|
Shbobdb posted:So we can mandate [things] but we have to make an exception for those whose religion forbids them from doing [things]. Because reasons.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
Nah, those "reasons" are basically "freedom of conscious". The problem is that "freedom of conscious" relies on a decidedly pre-modern conception of religiousness. Trying to apply that pre-modern concept to modern sensibilities is absurd and results in absurdity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:you can refuse vaccinations but you still get a shot Also an acceptable option for anti-vaxxers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
Cross-posting from the 2016 Presidential Election thread: WaPo is running a story focusing on the oft-discussed-but-not-in-the-media Rand Paul's pet ophthalmology certification board.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
On this measles thing. Most anti vaxers I know, hold on to their views out of arrogance ask them to explain the lack of proof, and they go off about "their views" and Their RIGHTS, and Their journey with autism. I wonder how they are gonna face the back lash of other parents yelling about their familys and the risk their choices are putting on them. Never mind preventable diseases out breaks are bad for business.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 09:00
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Cross-posting from the 2016 Presidential Election thread: WaPo is running a story focusing on the oft-discussed-but-not-in-the-media Rand Paul's pet ophthalmology certification board. It's like a New Yorker comedy piece.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Cross-posting from the 2016 Presidential Election thread: WaPo is running a story focusing on the oft-discussed-but-not-in-the-media Rand Paul's pet ophthalmology certification board. quote:“It was a good idea,” said Tim Conrad, an ophthalmologist in Louisville, who paid to be certified by Paul’s National Board of Ophthalmology. He eventually took the certificate off his wall. Now he can’t find it. hahaha
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
max4me posted:On this measles thing. Most anti vaxers I know, hold on to their views out of arrogance ask them to explain the lack of proof, and they go off about "their views" and Their RIGHTS, and Their journey with autism. I really honestly don't see any reason for us to just not go full hog propaganda on these people as domestic terrorists. They're more of a public safety and economic threat than the people we throw the term so casually these days. If there's just a single out of control out break of preventable disease, the body count could easily be as high as all the american casualties of the war on terror in the past 14 years ( gently caress has it really been that long already?) it may be measels today but it could be something worse tomorrow. We need to nip this poo poo in the bud before it becomes the next Californian health trend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
max4me posted:
Simple: by cutting the cords with those social networks prone to criticize their choices and turning to an echo-chamber to reinforce the root of their ignorance, the fear that they aren't unique, that having children does not make them special, and that they will die at a random time most likely not of their choosing. Only way to deal with that is tax them and hit them where it counts. You want to be anti-vaxx and get kudos from the anti-vaxx community? gently caress you, pay me for your risk and pay me every year or I gently caress you up for tax evasion. RuanGacho posted:I really honestly don't see any reason for us to just not go full hog propaganda on these people as domestic terrorists. They're more of a public safety and economic threat than the people we throw the term so casually these days. If there's just a single out of control out break of preventable disease, the body count could easily be as high as all the american casualties of the war on terror in the past 14 years ( gently caress has it really been that long already?) it may be measels today but it could be something worse tomorrow. Because going hog-wild on a socially isolated network and identifying it with the label of terrorism is likely to produce individuals within said echo-chamber who embrace the identification and engage in terrorism. While this is a growth opportunity for security contracting, far simpler to tax them and send 'em to private correction institutions for tax evasion. Nobody likes a tax dodger who's too lazy to create some white-collar jobs with their neglect of patriotic duty. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Simple: by cutting the cords with those social networks prone to criticize their choices and turning to an echo-chamber to reinforce the root of their ignorance, the fear that they aren't unique, that having children does not make them special, and that they will die at a random time most likely not of their choosing. I can just picture them taking a lawsuit all the way to the supreme court and Scalia/Thomas going all "government can't force people to eat broccoli" (ignoring the fact that these people are a danger to larger society).
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:I can just picture them taking a lawsuit all the way to the supreme court and Scalia/Thomas going all "government can't force people to eat broccoli" (ignoring the fact that these people are a danger to larger society). "In a 8 to 1 decision, with Justice Thomas dissenting, the Supreme Court today ruled the vaccine mandate a tax, stating 'gently caress hippies.' In his dissent, Justice Thomas stated, 'Not now, nor would I ever, allow myself to be tained by the perception of loving hippies.'"
