a court of law, just as haring needles, etc.  these require education, not quarantine.  Your failure to see past my point in understanding the different transmissions of diseases show how you continue to judge based on your own limited understanding of different diseases.
And here I thought you were above playing semantics.  I suppose I could always be right too if I were the one who got to set the limits of the discussion.  You are right only within your limits to argue against my point.  Outside that limit, you are wrong.  And you also presume I'm am saying things I am not (I.e., not treating patients).  This type of debate is beneath you.

Kerdy, earlier I presented to you Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and TB and you still continued to talk about std's.  Then you make quarantine sound like a prison.  What do you expect?

This isn't a debate.  This is simply exposing your faulty logic.


If you asked me about std's then yes that's a different answer.  But you proceeded to make it think I am enforcing vaccines against std's.  I'm sorry, that not the definition of "easily comminicable", but a target audience that easily definable in characteristic, not in geographical distance.

When it comes to issues of health, I get particularly compassionate.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 07:30:29 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #59 on: October 07, 2012, 07:32:13 PM »

Actually it is ignorance and I'll show you why.  Quarantining does not necessarily mean the quarantined is ignored.  That person is also treated as a patient and would be treated to the best of a clinician's ability.  Quarantines happen many time within hospital systems.

Diseases spread by respiratory droplets are one of those issues necessary for quarantine.  Your sensationalism comparing quarantine to some sort of expulsion or banishment reveals how ignorant you are.  Let's say someone with E. Bola is in the US, do you want him/her the freedom to roam around?

STDs are dealt with differently in a court of law, just as haring needles, etc.  these require education, not quarantine.  Your failure to see past my point in understanding the different transmissions of diseases show how you continue to judge based on your own limited understanding of different diseases.
And here I thought you were above playing semantics.  I suppose I could always be right too if I were the one who got to set the limits of the discussion.  You are right only within your limits to argue against my point.  Outside that limit, you are wrong.  And you also presume I'm am saying things I am not (I.e., not treating patients).  This type of debate is beneath you.

Kerdy, earlier I presented to you Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and TB and you still continued to talk about std's.  Then you make quarantine sound like a prison.  What do you expect?

This isn't a debate.  This is simply exposing your faulty logic.


If you asked me about std's then yes that's a different answer.  But you proceeded to make it think I am enforcing vaccines against std's.  I'm sorry, that not the definition of "easily comminicable", but a target audience that easily definable in characteristic, not in geographical distance.

When it comes to issues of health, I get particularly compassionate.
I'll correct you when I get my computer back, if I feel I need to do so, later this week.
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 4,891


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #60 on: October 07, 2012, 07:33:45 PM »

Actually it is ignorance and I'll show you why.  Quarantining does not necessarily mean the quarantined is ignored.  That person is also treated as a patient and would be treated to the best of a clinician's ability.  Quarantines happen many time within hospital systems.

Diseases spread by respiratory droplets are one of those issues necessary for quarantine.  Your sensationalism comparing quarantine to some sort of expulsion or banishment reveals how ignorant you are.  Let's say someone with E. Bola is in the US, do you want him/her the freedom to roam around?

STDs are dealt with differently in a court of law, just as haring needles, etc.  these require education, not quarantine.  Your failure to see past my point in understanding the different transmissions of diseases show how you continue to judge based on your own limited understanding of different diseases.
And here I thought you were above playing semantics.  I suppose I could always be right too if I were the one who got to set the limits of the discussion.  You are right only within your limits to argue against my point.  Outside that limit, you are wrong.  And you also presume I'm am saying things I am not (I.e., not treating patients).  This type of debate is beneath you.

Kerdy, earlier I presented to you Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and TB and you still continued to talk about std's.  Then you make quarantine sound like a prison.  What do you expect?

This isn't a debate.  This is simply exposing your faulty logic.


If you asked me about std's then yes that's a different answer.  But you proceeded to make it think I am enforcing vaccines against std's.  I'm sorry, that not the definition of "easily comminicable", but a target audience that easily definable in characteristic, not in geographical distance.

When it comes to issues of health, I get particularly compassionate.
I'll correct you when I get my computer back, if I feel I need to do so, later this week.

I think what you meant to say is "I will show you how, in my mind, you are so obviously wrong; even if every other person in the world disagrees."
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #61 on: October 07, 2012, 07:37:44 PM »

Actually it is ignorance and I'll show you why.  Quarantining does not necessarily mean the quarantined is ignored.  That person is also treated as a patient and would be treated to the best of a clinician's ability.  Quarantines happen many time within hospital systems.

Diseases spread by respiratory droplets are one of those issues necessary for quarantine.  Your sensationalism comparing quarantine to some sort of expulsion or banishment reveals how ignorant you are.  Let's say someone with E. Bola is in the US, do you want him/her the freedom to roam around?

STDs are dealt with differently in a court of law, just as haring needles, etc.  these require education, not quarantine.  Your failure to see past my point in understanding the different transmissions of diseases show how you continue to judge based on your own limited understanding of different diseases.
And here I thought you were above playing semantics.  I suppose I could always be right too if I were the one who got to set the limits of the discussion.  You are right only within your limits to argue against my point.  Outside that limit, you are wrong.  And you also presume I'm am saying things I am not (I.e., not treating patients).  This type of debate is beneath you.

Kerdy, earlier I presented to you Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and TB and you still continued to talk about std's.  Then you make quarantine sound like a prison.  What do you expect?

This isn't a debate.  This is simply exposing your faulty logic.


If you asked me about std's then yes that's a different answer.  But you proceeded to make it think I am enforcing vaccines against std's.  I'm sorry, that not the definition of "easily comminicable", but a target audience that easily definable in characteristic, not in geographical distance.

When it comes to issues of health, I get particularly compassionate.
I'll correct you when I get my computer back, if I feel I need to do so, later this week.

I think what you meant to say is "I will show you how, in my mind, you are so obviously wrong; even if every other person in the world disagrees."
No, because I'm not the one redefining as we go along.  I take what is presented and go with that.  This started off talking about disease and forced inoculations.  Last I checked, disease is disease and spread through human contact meant just that.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 07:38:30 PM by Kerdy » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,904


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #62 on: October 07, 2012, 07:41:13 PM »

Actually it is ignorance and I'll show you why.  Quarantining does not necessarily mean the quarantined is ignored.  That person is also treated as a patient and would be treated to the best of a clinician's ability.  Quarantines happen many time within hospital systems.

Diseases spread by respiratory droplets are one of those issues necessary for quarantine.  Your sensationalism comparing quarantine to some sort of expulsion or banishment reveals how ignorant you are.  Let's say someone with E. Bola is in the US, do you want him/her the freedom to roam around?

STDs are dealt with differently in a court of law, just as haring needles, etc.  these require education, not quarantine.  Your failure to see past my point in understanding the different transmissions of diseases show how you continue to judge based on your own limited understanding of different diseases.
And here I thought you were above playing semantics.  I suppose I could always be right too if I were the one who got to set the limits of the discussion.  You are right only within your limits to argue against my point.  Outside that limit, you are wrong.  And you also presume I'm am saying things I am not (I.e., not treating patients).  This type of debate is beneath you.

Kerdy, earlier I presented to you Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and TB and you still continued to talk about std's.  Then you make quarantine sound like a prison.  What do you expect?

This isn't a debate.  This is simply exposing your faulty logic.


If you asked me about std's then yes that's a different answer.  But you proceeded to make it think I am enforcing vaccines against std's.  I'm sorry, that not the definition of "easily comminicable", but a target audience that easily definable in characteristic, not in geographical distance.

When it comes to issues of health, I get particularly compassionate.
I'll correct you when I get my computer back, if I feel I need to do so, later this week.

I think what you meant to say is "I will show you how, in my mind, you are so obviously wrong; even if every other person in the world disagrees."
No, because I'm not the one redefining as we go along.  I take what is presented and go with that.  This started off talking about disease and forced inoculations.  Last I checked, disease is disease and spread through human contact meant just that.
Rereading what I wrote, I feel I was quite consistent.  I don't see where I changed any definition.  Having sex is not the same as standing next to me.  A flu is more common than an std.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 07:41:53 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #63 on: October 07, 2012, 08:06:09 PM »

Actually it is ignorance and I'll show you why.  Quarantining does not necessarily mean the quarantined is ignored.  That person is also treated as a patient and would be treated to the best of a clinician's ability.  Quarantines happen many time within hospital systems.

Diseases spread by respiratory droplets are one of those issues necessary for quarantine.  Your sensationalism comparing quarantine to some sort of expulsion or banishment reveals how ignorant you are.  Let's say someone with E. Bola is in the US, do you want him/her the freedom to roam around?

STDs are dealt with differently in a court of law, just as haring needles, etc.  these require education, not quarantine.  Your failure to see past my point in understanding the different transmissions of diseases show how you continue to judge based on your own limited understanding of different diseases.
And here I thought you were above playing semantics.  I suppose I could always be right too if I were the one who got to set the limits of the discussion.  You are right only within your limits to argue against my point.  Outside that limit, you are wrong.  And you also presume I'm am saying things I am not (I.e., not treating patients).  This type of debate is beneath you.

Kerdy, earlier I presented to you Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and TB and you still continued to talk about std's.  Then you make quarantine sound like a prison.  What do you expect?

This isn't a debate.  This is simply exposing your faulty logic.


If you asked me about std's then yes that's a different answer.  But you proceeded to make it think I am enforcing vaccines against std's.  I'm sorry, that not the definition of "easily comminicable", but a target audience that easily definable in characteristic, not in geographical distance.

When it comes to issues of health, I get particularly compassionate.
I'll correct you when I get my computer back, if I feel I need to do so, later this week.

I think what you meant to say is "I will show you how, in my mind, you are so obviously wrong; even if every other person in the world disagrees."
No, because I'm not the one redefining as we go along.  I take what is presented and go with that.  This started off talking about disease and forced inoculations.  Last I checked, disease is disease and spread through human contact meant just that.
Rereading what I wrote, I feel I was quite consistent.  I don't see where I changed any definition.  Having sex is not the same as standing next to me.  A flu is more common than an std.
Has HIV been declared a global pandemic or hasn't it?  Yes, indeed it has.  Is the common flu a global pandemic?  No.  Is any flu?  No.  With the exception of H1N1, which subsequently fizzled out and never turned into a global pandemic.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 08:12:52 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #64 on: October 07, 2012, 08:07:02 PM »

Actually it is ignorance and I'll show you why.  Quarantining does not necessarily mean the quarantined is ignored.  That person is also treated as a patient and would be treated to the best of a clinician's ability.  Quarantines happen many time within hospital systems.

Diseases spread by respiratory droplets are one of those issues necessary for quarantine.  Your sensationalism comparing quarantine to some sort of expulsion or banishment reveals how ignorant you are.  Let's say someone with E. Bola is in the US, do you want him/her the freedom to roam around?

STDs are dealt with differently in a court of law, just as haring needles, etc.  these require education, not quarantine.  Your failure to see past my point in understanding the different transmissions of diseases show how you continue to judge based on your own limited understanding of different diseases.
And here I thought you were above playing semantics.  I suppose I could always be right too if I were the one who got to set the limits of the discussion.  You are right only within your limits to argue against my point.  Outside that limit, you are wrong.  And you also presume I'm am saying things I am not (I.e., not treating patients).  This type of debate is beneath you.

Kerdy, earlier I presented to you Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and TB and you still continued to talk about std's.  Then you make quarantine sound like a prison.  What do you expect?

This isn't a debate.  This is simply exposing your faulty logic.


If you asked me about std's then yes that's a different answer.  But you proceeded to make it think I am enforcing vaccines against std's.  I'm sorry, that not the definition of "easily comminicable", but a target audience that easily definable in characteristic, not in geographical distance.

When it comes to issues of health, I get particularly compassionate.
I'll correct you when I get my computer back, if I feel I need to do so, later this week.

I think what you meant to say is "I will show you how, in my mind, you are so obviously wrong; even if every other person in the world disagrees."
No, because I'm not the one redefining as we go along.  I take what is presented and go with that.  This started off talking about disease and forced inoculations.  Last I checked, disease is disease and spread through human contact meant just that.
Rereading what I wrote, I feel I was quite consistent.  I don't see where I changed any definition.  Having sex is not the same as standing next to me.  A flu is more common than an std.
So is the common cold.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,904


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #65 on: October 07, 2012, 11:10:24 PM »

Actually it is ignorance and I'll show you why.  Quarantining does not necessarily mean the quarantined is ignored.  That person is also treated as a patient and would be treated to the best of a clinician's ability.  Quarantines happen many time within hospital systems.

Diseases spread by respiratory droplets are one of those issues necessary for quarantine.  Your sensationalism comparing quarantine to some sort of expulsion or banishment reveals how ignorant you are.  Let's say someone with E. Bola is in the US, do you want him/her the freedom to roam around?

STDs are dealt with differently in a court of law, just as haring needles, etc.  these require education, not quarantine.  Your failure to see past my point in understanding the different transmissions of diseases show how you continue to judge based on your own limited understanding of different diseases.
And here I thought you were above playing semantics.  I suppose I could always be right too if I were the one who got to set the limits of the discussion.  You are right only within your limits to argue against my point.  Outside that limit, you are wrong.  And you also presume I'm am saying things I am not (I.e., not treating patients).  This type of debate is beneath you.

Kerdy, earlier I presented to you Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and TB and you still continued to talk about std's.  Then you make quarantine sound like a prison.  What do you expect?

