|
jrodefeld posted:I hope your being facetious. Banning someone for expressing an opinion is an act of intellectual cowardice and clearly anti free speech. Gonna stop you right there shitlord. We ban people for their opinions all the time. Racism, misogyny, and homophobia are all offenses that warrant a ban. Do you know why? Because those opinions are utterly loathsome, without merit, and are universally held by terrible, terrible people that we want nothing to do with. jrodefeld posted:Laissez faire free market capitalism has actually been exhaustively vetted throughout the world and the facts are precisely the opposite of what you claim. Countries that liberalize markets, reduce State controls over the economy and defend private property and free economic transactions repeatedly witness dramatic increases in general prosperity and rising living standards. The applies to the poorest in such countries as well as the middle classes. Yeah guys the Potato Famine and dustbowl never happened at all. How about you cite a market you consider to be sufficiently free and running on libertarian principles so that we don't have to do the dance of naming an example only for you to declare it's crony capitalist or violating the NAP or whatever.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 21:42 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Laissez faire free market capitalism has actually been exhaustively vetted throughout the world and the facts are precisely the opposite of what you claim. Countries that liberalize markets, reduce State controls over the economy and defend private property and free economic transactions repeatedly witness dramatic increases in general prosperity and rising living standards. The applies to the poorest in such countries as well as the middle classes. Yeah, the living standards and general prosperity in Somalia are through the roof, don't you know. Just a veritable paradise, which is why all the libertarians bluster and stammer ineffectually about how it doesn't count.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Laissez faire free market capitalism has actually been exhaustively vetted throughout the world and the facts are precisely the opposite of what you claim. Countries that liberalize markets, reduce State controls over the economy and defend private property and free economic transactions repeatedly witness dramatic increases in general prosperity and rising living standards. The applies to the poorest in such countries as well as the middle classes. Have you ever read Andromeda Strain by Michael Crichton, Jrodefeld? The scientists studying the titular virus (which is from OUTER SPACE) are really confused, because some people with high blood CO2 levels are unaffected, and some people with low CO2 levels are effected. It takes quite some time for them to understand that, hey! Maybe the virus only grows with SOME and not a lot of CO2? I mention this because: freedom leads to more prosperity, up until the point where people's individual rights start conflicting with each other. Just because some of something is good doesn't mean more of it is better. No, you cannot say that going from a totalitarian hell-hole to a modern regulated capitalist state proves libertarianism. So, yes, I will argue that removing all bounds on people freedom will dramatically reverse the gains. I think you can't build a plural society when people have the freedom to be racist poo poo-holes, and I think that having a plural society is the single most important way to reduce violence. I think that while you improve productivity by allowing people to take some measure of ownership in their work and share profits, you'll decrease people's interest in taking risks if they know that there's nothing protecting them if they fail. No, I can't point towards a free market economy with approximately libertarian policies with millions dying, because there cannot, inherently, be a society with millions of people and approximately libertarian policies. Those "policies" (wasn't part of the point that there were no policies?) break down whenever you've got more than three people trading milk and eggs. Living in society means you have to make compromises, Jrod. Grow up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Laissez faire free market capitalism has actually been exhaustively vetted throughout the world and the facts are precisely the opposite of what you claim. Countries that liberalize markets, reduce State controls over the economy and defend private property and free economic transactions repeatedly witness dramatic increases in general prosperity and rising living standards. The applies to the poorest in such countries as well as the middle classes. This thread is almost 200 pages right now, and despite people explaining it to you countless times, you're STILL repeating the same inane straw man arguments about about "central planning" and us apparently wishing every country was like the Soviet Union. What does it loving take? quote:But there is no evidence for this. How about you cite on example of an approximately free market economy with approximately libertarian policies where there are millions dying of starvation? Weren't you the one who cited places like Singapore and Hong Kong as libertarian utopias? It seems like you still don't seem to know what libertarianism is yourself. But as for actual examples? Just look at any third world country. Those aren't exactly known for their generous welfare policies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Laissez faire free market capitalism has actually been exhaustively vetted throughout the world and the facts are precisely the opposite of what you claim. Where's a current or recent really free market?