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
Actually, legislation based on anti-hippie animus is unconstitutional, per SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:"In a 8 to 1 decision, with Justice Thomas dissenting, the Supreme Court today ruled the vaccine mandate a tax, stating 'gently caress hippies.' In his dissent, Justice Thomas stated, 'Not now, nor would I ever, allow myself to be tained by the perception of loving hippies.'" I'm assuming that in this scenario it would be Democrats who propose the tax on the anti-vaxxers, so Scalia/Thomas would be once again defending the indefensible just out of pure partisan tribalism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Actually, legislation based on anti-hippie animus is unconstitutional, per SCOTUS. Bull loving poo poo. Hippies ain't a loving protected class in America, they're a lifestyle choice. Ain't nobody born a hippie in America  The liberals get to defend a tax, the conservatives get to rule in favor of discrimination based upon lifestyle choices. What's there not to like, other than the residual smell of the plantiffs in our hallowed halls of justice?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 09:38
|
|
|
Republicans posted:Is there any constitutional reason we allow religious exemption for vaccination No. The religious and philosophical exemptions appear to be exclusively based on laws created by the states. In the event the federal government declares a health emergency and orders mandatory vaccination, the Constitution will almost certainly not act as a valid basis for non-medical exceptions. The vaccine is nothing new in American Constitutional law. In 1905, a man attempting to refuse a smallpox vaccine, made mandatory by Massachusetts law, was, in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, denied that right on the grounds of the police power of the state to protect the common welfare, and no ruling has emerged to challenge those grounds ever since. (Ironically, the ruling not only solidifed the police power of the state, but also birthed the American anti-vaccination movement, of which Jenny McCarthy is merely the latest prophet.) Hence the turn to religion and religious exemptions. While a (properly phrased, non-selective) mandatory vaccination law does not violate any of the legal tests regarding religious freedom, the question still exists today as to whether or not states may still offer exemptions to vaccination laws based on religious or philosophical grounds. There haven't been any challenges to vaccination laws' religious exemptions that have gone to the US Supreme Court, but the Mississippi Supreme Court has actually used the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause to strike down that state's religious exemption to mandatory vaccination laws in schools. It wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility for the US Supreme Court to do the same. Finally, anti-vaccinators have turned to medical ethics and the right to bodily integrity and privacy. But over and over again, the Supreme Court has cited Jacobson in acknowledging no absolute right to privacy and bodily integrity in all circumstances, including the needs of public health. I'm no lawyer. The above is really just a brief summary of legal arguments made by Kevin Malone and Alan Hinman, but they seem compelling. (They also go into much more detail if anyone's interested in the intricacies of the legal doctrines involved in vaccination mandates.) In all likelihood, as soon as a public health crisis emerges that really gets policymakers' dander up, a state — and under the right conditions the federal government — will simply institute a mandatory vaccine law for everyone with only medical exceptions, just as many states did for the smallpox vaccine over 100 years ago. This matter could certainly become complicated to a ridiculous degree, thanks to the equally ridiculous number of states that allow religious exemptions, each and every one of them on different grounds and with different requirements and definitions. But neither religion, philosophy, or the Constitution will ultimately protect someone who is ordered by the state to be vaccinated. In this matter, they have never truly had rights, merely the tolerance of the public and the law, and when those are gone they will have nothing. With literally millions of immunocompromised and unvaccinateable people in the US, some of them my dear friends, that day can't come soon enough. Ideally we'll be educating and informing the public long before any dire emergency comes to us, of course, and that alone, combined with public panic, will likely be enough. Yes, an anti-vaxxer has little to no legal rights, but I'd like to think we'd at least have the decency to at least feel uncomfortable before physically forcing a non-consensual medical intervention, even when lives are at stake. Ideally, of course, decency wouldn't also kill us all. But I'm also very certain that decency will be thrown out the window by panic at the nearest opportunity. This is America, after all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Hey now, religious minorities have a right to refuse vaccination, so long as their refusal is a legitimately held belief consistent with other aspects of their faith (Amish, for instance) and that their population is not of sufficient quantity to pose threat to herd immunity of broader society. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
Freep much be really confused right now
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Freep much be really confused right now They're not confused. They're still pretty sure black people are responsible and that headline confirms it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 10:15
|
|
|
ErIog posted:They're not confused. They're still pretty sure black people are responsible and that headline confirms it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 10:35
|
|
|
ErIog posted:How does the IRS processing returns more quickly, allowing Kansas Dept. of Revenue to process returns more quickly lead to less money overall? Have I smoked something? I'm having trouble understanding how more IRS refunds leads to less tax revenue. Shouldn't people be spending that money? USPol March: Have I smoked something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