This isn't a debate.  This is simply exposing your faulty logic.


If you asked me about std's then yes that's a different answer.  But you proceeded to make it think I am enforcing vaccines against std's.  I'm sorry, that not the definition of "easily comminicable", but a target audience that easily definable in characteristic, not in geographical distance.

When it comes to issues of health, I get particularly compassionate.
I'll correct you when I get my computer back, if I feel I need to do so, later this week.

I think what you meant to say is "I will show you how, in my mind, you are so obviously wrong; even if every other person in the world disagrees."
No, because I'm not the one redefining as we go along.  I take what is presented and go with that.  This started off talking about disease and forced inoculations.  Last I checked, disease is disease and spread through human contact meant just that.
Rereading what I wrote, I feel I was quite consistent.  I don't see where I changed any definition.  Having sex is not the same as standing next to me.  A flu is more common than an std.
Has HIV been declared a global pandemic or hasn't it?  Yes, indeed it has.  Is the common flu a global pandemic?  No.  Is any flu?  No.  With the exception of H1N1, which subsequently fizzled out and never turned into a global pandemic.

Lol...yes, it is a global pandemic, and no it's still not easily communicable.

On the other hand, it's rare to find anyone you know that never had the flu/cold.  When it becomes "flu season", it goes around.  HIV doesn't just "go around."  It's obviously communicable by blood, which requires much more than just mere contact.

If there was a deadly flu, then quarantine may be necessary.  But HIV, despite its propensity to lead to deadly AIDs doesn't make it "quarantinable" simply because it's not easily communicable.

Consider this.  Obesity is a growing American epidemic.  So what's your point?  Just because you call something a pandemic doesn't mean it's easily communicable.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 11:16:03 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,169



« Reply #66 on: October 07, 2012, 11:17:02 PM »

Has anyone brought up the gardasil shot yet? I believe there has been some controversy of late on that one.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,963


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #67 on: October 07, 2012, 11:18:25 PM »

While I don't objecti to immunizations, whatever happend to "It's my body, it's my choice"? and all other such nonsense spouted by the left.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,904


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #68 on: October 07, 2012, 11:25:17 PM »

Has anyone brought up the gardasil shot yet? I believe there has been some controversy of late on that one.

In Christ,
Andrew
Well if the question is should gardasil be forced, then no.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,312


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« Reply #69 on: October 07, 2012, 11:31:06 PM »

whatever happend to "It's my body, it's my choice"? and all other such nonsense spouted by the left.

I'm a flaming liberal and I don't believe I've ever said that in such a way that it gave license to anything and everything. Certainly I haven't said it in such a way that it'd give cover for the negligence/endangerment of children. Parents really don't and shouldn't have rights in this area. Call me an anti-libertarian.  angel
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #70 on: October 08, 2012, 12:38:29 AM »

While I don't objecti to immunizations, whatever happend to "It's my body, it's my choice"? and all other such nonsense spouted by the left.
That only works for killing babies.  It doesn't apply to anything else.  It's typical "apply to the argument at hand" tactics rather than across the board.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #71 on: October 08, 2012, 12:39:49 AM »

Has anyone brought up the gardasil shot yet? I believe there has been some controversy of late on that one.

In Christ,
Andrew
Well if the question is should gardasil be forced, then no.
But why?  Either the logic applies to all or it applies to none?  Just who gets to make the choice anyway?  What's the difference?  Is there not a movement to FORCE parents to allow this shot? 
« Last Edit: October 08, 2012, 12:42:43 AM by Kerdy » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,904


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #72 on: October 08, 2012, 09:38:51 AM »

Has anyone brought up the gardasil shot yet? I believe there has been some controversy of late on that one.

In Christ,
Andrew
Well if the question is should gardasil be forced, then no.
But why?  Either the logic applies to all or it applies to none?  Just who gets to make the choice anyway?  What's the difference?  Is there not a movement to FORCE parents to allow this shot? 
Have you not learned anything from my posts???!!!!

You don't get cervical warts by sneezing or breathing into it, do you?

Degree of communicability determines whether vaccination should be forced.  How many times should I repeat myself?  Unless you didn't know what gardasil is used for.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2012, 09:41:55 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #73 on: October 08, 2012, 09:58:25 AM »

Has anyone brought up the gardasil shot yet? I believe there has been some controversy of late on that one.

In Christ,
Andrew
Well if the question is should gardasil be forced, then no.
But why?  Either the logic applies to all or it applies to none?  Just who gets to make the choice anyway?  What's the difference?  Is there not a movement to FORCE parents to allow this shot?  
Have you not learned anything from my posts???!!!!

You don't get cervical warts by sneezing or breathing into it, do you?

Degree of communicability determines whether vaccination should be forced.  How many times should I repeat myself?  Unless you didn't know what gardasil is used for.

But I thought you were talking about saving lives from preventable diseases.  I thought you were compassionate about the issues of health.  See, I was paying attention.  Surely the ends justify the means, right?  After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it? (Swine flu back in the day, since we want to remember the golden years)  Unless the rules don't apply across the board, which would lead me back to my question of just who decides, picks and chooses what is in our best interest and where our freedoms end.  After all, someone has to figure our at what degree a disease is in determines when I no longer have control over my own choices.  Forced untested flu shots for everyone this year.  I know the last few years were a great success...oh wait.

What I have learned from your posts is everything is subjective, open for interpretation parallel to ones own views.  There is no standard right answer and there are some who majestically walk around as if they have one.  Who is right?  Everyone can't be.  Not me, not you.  So, who gets the big talking stick and makes the final decision?  The individual or big brother who doesn't exactly have a spectacular record with much of anything, including medicine.

You said the difference with the AIDS pandemic is education, which isn't working well at all.  Here is a little education.  If there is an outbreak of a communicable disease, stay home.  If you are sick, stay home.  If you kid is sick, stay home.  If you look outside and there are 200 dead birds on the ground, but you are alive and well, do not go out investigating.  You know, common sense stuff.  Like, oh I don't know, don't have sex with someone other than your spouse.  Pretty basic, but people still get STDs and spread them like wildfire.  Like if all your buddies get ringworm from the gym, don't go to that gym.  
« Last Edit: October 08, 2012, 10:23:26 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Ioannis Climacus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


"There is no religion higher than TRUTH"


« Reply #74 on: October 08, 2012, 11:46:24 AM »

Has anyone brought up the gardasil shot yet? I believe there has been some controversy of late on that one.

In Christ,
Andrew
Well if the question is should gardasil be forced, then no.
But why?  Either the logic applies to all or it applies to none?  Just who gets to make the choice anyway?  What's the difference?  Is there not a movement to FORCE parents to allow this shot? 
Have you not learned anything from my posts???!!!!

You don't get cervical warts by sneezing or breathing into it, do you?

Degree of communicability determines whether vaccination should be forced.  How many times should I repeat myself?  Unless you didn't know what gardasil is used for.
There is a significantly large group who is at risk of acquiring STDs through no fault of their own - the unborn. If we are to follow the utilitarian morals suggested by several of the posters on this thread, should we not at the very least forcibly sterilize carriers of STDs (and perhaps people with genetic diseases).
« Last Edit: October 08, 2012, 11:53:43 AM by Ioannis Climacus » Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,120



« Reply #75 on: October 08, 2012, 01:34:00 PM »

Has anyone brought up the gardasil shot yet? I believe there has been some controversy of late on that one.

In Christ,
Andrew
Well if the question is should gardasil be forced, then no.
But why?  Either the logic applies to all or it applies to none?  Just who gets to make the choice anyway?  What's the difference?  Is there not a movement to FORCE parents to allow this shot? 
Have you not learned anything from my posts???!!!!

You don't get cervical warts by sneezing or breathing into it, do you?

Degree of communicability determines whether vaccination should be forced.  How many times should I repeat myself?  Unless you didn't know what gardasil is used for.

And now I have the most horrifying of mental images...
Logged

One day we will talk about why people fetishize children, but for now I'll keep on the side of humanity that doesn't think the height of life is a drinking a juice box and eating a tater tot while defecating in their pants.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,709


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #76 on: October 09, 2012, 12:13:30 AM »

It's amazing to me when anybody is against vaccines, it's always the gnarly pictures of polio that come out.

NEVER the photos of babies killed, hurt, or paralyzed from vaccines, or NEVER the stories of children becoming autistic right after receiving the vaccines.

Today there are 62 vaccines REQUIRED (yes including chicken pox), full of a cocktail of many toxins.   When my daughter was born in 1999, there were 23.  When I was born, there were 5.

A forum is not a place to decide on this argument though.  Research it.  Research it HARD.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,116


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #77 on: October 09, 2012, 12:26:32 AM »

Quote
It's amazing to me when anybody is against vaccines, it's always the gnarly pictures of polio that come out.

Would you prefer pictures or video of babies being choked by diphtheria, or coughing their guts out from whooping cough? The children sent blind or deaf from rubella, contracted from their mother as they were being born? Of the miserable effects of tuberculosis? Or, indeed, the effects of liver cirrhosis or liver cancer in Hepatitis B carriers?

You really have no idea, yeshuaisiam. I've seen a great deal of this suffering, and it's so, so easily prevented.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #78 on: October 09, 2012, 01:18:43 AM »

Quote
It's amazing to me when anybody is against vaccines, it's always the gnarly pictures of polio that come out.

Would you prefer pictures or video of babies being choked by diphtheria, or coughing their guts out from whooping cough? The children sent blind or deaf from rubella, contracted from their mother as they were being born? Of the miserable effects of tuberculosis? Or, indeed, the effects of liver cirrhosis or liver cancer in Hepatitis B carriers?

You really have no idea, yeshuaisiam. I've seen a great deal of this suffering, and it's so, so easily prevented.
At what cost?  How often has medicine meant to save done other damages or caused death?  How many seemingly simple medicines such as new birth control pills caused serious harm or death?  Who has the right to make the determination to force something on a person which may or may not kill them?  Who makes the call?
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #79 on: October 09, 2012, 01:22:14 AM »

Has anyone brought up the gardasil shot yet? I believe there has been some controversy of late on that one.

In Christ,
Andrew
Well if the question is should gardasil be forced, then no.
But why?  Either the logic applies to all or it applies to none?  Just who gets to make the choice anyway?  What's the difference?  Is there not a movement to FORCE parents to allow this shot? 
Have you not learned anything from my posts???!!!!

You don't get cervical warts by sneezing or breathing into it, do you?

Degree of communicability determines whether vaccination should be forced.  How many times should I repeat myself?  Unless you didn't know what gardasil is used for.
There is a significantly large group who is at risk of acquiring STDs through no fault of their own - the unborn. If we are to follow the utilitarian morals suggested by several of the posters on this thread, should we not at the very least forcibly sterilize carriers of STDs (and perhaps people with genetic diseases).
^This!
Lets add drug addicts and alcoholics to that list as well.
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,116


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #80 on: October 09, 2012, 01:30:56 AM »

Quote
It's amazing to me when anybody is against vaccines, it's always the gnarly pictures of polio that come out.

Would you prefer pictures or video of babies being choked by diphtheria, or coughing their guts out from whooping cough? The children sent blind or deaf from rubella, contracted from their mother as they were being born? Of the miserable effects of tuberculosis? Or, indeed, the effects of liver cirrhosis or liver cancer in Hepatitis B carriers?

You really have no idea, yeshuaisiam. I've seen a great deal of this suffering, and it's so, so easily prevented.
At what cost?  How often has medicine meant to save done other damages or caused death?  How many seemingly simple medicines such as new birth control pills caused serious harm or death?  Who has the right to make the determination to force something on a person which may or may not kill them?  Who makes the call?

I could post statistics, photographs, videos, or any other evidence supporting vaccination, and you'd still stubbornly cling to your mistaken view, ignoring what us old crocks have seen and experienced for ourselves in our own lives. But nah, that don't matter a hill of beans to folks like you. More's the pity.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #81 on: October 09, 2012, 01:36:13 AM »

Quote
It's amazing to me when anybody is against vaccines, it's always the gnarly pictures of polio that come out.

Would you prefer pictures or video of babies being choked by diphtheria, or coughing their guts out from whooping cough? The children sent blind or deaf from rubella, contracted from their mother as they were being born? Of the miserable effects of tuberculosis? Or, indeed, the effects of liver cirrhosis or liver cancer in Hepatitis B carriers?

You really have no idea, yeshuaisiam. I've seen a great deal of this suffering, and it's so, so easily prevented.
At what cost?  How often has medicine meant to save done other damages or caused death?  How many seemingly simple medicines such as new birth control pills caused serious harm or death?  Who has the right to make the determination to force something on a person which may or may not kill them?  Who makes the call?

I could post statistics, photographs, videos, or any other evidence supporting vaccination, and you'd still stubbornly cling to your mistaken view, ignoring what us old crocks have seen and experienced for ourselves in our own lives. But nah, that don't matter a hill of beans to folks like you. More's the pity.
You have mistaken me for someone who does not take shots.  I do, and a lot of them.  My question is, who makes the choice?  Our beloved government or the individual (parents of minors as well).  My kids have not had a flu shot in about three years since they fast produced the new cocktail without testing.  Prior to that, no problems.  And thats a good thing since so many of those shots later were revealed not to have worked in the first place.  So, lets put away the emotions and deal with the real question, whose choice should it be to take medicine.  After all, a person about to die can still decline medical treatment and the doctors must stop.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2012, 01:37:37 AM by Kerdy » Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 4,891


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #82 on: October 09, 2012, 01:41:16 AM »

Quote
It's amazing to me when anybody is against vaccines, it's always the gnarly pictures of polio that come out.

