|
The lawyer person got shouted down because of "beep bop I am a lawyerbot with no humanity boop" and it came off really bizarrely
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
twodot posted:Anti-vaxxers won't be punished in a serious manner until our legal system drops the concept of actus reus. I don't understand how actus reus fits in here, there are plenty of examples where our legal system handles crimes of inaction. Mandatory reporting, seatbelts, feeding your kids - simply not doing something is already an act. What makes not-vaccinating legally different?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Harik posted:I don't understand how actus reus fits in here, there are plenty of examples where our legal system handles crimes of inaction. Mandatory reporting, seatbelts, feeding your kids - simply not doing something is already an act. What makes not-vaccinating legally different? That it isn't in the law yet. Nothing against making it law yet. After all, seatbelts weren't mandatory to use until several decades after seatbelts were mandatory to install in new cars.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Making vaccinations a legal requirement would just fuel these weirdos' paranoia even more and they'd start finding ways to hide that they had not vaccinated their kids. I can't see how it'd help poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Cubey posted:Making vaccinations a legal requirement would just fuel these weirdos' paranoia even more and they'd start finding ways to hide that they had not vaccinated their kids. I can't see how it'd help poo poo. It's already a legal requirement to get into a bunch of public schools, and a lot of people quickly find that "home schooling" isn't actually viable for them. Also there's no sense trying to ease delusional paranoia, it's irrational by definition so you can't take rational action to diminish it. I am sure there insane people out there who refuse to buckle in their kids too, but should we really repeal seatbelt laws so they'll feel "less paranoid" over it? Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 21:30 on May 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Harik posted:I don't understand how actus reus fits in here, there are plenty of examples where our legal system handles crimes of inaction. Mandatory reporting, seatbelts, feeding your kids - simply not doing something is already an act. What makes not-vaccinating legally different? As others have noted taking kids away because they aren't vaccinated is a stupid overreaction, we just vaccinate the kid and that solves that. If you want to argue it should be a crime, we need the "your refusal to vaccinate this kid was an action that led to some harm" connection which is really tenuous. If a child gets harmed because they were denied food, then we should punish the food denier. If a child gets harmed because they were exposed to a disease they didn't have an immunity to, it's not obvious the person that failed to attempt to supply an immunity is criminally responsible.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because not vaccinating isn't an action, it's not carrying out an action. There are lots of times people can be held responsible for being negligent. Lets make not vaccinating your kids one of those things! If you're only talking about what things are like now, then why do you keep arguing with me when I'm clearing discussing how things should be? twodot posted:And if you make it illegal, they'll likely stop that. Child abuse is illegal, and it still happens. Murder is illegal, and it still happens. Exceeding the speed limit is illegal, it still happens. Quit making this argument, because the logical conclusion of this argument is to have no laws at all, and I think we can all agree how loving dumb that is. quote:Wait, so you're no longer proposing the action be illegal? For a crime, it should go "If someone just fucks up, they go to prison". There are lots of things at are illegal without the requirement to send people to prison. Quit being a loving pedant and follow along with the spirit of what I'm trying to say instead of making up weird definitions of things. quote:If humans for some reason didn't possess the ability to objectively measure an object's speed, then speeding laws would be silly. Laws that govern making a choice not to do something (as in not governing not doing it, but making the choice) are silly, because it requires a confession to prosecute. If MRIs could tell the difference between someone who decided to never vaccinate, and someone who was just lazy, I might be on board. You can measure if someone has had a vaccination or not. There are things called vaccination records and lab tests called titers. No confession required, so drop it. Recoome posted:The lawyer person got shouted down because of "beep bop I am a lawyerbot with no humanity boop" and it came off really bizarrely I asked this person what the current state of the law is, she said so, then people got mad because they can't tell the loving difference between a lawyer talking about what the law is right loving now and what they wish the law to be if they were king of the world. It was a loving stupid argument.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Child abuse is illegal, and it still happens. Murder is illegal, and it still happens. Exceeding the speed limit is illegal, it still happens. Quit making this argument, because the logical conclusion of this argument is to have no laws at all, and I think we can all agree how loving dumb that is. 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:There are lots of things at are illegal without the requirement to send people to prison. Quit being a loving pedant and follow along with the spirit of what I'm trying to say instead of making up weird definitions of things. quote:You can measure if someone has had a vaccination or not. There are things called vaccination records and lab tests called titers. No confession required, so drop it. 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.