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I hope your being facetious. Banning someone for expressing an opinion is an act of intellectual cowardice and clearly anti free speech. People have differing opinions from you and you have to learn to deal with people on an adult level even when their views differ from yours. hehe you've got nerve to call other people cowards when your last line of defense is to claim that people can't harsh on your canned idiocy too much because "it's just like my opinion man". you deserve a ban not because you're some kind of persecuted apostate but because you've got the argumentative skill of a carsick dog you're a one man discreditation crusade here on something awful for continuing to post the same old nonsense despite your abysmal reputation, and the only logical explanations for why you continue to do so are -you're cosmically dense -you're some kind of weird crypto-troll i mean really for a guy who advocates so strongly that reputation is all you need for a good free market to operate your reputation here is just in the lowest shitter and yet you comically do not seem to recognize the irony Mr Interweb posted:This thread is almost 200 pages right now, and despite people explaining it to you countless times, you're STILL repeating the same inane straw man arguments about about "central planning" and us apparently wishing every country was like the Soviet Union. What does it loving take? jrod isn't a real human being, he's some kind of protean middle school political opinion made flesh. he can no more change his programming than a cheaply made toy boner confessor fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Feb 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
My hat is so far off to jrod if he is a crypto-troll who has kept it up for almost a decade all the way across the internet.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Why thanks, Jrodefeld. I'll be your Valentine.jrodefeld posted:I hope your being facetious. Banning someone for expressing an opinion is an act of intellectual cowardice and clearly anti free speech. People have differing opinions from you and you have to learn to deal with people on an adult level even when their views differ from yours. Banning someone for expressing an opinion would be intellectual cowardice if all opinions were equal. For example, I wouldn't suggest that we kick you out because you are a libertarian. While I may find your viewpoints mostly abhorrent and unrealistic, I can at least say "there is some value to be found." Because there is value to be found through the "free-market" and free association. Take speech. Freedom of speech only exists between a person and the government, or state. The moderators here can restrict your freedom of speech as much as they like. Also, you're confusing the idea of freedom of speech with the idea of speech without consequences. You can say whatever you want, but you will have to pay for it. Yes, there's a line of reasonableness. After all, people do have differing opinions, and yes, we should be willing to respect opinions. Until reality comes knocking. And that's the problem with stuff like vaccines. You can't get around the simple fact that vaccines are based on science, and this stuff isn't a matter of opinion. The reality is that most of the claims people have against vaccines are not supported by the facts. quote:Anyway, I am slightly regretting even bringing up vaccinations, not because I don't feel I have some reasonable arguments, but because of the contentious nature of this subject it remains unlikely to be productive. Stop being such a coward. Stop putting your tail between your legs and saying "Well, this is not a productive conversation" when we rip your thesis to shreds. If you're going to present an opinion that most people disagree with, you got to be willing to stand up for it. quote:But I'll just recap my position on vaccines. See, this is where you go too far, yet again. Because we have evidence to show that vaccines are safe, and we have evidence to show that infectious diseases are bad, and we can show that vaccines reduce these diseases. And sparing the lives of sick children with leukemia from measles is something that people should be for. The reality is that the impact you have on others can't be predicted. Since we live in a society, that does mean there are rules you have to follow. That's the fact of life. You don't like them, then you can freely go elsewhere where they don't require vaccines. http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/30/health/arizona-measles-vaccination-debate/index.html quote:I suppose I am an "anti-vaxer" and a lunatic simply for opposing violently coerced injections mandated by the State. Not even the most avid proponent of vaccinations should even contemplate such a violation of human rights. "The Greater Good" is frequently a slippery slope that leads inexorably to further infringements upon civil liberties. While it's true that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, how are these things violently coerced? We're saying "Hey, if you want to live here, you have to follow the rules, and one of the rules is that you need to be vaccinated so we can stop the spread of some of these terrible infectious diseases that can kill people." Yeah, that's a real slippery slope, right there. quote:This is why I openly questioned whether or not you even consider peaceful and voluntary solutions to social problems or if you instinctively opt for violent coercion. I believe it is the latter. I can't see why I should argue with you on this point. The words violent coercion mean nothing from you, because you've made it so broad that it basically means "anything I don't want to do that you're making me do." Where is the violence? Where is it? You can't say something and hope that makes it true. PS - for a successful debate tactic, saying that your audience instinctively chooses to be violent is not a good way to get people on your side. quote:If your logic were to be followed through, then simply mandating vaccinations wouldn't be enough. If you wanted to be sure to reduce the spread of infectious disease you would further need to mandate people eat good nutrition and exercise to boost their immune systems. You would have to outlaw certain foods and mandate people take vitamins and mineral supplements. Jrod, what have I told you about trying to use logic. Let the adults do it. You're going to hurt yourself someday. The problem here is you are using a massive slippery slope. See, the difference here is that we're mandating a scientifically proven assertion. See, you can have the best nutrition and lead a very healthy lifestyle and get sick. There's just no way that we could enforce that, nor would we want to, since it would be impossible to create a healthy diet that will work for everyone. We're simply saying "Hey, this is a small thing that we can do that will end outbreaks of infectious diseases." Sadly, living a healthy life won't do that. quote:The question that is furthermore pertinent is why, in every small