Would you prefer pictures or video of babies being choked by diphtheria, or coughing their guts out from whooping cough? The children sent blind or deaf from rubella, contracted from their mother as they were being born? Of the miserable effects of tuberculosis? Or, indeed, the effects of liver cirrhosis or liver cancer in Hepatitis B carriers?

You really have no idea, yeshuaisiam. I've seen a great deal of this suffering, and it's so, so easily prevented.
At what cost?  How often has medicine meant to save done other damages or caused death?  How many seemingly simple medicines such as new birth control pills caused serious harm or death?  Who has the right to make the determination to force something on a person which may or may not kill them?  Who makes the call?

I could post statistics, photographs, videos, or any other evidence supporting vaccination, and you'd still stubbornly cling to your mistaken view, ignoring what us old crocks have seen and experienced for ourselves in our own lives. But nah, that don't matter a hill of beans to folks like you. More's the pity.
You have mistaken me for someone who does not take shots.  I do, and a lot of them.  My question is, who makes the choice?  Our beloved government or the individual (parents of minors as well).  My kids have not had a flu shot in about three years since they fast produced the new cocktail without testing.  Prior to that, no problems.  And thats a good thing since so many of those shots later were revealed not to have worked in the first place.  So, lets put away the emotions and deal with the real question, whose choice should it be to take medicine.  After all, a person about to die can still decline medical treatment and the doctors must stop.

The fact that you bring up the flu shot proves epic fails.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #83 on: October 09, 2012, 01:54:46 AM »

Quote
It's amazing to me when anybody is against vaccines, it's always the gnarly pictures of polio that come out.

Would you prefer pictures or video of babies being choked by diphtheria, or coughing their guts out from whooping cough? The children sent blind or deaf from rubella, contracted from their mother as they were being born? Of the miserable effects of tuberculosis? Or, indeed, the effects of liver cirrhosis or liver cancer in Hepatitis B carriers?

You really have no idea, yeshuaisiam. I've seen a great deal of this suffering, and it's so, so easily prevented.
At what cost?  How often has medicine meant to save done other damages or caused death?  How many seemingly simple medicines such as new birth control pills caused serious harm or death?  Who has the right to make the determination to force something on a person which may or may not kill them?  Who makes the call?

I could post statistics, photographs, videos, or any other evidence supporting vaccination, and you'd still stubbornly cling to your mistaken view, ignoring what us old crocks have seen and experienced for ourselves in our own lives. But nah, that don't matter a hill of beans to folks like you. More's the pity.
You have mistaken me for someone who does not take shots.  I do, and a lot of them.  My question is, who makes the choice?  Our beloved government or the individual (parents of minors as well).  My kids have not had a flu shot in about three years since they fast produced the new cocktail without testing.  Prior to that, no problems.  And thats a good thing since so many of those shots later were revealed not to have worked in the first place.  So, lets put away the emotions and deal with the real question, whose choice should it be to take medicine.  After all, a person about to die can still decline medical treatment and the doctors must stop.

The fact that you bring up the flu shot proves epic fails.
If are are just going to state arbitrary things...

Chocolate

Oh, and thank you for, yet again, avoiding the question.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2012, 01:56:12 AM by Kerdy » Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 4,891


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #84 on: October 09, 2012, 02:02:07 AM »

Quote
It's amazing to me when anybody is against vaccines, it's always the gnarly pictures of polio that come out.

Would you prefer pictures or video of babies being choked by diphtheria, or coughing their guts out from whooping cough? The children sent blind or deaf from rubella, contracted from their mother as they were being born? Of the miserable effects of tuberculosis? Or, indeed, the effects of liver cirrhosis or liver cancer in Hepatitis B carriers?

You really have no idea, yeshuaisiam. I've seen a great deal of this suffering, and it's so, so easily prevented.
At what cost?  How often has medicine meant to save done other damages or caused death?  How many seemingly simple medicines such as new birth control pills caused serious harm or death?  Who has the right to make the determination to force something on a person which may or may not kill them?  Who makes the call?

I could post statistics, photographs, videos, or any other evidence supporting vaccination, and you'd still stubbornly cling to your mistaken view, ignoring what us old crocks have seen and experienced for ourselves in our own lives. But nah, that don't matter a hill of beans to folks like you. More's the pity.
You have mistaken me for someone who does not take shots.  I do, and a lot of them.  My question is, who makes the choice?  Our beloved government or the individual (parents of minors as well).  My kids have not had a flu shot in about three years since they fast produced the new cocktail without testing.  Prior to that, no problems.  And thats a good thing since so many of those shots later were revealed not to have worked in the first place.  So, lets put away the emotions and deal with the real question, whose choice should it be to take medicine.  After all, a person about to die can still decline medical treatment and the doctors must stop.

The fact that you bring up the flu shot proves epic fails.
If are are just going to state arbitrary things...

Chocolate

Oh, and thank you for, yet again, avoiding the question.

I was not asked a question; ergo, I cannot avoid one.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #85 on: October 09, 2012, 02:10:18 AM »

Quote
It's amazing to me when anybody is against vaccines, it's always the gnarly pictures of polio that come out.

Would you prefer pictures or video of babies being choked by diphtheria, or coughing their guts out from whooping cough? The children sent blind or deaf from rubella, contracted from their mother as they were being born? Of the miserable effects of tuberculosis? Or, indeed, the effects of liver cirrhosis or liver cancer in Hepatitis B carriers?

You really have no idea, yeshuaisiam. I've seen a great deal of this suffering, and it's so, so easily prevented.
At what cost?  How often has medicine meant to save done other damages or caused death?  How many seemingly simple medicines such as new birth control pills caused serious harm or death?  Who has the right to make the determination to force something on a person which may or may not kill them?  Who makes the call?

I could post statistics, photographs, videos, or any other evidence supporting vaccination, and you'd still stubbornly cling to your mistaken view, ignoring what us old crocks have seen and experienced for ourselves in our own lives. But nah, that don't matter a hill of beans to folks like you. More's the pity.
You have mistaken me for someone who does not take shots.  I do, and a lot of them.  My question is, who makes the choice?  Our beloved government or the individual (parents of minors as well).  My kids have not had a flu shot in about three years since they fast produced the new cocktail without testing.  Prior to that, no problems.  And thats a good thing since so many of those shots later were revealed not to have worked in the first place.  So, lets put away the emotions and deal with the real question, whose choice should it be to take medicine.  After all, a person about to die can still decline medical treatment and the doctors must stop.

The fact that you bring up the flu shot proves epic fails.
If are are just going to state arbitrary things...

Chocolate

Oh, and thank you for, yet again, avoiding the question.

I was not asked a question; ergo, I cannot avoid one.
You read and replied to the post; ergo, you avoided answering the question.  Come on now.  This isn't difficult.
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 4,891


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #86 on: October 09, 2012, 02:41:48 AM »

Quote
It's amazing to me when anybody is against vaccines, it's always the gnarly pictures of polio that come out.

Would you prefer pictures or video of babies being choked by diphtheria, or coughing their guts out from whooping cough? The children sent blind or deaf from rubella, contracted from their mother as they were being born? Of the miserable effects of tuberculosis? Or, indeed, the effects of liver cirrhosis or liver cancer in Hepatitis B carriers?

You really have no idea, yeshuaisiam. I've seen a great deal of this suffering, and it's so, so easily prevented.
At what cost?  How often has medicine meant to save done other damages or caused death?  How many seemingly simple medicines such as new birth control pills caused serious harm or death?  Who has the right to make the determination to force something on a person which may or may not kill them?  Who makes the call?

I could post statistics, photographs, videos, or any other evidence supporting vaccination, and you'd still stubbornly cling to your mistaken view, ignoring what us old crocks have seen and experienced for ourselves in our own lives. But nah, that don't matter a hill of beans to folks like you. More's the pity.
You have mistaken me for someone who does not take shots.  I do, and a lot of them.  My question is, who makes the choice?  Our beloved government or the individual (parents of minors as well).  My kids have not had a flu shot in about three years since they fast produced the new cocktail without testing.  Prior to that, no problems.  And thats a good thing since so many of those shots later were revealed not to have worked in the first place.  So, lets put away the emotions and deal with the real question, whose choice should it be to take medicine.  After all, a person about to die can still decline medical treatment and the doctors must stop.

The fact that you bring up the flu shot proves epic fails.
If are are just going to state arbitrary things...

Chocolate

Oh, and thank you for, yet again, avoiding the question.

I was not asked a question; ergo, I cannot avoid one.
You read and replied to the post; ergo, you avoided answering the question.  Come on now.  This isn't difficult.

If you are standing next to two people, and the first asked the second a question, have you been asked a question?
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #87 on: October 09, 2012, 03:01:34 AM »

Quote
It's amazing to me when anybody is against vaccines, it's always the gnarly pictures of polio that come out.

Would you prefer pictures or video of babies being choked by diphtheria, or coughing their guts out from whooping cough? The children sent blind or deaf from rubella, contracted from their mother as they were being born? Of the miserable effects of tuberculosis? Or, indeed, the effects of liver cirrhosis or liver cancer in Hepatitis B carriers?

You really have no idea, yeshuaisiam. I've seen a great deal of this suffering, and it's so, so easily prevented.
At what cost?  How often has medicine meant to save done other damages or caused death?  How many seemingly simple medicines such as new birth control pills caused serious harm or death?  Who has the right to make the determination to force something on a person which may or may not kill them?  Who makes the call?

I could post statistics, photographs, videos, or any other evidence supporting vaccination, and you'd still stubbornly cling to your mistaken view, ignoring what us old crocks have seen and experienced for ourselves in our own lives. But nah, that don't matter a hill of beans to folks like you. More's the pity.
You have mistaken me for someone who does not take shots.  I do, and a lot of them.  My question is, who makes the choice?  Our beloved government or the individual (parents of minors as well).  My kids have not had a flu shot in about three years since they fast produced the new cocktail without testing.  Prior to that, no problems.  And thats a good thing since so many of those shots later were revealed not to have worked in the first place.  So, lets put away the emotions and deal with the real question, whose choice should it be to take medicine.  After all, a person about to die can still decline medical treatment and the doctors must stop.

The fact that you bring up the flu shot proves epic fails.
If are are just going to state arbitrary things...

Chocolate

Oh, and thank you for, yet again, avoiding the question.

I was not asked a question; ergo, I cannot avoid one.
You read and replied to the post; ergo, you avoided answering the question.  Come on now.  This isn't difficult.

If you are standing next to two people, and the first asked the second a question, have you been asked a question?
In that case, if you are standing beside two people having a discussion, do you always butt in?

But I'll answer your question.  Sometimes.  I will answer if I think I can assist the person, especially after i have injected myself into that discussion.  Depending on the question, of course.  Will you now answer my question since I submit it to you directly or will you avoid it still?
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #88 on: October 09, 2012, 03:03:23 AM »

Quote
It's amazing to me when anybody is against vaccines, it's always the gnarly pictures of polio that come out.

Would you prefer pictures or video of babies being choked by diphtheria, or coughing their guts out from whooping cough? The children sent blind or deaf from rubella, contracted from their mother as they were being born? Of the miserable effects of tuberculosis? Or, indeed, the effects of liver cirrhosis or liver cancer in Hepatitis B carriers?

You really have no idea, yeshuaisiam. I've seen a great deal of this suffering, and it's so, so easily prevented.
At what cost?  How often has medicine meant to save done other damages or caused death?  How many seemingly simple medicines such as new birth control pills caused serious harm or death?  Who has the right to make the determination to force something on a person which may or may not kill them?  Who makes the call?

I could post statistics, photographs, videos, or any other evidence supporting vaccination, and you'd still stubbornly cling to your mistaken view, ignoring what us old crocks have seen and experienced for ourselves in our own lives. But nah, that don't matter a hill of beans to folks like you. More's the pity.
You have mistaken me for someone who does not take shots.  I do, and a lot of them.  My question is, who makes the choice?  Our beloved government or the individual (parents of minors as well).  My kids have not had a flu shot in about three years since they fast produced the new cocktail without testing.  Prior to that, no problems.  And thats a good thing since so many of those shots later were revealed not to have worked in the first place.  So, lets put away the emotions and deal with the real question, whose choice should it be to take medicine.  After all, a person about to die can still decline medical treatment and the doctors must stop.

The fact that you bring up the flu shot proves epic fails.
If are are just going to state arbitrary things...

Chocolate

Oh, and thank you for, yet again, avoiding the question.

I was not asked a question; ergo, I cannot avoid one.
You read and replied to the post; ergo, you avoided answering the question.  Come on now.  This isn't difficult.

If you are standing next to two people, and the first asked the second a question, have you been asked a question?
By the way, it's a fun game you play, but you play alone.  Instead, you should just provide your opinion on the matter, as there appears to be no correct answer at this point.
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 4,891


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #89 on: October 09, 2012, 01:19:35 PM »

Quote
It's amazing to me when anybody is against vaccines, it's always the gnarly pictures of polio that come out.

Would you prefer pictures or video of babies being choked by diphtheria, or coughing their guts out from whooping cough? The children sent blind or deaf from rubella, contracted from their mother as they were being born? Of the miserable effects of tuberculosis? Or, indeed, the effects of liver cirrhosis or liver cancer in Hepatitis B carriers?

