marijuologist wrote:
Human beings aren't members of a heard and human action is not driven by the goal of serving any collective (there isn't one). Man is a species of autonomous individuals seeking to fulfill their own desires to live the longest, happiest lives possible to them, and societies are successful to the extent that they respect the sovereignty of the individual.
wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and did I say wrong.
get used to it.. wrote:
Then don't ever speed. Speed limits were set up to protect society. Driving faster endangers your community................
Should the government make a law that everyone has to be vaccinated, and the only way out is to pay a fine, I have no problem with that. If there are prison sentences for parents who don't vaccinate and they force vaccination anyway, I have a huge problem. Again, I know at this point that people are not required. However, there is likely going to be sponsored in CA for mandatory vaccination. If this is a civil penalty, fine. If criminal I think we should all be outraged.
Look, I think you are being fairly reasonable here (see, I can indeed give you credit *when* you deserve it. I doubt you've ever done the same for me. But trust me, I don't care about that). You are supporting a pro-vaccination gov't policy and societal viewpoint. I give you credit for that.
However........
While the speeding analogy that others have made and you have taken on, and the speeding "model" that you are saying we should apply towards vaccines is a good one, I think you've missed something here.
Every time someone speeds, they pay fine. Eventually, they lose their license and go to jail if they keep doing it. So, to really use this model towards vaccines as you suggest (you are ok with people paying a fine for not following a "everyone must be vaccinated" law), *would indeed* result in jail time for parents, because every time (day? month? year?) they don't comply with the law, it would be an offense. One can't pay one speeding ticket and then get a "now forever allowed to speed" special license, correct? no. And people shouldn't pay a single fine and then allow their negative impact (unvaccinated child) on society to go on forever. The speeding fines are there to deter and punish a behavior. They are there for someone to buy a special license to do what they want.
However, overall, this is a straw man and red herring, because really this is not one of the major points being debated (very few people are calling for laws for forced vaccination, and it is extremely unlikely that this would occur). People really debating
a) the rationality of the decision not to vaccinate
b) the potential risk for harm that that decision is causing for those children, and other children in society.
c) whether the gov't has the right to say children in schools (public especially) need to be vaccinated.
I think the gov't should and can tell children they need to be vaccinated to attend public schools. And I think all private businesses (like Disney Land, site of the latest outbreak) have a right to deny access to unvaccinated children. If the gov't does its job, and private businesses follow suit, the unvaccinated can have their own little leper colonies where they mingle only with themselves. If that's what they choose, so be it, they will be isolated. That would be fine, and I don't think they should or need to be held down and vaccinated, and very few are proposing that.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
They are NOT there for someone to buy a special license to do what they want.
Corrected
Get used to it.. wrote:
Next time you exceed the speed limit think about what a hippodrome you are.
A worthy goal for all of us . . .
Sweetie...I don't read your posts anymore. You never have anything important to say. Still waiting for your number. My member is quite handsome.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
get used to it.. wrote:Then don't ever speed. Speed limits were set up to protect society. Driving faster endangers your community................
Should the government make a law that everyone has to be vaccinated, and the only way out is to pay a fine, I have no problem with that. If there are prison sentences for parents who don't vaccinate and they force vaccination anyway, I have a huge problem. Again, I know at this point that people are not required. However, there is likely going to be sponsored in CA for mandatory vaccination. If this is a civil penalty, fine. If criminal I think we should all be outraged.
Look, I think you are being fairly reasonable here (see, I can indeed give you credit *when* you deserve it. I doubt you've ever done the same for me. But trust me, I don't care about that). You are supporting a pro-vaccination gov't policy and societal viewpoint. I give you credit for that.
However........
While the speeding analogy that others have made and you have taken on, and the speeding "model" that you are saying we should apply towards vaccines is a good one, I think you've missed something here.
Every time someone speeds, they pay fine. Eventually, they lose their license and go to jail if they keep doing it. So, to really use this model towards vaccines as you suggest (you are ok with people paying a fine for not following a "everyone must be vaccinated" law), *would indeed* result in jail time for parents, because every time (day? month? year?) they don't comply with the law, it would be an offense. One can't pay one speeding ticket and then get a "now forever allowed to speed" special license, correct? no. And people shouldn't pay a single fine and then allow their negative impact (unvaccinated child) on society to go on forever. The speeding fines are there to deter and punish a behavior. They are there for someone to buy a special license to do what they want.
However, overall, this is a straw man and red herring, because really this is not one of the major points being debated (very few people are calling for laws for forced vaccination, and it is extremely unlikely that this would occur). People really debating
a) the rationality of the decision not to vaccinate
b) the potential risk for harm that that decision is causing for those children, and other children in society.
c) whether the gov't has the right to say children in schools (public especially) need to be vaccinated.
I think the gov't should and can tell children they need to be vaccinated to attend public schools. And I think all private businesses (like Disney Land, site of the latest outbreak) have a right to deny access to unvaccinated children. If the gov't does its job, and private businesses follow suit, the unvaccinated can have their own little leper colonies where they mingle only with themselves. If that's what they choose, so be it, they will be isolated. That would be fine, and I don't think they should or need to be held down and vaccinated, and very few are proposing that.
Oh sweetie...I don't read your posts anymore. Every time I have tried in the past I felt myself becoming less intelligent. Maybe I have read too many already.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
get used to it.. wrote:You would have every right to say it is an irrational choice IF there were no potential risks for vaccination. But because there ARE, these fears and the subsequent choices are not irrational to the people who make them.
