|
thespaceinvader posted:If a child sits in the car without a seatbelt its whole life and never gets in an accident and is thus never injured by its absence, is it child abuse to not make sure it's buckled up before you drive? It's definitely not abuse. It could be considered neglect. Also, CPS doesn't take away children for riding in a car without a seat belt. So if that's comparable to not vaccinating, then I guess we agree that not vaccinating a child should not be grounds for taking that child away. It's kind of a bad comparison anyway, since vaccinating would be the equivalent of being able to guarantee that the child never rides without a seat belt ever again. Even if you believe that not vaccinating is abusive or neglectful, you can immediately end that situation by simply vaccinating the child. So if the abuse/neglect is guaranteed to be over, why would you still take the child away? Anyone who still says "take away the child" seems to believe that CPS to be used as a form of punishment. I don't believe that it should be used in that way; CPS should be about improving the welfare of the child, not about punishing bad parents. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 20:33 on May 3, 2015 |
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:33 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Being antivaxx is not the same as being abusive, dumb-dumb. Deliberately causing your child to suffer through preventable diseases is abuse. Also, antivax psychos are likely to try other bullshit fake-medicine on their children which can be extremely harmful, like that horrible baby chiropractic (seriously  ) and that abso-loving-lutely is abusive.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
That Works posted:Have any antivaxx parents of children that died from a vaccine preventable disease been charged with anything? Not abuse per se but anything dealing with negligence? How many children who were old enough to be vaccinated against a disease, but weren't for anti-vaxxer reasons, have even died from vaccine-preventable diseases? While it's possible for an older child to be killed or permanently injured by diseases like measles and whooping cough, for the most part these diseases are killers of infants, and children typically won't have effective vaccine-provided protection until they're already out of the most vulnerable period. A seven-year-old getting measles could die, but the risk is trivial compared to the dangers facing an eight-month-old, who wouldn't even have the first MMR shot yet. The lifesaving powers of vaccines are far more visible in the aggregate, herd immunity-style public health benefits than in personal life protection.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's definitely not abuse. It could be considered neglect. I wasn't trying to argue either way on 'take the kids away', for the record. Just making a very obvious analogy in the hope of provoking some thought. Also for the record, I believe vaccination should be mandatory, just like seat belts. gently caress vaccine-preventable diseases. I don't think peoples' kids should be taken away for not doing it though, just like I don't think they should be taken away for not belting up (nor indeed do I think either is child abuse per se, and I debated changing that term in my analogy). I think both are negligent in the extreme, however, and appropriate action should be legal and enforced in both cases. Obviously, for vaccination, that's ensuring the kid is vaccinated properly whatever the parents want; the state has a duty to act in loco parentis if the parent is loving loco. For seatbelts I guess having unrestrained passengers is cause for points on/removal of the license if it's caught, and/or appropriate prosecution.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 21:55
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:How many children who were old enough to be vaccinated against a disease, but weren't for anti-vaxxer reasons, have even died from vaccine-preventable diseases? While it's possible for an older child to be killed or permanently injured by diseases like measles and whooping cough, for the most part these diseases are killers of infants, and children typically won't have effective vaccine-provided protection until they're already out of the most vulnerable period. A seven-year-old getting measles could die, but the risk is trivial compared to the dangers facing an eight-month-old, who wouldn't even have the first MMR shot yet. You don't have to convince me. I'm a professional in infectious disease research and do stuff related to vaccine development for a career. I was just wondering about the lawsuit aspect because that particular question I had was an area I don't know much about.
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 22:27
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:Deliberately causing your child to suffer through preventable diseases is abuse. That only applies to things like measles parties, not to a refusal to vaccinate in general. It also paints anti-vaxers as mustache twirling villains and not as the misled, confused and fearful people that they are. The Shortest Path posted:Also, antivax psychos are likely to try other bullshit fake-medicine on their children which can be extremely harmful, like that horrible baby chiropractic (seriously Irrelevant, we are talking about vaccines here.