You really have no idea, yeshuaisiam. I've seen a great deal of this suffering, and it's so, so easily prevented.
At what cost?  How often has medicine meant to save done other damages or caused death?  How many seemingly simple medicines such as new birth control pills caused serious harm or death?  Who has the right to make the determination to force something on a person which may or may not kill them?  Who makes the call?

I could post statistics, photographs, videos, or any other evidence supporting vaccination, and you'd still stubbornly cling to your mistaken view, ignoring what us old crocks have seen and experienced for ourselves in our own lives. But nah, that don't matter a hill of beans to folks like you. More's the pity.
You have mistaken me for someone who does not take shots.  I do, and a lot of them.  My question is, who makes the choice?  Our beloved government or the individual (parents of minors as well).  My kids have not had a flu shot in about three years since they fast produced the new cocktail without testing.  Prior to that, no problems.  And thats a good thing since so many of those shots later were revealed not to have worked in the first place.  So, lets put away the emotions and deal with the real question, whose choice should it be to take medicine.  After all, a person about to die can still decline medical treatment and the doctors must stop.

The fact that you bring up the flu shot proves epic fails.
If are are just going to state arbitrary things...

Chocolate

Oh, and thank you for, yet again, avoiding the question.

I was not asked a question; ergo, I cannot avoid one.
You read and replied to the post; ergo, you avoided answering the question.  Come on now.  This isn't difficult.

If you are standing next to two people, and the first asked the second a question, have you been asked a question?
By the way, it's a fun game you play, but you play alone.  Instead, you should just provide your opinion on the matter, as there appears to be no correct answer at this point.

If I'm playing a game, how is that I play alone when you keep responding?
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,904


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #90 on: October 09, 2012, 02:09:31 PM »

Has anyone brought up the gardasil shot yet? I believe there has been some controversy of late on that one.

In Christ,
Andrew
Well if the question is should gardasil be forced, then no.
But why?  Either the logic applies to all or it applies to none?  Just who gets to make the choice anyway?  What's the difference?  Is there not a movement to FORCE parents to allow this shot?  
Have you not learned anything from my posts???!!!!

You don't get cervical warts by sneezing or breathing into it, do you?

Degree of communicability determines whether vaccination should be forced.  How many times should I repeat myself?  Unless you didn't know what gardasil is used for.

But I thought you were talking about saving lives from preventable diseases.  I thought you were compassionate about the issues of health.  See, I was paying attention.  Surely the ends justify the means, right?  After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it? (Swine flu back in the day, since we want to remember the golden years)  Unless the rules don't apply across the board, which would lead me back to my question of just who decides, picks and chooses what is in our best interest and where our freedoms end.  After all, someone has to figure our at what degree a disease is in determines when I no longer have control over my own choices.  Forced untested flu shots for everyone this year.  I know the last few years were a great success...oh wait.

What I have learned from your posts is everything is subjective, open for interpretation parallel to ones own views.  There is no standard right answer and there are some who majestically walk around as if they have one.  Who is right?  Everyone can't be.  Not me, not you.  So, who gets the big talking stick and makes the final decision?  The individual or big brother who doesn't exactly have a spectacular record with much of anything, including medicine.

You said the difference with the AIDS pandemic is education, which isn't working well at all.  Here is a little education.  If there is an outbreak of a communicable disease, stay home.  If you are sick, stay home.  If you kid is sick, stay home.  If you look outside and there are 200 dead birds on the ground, but you are alive and well, do not go out investigating.  You know, common sense stuff.  Like, oh I don't know, don't have sex with someone other than your spouse.  Pretty basic, but people still get STDs and spread them like wildfire.  Like if all your buddies get ringworm from the gym, don't go to that gym.  

No, you're still not paying attention.  Is a flu a communicable disease that is lethal?  No.  Then forced flu shots are not part of the definition.

And yes, I am all for preventative medicine.

As for the AIDs pandemic.  Until we find something better, then education is all we got to prevent that.

What I learned from you replying to my posts is you continue to post out of ignorance.  You call it "picking and choosing a disease", and that shows you continue to know nothing what you are talking about.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,904


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #91 on: October 09, 2012, 02:14:10 PM »

Has anyone brought up the gardasil shot yet? I believe there has been some controversy of late on that one.

In Christ,
Andrew
Well if the question is should gardasil be forced, then no.
But why?  Either the logic applies to all or it applies to none?  Just who gets to make the choice anyway?  What's the difference?  Is there not a movement to FORCE parents to allow this shot? 
Have you not learned anything from my posts???!!!!

You don't get cervical warts by sneezing or breathing into it, do you?

Degree of communicability determines whether vaccination should be forced.  How many times should I repeat myself?  Unless you didn't know what gardasil is used for.
There is a significantly large group who is at risk of acquiring STDs through no fault of their own - the unborn. If we are to follow the utilitarian morals suggested by several of the posters on this thread, should we not at the very least forcibly sterilize carriers of STDs (and perhaps people with genetic diseases).

That I have no answer to.  Yes, vertical transmission is a possibility, but if we really had laws protecting the unborn here, then how do we know the mother knew she had an STD and decided to conceive?  How do we know she even intended to conceive?  Should I penalize her for just having sex?  No.  So this makes it a very difficult situation.  The best we can do here is education, protection, etc. 

If I want a woman to even prevent abortions, and this is a little side-topic, and there's no way I'm going to prevent her from being chaste, I would recommend the lesser evil option, wear a condom.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,997



« Reply #92 on: October 09, 2012, 04:03:11 PM »

I can't swim.

The whole point of Coast Guard training (unless you're one of the elite rescue swimmers) is not to have to swim. (Though they do teach you drownproofing in boot camp.)
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,120



« Reply #93 on: October 09, 2012, 04:37:17 PM »

I thought that the point to this thread was "Some Sanity!"?  Was I mistaken?
Logged

One day we will talk about why people fetishize children, but for now I'll keep on the side of humanity that doesn't think the height of life is a drinking a juice box and eating a tater tot while defecating in their pants.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #94 on: October 09, 2012, 07:35:14 PM »

Has anyone brought up the gardasil shot yet? I believe there has been some controversy of late on that one.

In Christ,
Andrew
Well if the question is should gardasil be forced, then no.
But why?  Either the logic applies to all or it applies to none?  Just who gets to make the choice anyway?  What's the difference?  Is there not a movement to FORCE parents to allow this shot?  
Have you not learned anything from my posts???!!!!

You don't get cervical warts by sneezing or breathing into it, do you?

Degree of communicability determines whether vaccination should be forced.  How many times should I repeat myself?  Unless you didn't know what gardasil is used for.

But I thought you were talking about saving lives from preventable diseases.  I thought you were compassionate about the issues of health.  See, I was paying attention.  Surely the ends justify the means, right?  After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it? (Swine flu back in the day, since we want to remember the golden years)  Unless the rules don't apply across the board, which would lead me back to my question of just who decides, picks and chooses what is in our best interest and where our freedoms end.  After all, someone has to figure our at what degree a disease is in determines when I no longer have control over my own choices.  Forced untested flu shots for everyone this year.  I know the last few years were a great success...oh wait.

What I have learned from your posts is everything is subjective, open for interpretation parallel to ones own views.  There is no standard right answer and there are some who majestically walk around as if they have one.  Who is right?  Everyone can't be.  Not me, not you.  So, who gets the big talking stick and makes the final decision?  The individual or big brother who doesn't exactly have a spectacular record with much of anything, including medicine.

You said the difference with the AIDS pandemic is education, which isn't working well at all.  Here is a little education.  If there is an outbreak of a communicable disease, stay home.  If you are sick, stay home.  If you kid is sick, stay home.  If you look outside and there are 200 dead birds on the ground, but you are alive and well, do not go out investigating.  You know, common sense stuff.  Like, oh I don't know, don't have sex with someone other than your spouse.  Pretty basic, but people still get STDs and spread them like wildfire.  Like if all your buddies get ringworm from the gym, don't go to that gym.  

No, you're still not paying attention.  Is a flu a communicable disease that is lethal?  No.  Then forced flu shots are not part of the definition.

And yes, I am all for preventative medicine.

As for the AIDs pandemic.  Until we find something better, then education is all we got to prevent that.

What I learned from you replying to my posts is you continue to post out of ignorance.  You call it "picking and choosing a disease", and that shows you continue to know nothing what you are talking about.
If I'm not the one paying attention, why are you the one who still hasn't provided an answer to my question AND taken this thread in you own direction?

Just answer the question, please.  There is no right or wrong answer, it's purely your point of view.  I've grown tired of all the derailing attempts.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,183



« Reply #95 on: October 09, 2012, 08:48:24 PM »

Quote
What right-wing despots and tyrants supported individualism?
Adolf Hitler and Mussolini.

That is the most absurd thing I've ever read.

Hitler was all about unifying the German people under one idea (ie Aryanism and/or a Germany for Germans only). Mussolini was about unifying the Italians under one government (ie Idea).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race#Aryanism_and_Nazism



It was imperialist individualism. Individualism on a grand, nationwide scale. Adolf Hitler was the ultimate individualist because he wanted to separate the German people from the rest of the world because he saw them as being a special individual racial group. I'm not so sure about Mussolini, but from what I know about him, I would say the same thing applies to him. Likewise, they were both HEAVY fascists--which is the ultimate right-wing political philosophy.


James--I like you a lot but you are a walking and talking example of somebody whose little knowledge, coupled to a high intellect and adolescence, is just...inadequate. Translation: you do not know what you are talking about.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,904


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #96 on: October 09, 2012, 09:11:20 PM »

Quote
After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2012, 09:15:32 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ZealousZeal
Interplanet Janet
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,236


I'm the magnificent, marvelous, mad Madam Mim.


« Reply #97 on: October 09, 2012, 09:35:29 PM »

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.
Logged

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,116


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #98 on: October 09, 2012, 09:38:42 PM »

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

Join the club. Some of the arrant nonsense that's been spouted here against vaccination makes my blood boil too.  Angry
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #99 on: October 09, 2012, 11:53:59 PM »

Quote
After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.
Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #100 on: October 09, 2012, 11:57:05 PM »

If you don't believe forced immunizations cause problems, ask some veterans.

At one point, the FDA actually made companies do more reasearch before making medicine available, like 20+ years.  Now, not so much, and we see the results.  Law suits, people dying and those same "great" meds getting shelfed.  I will now forever be weary of any new medical development.  Give it 5 to 10 years and see what happens.
And for those who think I'm anti-medicine, please read this again.  Only this time, try to understand what I'm saying.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,904


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #101 on: October 10, 2012, 12:19:25 AM »

Quote
After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.
Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.
Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #102 on: October 10, 2012, 02:53:57 AM »

Quote
After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.
Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.
Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?
Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,904


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #103 on: October 10, 2012, 07:13:26 AM »

Quote
After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.
Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.
Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?
Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.
I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #104 on: October 10, 2012, 10:35:23 AM »

Quote
After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.
Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.
Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?
Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.
I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.
You had me up until second hand smoke.

I appreciate your view and would even say I agree for the most part, but my concern is this truly is a slippery slope when we give government too much control over our own bodies and the bodies of our children.  

Consider this, only because this is happening to someone I know right now.  A two year old with agressive leukemia.  Parents choose a treatment.  Poor child hasn't left the hospital in months and is almost done with treatment.  The problem is, the treatment is killing her.  Her liver is being destroyed.  So, here is the predicament.  The parents knew this could happen and chose treatment, but what if they didnt?  Knowing the treatment could kill long before the disease, would they have been wrong?  Should the government force this child into treatment and through the suffering?  Chances are she won't live much longer if they cant do something about the liver (I hope she makes it), but is the decision the parents or the governments?  My fear is, as always happens, the government gets too much power and combined with its pitifully poor record for making things work properly, bad things happen.  This is why I mentioned flu shots.  The government spends tons of money, scared people into getting it, only to find out a lot of them didnt work.  Government involvment rarely helps.  

Anyway, I appreciate your direct response.  Thank you.  Like I said, there is no right or wrong here, just personal opinions.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 10:37:48 AM by Kerdy » Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #105 on: October 10, 2012, 12:12:16 PM »

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

You trust the government? laugh
Logged

Forgive my sins.
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #106 on: October 10, 2012, 12:30:56 PM »

I don't consider huge state control over people's daily lives to be an increase in sanity, but whatever floats your boat.

I'm old enough to remember seeing kids in calipers, crippled by polio, at school. Of seeing kids and adults in iron lungs. And seeing others maimed or dying from other easily-preventable diseases. "Huge state control over people's daily lives"? My eye.  Angry

Young 'uns today have no historical awareness.

If you belong to a Church with metrical records dating back to the years surrounding World War One, ask your priest for permission to visit with him and review the baptismal and death entries. Pertussis (whopping cough), polio, diptheria are just a few of the now mostly eradicated diseases which ravaged our families throughout the first five decades or so of the 20th century. Public health initiatives requiring immunization ended that scourge.

I would view it as a non-morally supportable position to deny a child immunity from such diseases given that safe vaccines are available. Since an unbiased review of the risks of modern vaccines versus the reintroduction of these once-thought to be eradicated killers provides a clear answer. Vaccinate your kids. As to the individual - well if your neighbors don't believe in vaccinations and their kids get smallpox or infantile paralysis, don't call the government when your children get ill. After all, we trust the individual here - not the nanny state. Bah.

As to state control? We all are not alone on an island. The public good requires community action and protection - that is why we regulate. Don't forget that the Founders made it very clear in the preamble to the Constitution that among the purposes of the national government was the protection of the general welfare - something necessary to promote domestic tranquility.