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:You can measure if someone has had a vaccination or not. There are things called vaccination records and lab tests called titers. No confession required, so drop it. You're talking past twodot at this point, not sure if its willful or not. Yes its easy to prove if someone has/has not had a vaccine. Unless you're planning on making not getting a vaccine punishable in and of itself, this test proves nothing about WHY the person was not vaccinated. Are you proposing throwing people into jail for being unable to afford medical care?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:That it isn't in the law yet. Nothing against making it law yet. Please re-read the post I quoted. Twodot specifically said we can't make it a law due to our concept of actus reas, which I questioned. twodot posted:Not feeding your kids is more or less inaction, but it's easy to deal with: you refuse to feed your kids, we take your kids somewhere where they will get fed. I don't think that necessarily should be a crime, so long as nothing was damaged. Obviously if you refuse to feed your kids, and that refusal leads to some harm, we've got a depraved indifference kind of situation, and that should be illegal. How does this relate to actus reus? A lack of action is considered itself an act with criminal consequences - again, mandatory reporting or seatbelt laws. Harik fucked around with this message at 22:04 on May 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Harik posted:Please re-read the post I quoted. Twodot specifically said we can't make it a law due to our concept of actus reas, which I questioned. I read it dude. There was no way to get in trouble for going around without a seat belt before we made that an actual law. You might be liable for things in case of an accident and not having a seat belt might be held against you, but you could drive all you want without one.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I read it dude. There was no way to get in trouble for going around without a seat belt before we made that an actual law. You might be liable for things in case of an accident and not having a seat belt might be held against you, but you could drive all you want without one. Obviously you have not. He's saying we cannot pass a seatbelt law because our legal system requires a criminal act, and not doing something (wearing a seatbelt) doesn't qualify as an act.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Harik posted:Obviously you have not. He's saying we cannot pass a seatbelt law because our legal system requires a criminal act, and not doing something (wearing a seatbelt) doesn't qualify as an act. You don't need a criminal act, seatbelts for instance are usually traffic fines.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Harik posted:Obviously you have not. He's saying we cannot pass a seatbelt law because our legal system requires a criminal act, and not doing something (wearing a seatbelt) doesn't qualify as an act. Driving without a license is illegal; why not without a seatbelt?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Driving without a license is illegal; why not without a seatbelt? So the act is driving, not leaving the seatbelt off? I can grant that. How about mandatory reporting?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
New Hampshire still doesn't require seat belts unless the person is a minor, incidentally.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:You're talking past twodot at this point, not sure if its willful or not. Yes its easy to prove if someone has/has not had a vaccine. Unless you're planning on making not getting a vaccine punishable in and of itself, this test proves nothing about WHY the person was not vaccinated. Are you proposing throwing people into jail for being unable to afford medical care? Solkanar512 posted: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". So yes, if you bothered to read you'd have noticed that I already include provisions for people who are too poor to afford a vaccination and for legitimate medical reasons for not having one. I don't get what's so loving difficult about what I'm saying, why I need to repeat myself or why you and twodot and others aren't able to loving get it. Look, folks like twodot are just going to define and pedant away anything they want without providing any useful or meaningful discussion in the process so gently caress it, I'm not going to poo poo up this thread continuing to respond to him. If he can't understand that not every law or regulation or legal requirement entails years of hard time in a super max prison, then that's his problem, not mine. This whole thing where folks interpret each other's posts in the most narrow, convoluted and uncharitable manners possible is not "debating", it's a complete waste of time.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Harik posted:So the act is driving, not leaving the seatbelt off? I can grant that. How about mandatory reporting? Solkanar512 posted:Look, folks like twodot are just going to define and pedant away anything they want without providing any useful or meaningful discussion in the process so gently caress it, I'm not going to poo poo up this thread continuing to respond to him.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
You do realize that the legal system isn't limited to criminal law, right? Just make the child tax credit/EITC child credits dependent on either up-to-date immunizations or a medical wavier. That's a good $1000/year penalty for being behind, plenty of carrot, and well within the powers of the federal government thanks to Roberts.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 23:53
|
|
Harik posted:You do realize that the legal system isn't limited to criminal law, right? Just make the child tax credit/EITC child credits dependent on either up-to-date immunizations or a medical wavier. That's a good $1000/year penalty for being behind, plenty of carrot, and well within the powers of the federal government thanks to Roberts.  what a loving terrible idea, do you realize that your idiot idea would almost certainly result in more harm to the children in question than the lack of vaccinations in the first place?