Incorrect. It is not rational to fear a much lesser risk than a much greater risk. In fact, that would be pretty much be a textbook definition of "irrational." People who fear seat belt injuries (and in rare instances, seat belts are indeed the cause of injury in an accident, and the person would have indeed been safer without wearing the seatbelt) over car accidents without seat belts, and therefore don't wear their seat belts, are indeed being irrational.
Another example (since we've been discussing car/speeding analogies) would be someone who knows a single person who was rear-ended going 55 (the speed limit), and therefore develops an irrational fear of driving the speed limit when most people are driving faster than the speed limit, and decides it is much safer to go 85 on the highway all the time. Again, statistics would demonstrate that such behavior is not safer, and this would be another irrational fear/behavior.
Just because you fear something, and it has some infinitesimal risk, doesn't make it rational to avoid that thing and take a bigger risk.
Father of three wrote:
Randy Oldman wrote:We could stop all the madness through a mandatory global sterilization program.
Who's with me?.
I'm with you.
Not me. Too slow. And too many ways for people to get around it.
A better bet would be all-out nuclear war. Let 'em fly!
Who's with me?
Bad Wigins wrote:
google "Black Death."
Yeah, I've heard of him! And you might google this:
Cohen 1995. Population growth and the earth's human carrying capacity. Science 269: 341-346
to deepen your analysis just a touch.
Get used to it.. wrote:
Sweetie...I don't read your posts anymore. You never have anything important to say. Still waiting for your number. My member is quite handsome.
Dude, that is seriously your reply? Could you be any more immature? First of all I know you read my response(liar), but the fact that you would reply in such a way tells us everything we need to know about you: you're weird, deluded, and extremely juvenile.
no wonder no one takes any of your opinions seriously, and generally mocks them.
(oh, and here is some free advice: the "I am going to try and make you uncomfortable by making a fake gay flirtation post" is missing the mark....by a lot. *I* am not the homophobic one {honestly. My next door neighbors are gay, I have 2 first cousins that have been openly gay for years, many co workers, etc}. Save that line for all your fellow right wingers who think you are a disgusting pervert just because you are gay, and who are constantly insulting you on here for being gay or defending homosexuals. Unlike me, it might actually upset them. Good luck)
Sweetie, I don't read your posts anymore. Reading your thoughts makes us dumb.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
Get used to it.. wrote:Sweetie...I don't read your posts anymore. You never have anything important to say. Still waiting for your number. My member is quite handsome.
Dude, that is seriously your reply? Could you be any more immature? First of all I know you read my response(liar), but the fact that you would reply in such a way tells us everything we need to know about you: you're weird, deluded, and extremely juvenile.
no wonder no one takes any of your opinions seriously, and generally mocks them.
(oh, and here is some free advice: the "I am going to try and make you uncomfortable by making a fake gay flirtation post" is missing the mark....by a lot. *I* am not the homophobic one {honestly. My next door neighbors are gay, I have 2 first cousins that have been openly gay for years, many co workers, etc}. Save that line for all your fellow right wingers who think you are a disgusting pervert just because you are gay, and who are constantly insulting you on here for being gay or defending homosexuals. Unlike me, it might actually upset them. Good luck)
Get used to it.. wrote:
Sweetie, I don't read your posts anymore. Reading your thoughts makes us dumb.
Doubling and tripling down on the juvenile posts void of substance I see? Congrats.
(calling me "Sweetie", or saying "I can't hear you!!" honestly and truly doesn't hurt my feelings {how you could imagine it would is mystifying} . But sure, repeat it 100x more times just to make sure everyone knows how childish you are {just in case there was single person out there that still had a doubt about that})
sc42 wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:google "Black Death."
Yeah, I've heard of him! And you might google this:
Cohen 1995. Population growth and the earth's human carrying capacity. Science 269: 341-346
to deepen your analysis just a touch.
Whatever that is, it's irrelevant. You disputed that people lived better after massive population decline. You can't undo that mistake by trying to argue with me about something else.
The Black Death killed a quarter, maybe more than half the people of Europe, and immediately the lot of the survivors improved. Landless peasants had land, unskilled laborers could demand high wages, the poor became rich. It was the beginning of the end of the medieval feudal system.
Oh Sweetie. I don't read your posts anymore everyone who reads them becomes dumber.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
Get used to it.. wrote:Sweetie, I don't read your posts anymore. Reading your thoughts makes us dumb.
Doubling and tripling down on the juvenile posts void of substance I see? Congrats.
(calling me "Sweetie", or saying "I can't hear you!!" honestly and truly doesn't hurt my feelings {how you could imagine it would is mystifying} . But sure, repeat it 100x more times just to make sure everyone knows how childish you are {just in case there was single person out there that still had a doubt about that})
For someone who claims to not be bothered by this you sure seem bothered.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
Get used to it.. wrote:Sweetie, I don't read your posts anymore. Reading your thoughts makes us dumb.
Doubling and tripling down on the juvenile posts void of substance I see? Congrats.
(calling me "Sweetie", or saying "I can't hear you!!" honestly and truly doesn't hurt my feelings {how you could imagine it would is mystifying} . But sure, repeat it 100x more times just to make sure everyone knows how childish you are {just in case there was single person out there that still had a doubt about that})