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:It also paints anti-vaxers as mustache twirling villains and not as the misled, confused and fearful people that they are. I dunno, this is like excusing my crazy-rear end former friend for drunk driving, because he thought that the designated-driver services (where they drive you home in your own vehicle for a fee) were trying to break into his house and do any number of nefarious things. Luckily, he took a regular cab pretty much all the time, but he'd caution other people against the (and I'm not making this up... I hope he was just being hyperbolic) "dog-raping Keys Please people" and implicitly encourage them to drive drunk. Being scared because you're a half-wit who can't be bothered to listen to sense doesn't excuse you for your lovely opinions and actions.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 22:44
|
|
PT6A posted:I dunno, this is like excusing my crazy-rear end former friend for drunk driving, because he thought that the designated-driver services (where they drive you home in your own vehicle for a fee) were trying to break into his house and do any number of nefarious things. Luckily, he took a regular cab pretty much all the time, but he'd caution other people against the (and I'm not making this up... I hope he was just being hyperbolic) "dog-raping Keys Please people" and implicitly encourage them to drive drunk. Where in my post did I say that being misinformed excused them? The point is that demonizing the misinformed and misled is utterly foolish and any number of people in this thread act like they truly believe that anti-vax parents are cackling villains who want to hurt their own children. See your opposition for who they are, not the picture you paint in your head to make them easier to hate, you only mislead yourself and sabotage your own arguments when you do so.
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
That Works posted:I'm a professional in infectious disease research and do stuff related to vaccine development for a career.  Thank you! AVeryLargeRadish posted:Where in my post did I say that being misinformed excused them? The point is that demonizing the misinformed and misled is utterly foolish and any number of people in this thread act like they truly believe that anti-vax parents are cackling villains who want to hurt their own children. Considering the amount of Anti-vaxxer who have publically claimed that they do not care if other people get hurt because of their decision, the cackling-moustache twirling analogy is not that far off.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Irrelevant, we are talking about vaccines here. If you summarily disregard everything that intersects with anti-vax as being irrelevant, you're not going to be able to get an answer to your question. Did you want one, our was this just a gotcha? Anti-vax has a strong correlation with other alt med practices that are either directly or indirectly harmful to the patient, and which anti-vax parents are more likely to subject their children to. Refusal to vaccinate should be an immediate red flag for other possible sources of abuse by neglect.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 23:50
|
|
Dalael posted:Considering the amount of Anti-vaxxer who have publically claimed that they do not care if other people get hurt because of their decision, the cackling-moustache twirling analogy is not that far off. How many anti-vaxers have publicly claimed that they do not care if other people get hurt because of their decision? What percentage of the anti-vax movement is compromised of these people?
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 23:53
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:If you summarily disregard everything that intersects with anti-vax as being irrelevant, you're not going to be able to get an answer to your question. Did you want one, our was this just a gotcha? Anti-vax has a strong correlation with other alt med practices that are either directly or indirectly harmful to the patient, and which anti-vax parents are more likely to subject their children to. Refusal to vaccinate should be an immediate red flag for other possible sources of abuse by neglect. And if someone who happens to be an anti-vaxer does something that actually rises to the level of abuse I have no problem with them facing penalties for that including the removal of their children from their home and criminal prosecution if it comes to that. But the argument was that if someone is an anti-vaxer we should just take away their kids anyway since they are probably doing other stuff that is abusive too.
|
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:Deliberately causing your child to suffer through preventable diseases is abuse. So then you agree that it's not abuse if the child never catches a preventable disease despite being unvaccinated? quote:Also, antivax psychos are likely to try other bullshit fake-medicine on their children which can be extremely harmful, like that horrible baby chiropractic (seriously I would agree that baby chiropractors are child abusers. But that's not relevant to this discussion. Simply being an antivaxxer does not make you a child abuser.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:If you summarily disregard everything that intersects with anti-vax as being irrelevant, you're not going to be able to get an answer to your question. Did you want one, our was this just a gotcha? Anti-vax has a strong correlation with other alt med practices that are either directly or indirectly harmful to the patient, and which anti-vax parents are more likely to subject their children to. Refusal to vaccinate should be an immediate red flag for other possible sources of abuse by neglect. You're saying that A led to C, B is partly correlated with A, therefore B also lead to C. That's clearly wrong. Strong correlation is not total correlation. Please, do take children away from parents who are actively hurting their children by giving them bleach enemas. But being an antivaxxer is itself not actually a form of abuse. Refusal to vaccinate should be a red flag for other sources of actual abuse. But it itself is not a form of abuse.