|
Declaring "this thing is bad, and anyone who disagrees is a monster" without considering precedent or the larger moral ramifications is childish.
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
Yea, I considered them. The welfare of the child and children everywhere not dying from horrible diseases. Rather than deflecting show proof the benefits of vaccinations are outweighed by the negatives. But that is your problem, isn't it? You can't see the benefits of something, you can only see how its offensive to some nebulous idea of freedom. Freedom is, in part, health, the health of hundreds of children not contracting a preventable disease because anti-vax colonies. Smell that freedom, man. It smells good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
allow me to begin your next post for you "a parents tyrannical control of a child's health from a complete ignorant and irrational belief is better than dead kids because..."
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
How broadly are you willing to apply that though? If I can show that the benefits of anything on a societal level are greater than the negatives, or vice versa, would you support mandating or prohibiting it? Because being being required to take whatever path the government deems as "most optimal" isn't so much offensive to the idea of personal autonomy as completely eliminating it. Or is it just for those issues where you think you're right and don't have any skin in the game?
Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 09:13 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Declaring "this thing is bad, and anyone who disagrees is a monster" without considering precedent or the larger moral ramifications is childish. No it's not. You'd need to be making some garbage precious forum arguement to ignore child abuse in favour of a parents right to choose not to have a kid vaccinated. I mean seriously what the hell? Dead Reckoning posted:How broadly are you willing to apply that though? If I can show that the benefits of anything on a societal level are greater than the negatives, or vice versa, would you support mandating or prohibiting it? Because being being required to take whatever path the government deems as "most optimal" isn't so much offensive to the idea of personal autonomy as completely eliminating it. Or is it just for those issues where you think you're right and don't have any skin in the game? We call these things laws hemale in pain fucked around with this message at 09:20 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 09:15
|
|
|
Whole lot of babbling going on about the freedoms of bringing back ancient horrible diseases. It's also fun to troll a topic with one side that actually amounts to actual pain and death of children. Muh freedom Muh guvmint
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
Typhoid Mary was right. Big Government bureaucrats and their "experts" and their "science" interfering in my life because they're worried about a little typhus bacterium that even they say is too small to even see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
I'm not entertaining insane hypotheticals from some far-flung future where an authoritarian government has control. I'm entertaining real life, right now. Show me that the benefits of giving children vaccinations, even against their parent's wishes, is a net negative for an individual child (a person), a group of children (a group of people) and for society at large (a large group of people). That is my standard of proof. We're not talking about injecting kids with syphilis or tuberculosis cultures or "mind-control antidepressants" like fluoride. We're talking about vaccines. Use all the crazy freedom math you want.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:How broadly are you willing to apply that though? If I can show that the benefits of anything on a societal level are greater than the negatives, or vice versa, would you support mandating or prohibiting it? Because being being required to take whatever path the government deems as "most optimal" isn't so much offensive to the idea of personal autonomy as completely eliminating it. Or is it just for those issues where you think you're right and don't have any skin in the game? Go piss up a loving rope. Vaccination has overwhelmingly positive outcomes for all of society and is unique in that it's also only effective if as many people as possible are vaccinated. Your bullshit about banning skateboards doesn't apply here. Vaccination should be mandatory, full stop. The broad spectre of how much oil we should pour on mountainsides in defense of personal liberty has no bearing on whether or not vaccines should be mandatory.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
I Don’t Vaccinate My Child Because It’s My Right To Decide What Eliminated Diseases Come Roaring Back
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:I'm not entertaining insane hypotheticals from some far-flung future where an authoritarian government has control. I'm entertaining real life, right now. Show me that the benefits of giving children vaccinations, even against their parent's wishes, is a net negative for an individual child (a person), a group of children (a group of people) and for society at large (a large group of people). That is my standard of proof. hemale in pain posted:We call these things laws Buckwheat Sings posted:It's also fun to troll a topic with one side that actually amounts to actual pain and death of children.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
Oh no, sir. You made the claim of freedom under the guise of "bodily autonomy" which actually doesn't apply because we're talking about children who don't have it, as being more important than preventing thousands to tens-of-thousands of infections from rapidly communicable and deadly diseases. You post the proof.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That's not an answer to the question. We're discussing what the law ought to be, not what it is. If you're going to argue, as Cranappleberry did, that something should be mandatory with the only evidence offered being that the benefits outweigh the negatives, then you ought to be prepared to agree that anything whose benefits outweigh its negatives ought to be mandatory. Otherwise you aren't really espousing any kind of consistent moral argument. FYI, even putting aside the question of who gets to make these judgements, pretty much the entire Bill of Rights fails the common good test. I'm pretty sure I know where that 55 gallon drum of lubricant from Malheur went.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That's not an answer to the question. We're discussing what the law ought to be, not what it is. If you're going to argue, as Cranappleberry did, that something should be mandatory with the only evidence offered being that the benefits outweigh the negatives, then you ought to be prepared to agree that anything whose benefits outweigh its negatives ought to be mandatory. Otherwise you aren't really espousing any kind of consistent moral argument. FYI, even putting aside the question of who gets to make these judgements, pretty much the entire Bill of Rights fails the common good test. It's because you're putting up a bad faith argument using an extreme slippery slope of "so if you say vaccinations are beneficial... are you consenting to making ANYTHING that's beneficial in the slightest bit mandatory???" It's a nonsensical and worthless argument. Also i looked it up and every state has religious or philosophical exceptions to their vaccination requirements (thus making the requirements worthless) except.. Mississippi. Yep, you absolutely must be vaccinated to go to day care and school in Mississippi, no exceptions except medical reasons. Wow, go Mississippi.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