outbreak of infectious disease, are there so many cases of infectious against people who have already been vaccinated against the disease? In the recent Measles outbreak, the vast majority of people who caught the disease had already been vaccinated against it. This is true in other nations where similar diseases have broken out. If vaccines were so effective, why aren't they protecting the vaccinated populations against exposure to the illness? Where the gently caress is your source for this? You see, I can't argue against you because I don't know where you are getting your information. Maybe you're getting it from some nutjob "natural living website" that promotes natural living and a lack of vaccines. But from a reputable source on science, they claim the exact opposite of what you said: http://www.wired.com/2015/01/vaccinated-people-get-measles-disneyland-blame-unvaccinated/ Hmm... what am I supposed to believe? The unsupported assertions of Jrodefeld, who has been known to play fast and loose with his sources when he's trying to win an argument, or a reputable place like Wired? quote:The purported reason to mandate a 100% compliance with all vaccinations is to prevent an epidemic. However, if the vaccine were highly effective, then a small percentage of un-vaccinated people would provide a negligible threat to the fully vaccinated masses. Hey Jrodefeld, I'm not a loving idiot. But you are. You see, you failed abortion, there are people who can't get vaccinated. And having high vaccination rates helps prevent these people from getting ill. But when you get pockets of people who don't get vaccinated, you start to see a rising threat. The other problem too is that vaccines don't stop you from getting sick, 100%. They lessen the risk of infection and can lessen the impact of an infection, but still. You can get sick with a vaccine. quote:My comments were sparked by the reaction to what Rand Paul said. The media largely threw a fit and attacked him mercilessly. I am concerned that this sort of reaction creates a chilling effect on speech where a full debate on healthcare is not permitted. I don't care. He said something stupid, and then he walked it back. He can try to rewrite history all he wants, but his exact words on the matter are fact. Also, YOU CAN'T DEBATE BASIC FACTS. IF YOU SAY VACCINES CAUSE MENTAL ILLNESS, YOUR OPINION ISN'T WORTH A drat. SHOW ME THAT VACCINES ARE EITHER UNSAFE OR UNEFFECTIVE AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS YOUR CONCERNS. BUT UNTIL THEN, YOU CAN'T JUST SAY "HEY, TAKE MY IDEAS SERIOUSLY BECAUSE I HAVE THEM." YOUR IDEAS ARE A BLIGHT ON SOCIETY! quote:In my mind, Paul was speaking about correlation and not causation. Autism is something that shows up sometimes several years after birth, where a child is effectively normal and for some reason these symptoms just show up. There has been a huge increase in the numbers of Autistic children in the last thirty years. I accept and agree that there have been no scientific studies that have linked vaccination with autism. No he wasn't. That's a bullshit response from someone who's just trying to win an argument at all costs, and you know it. Here's the fact, Paul made the statement in an attempt to show why vaccines are unsafe. Because you don't mention a correlation like that unless you're trying to also assert there is a causation. There also hasn't been a huge increase in Autistic children, there's been an increase in diagnosis of Autism. It's very possible that now we understand it better, we don't just say they're weird or retarded. quote:However, for people who are concerned about their children (and who aren't?), we need to not ridicule but to educate and have some compassion. But when we've educated for how long and a loving doctor gets on TV and says something that is dangerous and wrong, it's wrong to keep showing compassion. At some point, you move to ridicule. You can't keep being wrong and expecting me to kiss your boo-boo and make it better. No. If you think autism is caused by a vaccination, you are an idiot and should not be allowed to engage in serious conversations with adults on the matter. quote:We don't know why there has been such an alarming increase in cases of autism and, for that matter, of allergies and other detrimental health conditions. These deserve further study. And we should have more long term studies comparing the health of vaccinated versus unvaccinated people. Thus far none, to my knowledge, have been attempted. What reason do you have to say we need this? Please. Tell me. What reasons do you have for this study? You're arguing from ignorance. Something I dealt with before, so I'm not dealing with it again. quote:Rand Paul didn't imply causation. A medical doctor, of all people, ought to be given a chance to clarify his remarks before reporters crucify him for heresy. WHY WOULD HE SAY IT IF HE WASN'T IMPLYING CAUSATION? WHAT'S THE loving POINT OF HIM SAYING THAT? YOU ARE AN IDIOT. quote:The last thing I'll say is that you have quite the nerve to feign such concern about preventing unnecessary deaths from infectious diseases while steadfastly supporting ideologies and policies that cause exponentially higher death rates. Measles, which is what this hysteria was prompted by, causes virtually NO deaths in any developed nation. The death rate from the seasonal flu is far higher than from Measles. I got Measles as a kid. I hardly remember it. I was sick for a few days and recovered quickly. Um... are you thinking of tetanus? Because you get two measles shots and you're good. BUT THAT WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO KNOW THE FACTS BEFORE YOU RUN YOUR MOUTH! quote:Are you clear about this? To say the hysteria is overblown would be an understatement. No. Because you're wrong. quote:Personally I oppose the State because in the 20th century governments have killed some 270 million of their own citizens. I oppose acts of coercion because I am concerned for the well being of humanity. I am focused on stopping State military's from waging aggressive war, I am focused on releasing all people who are in prison for non-violent victim-less transgressions against the State's edicts. Um... you're getting weird here, Jrodefeld. quote:It is really a difference in priorities. No, it's the sanity train going bye-bye from the station. quote:The human body is incredibly complex. Every year we discover adverse health