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Considering the amount of Anti-vaxxer who have publically claimed that they do not care if other people get hurt because of their decision, the cackling-moustache twirling analogy is not that far off. Is it more likely that they don't care if other people get hurt, or is it more likely that they think that their antivaxx stance is better for public welfare? Plenty of antivaxxers believe that not only do vaccines not work, but they actually turn children into disease carriers. It is a misinformed and wrong opinion, but it's not evil. Characterizing scared and confused people as evil is a great way to keep those people scared and confused. I really hope that's not your objective.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...o-safe-vaccine/ too little, too late. http://www.antivaccinebodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
SpeedGem posted:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...o-safe-vaccine/ Jenny McCarthy changed her tune to 'Pro-safe vaccine' when she suddenly had a hard time finding work due to her lovely beliefs. Same poo poo sandwich with new fresh bread!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
SpeedGem posted:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...o-safe-vaccine/ From a public health standpoint, I think that we all agree that vaccines need to be mandatory.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
That's a shitload of words, here's the summary Jenny, in your book Louder than Words, you describe Evan’s first and subsequent seizures. Summarize that episode, when he began having seizures. Had a few seizures and poo poo, whatever. Describe his behavior before he started having seizures. Well you see instead of doing some investigation on how a child with autism develops, I decided that the logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc was a really cool idea so because he started showing the indicators of autism AFTER he had a vaccine. Therefore, because the symptoms arose after he was vaccinated, the vaccine caused the autism. Also it turns out there were other symptoms before the seizures that may indicate some kind of issue, but I didn't pay any attention to it. How long after the MMR was that first seizure? Due to my own perceptual biases, as soon as the doctor effectively raped my child with his evil vaccine, Evan had autism. I'm going to write a word salad with autoimmune, also I have no ideal what a maturation effect is. How was the diagnosis of autism determined? Was it by more than one doctor? Basically the evil doctors told me my son had autism, which killed me because I would forever be known as the mother with an autistic kid. As a celebrity, my own fragile psyche cannot tolerate this insult that God himself layeth upon me. Because of my extreme proficiency in google search, I came across some other nutjobs with the same mental deficiency as me and they told me that autism was reversible, thanks to the miracle of fad diets. It turns out that perhaps my son may not have autism, thus highlighting the perils of diagnosing autism at the tender age of 2 1/2. You couldn’t have found that information without the Internet. What is the “University of Google”? gently caress doctors and their fancy "degrees" and "knowledge". Anyone who is anyone knows that personal anecdotes where sample size n = 1 is statistically more significant than poo poo like "clinical trials" or "meta-analysis". Can you talk about the link between the immune system, the gut, and how it relates to vaccines? Some dumb loving words about a "gut brain" system, somehow these infections cause a radical alteration with cerebral structure. Further to the point, uses the dumbest analogy regarding alcohol effecting the brain, fails to understand how neurotransmitters work, fails to identify what an agonist is. Comorbity of symptoms must mean that one causes the other! When did you first think there might be a connection between vaccines and autism? Wakefield You write that [you want] the government to come up with a test for immunity or enzyme vulnerability to see if a child would be predisposed. … What would you like to see in the meantime, in this phase of research? Dumb loving incoherent poo poo, what the gently caress does this have anything to do with anything Talk about finding a cure and link what you say to vaccines and the epidemic. More dumb poo poo regarding toxins and viruses. Parents are much smarter than medical professionals, why do we need doctors anyway? What was your experience of going to the pediatrician so frequently like? I didn't answer the question at all *fartz* After you found Generation Rescue, did you immediately see yourself in an advocacy role? Yes, because I am a celebrity with no background in this field and no formal training. "Leap of faith" It was their information that first helped you, the ferocity and determination of “mother warriors”? lmao poo poo about diagnosis rates for autism, fails to consider changes in diagnostic criteria/efficacy, sample size n = 1 yet again. You didn’t come after this, but it came after you? gently caress THE ESTABLISHMENT AND "BIG MEDICINE" ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH You’re the face of Generation Rescue. … Talk about that responsibility. I get to say dumb poo poo and spread misinformation as my job. Sweet gig, yo What is your responsibility to the downside of not vaccinating? Misses the point re: herd immunity Or getting any vaccine-preventable illness. Should be an equal argument with scientific data versus dumb voodoo horseshit. I would rather my nutsack be cut off then be dead. What about risk analysis, weighing the benefits versus risks? [incoherent answer] A public health officer told me we can’t see diphtheria anymore, but everyone sees autism. What is your reaction? We were called out for our dumb view so we've changed it to a slightly less, but still insufferably stupid view. If a parent decides not to vaccinate or to delay a vaccination, it can pose a risk to another child with a low immune system. It must frustrate you to hear