Oh one more thing - there is a scientific consensus about the ingestion of second hand smoke. It's harmful.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 12:33:08 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
ZealousZeal
Interplanet Janet
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,236


I'm the magnificent, marvelous, mad Madam Mim.


« Reply #107 on: October 10, 2012, 12:36:15 PM »

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

You trust the government? laugh

Wink

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination (take a journey through Google Images to see how horrific smallpox was). Polio: well on its way to the same. Spikes in outbreaks of measles where vaccination rates drop because of fear-mongering caused by celebrities and a fully discredited doctor. I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.
Logged

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #108 on: October 10, 2012, 12:50:13 PM »

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination
FALSE. Such a small percentage of the population was vaccinated. Only about 105 of the world's population.

Polio: well on its way to the same.
Only 20% for Polio at its time.

I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.
You don't trust science. This is my field of expertise, I promise you, you don't know the science by what you just said. Just another gullible American citizen who believes everything they hear on tv, and puts that out as fact.

People without the facts in their favour who call out others, that is idiocy.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 12:51:37 PM by celticfan1888 » Logged

Forgive my sins.
ZealousZeal
Interplanet Janet
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,236


I'm the magnificent, marvelous, mad Madam Mim.


« Reply #109 on: October 10, 2012, 01:14:31 PM »

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination
FALSE. Such a small percentage of the population was vaccinated. Only about 105 of the world's population.

The WHO certainly attributes its eradication to vaccination: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/

If not vaccination, what then? "105" what of the world's population?

Polio: well on its way to the same.
Only 20% for Polio at its time.

I'm sorry- I don't understand what you mean. Are you seriously arguing that the dramatic decrease in polio cases is not because of vaccination? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.

I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.
You don't trust science. This is my field of expertise, I promise you, you don't know the science by what you just said. Just another gullible American citizen who believes everything they hear on tv, and puts that out as fact.

People without the facts in their favour who call out others, that is idiocy.

This is your area of expertise? You are an infectious disease specialist? If I'm wrong about vaccination, I would dearly love to see sources to the contrary. Nobody wants to walk around in error! And yet, I still have never seen a reputable study by infectious disease specialists that suggests vaccinating is unnecessary or ineffective. Perhaps you have?
Logged

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #110 on: October 10, 2012, 01:25:19 PM »

The WHO certainly attributes its eradication to vaccination: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/
If not vaccination, what then? "105" what of the world's population?
I meant 10%, type error. The 10% is a fact.
The WHO is run by the UN you know, and the drug companies fund it, just like the American FDA.

I'm sorry- I don't understand what you mean. Are you seriously arguing that the dramatic decrease in polio cases is not because of vaccination? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.
It was due to human evolution. The 20% is a fact.

This is your area of expertise? You are an infectious disease specialist? If I'm wrong about vaccination, I would dearly love to see sources to the contrary. Nobody wants to walk around in error! And yet, I still have never seen a reputable study by infectious disease specialists that suggests vaccinating is unnecessary or ineffective. Perhaps you have?
Nearly every professor whose specialty is that, that I have went into a deep discussion with.

You must understand the these scientists who posts these reports are typically funded by the organizations making the vaccines.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #111 on: October 10, 2012, 01:26:02 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


Regardless, I have the freedom to go to hell, why not the freedom to avoid vaccines?

You're freedom to go to Hell is a personal and individual matter, you're freedom to endanger our society as a whole is selfish and unwarranted, even by the structure of the US Constitution.  The only legal support for your ideas is free-speech, aside from that the the government is well within its rights and more in particular its obligations. This is not a matter of political debate, it is a functional reality of being an American.  We can debate the merits and downsides of various vaccines as public policy, but not the premise itself of mandatory vaccinations.  By the way, folks are conflating many issues.  The vaccines are not legally required of every citizen, generally they are attached with different public services, such as education at the secondary and college level.  If folks chose to attend schools, they must comply, if they chose not to, they don't have to.  

I do agree that modern medicine has not been patient enough to explain vaccines more properly to folks, and there is a bit of an almost condescending attitude by the medical community about this issue, so it goes both ways.  We as citizens have to accept some aspects of the government we find displeasing, and conversely the government needs to be more clear in what they are doing, how they are doing it, and why. Communication is the key.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
ZealousZeal
Interplanet Janet
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,236


I'm the magnificent, marvelous, mad Madam Mim.


« Reply #112 on: October 10, 2012, 01:36:35 PM »

The WHO certainly attributes its eradication to vaccination: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/
If not vaccination, what then? "105" what of the world's population?
I meant 10%, type error. The 10% is a fact.
The WHO is run by the UN you know, and the drug companies fund it, just like the American FDA.

Ah- should have realized the 5 is also the % key. My bad.


I'm sorry- I don't understand what you mean. Are you seriously arguing that the dramatic decrease in polio cases is not because of vaccination? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.
It was due to human evolution. The 20% is a fact.

This is your area of expertise? You are an infectious disease specialist? If I'm wrong about vaccination, I would dearly love to see sources to the contrary. Nobody wants to walk around in error! And yet, I still have never seen a reputable study by infectious disease specialists that suggests vaccinating is unnecessary or ineffective. Perhaps you have?
Nearly every professor whose specialty is that, that I have went into a deep discussion with.

You must understand the these scientists who posts these reports are typically funded by the organizations making the vaccines.

Now I understand your question about trusting the government. I take it you do not. I also take it that you are not, in fact, an infectious disease specialist. If your question was do I believe that there is some sort of government-run vaccine conspiracy theory, the answer is no.

I am sincere when I say that I have never seen a reputable study by infectious disease specialists that is not supportive of vaccination, but if you do run across any or if any of the professors you know has, please PM it to me if you think of it. I would appreciate it.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 01:37:31 PM by ZealousZeal » Logged

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 4,891


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #113 on: October 10, 2012, 01:39:26 PM »

Quote
After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.
Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.
Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?

Unfortunately that isn't always true; in my home state of Arizona, a parent can claim vaccinations disagree with their religious system, and still send their kid to school vaccine-free.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #114 on: October 10, 2012, 01:50:31 PM »

The WHO certainly attributes its eradication to vaccination: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/
If not vaccination, what then? "105" what of the world's population?
I meant 10%, type error. The 10% is a fact.
The WHO is run by the UN you know, and the drug companies fund it, just like the American FDA.

I'm sorry- I don't understand what you mean. Are you seriously arguing that the dramatic decrease in polio cases is not because of vaccination? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.
It was due to human evolution. The 20% is a fact.

This is your area of expertise? You are an infectious disease specialist? If I'm wrong about vaccination, I would dearly love to see sources to the contrary. Nobody wants to walk around in error! And yet, I still have never seen a reputable study by infectious disease specialists that suggests vaccinating is unnecessary or ineffective. Perhaps you have?
Nearly every professor whose specialty is that, that I have went into a deep discussion with.

You must understand the these scientists who posts these reports are typically funded by the organizations making the vaccines.

Please provide abstracts to peer reviewed publications in support of your claims regarding vaccination and infectious disease. Since all research in the scientific world is either government, foundation or corporate funded, I assume that you presume that any publication has a 'bias.' Never the less, the only generally accepted means to challenge the accepted status quo is to work within the framework of that system, publish your results and submit the same to peer review. Otherwise, we in the general public, at least those of us with the education and knowledge to review such material, will continue to walk around as ignorant Americans with our half formed gullible opinions implanted in us through our mass media indoctrination.

Now I will concede that there are real issues regarding the effects of genetic mutations through the use of the live vaccine methodology among a small percentage of the immunized population in the areas of the world where polio remains a threat and I will concede that on account of those risks inherent with the vaccine that WHO does not recommend polio vaccinations outside of those regions, but I refuse to accept any claim that it was not as a result of the Salk vaccine and its subsequent refinements that infantile poliomyelitis was for the most part eradicated from this planet over the past half century or so.

As to common diseases for which American chlldren are generally vaccinated against before beginning school, there are entirely different sets of issues and I believe that the generally accepted scientific consensus is that the miniscule risks of vaccination complication in the at risk population is acceptable given the alternative realities of devastating complications stemming from common diseases like hepatitis A and B, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, chickenpox, whooping cough or pertussis, diphtheria and bacterial meningitis. Again, if there are any generally accepted, peer reviewed publications to the contrary, feel free to share.

« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 01:51:41 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,904


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #115 on: October 10, 2012, 03:05:10 PM »

Quote
After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.
Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.
Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?
Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.
I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.
You had me up until second hand smoke.

I appreciate your view and would even say I agree for the most part, but my concern is this truly is a slippery slope when we give government too much control over our own bodies and the bodies of our children. 

Consider this, only because this is happening to someone I know right now.  A two year old with agressive leukemia.  Parents choose a treatment.  Poor child hasn't left the hospital in months and is almost done with treatment.  The problem is, the treatment is killing her.  Her liver is being destroyed.  So, here is the predicament.  The parents knew this could happen and chose treatment, but what if they didnt?  Knowing the treatment could kill long before the disease, would they have been wrong?  Should the government force this child into treatment and through the suffering?  Chances are she won't live much longer if they cant do something about the liver (I hope she makes it), but is the decision the parents or the governments?  My fear is, as always happens, the government gets too much power and combined with its pitifully poor record for making things work properly, bad things happen.  This is why I mentioned flu shots.  The government spends tons of money, scared people into getting it, only to find out a lot of them didnt work.  Government involvment rarely helps. 

Anyway, I appreciate your direct response.  Thank you.  Like I said, there is no right or wrong here, just personal opinions.
Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario.  Second of all, cancer treatment is no smoking gun of cure or prevention like certain vaccines.  So I have yet to see the correlation with my idea.  And the flu is not lethal for most people.  It's a nuisance, and people are encouraged to take it, but because it's not lethal, despite how easily communicable it is, it doesn't follow.

Recently, it has been passed that an emergency treatment for a child can be given directly by the physician without parents' consent.  Cancer treatment is not an emergency treatment.  A child that goes into hypovolemic shock requiring blood transfusion is an emergency treatment, and get this, even if the parents are Jehovah's Witnesses and don't believe in blood transfusion.  This means that religion cannot always be an excuse, which should answer JamesRottneck's question.  One day, we shouldn't be surprised of school nurses are allowed to vaccinate children even of parents oppose.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 03:05:58 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #116 on: October 10, 2012, 03:37:24 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario.  Second of all, cancer treatment is no smoking gun of cure or prevention like certain vaccines.  So I have yet to see the correlation with my idea.  And the flu is not lethal for most people.  It's a nuisance, and people are encouraged to take it, but because it's not lethal, despite how easily communicable it is, it doesn't follow.



Hold up, I know its not your intentions, but to minimize the impact of the flu is a bit misleading.  The Flu is still a significantly impacting disease which hospitalizes tens of thousands of people annually, and costs the lives of an estimated 36,000 Americans a year. That puts it in the top-15 leading causes of death Sad

This has nothing to do with flu shots by the way, at this stage they are largely experimental considering there are over 200 varieties of the influenza virus floating around..

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,904


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #117 on: October 10, 2012, 04:12:39 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario.  Second of all, cancer treatment is no smoking gun of cure or prevention like certain vaccines.  So I have yet to see the correlation with my idea.  And the flu is not lethal for most people.  It's a nuisance, and people are encouraged to take it, but because it's not lethal, despite how easily communicable it is, it doesn't follow.



Hold up, I know its not your intentions, but to minimize the impact of the flu is a bit misleading.  The Flu is still a significantly impacting disease which hospitalizes tens of thousands of people annually, and costs the lives of an estimated 36,000 Americans a year. That puts it in the top-15 leading causes of death Sad

This has nothing to do with flu shots by the way, at this stage they are largely experimental considering there are over 200 varieties of the influenza virus floating around..

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Yes, you are right, and I also did mention the low efficacy of the flu vaccine because of mutation rates earlier.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #118 on: October 10, 2012, 06:17:08 PM »

I don't consider huge state control over people's daily lives to be an increase in sanity, but whatever floats your boat.

I'm old enough to remember seeing kids in calipers, crippled by polio, at school. Of seeing kids and adults in iron lungs. And seeing others maimed or dying from other easily-preventable diseases. "Huge state control over people's daily lives"? My eye.  Angry

Young 'uns today have no historical awareness.

If you belong to a Church with metrical records dating back to the years surrounding World War One, ask your priest for permission to visit with him and review the baptismal and death entries. Pertussis (whopping cough), polio, diptheria are just a few of the now mostly eradicated diseases which ravaged our families throughout the first five decades or so of the 20th century. Public health initiatives requiring immunization ended that scourge.

I would view it as a non-morally supportable position to deny a child immunity from such diseases given that safe vaccines are available. Since an unbiased review of the risks of modern vaccines versus the reintroduction of these once-thought to be eradicated killers provides a clear answer. Vaccinate your kids. As to the individual - well if your neighbors don't believe in vaccinations and their kids get smallpox or infantile paralysis, don't call the government when your children get ill. After all, we trust the individual here - not the nanny state. Bah.

As to state control? We all are not alone on an island. The public good requires community action and protection - that is why we regulate. Don't forget that the Founders made it very clear in the preamble to the Constitution that among the purposes of the national government was the protection of the general welfare - something necessary to promote domestic tranquility.