effects from eating certain foods, or taking certain drugs and we modify our behavior accordingly. We simply don't know the long term health effects of vaccinations over a few decades. This requires further study. Some people don't trust the pharmaceutical industry or the State for that matter and accordingly look upon vaccinations with skepticism. This distrust is not irrational. What? No, the sanity train is never coming back. It's gone off the rails. quote:In a free society, there will exist competing methods of conferring immunity and in isolating and eliminating infectious disease and epidemics. Immunization, like I said, is and will continue to be a vital tool for the medical professional. On the market, we are likely to see much more rapid improvement in immunization technology, where the side effects are reduced or eliminated while the effectiveness is increased. The adjuvants used in vaccines may be replaced with potentially safer alternatives. Hey Jrod. Competition is not the answer to all of life's problems. Sometimes, there really is one answer. Or sometimes, there's a multitude of answers that need to be implemented. This is called nuance. Something you don't have. quote:When the State gives taxpayer money to a pharmaceutical contractor to create a vaccine, we should expect that the company producing the vaccine would have less incentive to create the most effective and safest product whereas under market conditions with free competition, pharmaceutical companies will compete on effectiveness and safety. Um, rear end in a top hat. There are many brands of vaccines. That means there is competition. Did you look this up? [quote Under such conditions, these companies will furthermore be able to persuade the holdouts to use the latest technologies to trigger an immunity to different infectious diseases. The safety concerns will be more thoroughly vetted and far more studies will be undertaken. Under the status quo, the untrustworthiness of big Pharma and the State alone will cause many to not get the advised immunizations. [/quote] YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS ASSERTION. Why do you bother? You are an idiot. Everything you say is wrong. You are a blight onto humanity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:My hat is so far off to jrod if he is a crypto-troll who has kept it up for almost a decade all the way across the internet. weirder things have happened, but odds are he's just a clown who thinks people are laughing at him out of jealousy
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 00:52
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:weirder things have happened, but odds are he's just a clown who thinks people are laughing at him out of jealousy Yeah it's the long odds that would make the troll impressive, but I'm pretty sure jrod is just an insecure dude in his twenties who read all the wrong books.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
quote:Personally I oppose the State because in the 20th century governments have killed some 270 million of their own citizens. I oppose acts of coercion because I am concerned for the well being of humanity. I am focused on stopping State military's from waging aggressive war, I am focused on releasing all people who are in prison for non-violent victim-less transgressions against the State's edicts. I guess you don't care much for  THE STATE protecting my right, as a minority in the US, to birthright citizenship, or my right to vote, or my ability to patronize any business I want without getting turned away due to my skin color?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
i remember when i was in undergrad and i was tempted to believe i had learned everything about the world and was ready to assume my throne as an articulator of oracular knowledge
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Yeah it's the long odds that would make the troll impressive, but I'm pretty sure jrod is just an insecure dude in his twenties who read all the wrong books. If he's been doing this for so long it could just be the sunk cost fallacy in action. He's spent all this time arguing for libertarianism, so he has to be right!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:When the State gives taxpayer money to a pharmaceutical contractor to create a vaccine, we should expect that the company producing the vaccine would have less incentive to create the most effective and safest product whereas under market conditions with free competition, pharmaceutical companies will compete on effectiveness and safety. The reverse is actually true. Companies have far more incentive to cut corners and deliver a subpar vaccine faster and earn a quick buck than a government that is not interested in profits but just having their citizens vaccinated. I don't know why you keep making this mistake but I hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:The reverse is actually true. Companies have far more incentive to cut corners and deliver a subpar vaccine faster and earn a quick buck than a government that is not interested in profits but just having their citizens vaccinated. I don't know why you keep making this mistake but I hope this helps. it helps if you have a giant strange hatred for government and refuse to address or even acknowledge it one weird trick libertarians hate
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Where's a current or recent really free market? All of the ones that appear to support his argument, up until the moment they don't in which case he didn't mean those ones at all also any other elements that contradict his argument don't count nya nya no touchbacks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i remember when i was in undergrad and i was tempted to believe i had learned everything about the world and was ready to assume my throne as an articulator of oracular knowledge I recall someone saying jrod is like 27. I don't know how accurate that is though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 01:46
|
|