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Harik posted:You do realize that the legal system isn't limited to criminal law, right? Just make the child tax credit/EITC child credits dependent on either up-to-date immunizations or a medical wavier. That's a good $1000/year penalty for being behind, plenty of carrot, and well within the powers of the federal government thanks to Roberts.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:
In many places you can already get vaccinations for free from a school nurse. When I was a kid for example, my dad was out of work for almost 18 months but we were able to keep my youngest brother up to date on shots due to the school. One would expect that any program to penalize parents for not getting the shots to also provide subsidy for getting the shots, much as the ACA provides health care subsidies.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:
Yeah, just like mandatory everything else has murdered all those poor children. Do you have an argument or just a smiley? Nintendo Kid posted:One would expect that any program to penalize parents for not getting the shots to also provide subsidy for getting the shots, much as the ACA provides health care subsidies. * Offer void in republican controlled states such as Florida. gently caress you, rick scott.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Cubey posted:Making vaccinations a legal requirement would just fuel these weirdos' paranoia even more and they'd start finding ways to hide that they had not vaccinated their kids. I can't see how it'd help poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
Where I live, failing to get your kids to the (free) clinic and get their shots costs each parent 200-500 euros every 6 months. That's up to 2000e per year. Not ridiculously high, but more than high enough that the vaccination rate is well above 90%, despite conspiracy theories being really popular lately (anti-vaxx, chemtrails, you name it). Then there's places like Scandinavia where they don't have mandatory vaccinations and yet the rate is >95%, which is obviously ideal, but some places just aren't ready for it yet.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted: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? Every single one I've talked to, and I've known quite a few in the furthest reaches of my extended family and friend network, have said this. It comes up a lot because my brother has an immune disorder, so when they do bullshit like post their antivax poo poo on Facebook I often bring up "My brother relies on people who can get vaccines doing so to be protected from these diseases", to which they always and inevitably respond that they do not give a poo poo if he dies because of their actions, it's their right to do what they want. I would argue very, very high percentages of the movement is composed of these people, because I have never, not even once, met one that does not advocate it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
Truga posted:Then there's places like Scandinavia where they don't have mandatory vaccinations and yet the rate is >95%, which is obviously ideal, but some places just aren't ready for it yet. It helps that vaccination is free.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:It helps that vaccination is free. Not only free, but illegal to charge money for. Also, it's under a "soft mandate" which means that the directorate of health can by administrative regulation make vaccines mandatory for everyone if there's an outbreak of a disease or danger of one. Furthermore, the disease prevention act (with sub-regulatives) gives all children the right to a vaccine; parents may not decide that their children shall not be vaccinated as it is in the best interest of the child that they decide this for themselves - and given that the process is kind of automatic and done during school hours and something like all their peers are getting vaccines (it's treated a bit like a social event), not a lot of children refuse. Peer pressure! It's good for something after all! 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Yeah, I got most of my shots as a kid during the "regular doctor checkup" things where they take your height/weight etc, during school years (got my last at 15 or 16). Before that, it's up to the parents, but during school it's like a field trip. Nobody asked me anything, they just check the file and then give the shot to everyone that doesn't have any outstanding or previous conditions that might be problematic in combination with the vaccine. And yeah, it doesn't cost the parent anything. Somehow we still ended up with nearly 10% kids unvaccinated in the last 5 or so years. I have no idea how that happens, or why people are paying the fines instead. Crippling autism I guess
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 13:01
|
|
|
I think that's a pretty good example of the right thing being done the wrong way. Obviously, vaccination is a good thing, but relying on peer pressure and "well, the parents aren't around..." hardly sets a good precedent. Vaccination should be mandatory for anyone who's able to safely be vaccinated, and it should be done as a stated policy, because it's simply a good idea.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I think that's a pretty good example of the right thing being done the wrong way. Obviously, vaccination is a good thing, but relying on peer pressure and "well, the parents aren't around..." hardly sets a good precedent. Vaccination should be mandatory for anyone who's able to safely be vaccinated, and it should be done as a stated policy, because it's simply a good idea. Coercion is preferable to force arguably when it comes to medical matters.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:Coercion is preferable to force arguably when it comes to medical matters. I don't know. I think I'd rather force or strongly coerce the parents, as opposed to relying on peer pressure to get kids to do it, when they very well might not be able to render informed consent. Seems like a slippery slope, frankly.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
Unlike... use of force..?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
http://wakeup-world.com/2015/04/30/how-plumbing-not-vaccines-eradicated-disease-2/ They keep coming up with new things. Now, plumbing is the reason we are disease free. Tomorrow, it will be posture. The next day, it'll be proper shoes. Now if i can only convince some of the cute anti-vaxx girls that sucking a hobo's dick is what cured disease, I will make a bunch of people very happy.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Dalael posted:http://wakeup-world.com/2015/04/30/how-plumbing-not-vaccines-eradicated-disease-2/ No, man, shoes are another imposition of The Man, and they're unnatural so you shouldn't wear them. Yeah, that's a thing too. Isn't it amazing?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Dalael posted:http://wakeup-world.com/2015/04/30/how-plumbing-not-vaccines-eradicated-disease-2/ Sadly like so many of these articles, they're THIS close to thinking critically about what they've clearly been told by someone, and actually coming up with the right answer, which is that yes, plumbing sure as poo poo helps, but it's not the reason we eradicated smallpox, and it's not the reason we're eradicating rubella and have mostly eradicated polio. It's the reason almost no-one in the western world gets cholera any more, though, so they got that one right 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Dalael posted:http://wakeup-world.com/2015/04/30/how-plumbing-not-vaccines-eradicated-disease-2/ I'm completely pro vaccine, but also the son of a plumber so. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
grimdark mario reboot looking good
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
They already sort of did "posture". Chiropractor exist.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
Modern sanitation has helped a lot with oral-fecal diseases like polio, but so have vaccination programs. It's not like indoor plumbing solved all woes, and it fixed nothing for the "shotgun" diseases like pertussis and measles.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 10:03
|
|
