Random Politics & Religion #02

Not even worth trying to have a conversation about this Saev. They obviously don't care and would rather poke fun and call names. These are intelligent people we are dealing with here remember!?!

You open up a dangerous road there for the opposite stance, though. Someone could just as easily say:


Sometimes it's best to not cross topics, because it seems like most people have views that contradict when trying to compare them broadly like that.

Yay abortion.. So much fun tonight..

So if people don't want to vaccinate lets just kill the child in the womb! Clean, effective, liberal paradise!

I think you're onto something here Jos!

i don't think anyone is saying that there is any 100% shield against any disease, but how can you sit there and say something like "you'll be contagious for a day or less instead of a week" and act like that isn't a huuuuuge difference in the number of people you risk exposing?

meant to say these diseases instead of any ._.

Um.. Yea, they are. Sorry. Good try though!

No, we don't...

No but,

Especially since most people around here cannot follow them anyways.

apology accepted.


LOOK I DOES IT TOO!

/slowclap

Again, opening up more problems. What's "best for themselves and society" is often extremely subjective, and therefore using that as a blanket excuse to force things on people can have unintended consequences. I'm very pro-vaccination, but you're trying to simplify this with analogous references and it doesn't work.

Not surprised you fail to realize it's not bait and an actual observation of the past 2 pages.

I seem to recall someone around here describing himself as a "pragmatist". Wouldn't it be funny if all of a sudden this person started arguing purely based off principle?

Bonus points if this person's doing it while demonstrating a healthy heap of confirmation bias when citing scientific sources.

hypothetical nonsense time! say there is a disease that my 5 year old can't be immunized against but an adult can would it be self defense if my daughter shot someone with said disease if they came toward her?

*backreads*

Ya know, going online and pretending to be smart by making neatly worded posts despite an actual lack of knowledge on a subject, it only works if there aren't people around who actually know the subject in question.
Stop pretending to be an expert of everything and step back, you really aren't, you only make an impression on less knowledgeable people, and I don't know how good that can make you feel about yourself.

Wow, so we're all a bunch of liers.

Is this your personal interpretation, or did you read this somewhere? Because I find it funny that you always speak up against conspiracy theories, but what you just described could qualify as one.

There is a line one doesn't cross and this is it. Preemptively taking away someones free will out of fear is morally reprehensible. It's akin to rape, or putting someone in jail because they are statistically likely commit a crime.

Seriously it's no different then gathering up all the young impoverished children from single parent households and putting them in prison for life because they are the highest category to commit crime. Doing this would most certainly lower the crime rare, but the moral costs to the society would far outweigh the benefits.

And using some great unthinkable punishment is just as bad. If I put a gun to your head and tell you to give me your money, are you doing so out of free will? How different is it if I put a gun to your head and tell you to get vaccinated or get your children vaccinated?


No because it's preemptive and that individual hasn't demonstrated intent to harm. She, or yourself, would be guilty of first degree murder.

Justified Homicide is an actual legal concept, that has a long history and many arguments.

And in actuality she has far more to fear from you then any stranger walking the streets.

Uh, welcome to human societies. There's no such thing as a truly "free" society. The general rule that we could agree upon is that, if an action/inaction of an individual visibly hurts others, said society will force all its individuals to avoid said action/inaction. So let's not play the "free society" card when it comes to vaccination.

That is a question from a medical exam on ethics that all medical doctors are required to pass. The question takes many forms but always comes down to a moral question regarding withholding or denying information if it's dangerous.

Furthermore there has been a ***ton of debate regarding the ethics of lying in the medical community. The result of which is that the requirement for a doctor to do no harm is greater then the requirement of the doctor to be honest.

This isn't a conspiracy because it's not being hidden. It's out in the open for anyone to find out about. Especially as several paternity cases have revolved around this exact situation. Husband and wife bring child to doctor for basic check ups, the doctor checks the blood type and notices that it's impossible for the husband to be the biological father. The husband believes he is the biological father. Should the doctor inform him the child isn't biologically his? If he does he could lose his medical license.

That's the core problem of heated internet boards: everyone is an armchair expert on everything being discussed.

Now your just being obtuse.

The key word is preemptive.

It's morally reprehensible to preemptively take away free will and forcibly vaccinate someone against their will. It is no different the rape.

Sunday, 04/17/2016.

Brasil first great battle against the populism/corruption/the lie.

Dilmas first impeachment voting.

Enough of those unqualified people destroying this country just to perpetuate their powers.

I wish we could force my state's governor to resign. She's a hypocrite, a homophone, and not 420 friendly. She also allows ***like...



...this. This is a trailer parked on the grounds of the Oklahoma Governor's mansion that her daughter was living in. I'll let you figure out why Oklahomans had an issue with it.

Surprised they don't take issue with the shitty landscaping.

I think it's a maintenance area. The main thing was that it represents Oklahoma badly since other states think we're all trailer trash (the daughter looks like she is BTW) but it was eventually removed because it violates housing and zoning regulations in the area.

Here's the funny thing; at the time this was going on, the daughter was 28 and was said to be living there with her husband and one of her husband's adult sons. So, that means the son is either over 18 or over 21...and his stepmother is 28. #OklahomaIsOK!