Some Sanity!

[JamesR]

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.

[celticfan1888]

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?

[Ioannis Climacus]

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.

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.

[Ansgar]

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.

[LBK]

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.

[Αριστοκλής]

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.

[stavros_388]

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.

[Kerdy]

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.

[minasoliman]

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.

[Kerdy]

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.

[minasoliman]

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.

[akimori makoto]

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.

[Kerdy]

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.

[minasoliman]

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.

[Kerdy]

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.

[JamesRottnek]

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."

[Kerdy]

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.

[minasoliman]

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.

[Kerdy]

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.

[Kerdy]

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.

[minasoliman]

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.

[Shlomlokh]

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

In Christ,
Andrew

[Papist]

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.

[minasoliman]

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.

[Asteriktos]

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.  

[Kerdy]

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.

[Kerdy]

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? 

[minasoliman]

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.

[Kerdy]

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.  

[Ioannis Climacus]

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).

[vamrat]

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...

[yeshuaisiam]

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.

[LBK]

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.

[Kerdy]

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?

[Kerdy]

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.

[LBK]

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.

[Kerdy]

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.

[JamesRottnek]

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.

[Kerdy]

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.

[JamesRottnek]

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.

[Kerdy]

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.

[JamesRottnek]

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?

[Kerdy]

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?

[Kerdy]

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.

[JamesRottnek]

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?

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Non-Religious Topics (Moderator: Pravoslavbob) > Topic: Some Sanity!