"I'll have the 48 oz steak for two - for one." - Obama's 2016 budget philosophy Just the kind of hard hitting commentary we expect from @davidfrum's https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/562227681186832384?s=09
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
Hey, guess who's on the anti-vaxxer side.quote:But he added: “It’s more important what you think as a parent than what you think as a public official. I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well. So that’s the balance that the government has to decide.” 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Why do parents need a choice, like what is the rationale for such a position?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Why do parents need a choice, like what is the rationale for such a position? Same reason we have to go out and remind everyone of water intoxication when the First Lady says drinking water is good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Why do parents need a choice, like what is the rationale for such a position? Once out of the womb, children cease to be human beings and instead become possessions of their parents.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Why do parents need a choice, like what is the rationale for such a position? http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-vaccinate-my-child-because-its-my-right-to,37839/
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
The last generation that lived with Polio being a real thing are senior citizens now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
What is it with the Chicken Littles of Ebola being anti-vaxxers?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
ufarn posted:What is it with the Chicken Littles of Ebola being anti-vaxxers?! Ebola makes you poop more than measles or pertussis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
ufarn posted:What is it with the Chicken Littles of Ebola being anti-vaxxers?! I remember Ebola see-sawing back and forth between "We're all gonna die, thanks Obama for not deporting all blacks and Mexicans" to "Obama is manufacturing this Ebola crisis to distract us from his plot to smuggle in Mexicans and Arabs" depending on how seriously/compentenly the administration seemed to be handling the situation that day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
In our state, apparently there's a big cluster of some religious sect that refuses blood transfusions, antibiotics, and the ER. So there are laws allowing parents who negligently endanger their children's life through failing to seek health care to be prosecuted (rather ineffectually) by the state. Unfortunately, it requires a couple of difficult elements to prove, so that there have been few successful prosecutions under the law, but it is a start. If any anti-vaxxers kid dies of measles, it would seem that there would be a good case for it. In addition, everyone who seeks an exemption from vaccinating their kids has to take a class, hopefully one that involves graphic depictions of statistical trends in communicable diseases and some hard-core epidemiology.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Cross-posting from the 2016 Presidential Election thread: WaPo is running a story focusing on the oft-discussed-but-not-in-the-media Rand Paul's pet ophthalmology certification board. Libertarianism in action. Identifying a real problem, presenting a solution that is worse than the existing structure and is laughable in every way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
sullat posted:In our state, apparently there's a big cluster of some religious sect that refuses blood transfusions, antibiotics, and the ER. So there are laws allowing parents who negligently endanger their children's life through failing to seek health care to be prosecuted (rather ineffectually) by the state. Unfortunately, it requires a couple of difficult elements to prove, so that there have been few successful prosecutions under the law, but it is a start. If any anti-vaxxers kid dies of measles, it would seem that there would be a good case for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Sounds like Jehovah's Witnesses. And yeah, they could probably take Scientologists and Mormons in a weird-off. Unfortunately, in our state, it's not the "mainstream" cults, but more obscure ones. These guys are the Followers of Christ Church, every year or two a family of them gets dragged into court for trying to "pray away their kid's pneumonia" or something stupid like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
sullat posted:Unfortunately, in our state, it's not the "mainstream" cults, but more obscure ones. These guys are the Followers of Christ Church, every year or two a family of them gets dragged into court for trying to "pray away their kid's pneumonia" or something stupid like that. You also seemingly every year get some news about a malnorished kid being taken away from their vegan parents who feed them nothing but trail mix.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Sounds like Jehovah's Witnesses. And yeah, they could probably take Scientologists and Mormons in a weird-off. It's even creepier when they have people come in and take shifts with patients in critical care to ensure they don't agree to anything. It's so bizarre and unsaid but still blatantly disgusting, the patients religions is everything to them(family, social network, etc) and they're just so brainwashed into going along with it despite obvious harms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:It's these fuckers, not hippies, that are the problem. Do not underestimate the power of the Crunchy Mom movement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
There were two JWes in my grade-school class, and their parents basically barred them from participating in any activity that could best be described as "fun".
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
ufarn posted:There were two JWes in my grade-school class, and their parents basically barred them from participating in any activity that could best be described as "fun". Pretty sure the whole point of being a JW is to have no more fun than Jesus had in his last few days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
I love how we already have right wing commentators blaming 'immigrants' for this outbreak, or claiming that they have no problem with some parents not vaccinating because 'immigrants aren't doing it either'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 16:10
|
|