paragon1 posted:I recall someone saying jrod is like 27. I don't know how accurate that is though. I think the point is he got stuck in that rut and never got out.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I recall someone saying jrod is like 27. I don't know how accurate that is though. There is no way he is the same age as me. It's not possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:There is no way he is the same age as me. It's not possible. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Oh good, you're back. I was wondering what I was going to do while dinner cooked.jrodefeld posted:I hope your being facetious. Banning someone for expressing an opinion is an act of intellectual cowardice and clearly anti free speech. People have differing opinions from you and you have to learn to deal with people on an adult level even when their views differ from yours. Your opinion contributes in some small way to illness and death. Your opinion is not entirely dissimilar from those of a Neo-Nazi or someone screaming fire in a crowded theater. You are factually wrong on the issue of vaccination and by repeating and spreading your ignorance rather than educating yourself on why you are wrong you are perpetuating a false view of vaccinations that causes real, measurable harm. I'm not going to call for you to be banned, because the fact is that no one who reads these posts here is going to be convinced by your arguments. That said, I do think you should be loving ashamed of yourself. quote:Anyway, I am slightly regretting even bringing up vaccinations, not because I don't feel I have some reasonable arguments, but because of the contentious nature of this subject it remains unlikely to be productive. Do you know why it is contentious? Because you are in favour of a position that will lead to needless deaths, particularly among children. Your position on vaccinations is idiotic at best. quote:But I'll just recap my position on vaccines. Are you loving kidding me? Tell me... what better way is there to eliminate HPV among young women? What tool do doctors have that is better than a loving vaccination that will make you immune to the disease? Do you think we have some societal solution that was better at defeating polio? And if so why the hell were doctors letting millions of children become ill and die prior to the introduction of the Polio vaccine? Childhood vaccinations have had tremendous success, and the only reason you can even be stupid enough to say something like this is because they are a victim of their own success. Vaccinations worked too loving well, which allows spoiled children like yourself to grow up not knowing what it is like to have whooping cough destroying your lungs for months on end, or to be crippled for life or die because of polio and small pox. You are a loving moron Jrodefeld, and you need to stop talking about this because you are wrong, and your wrongness is dangerous. quote:Yet I adamantly oppose any mandatory vaccination laws merely for living within the United States. Rules mandating vaccinations regarding children who enroll in public schools are fine, as are private requirements for private schools and other voluntary gatherings of large groups of people. Just to be clear, this is the most honest thing you've said on the issue. I don't think you care whether or not vaccines work. I think that when pressed with evidence you'll admit they do, and that even in this post you'll admit you don't have problems with institutions mandating them. Your problem is that vaccinations don't fit into your worldview. Mandatory vaccinations are an example of society and in particular the state, solving a problem in a way your libertarian society never could. So you equivocate, you struggle and you come up with reasons why it clearly has to be an idea because you are uncomfortable with the idea of the state being good at anything. Its really sort of sad, or at least it would be if idiots like you weren't responsible for hurting people. Oh and fun fact of the day, Walter Block thinks you are silly, because he supports mandatory vaccinations.  quote:I suppose I am an "anti-vaxer" and a lunatic simply for opposing violently coerced injections mandated by the State. Not even the most avid proponent of vaccinations should even contemplate such a violation of human rights. "The Greater Good" is frequently a slippery slope that leads inexorably to further infringements upon civil liberties. That is one reason, yes. Others include spreading misinformation about vaccinations, and toeing the general line ascribed to pretty much anyone who is anti-vaxx. Literally the only argument that you haven't thrown out is that you don't think they cause autism, everything else you've said on this issue is from one anti-vaxx playbook or another. If it walks and talks like an anti-vaxxer... As far as the slippery slope, I think making an argument that one day in the future someone might do something bad using vaccinations as a basis for it is pretty weak compared to the very real fact that there are people sick and dying because people like you refuse to take even basic safety precautions. I could say that speed limits and basic rules of the road are a slippery slope of government control, but rational people can weigh the pros and cons of policy rather than rejecting it out of hand due to ideological fervor. quote:This is why I openly questioned whether or not you even consider peaceful and voluntary solutions to social problems or if you instinctively opt for violent coercion. I believe it is the latter. We don't agree that following the rules of society involves violent coersion, because we don't even agree with your childish view of what is and is not violence. More to the point, you agreed above that you think public schools should force vaccinations, which means you were in favour of violence. quote:If your logic were to be followed through, then simply mandating vaccinations wouldn't be enough. If you wanted to be sure to reduce the spread of infectious disease you would further need to mandate people eat good nutrition and exercise to boost their immune systems. You would have to outlaw certain foods and mandate people take vitamins and mineral supplements. See, this is your problem. You assume that since you can 'logically' follow a from b that doing A means we MUST do B. This goes back to the idea that you derive all of your policies from the NAP and so they are the best because they are 'logical'. If I derive a set of policies from a starting point of "Black people are inferior" I can logically that black people should be slaves, but I'd be an idiot for thinking that was good or moral policy. Just because you can logically determine something does not make that thing correct, especially when your starting arguments