that. LALALALALALALA WHATEVERRRRR What concerns you about private industry working with public health? Big Pharma is out to get our money. All of science is in cahoots, we must destroy science itself. What are you doing to plant the seed of doubt or ask the questions? If we through enough poo poo against a wall, some of it will stick Tell me about “Green Our Vaccines” and what you want to happen. *faaaaarrrrrt* Some critics say there is no epidemic of autism; it’s the definition of autism that has expanded, which increases the number of diagnoses. lalalala my anecdote trumps evidence, perceptual biases etc. Science has looked at mercury, the MMR, and has not been able to prove a link between these and autism. Now we’re looking at the combination or the schedule. Why is the target moving? Today it’s the schedule of vaccinations. ~toxins~ Are you looking at aluminum, too? Everything is evil Do you follow Dr. [Bob] Sears’ schedule, or are you off vaccines altogether for Evan? I'm not vaccinating again, poo poo about ex-husband and her family history [i skipped the next question] [Next few questions about herd immunity, I'll roll them into one answer] We shouldn't worry about vaccinations because they don't do anything. Obviously, we should only worry once it's an epidemic, herd immunity has failed and people are dying. gently caress "preventable diseases" What’s the top question you’d want to ask the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]? Apparently they don't want to an unabashed crackpot like me, but why won't they return my calls. Some poo poo about "our ~science~" or something
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Recoome posted::bravo2  I was going to read the article but you seem to have done a  job at resuming it and now I feel like I really don't have to bother. Awesome work.You seem to be a bit generous however. I have my doubts that she can use words like: "post hoc ergo propter, autoimmune, Comorbidity (I actually had to look this one up  )" or pretty much any words or combination of words longer than "evil doctors" or "the".Thanks for the tldr and laughs.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Dalael posted:
You may find the summary funny, but you should actually read the article. It provides a great deal of insight into the anatomy an individual attempts to shift and reinforce a position to which they are already committed. This is the same sort of response pattern that many leaders in the movement can/will take in response to public pressure, and identifying its structure is the first step in developing preventative or countermeasures.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You may find the summary funny, but you should actually read the article. It provides a great deal of insight into the anatomy an individual attempts to shift and reinforce a position to which they are already committed. This is the same sort of response pattern that many leaders in the movement can/will take in response to public pressure, and identifying its structure is the first step in developing preventative or countermeasures. You may be right. But I've read an interview she and Jim Carrey had done a few years back and almost had an aneurism. Plus i've read a lot of poo poo coming from dr Tenpenny and some other guy who's name I can't remember, so i am confident i've read he majority of the arguments already. I may still give it a shot tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You may find the summary funny, but you should actually read the article. It provides a great deal of insight into the anatomy an individual attempts to shift and reinforce a position to which they are already committed. This is the same sort of response pattern that many leaders in the movement can/will take in response to public pressure, and identifying its structure is the first step in developing preventative or countermeasures. yeah but that's boring nerd poo poo who cares about that
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
On the whole, it's an improvement over her previous tactics of literally yelling over the top of the opposition. Volume > Facts.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Sic Semper Goon posted:On the whole, it's an improvement over her previous tactics of literally yelling over the top of the opposition. Yeah but that's been Fox News Debate Tactics 101 for decades, she's something special.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
Someone posted the old anti-vaxx body count page.quote:The United States Anti-Vaccination Movement is composed of a variety of individuals ranging from former doctors who should know better, to semi-celebrities who have no medical training, to anti-government conspiracy theorists who distrust anything that the government says. They all hold onto the mistaken belief that autism is caused by receiving childhood vaccines. Bold mine. Reading that again, I'm getting more convinced by the day that anti-vaccine movement was really started by disgruntled pharmacy workers, who want to make more money. Vaccines are pocket change compared to the amount of cash you can rake in via antibiotics, and I see no other reason why a doctor would do this. Short of them having schizophrenia.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
To be a doctor you only need to qualify once, in your field. It is quite possible for a doctor to be a bloody idiot in other medical fields, or to cease being a good doctor over time. They don't take your doctorate off you. Same reason your granddad can't drive properly.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
Truga posted:Someone posted the old anti-vaxx body count page. Pharmacists can give vaccines, too. I'm not following your logic. I'ts important to keep in mind that healthcare professionals can be as weird and stupid as anyone else in society.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
