Random Politics & Religion #00

And that's fine, if you want to work there you can make that choice.


There we have it, the core attitude that freedom to make such a decision is a problem.

There is no real danger to others in letting some people make that choice. Get real, there's far greater danger to others in letting everyone decide to get a flu shot or not every year.

We are obviously doing all we can.

Children are required to have vaccinations to go to public school. There's a vast majority of children right there.

Anti-vax parents are left with either homeschooling their children (obviously if they didn't take the time to educate themselves about vaccines, why should we expect them to educate their children?) or sending them to private schools that don't require vaccine shots. Which (at least in Texas) a majority of schools actually do require vaccine shots, especially meningitis.

The only real solution we can offer that we aren't doing already is to educate people more on the benefits of vaccines. I know this seems like common sense, but when are humans ever rational beings?

US does also. At least, in public schools.

I see you didn't bother reading the posts educating you on the matter.

And some like mine don't. It really sucks.

You can change that, you know.

It is a problem.

There are already laws about it.

Many.

Among them are summed up as "child endangerment."

Again I say, for someone so staunchly anti-abortion, you're awfully comfortable with putting living, verifiably conscious children in needless risk for the sake of your "freedoms."

But I forgot, it's that child's choice to be around unvaccinated people, because everyone has a choice in everything according to you, and it's perfectly reasonable to exercise choices adverse to societal norms and everything you know, even as a young child, even when these things wouldn't even occur to you.

The city limit of your freedom is when it endangers other people. You can't yell "fire" in crowded theaters, either.

The science and statistics on vaccines are well settled and well past any reasonable point of debate, so I don't know what your actual argument is. That you shouldn't be forced to uphold your end of the social contract? That you should be allowed - "free", by your phrasing - to endanger the lives and well-being of others?

What exactly is your argument?

It's still entirely too easy to get exemptions in a lot of states, especially California.

This is sort of the crux of sovereign citizens, isn't it?

The social contract is just nonsensical, PC ***and they don't have to abide by it?

I wonder what the Venn diagram of "sovereign citizens" and "people who think abortion should be illegal" looks like

I can't speak about other states, but Texas (and Missouri, don't ask why I know) don't allow many exceptions. Even religious exceptions aren't generally allowed.

You have to have a diagnosed certified medical condition that restricts you from having vaccines in order for a child to get to public school without vaccines. Even then, that still comes with a shitton of paperwork attached to it. We don't mess with that ***here.

Another crowd that we should set on fire.

Seriously, they are just as stupid and dangerous as the anti-vax crowd...

*Gasp*

Rooks is anti-vax, I knew it!

Probably a librul.

Increase the penalties for child endangerment and wrongful death. If you let your kid die from meningitis, a treatable disease, the penalty should be a lot more than 5 years. I know thats in Canada but still.

You're life is not in any real measurable danger because the person next to you didn't get/doesn't have a particular vaccine. That is just asinine.

If they ACTUALLY had the measles or small pox or whatever, your life would arguably be in some amount of danger. Not having the measles and not having the measles vaccine are not the same thing. It's stupid to treat them as if they are.

Forced injections at the barrel of a gun (your words a few pages ago) for diseases people don't even have are not part of any civilized social contract. Especially when the rules seemingly don't apply to the massive flux of people illegally running across the boarders.

You want to talk about risk, the risk of measles ultimately doesn't come from your crazy neighbor who chooses not to vaccinate because she has a problem with risk assessment. It comes from the lot of illegals rushing across the borders. But of course that doesn't fit the narratives of hating on the "right" people. We don't want to do anything about the infected people coming into the country, so instead we'll just ***on the people next to us who make different choices.

Already a 2nd degree felony in the state of Texas.

That's a 2 to 20 year prison sentence and a fine up to $10,000.

I think there's room for discussion on making it a 1st degree felony though. That's up to 99 years of jailtime.

A child is defenseless, their only hope of recovering from an illness is their parents, whether it is a cough or meningitis. Letting the child die because of personal reasons like "God" should carry a lot more than a minimum sentence of 2 years imo.

There's a strawwwman waiting in the sky~♫

Jesus Christie, what wouldn't some people do to further their agenda. Banning immigrants apparently eradicates diseases from the world.

Okay, you clearly don't know what herd immunity is, or how any of this works. Feel free to educate yourself, there's an awful lot of research out there to choose from, and the good news is that it all says basically the same thing.

Illegal immigration is an entirely separate problem, but here's the thing; even if they WERE the source of the measles/whatever, THE SPREAD OF IT IS STILL STOPPED BY HAVING AS MANY PEOPLE IMMUNIZED AS POSSIBLE.

Vaccines aren't 100% defense, but a large population, with as many immunized as possible, is what limits the damage, and protects the immunocompromised - the elderly, newborns, people with reactions to vaccines. Your idiocy and ignorance puts those people at risk.

And if you would rather ignore that, and endanger those people, to make a weak talking point against a completely unrelated problem, then *** you.

I seriously doubt that Rooks will enforce injections by gunpoint.

He said that to show how strongly he is against the whole anti-vax notion.

Vaccines do multiplicative more good than any possible harm to not only individuals, but society as a whole. To reject vaccines based by ill-conceived notions is not only stupid, but harmful for yourself. Lucky that we have so many people vaccinated in the US that the anti-vax'er's stupidity is only truly harmful to himself and not society as a whole.

If the number of anti-vax'ers start rising, there will be risk to society. That's where we have to nip this in the bud. But we are not at that point yet. And I highly doubt we will ever get to that point.

This makes me come to mind the Jehova sect. Goddammit I hate them so much.
I know they're not that many, but aztechs had a more civilized cult than these guys.

Well I'm glad I hit refresh before saying that illegal immigration has nothing to do with the anti-vax argument...thanks rooks!

What about more guns? I'm pretty sure if a virus comes your way you can just riddle it with bullets!

This isn't "Minority Report." You cannot arrest somebody for having an ideal, however stupid it is.

Like I said before, anti-vax parents have to have their child vaccinated for their child to be accepted to public schools (and most private schools, if the ratio is the same in the nation as it is in Texas). If the anti-vax parent is too lazy or stupid to educate themselves, why should we believe that they will educate their children themselves?

You are pulling one incident that happened in Canada to the extreme.

The problem is that someone like me can use this reasoning to justify any action. I can nullify all freedom, remove all free will and force you to do as I please by simply saying you would be less likely to injure yourself or others that way. A person who's locked up in a padded room and fed lukewarm liquids is most certainly safer then a person free to roam around do so whatever they want.

So the "for your own good" or "for my own good" arguments can never be used as justification for preemptively depriving someone of their free will.

Personally I support using vaccines and any children I will have would be vaccinated, yet just as in the case of abortion, I can not justify preemptively depriving someone of their own free will. I can not, in good conscious, force another person to vaccinate themselves or their children, nor can I support any measure that would purposefully punish those individuals via collateral consequences for not doing so. Just as I can not deprive a women from choosing to have an abortion. Regardless of my personal feelings these decisions are personal decisions of another sentient being, actively depriving them of those decisions, and the responsibility involved, is a great wrong.

Immigration is it's own issue, let's not muddy it up with anti-vax rhetoric, please!

I lol'ed.

We don't have those around here, clearly.

I didn't say arrest people for an ideal. I said if you let your kid continue on being sick, and possibly even die, there should be a harsh punishment for it.