are arbitrary and may very well be flawed. The vast majority of people in our society think that everyone should be vaccinated. It is a cheap, easy way to drastically improve public health. While your suggestions might help they do not do so on the same level of ease, nor are they accepted by society as a whole. If everyone in society thought that we should mandate or outlaw certain foods etc, then we probably would be doing that, because that is how a functional society works, by agreement. Fortunately we, as adult humans, can determine whether or not such policies are beneficial and have so far roundly rejected them. Even your idiotocracy works by agreement. A libertarian society would only function if the majority agreed on your view of property rights and the NAP. quote:The question that is furthermore pertinent is why, in every small outbreak of infectious disease, are there so many cases of infectious against people who have already been vaccinated against the disease? In the recent Measles outbreak, the vast majority of people who caught the disease had already been vaccinated against it. This is true in other nations where similar diseases have broken out. If vaccines were so effective, why aren't they protecting the vaccinated populations against exposure to the illness? So you're just going to lie now? The CDC has stated that 12% of the people who were infected in the recent outbreak were vaccinated, and of those, only 8% had recieved both doses as children. The stats on the measles vaccine over time indicate that roughly 3% of people who are properly vaccinated are still at risk due to weak immune systems, so while 6% is high, it is not abnormal in a sample size that numbers among the hundreds: CDC posted:For cases with age reported, the age of case-patients range from 10 months to 57 years (median = 16.5 years). To date, 8 (15%) case-patients were hospitalized. Of the 52 outbreak-associated cases, 28 (55%) were unvaccinated, 17 (31%) had unknown vaccination status, and 6 (12%) were vaccinated. Of the 6 cases vaccinated, 2 had received 1 dose and 4 had received 2 or more doses. Among the 28 unvaccinated cases, 5 were under age for vaccination. Measles genotype information was available from 9 measles cases; all were genotype B3 and all sequences linked to this outbreak are identical. The sequences are also identical to the genotype B3 virus that caused a large outbreak in the Philippines in 2014. During the last 6 months, identical genotype B3 viruses were also detected in at least 14 countries and at least 6 U.S. states, not including those linked to the current outbreak. So when you say "The vast majority" what you actually mean to say is 12%. Which is to say you are either lying intentionally or are, as usual, relying on false information presented to you by a biased source. quote:The purported reason to mandate a 100% compliance with all vaccinations is to prevent an epidemic. However, if the vaccine were highly effective, then a small percentage of un-vaccinated people would provide a negligible threat to the fully vaccinated masses. Stop getting your information on vaccines from NaturalNews.net or LewRockwell. You are being lied to Jrodefeld, about things that aren't even opinion. I've just proved to you that you are wrong about the rate of cases in the most recent outbreak, please, stop and think about why you were wrong. If you were wrong about that, it stands to reason the sources telling you that vaccinations suck balls are probably not ver good. Also, The CDC sets the goal for herd immunity at roughly 93% California is down at about 90%. That 3% of difference isn't just a buffer, that is the zone in which you start to see measles creep back into society. The reason we have these outbreaks is because of people like you who scaremonger about the greatest public health successes of the 20th century out of ignorance. quote:My comments were sparked by the reaction to what Rand Paul said. The media largely threw a fit and attacked him mercilessly. I am concerned that this sort of reaction creates a chilling effect on speech where a full debate on healthcare is not permitted. You mean when he falsely stated a link between vaccines and profound mental disorders, something that is not carried by any substantive data? Do you think the media should not be taking a major political figure to task when he says something that will result in dead children? Because that is the result of perpetuating the Vaccine=Autism link. Dead children. quote:In my mind, Paul was speaking about correlation and not causation. Autism is something that shows up sometimes several years after birth, where a child is effectively normal and for some reason these symptoms just show up. There has been a huge increase in the numbers of Autistic children in the last thirty years. I accept and agree that there have been no scientific studies that have linked vaccination with autism. Why speak on it at all if you agree there is no causation? If it is a mere correlation then talking about it as if it is a fact is dangerous and irresponsible... quote:However, for people who are concerned about their children (and who aren't?), we need to not ridicule but to educate and have some compassion. ... oh. Well there we go Jrod, you now have the trifecta. Do you think Vaccines cause autism? Because a decade worth of studies that number (and I poo poo you not) over five hundred have yet to find even a correlation between vaccines and autism. Or for that matter, allergies or anything else. You might as well be arguing that global warming causes autism because at least there isn't a goddamned house worth of paper that suggests you are totally full of poo poo. quote:Rand Paul didn't imply causation. A medical doctor, of all people, ought to be given a chance to clarify his remarks before reporters crucify him for heresy. Then what the gently caress did he imply? "People get vaccinations and then get profound mental disorders"... okay? If you're not implying causation then what is the point of saying that. People get vaccinations and I like pizza is a statement that is unrelated, saying that normal children get profound mental disorders after vaccinations is implying loving causation because that sentence is literally pointless otherwise. You are a loving coward for sticking up for this man and trying to pretend that he didn't just jam his foot in his mouth on the subject. Its