Oh one more thing - there is a scientific consensus about the ingestion of second hand smoke. It's harmful.
If second hand smoke were as bad as people make it out to be, everyone would already have died.  Now they are playing with third hand smoke ideas while in the same breath, advocating marijuana legalism and consumption.  Insane, that's what it is.  Btw, I'm all for certain restrictions on smoking, but it's gotten pretty stupid.

And if they really want to get people to stop smoking, why are so many public programs funded by tobacco tax?  Hmm.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 06:18:24 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #119 on: October 10, 2012, 06:20:06 PM »

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

You trust the government? laugh

Wink

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination (take a journey through Google Images to see how horrific smallpox was). Polio: well on its way to the same. Spikes in outbreaks of measles where vaccination rates drop because of fear-mongering caused by celebrities and a fully discredited doctor. I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.
Smallpox, really?  When why are hundreds of thousands of Americans being forced to take a vaccine not made in half a century?
Logged
ZealousZeal
Interplanet Janet
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,236


I'm the magnificent, marvelous, mad Madam Mim.


« Reply #120 on: October 10, 2012, 06:25:35 PM »

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

You trust the government? laugh

Wink

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination (take a journey through Google Images to see how horrific smallpox was). Polio: well on its way to the same. Spikes in outbreaks of measles where vaccination rates drop because of fear-mongering caused by celebrities and a fully discredited doctor. I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.
Smallpox, really?  When why are hundreds of thousands of Americans being forced to take a vaccine not made in half a century?

They're not. It hasn't been a routine vax since the 70's.
Logged

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #121 on: October 10, 2012, 06:28:12 PM »

Quote
After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.
Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.
Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?
Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.
I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.
You had me up until second hand smoke.

I appreciate your view and would even say I agree for the most part, but my concern is this truly is a slippery slope when we give government too much control over our own bodies and the bodies of our children.  

Consider this, only because this is happening to someone I know right now.  A two year old with agressive leukemia.  Parents choose a treatment.  Poor child hasn't left the hospital in months and is almost done with treatment.  The problem is, the treatment is killing her.  Her liver is being destroyed.  So, here is the predicament.  The parents knew this could happen and chose treatment, but what if they didnt?  Knowing the treatment could kill long before the disease, would they have been wrong?  Should the government force this child into treatment and through the suffering?  Chances are she won't live much longer if they cant do something about the liver (I hope she makes it), but is the decision the parents or the governments?  My fear is, as always happens, the government gets too much power and combined with its pitifully poor record for making things work properly, bad things happen.  This is why I mentioned flu shots.  The government spends tons of money, scared people into getting it, only to find out a lot of them didnt work.  Government involvment rarely helps.  

Anyway, I appreciate your direct response.  Thank you.  Like I said, there is no right or wrong here, just personal opinions.
Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario.  
Because it doesn't matter what the disease is. That's the point you are missing here.  Either government has the authority or the individual.  You appear to be comfortable with government.  I am not.  It really is this simple.  You or big brother.

And anyone who administers medicine to my child without my consent will need a little emergency care of their own.  Also very simple.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 06:30:19 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #122 on: October 10, 2012, 06:33:02 PM »

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

You trust the government? laugh

Wink

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination (take a journey through Google Images to see how horrific smallpox was). Polio: well on its way to the same. Spikes in outbreaks of measles where vaccination rates drop because of fear-mongering caused by celebrities and a fully discredited doctor. I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.
Smallpox, really?  When why are hundreds of thousands of Americans being forced to take a vaccine not made in half a century?

They're not. It hasn't been a routine vax since the 70's.
They are, you are wrong, go back and read my initial post here. The first sentence.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 06:34:58 PM by Kerdy » Logged
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #123 on: October 10, 2012, 06:36:35 PM »

I don't consider huge state control over people's daily lives to be an increase in sanity, but whatever floats your boat.

I'm old enough to remember seeing kids in calipers, crippled by polio, at school. Of seeing kids and adults in iron lungs. And seeing others maimed or dying from other easily-preventable diseases. "Huge state control over people's daily lives"? My eye.  Angry

Young 'uns today have no historical awareness.

If you belong to a Church with metrical records dating back to the years surrounding World War One, ask your priest for permission to visit with him and review the baptismal and death entries. Pertussis (whopping cough), polio, diptheria are just a few of the now mostly eradicated diseases which ravaged our families throughout the first five decades or so of the 20th century. Public health initiatives requiring immunization ended that scourge.

I would view it as a non-morally supportable position to deny a child immunity from such diseases given that safe vaccines are available. Since an unbiased review of the risks of modern vaccines versus the reintroduction of these once-thought to be eradicated killers provides a clear answer. Vaccinate your kids. As to the individual - well if your neighbors don't believe in vaccinations and their kids get smallpox or infantile paralysis, don't call the government when your children get ill. After all, we trust the individual here - not the nanny state. Bah.

As to state control? We all are not alone on an island. The public good requires community action and protection - that is why we regulate. Don't forget that the Founders made it very clear in the preamble to the Constitution that among the purposes of the national government was the protection of the general welfare - something necessary to promote domestic tranquility.

Oh one more thing - there is a scientific consensus about the ingestion of second hand smoke. It's harmful.
If second hand smoke were as bad as people make it out to be, everyone would already have died.  Now they are playing with third hand smoke ideas while in the same breath, advocating marijuana legalism and consumption.  Insane, that's what it is.  Btw, I'm all for certain restrictions on smoking, but it's gotten pretty stupid.

And if they really want to get people to stop smoking, why are so many public programs funded by tobacco tax?  Hmm.

You are quite right about the hypocrisy of the tobacco tax revenues being misapplied and not going to fund excess medicaid costs incurred by states due to premature death rates among poor smokers - a group that projects obesity, high blood pressure, cardiac and pulmonary diseases in abnormal rates and a host of other issues due to a lack of preventive medical care and poor diet. As one who was part of county budget making for years in upstate New York I fully agree with your comment about the misuse of these dollars by your local elected officials. Likewise the hundreds of millions of settlement dollars obtained by local governments which were supposed to fund local medicaid shares for forty years but which were typically used to package tax free general obligation bonds (packaaged by the arbitrage investment houses and their big city lawyers and sold to wealthy folks for tax purposes) used for public building projects. And don't label one party or the other as responsible on that one - most upstate rural counties in New York used those bonds to build jails or county offices and most were Republican - I know as I was the County Attorney for one of them! Plenty of self righteous blame to go around on that count for all politicians.

However, as to second hand smoke - the scientific evidence about its impact on non-smokers is clear and unambiguous and the lack of ambiguity in that evidence is why the appellate courts have consistently upheld smoking restrictions across the country regardless of the local prevailing ideology. The legislative balance between the rights of smokers and the rights of others is always a tough call as with any balancing of rights and restrictions.
Logged
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #124 on: October 10, 2012, 06:38:58 PM »

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

You trust the government? laugh

Wink

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination (take a journey through Google Images to see how horrific smallpox was). Polio: well on its way to the same. Spikes in outbreaks of measles where vaccination rates drop because of fear-mongering caused by celebrities and a fully discredited doctor. I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.
Smallpox, really?  When why are hundreds of thousands of Americans being forced to take a vaccine not made in half a century?

They're not. It hasn't been a routine vax since the 70's.
They are, you are wrong, go back and read my initial post here. The first sentence.

Centers for Disease Control publication on this issue: "Routine smallpox vaccination among the American public stopped in 1972 after the disease was eradicated in the United States. Until recently, the U.S. government provided the vaccine only to a few hundred scientists and medical professionals working with smallpox and similar viruses in a research setting.

After the events of September and October, 2001, however, the U.S. government took further actions to improve its level of preparedness against terrorism. One of many such measures—designed specifically to prepare for an intentional release of the smallpox virus—included updating and releasing a smallpox response plan. In addition, the U.S. government has enough vaccine to vaccinate every person in the United States in the event of a smallpox emergency." http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/facts.asp
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,904


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #125 on: October 10, 2012, 06:40:08 PM »

Quote
After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.
Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.
Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?
Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.
I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.
You had me up until second hand smoke.

I appreciate your view and would even say I agree for the most part, but my concern is this truly is a slippery slope when we give government too much control over our own bodies and the bodies of our children. 

Consider this, only because this is happening to someone I know right now.  A two year old with agressive leukemia.  Parents choose a treatment.  Poor child hasn't left the hospital in months and is almost done with treatment.  The problem is, the treatment is killing her.  Her liver is being destroyed.  So, here is the predicament.  The parents knew this could happen and chose treatment, but what if they didnt?  Knowing the treatment could kill long before the disease, would they have been wrong?  Should the government force this child into treatment and through the suffering?  Chances are she won't live much longer if they cant do something about the liver (I hope she makes it), but is the decision the parents or the governments?  My fear is, as always happens, the government gets too much power and combined with its pitifully poor record for making things work properly, bad things happen.  This is why I mentioned flu shots.  The government spends tons of money, scared people into getting it, only to find out a lot of them didnt work.  Government involvment rarely helps. 

Anyway, I appreciate your direct response.  Thank you.  Like I said, there is no right or wrong here, just personal opinions.
Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario. 
Because it doesn't matter what the disease is. That's the point you are missing here.  Either government has the authority or the individual.  You appear to be comfortable with government.  I am not.  It really is this simple.  You or big brother.

And anyone who administers medicine to my child without my consent will need a little emergency care of their own.  Also very simple.

I'm sorry, but the law has given me authority that if your son needs an emergency blood transfusion that is life-saving, I don't need your permission.  You should be thankful I won't be wasting your child's precious time to ask you for your consent that I should save him/her while he/she is getting brain death from lack of oxygen.

And I am saying it's a case-by-case basis.  YES, I'm saying that IT DOES matter what the disease is; in fact, that's what I've been arguing the whole time!!!  Some things require the government, some don't.  As I said before, easily communicable for lethal diseases with efficacious vaccines.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 06:43:11 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #126 on: October 10, 2012, 06:42:01 PM »

@celticfan

I want to make sure I understand what you have posted.  You are saying we don't have the information which means we are making foolish silly talk, but you so are also saying the information provided is skewed due to funding and such.  So, just how are we supposed to get the magic information that only the greatest minds on the planet are privy to so we are not part of the ignorant masses if for no other reason than to keep like yourself from scoffing?  At least we both share a distrust of government.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #127 on: October 10, 2012, 06:46:34 PM »

Quote
After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.
Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.
Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?
Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.
I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.
You had me up until second hand smoke.

I appreciate your view and would even say I agree for the most part, but my concern is this truly is a slippery slope when we give government too much control over our own bodies and the bodies of our children.  

Consider this, only because this is happening to someone I know right now.  A two year old with agressive leukemia.  Parents choose a treatment.  Poor child hasn't left the hospital in months and is almost done with treatment.  The problem is, the treatment is killing her.  Her liver is being destroyed.  So, here is the predicament.  The parents knew this could happen and chose treatment, but what if they didnt?  Knowing the treatment could kill long before the disease, would they have been wrong?  Should the government force this child into treatment and through the suffering?  Chances are she won't live much longer if they cant do something about the liver (I hope she makes it), but is the decision the parents or the governments?  My fear is, as always happens, the government gets too much power and combined with its pitifully poor record for making things work properly, bad things happen.  This is why I mentioned flu shots.  The government spends tons of money, scared people into getting it, only to find out a lot of them didnt work.  Government involvment rarely helps.  

Anyway, I appreciate your direct response.  Thank you.  Like I said, there is no right or wrong here, just personal opinions.
Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario.  
Because it doesn't matter what the disease is. That's the point you are missing here.  Either government has the authority or the individual.  You appear to be comfortable with government.  I am not.  It really is this simple.  You or big brother.

And anyone who administers medicine to my child without my consent will need a little emergency care of their own.  Also very simple.

I'm sorry, but the law has given me authority that if your son needs an emergency blood transfusion that is life-saving, I don't need your permission.  You should be thankful I won't be wasting your child's precious time to ask you for your consent that I should save him/her while he/she is getting brain death from lack of oxygen.

And I am saying it's a case-by-case basis.  YES, I'm saying that IT DOES matter what the disease is.  Some things require the government, some don't.  As I said before, easily communicable for lethal diseases with efficacious vaccines.
Then we disagree completely.  And I stand by my statement of medicine to my children, or any other medical services like condoms in middle school, etc.  there is a limit and a line which will not be crossed regardless of yours or anyone else's opinions.  But I do like how you jumped from nurses giving shots at school to the worst possible case scenario.  That's the same sort of thing abortion advocates use in their debates.

I'm sure your views will change when government has too much power, as they always end up with, outside you current acceptable limits.  There must be a barrier of protection for our liberties and you seem unable to understand that.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 06:49:09 PM by Kerdy » Logged
ZealousZeal
Interplanet Janet
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,236


I'm the magnificent, marvelous, mad Madam Mim.


« Reply #128 on: October 10, 2012, 06:47:14 PM »

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

You trust the government? laugh

Wink

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination (take a journey through Google Images to see how horrific smallpox was). Polio: well on its way to the same. Spikes in outbreaks of measles where vaccination rates drop because of fear-mongering caused by celebrities and a fully discredited doctor. I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.
Smallpox, really?  When why are hundreds of thousands of Americans being forced to take a vaccine not made in half a century?

They're not. It hasn't been a routine vax since the 70's.
They are, you are wrong, go back and read my initial post here. The first sentence.

You couldn't just spit it out but instead made me comb through the thread looking for your first post, first sentence with an ambiguous reference to veterans?