That Works posted:You don't have to convince me. I'm a professional in infectious disease research and do stuff related to vaccine development for a career. I was just wondering about the lawsuit aspect because that particular question I had was an area I don't know much about. There was an actual lawyer in this thread a while back who talked about exactly that aspect, though I think he bailed after he got tired of being argued down by people who really, really, really wanted anti-vaxxing to somehow be a felony and wouldn't take reality for an answer. If you want to go hunt for it, their username was ActusRhesus or something like that, I think? My take on it is that if you can prove that you have a dead child who was in a high-risk group with a very high chance of dying from that disease and a very high risk of getting that disease, and was old enough and otherwise able to be vaccinated but wasn't, and the vaccine would have provided 100% or near-100% protection under the circumstances, and the child's doctor strongly pushed for vaccination but was rebuffed, and local law doesn't explicitly provide religious and personal belief exemptions from vaccination, then maybe a judge might be convinced to go for child endangerment. It's dicey, though, because of all the maybes and uncertainties, because the individual risk to that one child is actually rather small, and because kids are involved in dangerous poo poo all the drat time. The real danger of not vaccinating - the aggregate public health risks - are not likely to be considered by the courts. Disease transmission is typically considered, legally, to trend more toward the "acts of God" column rather than "acts of man". I'm not aware of any modern precedent for charging patient zero for manslaughter because they started an epidemic that killed an infant. (this is all by US standards anyway, other countries may apply different standards) Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 15:18 on May 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
reagan posted:Pharmacists can give vaccines, too. I'm not following your logic. A pharmacist makes maybe $100 (probably a lot less) off of your shot, and it's a couple times per life. If you don't get your shot and get something heavy, enjoy eating thousands worth of drugs a week. Vaccines really are peanuts compared to the revenue an actual sick person generates.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:To be a doctor you only need to qualify once, in your field. Additionally, doctors don't receive the same level of scientific and quantitative literacy training that researchers do, but are generally invested with similar or greater levels of power and decisionmaking authority in the context of medical research.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There was an actual lawyer in this thread a while back who talked about exactly that aspect, though I think he bailed after he got tired of being argued down by people who really, really, really wanted anti-vaxxing to somehow be a felony and wouldn't take reality for an answer. If you want to go hunt for it, their username was ActusRhesus or something like that, I think? Two things: 1. She 2. In my view, vaccination today is really no different than drunk driving back in the 60s and 70s. Both are incredibly selfish and dangerous acts, but they (took/will take) a concerted effort before the laws match the danger to society such actions cause. The thing people keep forgetting is that laws can be changed, and what is difficult to prosecute today can be made much easier if laws are changed.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:2. In my view, vaccination today is really no different than drunk driving back in the 60s and 70s. Both are incredibly selfish and dangerous acts, but they (took/will take) a concerted effort before the laws match the danger to society such actions cause. The thing people keep forgetting is that laws can be changed, and what is difficult to prosecute today can be made much easier if laws are changed.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Two things: I think not vaccinating is far more comparable to driving without performing proper maintenance on your car. If a mechanic tells you there is a serious problem with your brakes but you drive off without getting it fixed, then you can be held criminally liable when you kill someone because your brakes failed. However, if you didn't know there was a problem with your brakes because you skipped your last recommended oil change so a mechanic never got the chance to see it, then you're far less likely to be convicted of felony charges from the resulting deaths, even though regular car maintenance is indisputably good for the health and safety of your car. Failure to carry out preventive measures in case of a possible future problem, while it does increase your risk, is not comparable to actively engaging in a risky activity. Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 19:01 on May 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
twodot posted:But what's the actual action that you are going to make illegal? With drunk driving, if someone is 1) drunk and 2) driving, that's illegal, but I don't see the analog for vaccination. If someone is walking around should an officer be able to stop them and demand certification that they are vaccinated? It's easy to say to someone "If you want to engage in state controlled action X (like school), you first have to prove you are vaccinated or have a medical reason to not be vaccinated" (which I support), but that doesn't get you anywhere close to making not getting a treatment illegal. The actual action of willfully choosing to deny your child basic healthcare, including vaccinations without a solid medical reason for doing so should be seen in the same light denying them food, shelter, clothing and so on. Sure, your kid won't die right away if you make them sleep outside in the rain or refuse to feed them, but it's a really lovely thing to do that causes needless suffering and that shouldn't be tolerated in a modern society. And yes, it's trivially easy to include provisions for understanding that "choice" doesn't include "I can't afford it" and "basic healthcare" is defined as "what a reasonable pediatric doctor/scientific consensus would believe". Main Paineframe posted:I think not vaccinating is far more comparable to driving without performing proper