okay to admit that your idols do something wrong Jrod, they're human too. quote:The last thing I'll say is that you have quite the nerve to feign such concern about preventing unnecessary deaths from infectious diseases while steadfastly supporting ideologies and policies that cause exponentially higher death rates. Measles, which is what this hysteria was prompted by, causes virtually NO deaths in any developed nation. The death rate from the seasonal flu is far higher than from Measles. I got Measles as a kid. I hardly remember it. I was sick for a few days and recovered quickly. Blah blah blah, Socialists are the real monsters here because they support Mao and Stalin whereas I the eminently logical Jrodefeld, merely support policies that would leave a bunch of dead children. quote:Like Chicken Pox, once you get Measles, you gain a lifetime immunity from the disease naturally. In contrast, the vaccine confers only temporary immunity and requires frequent booster shots every couple of years.  See that, that book is effectively your argument. Your argument is 'measles aren't so bad so why are we immunizing against them.' This is why people call you an anti-vaxx retard. Now you want to talk about the reality, lets do that. quote:Complications of measles may include: Measles is not a loving joke you uninformed joke. Measles is a serious illness, and one that we had effectively eliminated, and would have continued to be totally immune to if idiots like you were not arguing that somehow, in some way that you cannot articulate, getting vaccinations are bad. You know what, gently caress it. You aren't anti-vaccination. At this point you are pro-disease. quote:Are you clear about this? To say the hysteria is overblown would be an understatement. Yeah, why would we be at all worried about a previously eliminated disease coming back. Silly statists! quote:Personally I oppose the State because in the 20th century governments have killed some 270 million of their own citizens. I oppose acts of coercion because I am concerned for the well being of humanity. I am focused on stopping State military's from waging aggressive war, I am focused on releasing all people who are in prison for non-violent victim-less transgressions against the State's edicts. Oh so you're going to trot out a number that includes famine again! Wee, lets pretend that a drought is the government's fault because apparently Statists control the loving weather. quote:The human body is incredibly complex. Every year we discover adverse health effects from eating certain foods, or taking certain drugs and we modify our behavior accordingly. We simply don't know the long term health effects of vaccinations over a few decades. This requires further study. Some people don't trust the pharmaceutical industry or the State for that matter and accordingly look upon vaccinations with skepticism. This distrust is not irrational. You have no proof of anything you are saying. I want to make that clear to you. You have absolutely no proof of anything you are talking about here. Typing on your computer will give you brain cancer. Did you know that Jrodefeld? Murray Rothbard said it, so it definately must be true, so you should totally stop typing until we have conducted further studies. The suggested vaccinations have been tested again and again over the course of a quarter of a century for even the newest. We know the health effects of vaccination, we know the downsides. More than that, you want to know something funny? Everyone in big pharma and in the government ALSO vaccinates themselves and their loving children. Even Rand "Just asking questions" Paul, when push came to shove admits that he vaccinates his children because the most dangerous thing that you can do with a vaccine is not take it. quote:In a free society, there will exist competing methods of conferring immunity and in isolating and eliminating infectious disease and epidemics. Immunization, like I said, is and will continue to be a vital tool for the medical professional. On the market, we are likely to see much more rapid improvement in immunization technology, where the side effects are reduced or eliminated while the effectiveness is increased. The adjuvants used in vaccines may be replaced with potentially safer alternatives. Wait... what?  I don't even get what you are saying here... competeing methods? What other method do you know of for conferring immunity other than immunizations? Are you talking Pox Parties? Is that your free market solution to avoiding serious childhood illness, to just jam sick kids together and make sure everyone gets it rather than taking the safe, proven solution? ARE YOU loving SERIOUS?! quote:When the State gives taxpayer money to a pharmaceutical contractor to create a vaccine, we should expect that the company producing the vaccine would have less incentive to create the most effective and safest product whereas under market conditions with free competition, pharmaceutical companies will compete on effectiveness and safety. Just gently caress off Jrodefeld. You are so full of poo poo at this point it is actively making me angry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 02:07
|
|
Caros posted:someone screaming fire in a crowded theater. This is a worthwhile image to ditch, inasmuch as (a) It's always misquoted, as by you, and should be 'falsely shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre' (b) The case in which Oliver Wendell Holmes coined the phase was a monstrosity in which Holmes poo poo on some Yiddish speaking immigrants who were writing pamphlets against participation in WW1 and the draft.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:This is a worthwhile image to ditch, inasmuch as Yeah, to be clear I mean it not in the historical sense, but in what the term has come to mean. Originally the quote was pretty lovely, but like "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" its come to act as a stand in for "Really dangerous speech that society does not necessarily need to protect." Edit: I also really want to go on record and say that I just... I can't really understand. This is the first time in my life I've talked to someone who looks at a book like Melanie's Marvelous Measles and doesn't get that joke. Someone who thinks "Eh, measles, no big deal I'll get it and be immune forever!" What the gently caress have we done as a society to breed people like this? 