I don't care to play guessing games. Your initial reply to me made it sound like you were talking about the general population- which as I said- is NOT getting routinely vaccinated against smallpox. The military vaccinates service members that are deploying for probably the same reason we have a huge stockpile of smallpox vaccines as podkarpatska quoted- the concern over terrorism.
Logged

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #129 on: October 10, 2012, 06:52:44 PM »

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

You trust the government? laugh

Wink

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination (take a journey through Google Images to see how horrific smallpox was). Polio: well on its way to the same. Spikes in outbreaks of measles where vaccination rates drop because of fear-mongering caused by celebrities and a fully discredited doctor. I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.
Smallpox, really?  When why are hundreds of thousands of Americans being forced to take a vaccine not made in half a century?

They're not. It hasn't been a routine vax since the 70's.
They are, you are wrong, go back and read my initial post here. The first sentence.

Centers for Disease Control publication on this issue: "Routine smallpox vaccination among the American public stopped in 1972 after the disease was eradicated in the United States. Until recently, the U.S. government provided the vaccine only to a few hundred scientists and medical professionals working with smallpox and similar viruses in a research setting.

After the events of September and October, 2001, however, the U.S. government took further actions to improve its level of preparedness against terrorism. One of many such measures—designed specifically to prepare for an intentional release of the smallpox virus—included updating and releasing a smallpox response plan. In addition, the U.S. government has enough vaccine to vaccinate every person in the United States in the event of a smallpox emergency." http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/facts.asp

And they have already started giving those shots to people.  Started about five or six years ago, whether they wanted them or not.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 06:53:29 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #130 on: October 10, 2012, 06:57:45 PM »

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

You trust the government? laugh

Wink

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination (take a journey through Google Images to see how horrific smallpox was). Polio: well on its way to the same. Spikes in outbreaks of measles where vaccination rates drop because of fear-mongering caused by celebrities and a fully discredited doctor. I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.
Smallpox, really?  When why are hundreds of thousands of Americans being forced to take a vaccine not made in half a century?

They're not. It hasn't been a routine vax since the 70's.
They are, you are wrong, go back and read my initial post here. The first sentence.

You couldn't just spit it out but instead made me comb through the thread looking for your first post, first sentence with an ambiguous reference to veterans?

I don't care to play guessing games. Your initial reply to me made it sound like you were talking about the general population- which as I said- is NOT getting routinely vaccinated against smallpox. The military vaccinates service members that are deploying for probably the same reason we have a huge stockpile of smallpox vaccines as podkarpatska quoted- the concern over terrorism.

It's not a game.  You were wrong.  If people actually read what I wrote, they would understand better.  There are many, many stories you can hear from veterans and the medicines they receive because government said it was in their best interest.  A friend of mine has chrome hip and shoulder sockets because of a medicine from big brother who never gave him the full story.  He was a very active fellow and now can barely get around, because of medicine, and his is a mild story.  Do more research, it's a scary world out there.  Military members are Petri dishes for medical research, always has been.  I remember getting shots even the folks giving them had no idea what they were.  That's bad business.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 07:03:21 PM by Kerdy » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,904


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #131 on: October 10, 2012, 06:59:55 PM »

Quote
After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.
Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.
Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?
Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.
I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.
You had me up until second hand smoke.

I appreciate your view and would even say I agree for the most part, but my concern is this truly is a slippery slope when we give government too much control over our own bodies and the bodies of our children. 

Consider this, only because this is happening to someone I know right now.  A two year old with agressive leukemia.  Parents choose a treatment.  Poor child hasn't left the hospital in months and is almost done with treatment.  The problem is, the treatment is killing her.  Her liver is being destroyed.  So, here is the predicament.  The parents knew this could happen and chose treatment, but what if they didnt?  Knowing the treatment could kill long before the disease, would they have been wrong?  Should the government force this child into treatment and through the suffering?  Chances are she won't live much longer if they cant do something about the liver (I hope she makes it), but is the decision the parents or the governments?  My fear is, as always happens, the government gets too much power and combined with its pitifully poor record for making things work properly, bad things happen.  This is why I mentioned flu shots.  The government spends tons of money, scared people into getting it, only to find out a lot of them didnt work.  Government involvment rarely helps. 

Anyway, I appreciate your direct response.  Thank you.  Like I said, there is no right or wrong here, just personal opinions.
Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario. 
Because it doesn't matter what the disease is. That's the point you are missing here.  Either government has the authority or the individual.  You appear to be comfortable with government.  I am not.  It really is this simple.  You or big brother.

And anyone who administers medicine to my child without my consent will need a little emergency care of their own.  Also very simple.

I'm sorry, but the law has given me authority that if your son needs an emergency blood transfusion that is life-saving, I don't need your permission.  You should be thankful I won't be wasting your child's precious time to ask you for your consent that I should save him/her while he/she is getting brain death from lack of oxygen.

And I am saying it's a case-by-case basis.  YES, I'm saying that IT DOES matter what the disease is.  Some things require the government, some don't.  As I said before, easily communicable for lethal diseases with efficacious vaccines.
Then we disagree completely.  And I stand by my statement of medicine to my children, or any other medical services like condoms in middle school, etc.  there is a limit and a line which will not be crossed regardless of yours or anyone else's opinions.  But I do like how you jumped from nurses giving shots at school to the worst possible case scenario.  That's the same sort of thing abortion advocates use in their debates.

I'm sure your views will change when government has too much power, as they always end up with, outside you current acceptable limits.  There must be a barrier of protection for our liberties and you seem unable to understand that.
Again, emergency situation based on the disease, not any medication.  You continued insistence that I am debating just about any scenario is ridiculous.  I'm giving you dire scenarios, not the scenarios you present.  If you can't know the difference, then it is futile debating this with you.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 07:00:55 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #132 on: October 10, 2012, 07:06:16 PM »

Quote
After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.
Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.
Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?
Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.
I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.
You had me up until second hand smoke.

I appreciate your view and would even say I agree for the most part, but my concern is this truly is a slippery slope when we give government too much control over our own bodies and the bodies of our children. 

Consider this, only because this is happening to someone I know right now.  A two year old with agressive leukemia.  Parents choose a treatment.  Poor child hasn't left the hospital in months and is almost done with treatment.  The problem is, the treatment is killing her.  Her liver is being destroyed.  So, here is the predicament.  The parents knew this could happen and chose treatment, but what if they didnt?  Knowing the treatment could kill long before the disease, would they have been wrong?  Should the government force this child into treatment and through the suffering?  Chances are she won't live much longer if they cant do something about the liver (I hope she makes it), but is the decision the parents or the governments?  My fear is, as always happens, the government gets too much power and combined with its pitifully poor record for making things work properly, bad things happen.  This is why I mentioned flu shots.  The government spends tons of money, scared people into getting it, only to find out a lot of them didnt work.  Government involvment rarely helps. 

Anyway, I appreciate your direct response.  Thank you.  Like I said, there is no right or wrong here, just personal opinions.
Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario. 
Because it doesn't matter what the disease is. That's the point you are missing here.  Either government has the authority or the individual.  You appear to be comfortable with government.  I am not.  It really is this simple.  You or big brother.

And anyone who administers medicine to my child without my consent will need a little emergency care of their own.  Also very simple.

I'm sorry, but the law has given me authority that if your son needs an emergency blood transfusion that is life-saving, I don't need your permission.  You should be thankful I won't be wasting your child's precious time to ask you for your consent that I should save him/her while he/she is getting brain death from lack of oxygen.

And I am saying it's a case-by-case basis.  YES, I'm saying that IT DOES matter what the disease is.  Some things require the government, some don't.  As I said before, easily communicable for lethal diseases with efficacious vaccines.
Then we disagree completely.  And I stand by my statement of medicine to my children, or any other medical services like condoms in middle school, etc.  there is a limit and a line which will not be crossed regardless of yours or anyone else's opinions.  But I do like how you jumped from nurses giving shots at school to the worst possible case scenario.  That's the same sort of thing abortion advocates use in their debates.

I'm sure your views will change when government has too much power, as they always end up with, outside you current acceptable limits.  There must be a barrier of protection for our liberties and you seem unable to understand that.
Again, emergency situation based on the disease, not any medication.  You continued insistence that I am debating just about any scenario is ridiculous.  I'm giving you dire scenarios, not the scenarios you present.  If you can't know the difference, then it is futile debating this with you.
I understand you fine.  You are the one missing my point, or ignoring it.  Perhaps it is futile, no matter.  Some people walk through life seeing only that which is directly before them and never what is beyond.  Makes me sad.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,904


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #133 on: October 10, 2012, 07:19:16 PM »

Quote
After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.
Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.
Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?
Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.
I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.
You had me up until second hand smoke.

I appreciate your view and would even say I agree for the most part, but my concern is this truly is a slippery slope when we give government too much control over our own bodies and the bodies of our children. 

Consider this, only because this is happening to someone I know right now.  A two year old with agressive leukemia.  Parents choose a treatment.  Poor child hasn't left the hospital in months and is almost done with treatment.  The problem is, the treatment is killing her.  Her liver is being destroyed.  So, here is the predicament.  The parents knew this could happen and chose treatment, but what if they didnt?  Knowing the treatment could kill long before the disease, would they have been wrong?  Should the government force this child into treatment and through the suffering?  Chances are she won't live much longer if they cant do something about the liver (I hope she makes it), but is the decision the parents or the governments?  My fear is, as always happens, the government gets too much power and combined with its pitifully poor record for making things work properly, bad things happen.  This is why I mentioned flu shots.  The government spends tons of money, scared people into getting it, only to find out a lot of them didnt work.  Government involvment rarely helps. 

Anyway, I appreciate your direct response.  Thank you.  Like I said, there is no right or wrong here, just personal opinions.
Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario. 
Because it doesn't matter what the disease is. That's the point you are missing here.  Either government has the authority or the individual.  You appear to be comfortable with government.  I am not.  It really is this simple.  You or big brother.

And anyone who administers medicine to my child without my consent will need a little emergency care of their own.  Also very simple.

I'm sorry, but the law has given me authority that if your son needs an emergency blood transfusion that is life-saving, I don't need your permission.  You should be thankful I won't be wasting your child's precious time to ask you for your consent that I should save him/her while he/she is getting brain death from lack of oxygen.

And I am saying it's a case-by-case basis.  YES, I'm saying that IT DOES matter what the disease is.  Some things require the government, some don't.  As I said before, easily communicable for lethal diseases with efficacious vaccines.
Then we disagree completely.  And I stand by my statement of medicine to my children, or any other medical services like condoms in middle school, etc.  there is a limit and a line which will not be crossed regardless of yours or anyone else's opinions.  But I do like how you jumped from nurses giving shots at school to the worst possible case scenario.  That's the same sort of thing abortion advocates use in their debates.

I'm sure your views will change when government has too much power, as they always end up with, outside you current acceptable limits.  There must be a barrier of protection for our liberties and you seem unable to understand that.
Again, emergency situation based on the disease, not any medication.  You continued insistence that I am debating just about any scenario is ridiculous.  I'm giving you dire scenarios, not the scenarios you present.  If you can't know the difference, then it is futile debating this with you.
I understand you fine.  You are the one missing my point, or ignoring it.  Perhaps it is futile, no matter.  Some people walk through life seeing only that which is directly before them and never what is beyond.  Makes me sad.
Your point is my ideas present a slippery slope for the government to regulate just about anything concerning our health and the treatment that might be forced to be taken, whereas I drew a line on specific diseases and dire conditions, not on all of them.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,322


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #134 on: October 10, 2012, 07:23:40 PM »

The name of this is "Some sanity" ,which only goes to show insanity is more prevalent. Roll Eyes
Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #135 on: October 10, 2012, 09:05:55 PM »

Quote
After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.
Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.
Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?
Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.
I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.
You had me up until second hand smoke.

I appreciate your view and would even say I agree for the most part, but my concern is this truly is a slippery slope when we give government too much control over our own bodies and the bodies of our children.  

Consider this, only because this is happening to someone I know right now.  A two year old with agressive leukemia.  Parents choose a treatment.  Poor child hasn't left the hospital in months and is almost done with treatment.  The problem is, the treatment is killing her.  Her liver is being destroyed.  So, here is the predicament.  The parents knew this could happen and chose treatment, but what if they didnt?  Knowing the treatment could kill long before the disease, would they have been wrong?  Should the government force this child into treatment and through the suffering?  Chances are she won't live much longer if they cant do something about the liver (I hope she makes it), but is the decision the parents or the governments?  My fear is, as always happens, the government gets too much power and combined with its pitifully poor record for making things work properly, bad things happen.  This is why I mentioned flu shots.  The government spends tons of money, scared people into getting it, only to find out a lot of them didnt work.  Government involvment rarely helps.  

Anyway, I appreciate your direct response.  Thank you.  Like I said, there is no right or wrong here, just personal opinions.
Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario.  
Because it doesn't matter what the disease is. That's the point you are missing here.  Either government has the authority or the individual.  You appear to be comfortable with government.  I am not.  It really is this simple.  You or big brother.

And anyone who administers medicine to my child without my consent will need a little emergency care of their own.  Also very simple.

I'm sorry, but the law has given me authority that if your son needs an emergency blood transfusion that is life-saving, I don't need your permission.  You should be thankful I won't be wasting your child's precious time to ask you for your consent that I should save him/her while he/she is getting brain death from lack of oxygen.