maintenance on your car. If a mechanic tells you there is a serious problem with your brakes but you drive off without getting it fixed, then you can be held criminally liable when you kill someone because your brakes failed. Look, I don't really understand why the comparison between drunk driving and holding back on vaccinations is so difficult to understand. Both are actions that are needlessly, potentially and seriously harmful to other people. It doesn't happen every time, and it doesn't happen to every person, but both directly lead to permanent harm or death especially to people who are complete strangers. The "basic maintenance" you speak of is more akin to making sure your kid gets a whole bunch of exercise every day or eats 7 servings of veggies a day. Even still, it's just a simile, and the two subjects being compared don't have to share all characteristics. The whole point is that much like drunk driving, anti-vaxxers won't be punished in a serious manner for the risk of harm and death they cause to others until the laws are changed to account for it. Right now the laws aren't there for such a thing to happen.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:The actual action of willfully choosing to deny your child basic healthcare, including vaccinations without a solid medical reason for doing so should be seen in the same light denying them food, shelter, clothing and so on. Sure, your kid won't die right away if you make them sleep outside in the rain or refuse to feed them, but it's a really lovely thing to do that causes needless suffering and that shouldn't be tolerated in a modern society. And yes, it's trivially easy to include provisions for understanding that "choice" doesn't include "I can't afford it" and "basic healthcare" is defined as "what a reasonable pediatric doctor/scientific consensus would believe". quote:The whole point is that much like drunk driving, anti-vaxxers won't be punished in a serious manner for the risk of harm and death they cause to others until the laws are changed to account for it. Right now the laws aren't there for such a thing to happen. twodot fucked around with this message at 19:56 on May 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
twodot posted:No smart person can ever be convicted of this crime, they will just say they were delaying vaccination until it was more convenient/they had more money/the child was older/whatever. Short of a confession, you'll never prove someone willfully made such a choice. There are tons and tons of people out there who are claiming, next to their own names that they utterly refuse to vaccinate their children. Even then, by the "reasonable doctor/scientific consensus" standard, there's little room for delaying, and clear points where the delay has no justification. Most likely time ranges will develop for vaccinations, and if someone just fucks up, they get the vaccinations and everyone is happy again. Furthermore, claiming that "people will try to avoid this law" as a justification for not having the law in the first place is silly. I get away with speeding every single day, should we eliminate speed limit laws? No, because that's silly.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Furthermore, claiming that "people will try to avoid this law" as a justification for not having the law in the first place is silly. I get away with speeding every single day, should we eliminate speed limit laws? No, because that's silly. Actually, I would argue it means we should raise speed limits to where it actually constitutes a reasonable limit, and then be a lot more strict on enforcement. Allowing discretion and a lack of enforcement is just begging for issues. To be respected, the law must be enforced consistently.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:There are tons and tons of people out there who are claiming, next to their own names that they utterly refuse to vaccinate their children. quote:Even then, by the "reasonable doctor/scientific consensus" standard, there's little room for delaying, and clear points where the delay has no justification. Most likely time ranges will develop for vaccinations, and if someone just fucks up, they get the vaccinations and everyone is happy again. quote:Furthermore, claiming that "people will try to avoid this law" as a justification for not having the law in the first place is silly. I get away with speeding every single day, should we eliminate speed limit laws? No, because that's silly. edit: Also I agree with PT6A about speeding laws in particular.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:33 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Look, I don't really understand why the comparison between drunk driving and holding back on vaccinations is so difficult to understand. Both are actions that are needlessly, potentially and seriously harmful to other people. Because not vaccinating isn't an action, it's not carrying out an action. The difference between "failing to engage in preventative care for potential future problems" and "actively engaging in a dangerous activity" is an important distinction, and your analogies fall flat on their face every single time because you keep trying to equate an action to a lack of action. No matter you much you want it to be, failing to put a safety fence next to the woodchipper is not legally equivalent to running up behind someone and pushing them into the woodchipper. Not even if you were drunk when you did it. Notice that drunk driving is not enough to get charged for homicide. The only crime a drunk driver is guilty of is "drunk driving", because drunk driving is illegal regardless of whether it hurts someone or not. The same is NOT true of not vaccinating; not only is it legal to be unvaccinated, but many states' laws have specific exemptions from vaccination policies that are available to people. I realize you want that to be changed, but I'm talking about how the laws are now, in response to people's questions about the current laws. Under current law, right now, being unvaccinated without a medical excuse is not illegal.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 20:25
|
|