Caros fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Feb 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 02:15
|
|
Caros posted:Yeah, to be clear I mean it not in the historical sense, but in what the term has come to mean. Originally the quote was pretty lovely, but like "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" its come to act as a stand in for "Really dangerous speech that society does not necessarily need to protect." Sure, I just like to check because it's one of those bullshit things that gets a massive free ride.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Jrod, stop focusing on vaccinations and go answer all the other posts that came before it. OR Please try and defend the papers you posted. Tell us what you think they say and why you felt they would make good counter arguments. I'm not gonna let you dance away from defending your specious unresearched bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Heh. I regret bringing up vaccines at all because you statists get to contentious and violent. I'm just going to restate my thesis now without bothering to address a single one of your arguments. Look mom, I'm debating!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Jrod, do you think you will get all pathogens to obey the NAP and so vaccines will be useless in Libertopia? Because that's basically the only way a society created with your views wouldn't bring back basically every disease vaccines eliminated or reduced drastically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
My right to polio is more important than your kids right to a sexless education. Or maybe rampant polio among the kids will protect them from the sex trade? The current statist system is heavily sexualizing kids by keeping them free from full body pock mark scars. President Kucinich fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Feb 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
You know who posted:We simply don't know the long term health effects of vaccinations over a few decades. Isn't this so far from the truth its insulting? Its not like vaccinations are a new invention. You might as well say we don't know the long term health effects of anti-septics or washing your hands before surgery. Billy Gnosis fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Feb 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Heh. I regret bringing up vaccines at all because you statists get to contentious and violent. I'm just going to restate my thesis now without bothering to address a single one of your arguments. Considering his argument boils down to gently caress you As an aside... Jrodefeld, please address the video I posted before you last rant and explain why you think that doctors have your best interest in mind while receiving 24 billion dollars a year in targeted marketing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The last thing I'll say is that you have quite the nerve to feign such concern about preventing unnecessary deaths from infectious diseases while steadfastly supporting ideologies and policies that cause exponentially higher death rates.  How can you claim to be right, when you are, in point of fact, wrong!?!?!?!?!?! Muscle Tracer fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Feb 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Billy Gnosis posted:Isn't this so far from the truth its insulting? Its not like vaccinations are a new invention. You might as well say we don't know the long term health effects of anti-septics or washing your hands before surgery. Inoculation has been a thing at least since the 1500s in China and India, since the late 1700s in Europe and the West. Vaccination proper is late 19th century, most of the vaccines we all get today were first developed in the 1950s and 60s. We'd know by now, especially for ones like the mumps. Inoculation has been a thing longer than Germ theory has. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Feb 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Jefferson needn't have bothered working out a way to refridgerate the smallpox vaccine, American revolutionary soldiers should have held out for science and lost the war because by far the largest number of British deaths were to smallpox.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Seriously jrod, the potato famine and the dustbowl, both examples of famine and poverty that happened in free market systems of private property. Your argument that socialism and government intervention causes these things, and that freedom is the cure, does not hold water. Hell, China is hella not free and it's had droves of people rise above the global poverty line in the past decade alone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Billy Gnosis posted:Isn't this so far from the truth its insulting? Its not like vaccinations are a new invention. You might as well say we don't know the long term health effects of anti-septics or washing your hands before surgery. Well we do know that there have been cases of children delivered by doctors who washed their hands first, and went on to develop crippling mental disorders...
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
I totally missed this one!jrodefeld posted:Laissez faire free market capitalism has actually been exhaustively vetted throughout the world and the facts are precisely the opposite of what you claim. Countries that liberalize markets, reduce State controls over the economy and defend private property and free economic transactions repeatedly witness dramatic increases in general prosperity and rising living standards. The applies to the poorest in such countries as well as the middle classes. No it hasn't. You yourself have claimed on literally dozens of occasions that no example of truly free market economics has ever existed. This is literally one of your primary arguments for why I can't use the US healthcare system as an example of the failing of Free Market healthcare. If you are claiming this, then I have to ask... why is the US market so horribly inefficient compared to worldwide universal healthcare systems? If being closer to libertarian ideology provides more benefits in terms of prosperity and living standards, then why is it that a hybrid system of Market and government based healthcare is a total failure when placed aside fully socialized systems? Shouldn't some market intervention be better than no market intervention? quote:But there is no evidence for this. How about you cite on example of an approximately free market economy with approximately libertarian policies where there are millions dying of starvation? If there were, or ever had been a libertarian society in human history I'd love to, but your ideology is an unpopular modern creation, so unfortunately there isn't one for me to point to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well we do know that there have been cases of children delivered by doctors who washed their hands first, and went on to develop crippling mental disorders... We need to study this immediately for decades before we can be certain that washing our hands is a good idea. Edit: Ugh, Jesus... I just remembered that this is actually something libertarians find contentious: quote:Once we’re done debating whether children should be vaccinated, we can move on to other pressing public health questions, such as whether eateries can force their employees to wash their hands after they use the bathroom. Of course in JRod's society the business would simply fail after people got sick from fecal-oral pathogens (if they could be traced back to it) which is a much better solution than simply mandating that employees wash their loving hands. Caros fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Feb 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Pfft Tillis is a violent statist who wants the secret police to force restaurants at gunpoint to post their handwashing policies. The discerning customer must be left free to make his own decision about how much effort to expend verifying a restaurant's health and safety practices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Laissez faire free market capitalism has actually been exhaustively vetted throughout the world and the facts are precisely the opposite of what you claim. Countries that liberalize markets, reduce State controls over the economy and defend private property and free economic transactions repeatedly witness dramatic increases in general prosperity and rising living standards. The applies to the poorest in such countries as well as the middle classes. So, my question for libertarians in general is, if you have this intense skepticism about government, why is it that you never, EVER apply that same skepticism to private enterprise? Especially given that a considerable portion of the problem with governments the world over are directly caused by capitalist interests?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 21:42 |
|
|
I'm pretty excited that he's citing real-world examples of his ideology in action. Tell us, JRod, what modern societies are you referring to? I'm sure we can have a highly informative discussion on them once we know what you're talking about!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2015 03:42
|
|