And I am saying it's a case-by-case basis.  YES, I'm saying that IT DOES matter what the disease is.  Some things require the government, some don't.  As I said before, easily communicable for lethal diseases with efficacious vaccines.
Then we disagree completely.  And I stand by my statement of medicine to my children, or any other medical services like condoms in middle school, etc.  there is a limit and a line which will not be crossed regardless of yours or anyone else's opinions.  But I do like how you jumped from nurses giving shots at school to the worst possible case scenario.  That's the same sort of thing abortion advocates use in their debates.

I'm sure your views will change when government has too much power, as they always end up with, outside you current acceptable limits.  There must be a barrier of protection for our liberties and you seem unable to understand that.

This is getting into politics, but you are taking your inherent fears and conflating them with long standing governmental policy and practice. Your rights as a parent are no more unlimited than is the power of any government. A civil and sustainable society compels balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of the society at large. In the case of war, your almost adult child can be conscripted against your wishes. In the case of a natural disaster such as a wildfire or flood you may be ordered to leave your home with your family. You may choose to stay as an adult, but you will not be allowed to needlessly endanger your child in the process and so on.  Your defensive arguments in support of your strongly held (and often instinctively correct in most cases I might add) beliefs are as much as a slippery slope as those you criticize.
Logged
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #136 on: October 10, 2012, 09:13:49 PM »

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

You trust the government? laugh

Wink

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination (take a journey through Google Images to see how horrific smallpox was). Polio: well on its way to the same. Spikes in outbreaks of measles where vaccination rates drop because of fear-mongering caused by celebrities and a fully discredited doctor. I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.
Smallpox, really?  When why are hundreds of thousands of Americans being forced to take a vaccine not made in half a century?

They're not. It hasn't been a routine vax since the 70's.
They are, you are wrong, go back and read my initial post here. The first sentence.

You couldn't just spit it out but instead made me comb through the thread looking for your first post, first sentence with an ambiguous reference to veterans?

I don't care to play guessing games. Your initial reply to me made it sound like you were talking about the general population- which as I said- is NOT getting routinely vaccinated against smallpox. The military vaccinates service members that are deploying for probably the same reason we have a huge stockpile of smallpox vaccines as podkarpatska quoted- the concern over terrorism.

It's not a game.  You were wrong.  If people actually read what I wrote, they would understand better.  There are many, many stories you can hear from veterans and the medicines they receive because government said it was in their best interest.  A friend of mine has chrome hip and shoulder sockets because of a medicine from big brother who never gave him the full story.  He was a very active fellow and now can barely get around, because of medicine, and his is a mild story.  Do more research, it's a scary world out there.  Military members are Petri dishes for medical research, always has been.  I remember getting shots even the folks giving them had no idea what they were.  That's bad business.

The use of anecdoctal or experiential evidence may be emotionally compelling and even satisfying to relate (we all use it to some degree or another), but it is not science nor is it always borne out by statistical analysis. In a court of law when product liability is being litigated for example such testimony has little weight and often does not lead to what seems to be its obvious conclusion upon further examination. Yes, the government did experiment on soldiers or residents of third world countries, but that fact does not allow one to infer that any unexplained action or drug reaction or whatever is necessarily the result of similar actions in the present.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #137 on: October 11, 2012, 02:12:59 AM »

Quote
After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.
Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.
Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?
Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.
I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.
You had me up until second hand smoke.

I appreciate your view and would even say I agree for the most part, but my concern is this truly is a slippery slope when we give government too much control over our own bodies and the bodies of our children. 

Consider this, only because this is happening to someone I know right now.  A two year old with agressive leukemia.  Parents choose a treatment.  Poor child hasn't left the hospital in months and is almost done with treatment.  The problem is, the treatment is killing her.  Her liver is being destroyed.  So, here is the predicament.  The parents knew this could happen and chose treatment, but what if they didnt?  Knowing the treatment could kill long before the disease, would they have been wrong?  Should the government force this child into treatment and through the suffering?  Chances are she won't live much longer if they cant do something about the liver (I hope she makes it), but is the decision the parents or the governments?  My fear is, as always happens, the government gets too much power and combined with its pitifully poor record for making things work properly, bad things happen.  This is why I mentioned flu shots.  The government spends tons of money, scared people into getting it, only to find out a lot of them didnt work.  Government involvment rarely helps. 

Anyway, I appreciate your direct response.  Thank you.  Like I said, there is no right or wrong here, just personal opinions.
Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario. 
Because it doesn't matter what the disease is. That's the point you are missing here.  Either government has the authority or the individual.  You appear to be comfortable with government.  I am not.  It really is this simple.  You or big brother.

And anyone who administers medicine to my child without my consent will need a little emergency care of their own.  Also very simple.

I'm sorry, but the law has given me authority that if your son needs an emergency blood transfusion that is life-saving, I don't need your permission.  You should be thankful I won't be wasting your child's precious time to ask you for your consent that I should save him/her while he/she is getting brain death from lack of oxygen.

And I am saying it's a case-by-case basis.  YES, I'm saying that IT DOES matter what the disease is.  Some things require the government, some don't.  As I said before, easily communicable for lethal diseases with efficacious vaccines.
Then we disagree completely.  And I stand by my statement of medicine to my children, or any other medical services like condoms in middle school, etc.  there is a limit and a line which will not be crossed regardless of yours or anyone else's opinions.  But I do like how you jumped from nurses giving shots at school to the worst possible case scenario.  That's the same sort of thing abortion advocates use in their debates.

I'm sure your views will change when government has too much power, as they always end up with, outside you current acceptable limits.  There must be a barrier of protection for our liberties and you seem unable to understand that.
Again, emergency situation based on the disease, not any medication.  You continued insistence that I am debating just about any scenario is ridiculous.  I'm giving you dire scenarios, not the scenarios you present.  If you can't know the difference, then it is futile debating this with you.
I understand you fine.  You are the one missing my point, or ignoring it.  Perhaps it is futile, no matter.  Some people walk through life seeing only that which is directly before them and never what is beyond.  Makes me sad.
Your point is my ideas present a slippery slope for the government to regulate just about anything concerning our health and the treatment that might be forced to be taken, whereas I drew a line on specific diseases and dire conditions, not on all of them.
Ah, then you do understand.  For clarification, your ideas are not what concerns me.  I actually agree with what you say more than you may realize.  I only worry about the results from well meaning people when government gets involved.  That's all. 
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #138 on: October 11, 2012, 02:45:41 AM »

Quote
After all, if a forced medicine only kills a small portion of the population but has the potential to save a greater number, why should people be allowed to refuse it?

You mean this question?  The most common way a vaccine has caused death is if there's an allergic reaction, and if epinephrine is not made readily available for a patient taking a vaccine with let's say a component of egg whites for instance, then the clinician is responsible for not providing proper care.  True there are other side effects, but extremely rare.  And I don't neglect the minority of people here.  But for the most important vaccines, even these rare side effects might have poor correlation with the vaccine.  It hasn't been proven yet that the vaccine causes these problems, and as time goes by, we find that there has been virtually no problems with vaccinating our children year after year.

Second of all, no!  Even swine flu, unless there is a dire emergency, is not required until it has been shown that it doesn't cause significant side effects for the population.  The swine flu isn't even that effective considering how fast it mutates yearly.  It is why any flu vaccine has been called to question.  This is why a flu vaccine is recommended yearly for anyone who suffers from co-morbidities so that in the event of a flu, they don't either catch it or they catch the flu to a lesser severe extent.  There are hopes that if the community accepts to take the flu vaccine yearly as a whole, we might just be able to slow down and eradicate the flu.  It takes time, and it's very challenging.

You also made the assertion against me that the "end justifies the means."  Actually, quite the opposite.  This is a means that prevents an even worse end.
Than you for your answer, but I was referring to the question of who should make the choice.
Government.  They already make certain health regulations, and public schools systems require certain vaccinations.  Who else?
Finally.  Thank you.

Who else?  Who better, the individual.
I'm with the individual if the disease in question is not easily communicable and lethal.  Only reason I put this limitation is that the individual is sometimes a failure in maintaining their own safety for others.  It's why governments also made a smoking ban in public places, because the individual fails to consider others' safety.
You had me up until second hand smoke.

I appreciate your view and would even say I agree for the most part, but my concern is this truly is a slippery slope when we give government too much control over our own bodies and the bodies of our children.  

Consider this, only because this is happening to someone I know right now.  A two year old with agressive leukemia.  Parents choose a treatment.  Poor child hasn't left the hospital in months and is almost done with treatment.  The problem is, the treatment is killing her.  Her liver is being destroyed.  So, here is the predicament.  The parents knew this could happen and chose treatment, but what if they didnt?  Knowing the treatment could kill long before the disease, would they have been wrong?  Should the government force this child into treatment and through the suffering?  Chances are she won't live much longer if they cant do something about the liver (I hope she makes it), but is the decision the parents or the governments?  My fear is, as always happens, the government gets too much power and combined with its pitifully poor record for making things work properly, bad things happen.  This is why I mentioned flu shots.  The government spends tons of money, scared people into getting it, only to find out a lot of them didnt work.  Government involvment rarely helps.  

Anyway, I appreciate your direct response.  Thank you.  Like I said, there is no right or wrong here, just personal opinions.
Yes, but leukemia is not easily communicable. So I don't understand why you would use the scenario.  
Because it doesn't matter what the disease is. That's the point you are missing here.  Either government has the authority or the individual.  You appear to be comfortable with government.  I am not.  It really is this simple.  You or big brother.

And anyone who administers medicine to my child without my consent will need a little emergency care of their own.  Also very simple.

I'm sorry, but the law has given me authority that if your son needs an emergency blood transfusion that is life-saving, I don't need your permission.  You should be thankful I won't be wasting your child's precious time to ask you for your consent that I should save him/her while he/she is getting brain death from lack of oxygen.

And I am saying it's a case-by-case basis.  YES, I'm saying that IT DOES matter what the disease is.  Some things require the government, some don't.  As I said before, easily communicable for lethal diseases with efficacious vaccines.
Then we disagree completely.  And I stand by my statement of medicine to my children, or any other medical services like condoms in middle school, etc.  there is a limit and a line which will not be crossed regardless of yours or anyone else's opinions.  But I do like how you jumped from nurses giving shots at school to the worst possible case scenario.  That's the same sort of thing abortion advocates use in their debates.

I'm sure your views will change when government has too much power, as they always end up with, outside you current acceptable limits.  There must be a barrier of protection for our liberties and you seem unable to understand that.

This is getting into politics, but you are taking your inherent fears and conflating them with long standing governmental policy and practice. Your rights as a parent are no more unlimited than is the power of any government. A civil and sustainable society compels balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of the society at large. In the case of war, your almost adult child can be conscripted against your wishes. In the case of a natural disaster such as a wildfire or flood you may be ordered to leave your home with your family. You may choose to stay as an adult, but you will not be allowed to needlessly endanger your child in the process and so on.  Your defensive arguments in support of your strongly held (and often instinctively correct in most cases I might add) beliefs are as much as a slippery slope as those you criticize.
When you are right, you are right and you, sir, are correct.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,565


« Reply #139 on: October 11, 2012, 02:50:42 AM »

I'm afraid to read this whole thread. Vaccinating is one of my hot-button issues... nothing makes me see red faster than non-vaxing nonsense.

You trust the government? laugh

Wink

I trust science. I trust the proof I can see with my own eyes. Smallpox: completely eradicated by vaccination (take a journey through Google Images to see how horrific smallpox was). Polio: well on its way to the same. Spikes in outbreaks of measles where vaccination rates drop because of fear-mongering caused by celebrities and a fully discredited doctor. I'm a 25 year-old mom- it is my peers who are taking up this banner of idiocy so I encounter it far more often than I care to.
Smallpox, really?  When why are hundreds of thousands of Americans being forced to take a vaccine not made in half a century?

They're not. It hasn't been a routine vax since the 70's.
They are, you are wrong, go back and read my initial post here. The first sentence.

You couldn't just spit it out but instead made me comb through the thread looking for your first post, first sentence with an ambiguous reference to veterans?

I don't care to play guessing games. Your initial reply to me made it sound like you were talking about the general population- which as I said- is NOT getting routinely vaccinated against smallpox. The military vaccinates service members that are deploying for probably the same reason we have a huge stockpile of smallpox vaccines as podkarpatska quoted- the concern over terrorism.

It's not a game.  You were wrong.  If people actually read what I wrote, they would understand better.  There are many, many stories you can hear from veterans and the medicines they receive because government said it was in their best interest.  A friend of mine has chrome hip and shoulder sockets because of a medicine from big brother who never gave him the full story.  He was a very active fellow and now can barely get around, because of medicine, and his is a mild story.  Do more research, it's a scary world out there.  Military members are Petri dishes for medical research, always has been.  I remember getting shots even the folks giving them had no idea what they were.  That's bad business.

The use of anecdoctal or experiential evidence may be emotionally compelling and even satisfying to relate (we all use it to some degree or another), but it is not science nor is it always borne out by statistical analysis. In a court of law when product liability is being litigated for example such testimony has little weight and often does not lead to what seems to be its obvious conclusion upon further examination. Yes, the government did experiment on soldiers or residents of third world countries, but that fact does not allow one to infer that any unexplained action or drug reaction or whatever is necessarily the result of similar actions in the present.

Legally speaking, you are correct, but we both know stuff happens.
Logged
Pan Michał
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church
Posts: 477



« Reply #140 on: October 12, 2012, 06:57:19 AM »

which as I said- is NOT getting routinely vaccinated against smallpox.

Wow, I can't even spell that... Wink
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.632 seconds with 168 queries.