Wait so if we make it mandatory to (for example) feed your kids or send them to school, then we automatically have ban skateboards and candy? I don't understand how we get from the first things to the last things. Like, if we mandate/ban anything for a huge public benefit, then we have to mandate/ban everything for any conceivable health benefit no matter how small? Is that the argument?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
Zo posted:It's because you're putting up a bad faith argument using an extreme slippery slope of "so if you say vaccinations are beneficial... are you consenting to making ANYTHING that's beneficial in the slightest bit mandatory???" It's a nonsensical and worthless argument. If someone said, "Killing Hitler was good, because it is good when bad people are killed," I would definitely interrogate their argument, because it can be used to justify all sorts of horrendous poo poo, even though I think killing Hitler was a good thing. VitalSigns posted:Wait so if we make it mandatory to (for example) feed your kids or send them to school, then we automatically have ban skateboards and candy?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
Dead reckoning, should parents be able physically beat their children if they believe that to be an effective method of discipline?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
Yea, like, in order to have a consistent philosophy you are only allowed to support one thing if you support all the things that might be tangentially related and completely unrelated to the topic. I'm addressing only Dead Reckoning's specific stance that freedom of a parent to exercise "bodily autonomy" of their child with respect to vaccines. Now you are saying people have to make up laws and have a "consistent philosophy" with completely extraneous topics. Consistency with other topics is unnecessary, we are discussing why the freedom of the parent to exercise control of a child's physical wellbeing (to the detriment of the child) is more important than the health of the child, children and society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
Lol, now he is arguing about arguments for arguments sake. Wow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
In modern world, children are not a property, they are a right. As any right, they can be taken away under the right circumstances, CPS exists for that exact reason. Being an antivaxxer nutjob is the right circumstances. There, I said it. I'm not even saying take them away permanently, antivaxxers can be normal people outside that one thing, often they just got sold fear and loathing by idiots on the internet, and simply don't know better. Just take them away long enough to have them vaccinated, it takes like 60 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
OK, so in what other circumstances can the state take children away from parents and inject them with foreign substances on the basis of the parents having beliefs you disagree with?Cranappleberry posted:I'm addressing only Dead Reckoning's specific stance that freedom of a parent to exercise "bodily autonomy" of their child with respect to vaccines. Now you are saying people have to make up laws and have a "consistent philosophy" with completely extraneous topics. Consistency with other topics is unnecessary, we are discussing why the freedom of the parent to exercise control of a child's physical wellbeing (to the detriment of the child) is more important than the health of the child, children and society. If you feel that being consistent along related issues is unnecessary to construct a moral or legal framework, then IDK what to tell you. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 10:20 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:An argument that you don't like and don't have a good answer for isn't the same as a bad faith argument. And my argument is an entirely rational question to put to someone who favors making something mandatory on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis. If a simple cost-benefit analysis is sufficient for mandating vaccinations, why is this principle inapplicable to things that aren't vaccinations without resorting to special pleading? If a simple cost-benefit analysis is insufficient for making something mandatory, when y'all shouldn't be advancing it like some sort of checkmate. It's not up to me to flesh out the nuance of your argument for you if you want me to agree with you. Did you literally just ask "if thing, then why not thing that's more objectionable but still in spirit of thing?" And then say that you're not arguing in bad faith? Keep lubricating those hills man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That's rather the point though. If you say "X should be mandatory because it has the overall least risk to the health of the child" and I say "that can also be used to justify Y", you have to provide some argument other than "nu-uh" or "they're different." If there is some magic numerical threshold of harm that X and Y are on different sides of, you should be able to articulate that... and also be prepared to support banning/mandating everything on the X side of it. It's your standard, after all. You're the one defining the terms. If your argument has more nuance than what you said, maybe you should flesh it out more, instead of acting like everyone is stupid for not agreeing with your reductive premise. I was just making sure I understand the argument.  Ok I'm good with the logical conclusion that we should mandate/ban anything with public health benefits equal to or greater than this assuming the downsides (cost, difficulty of enforcement, unpleasantness or harm to people) of doing so are equal to or less than the measles vaccine. Awaiting your evidence that 700,000 cases annually (actually more to scale up to our greater population) of skateboarding incidents more serious than measles infection occur. Or that the cost and difficulty of enforcement of banning all heart-unhealthy foods and regimenting everyone's diet for life is less than the cost of childhood vaccination, or whatever other slippery slope thing you claim I have to support now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
I'm just asking for empirical and statistical proof that support your positions. That's it. I don't see how its so hard, look I'll do it: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/measles-vaccination/en/
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:OK, so in what other circumstances can the state take children away from parents and inject them with foreign substances on the basis of the parents having beliefs you disagree with? Any, where the child in question is going to have a significantly better quality of life for it. Let's start with food and water, shall we? Or is eating and drinking also subject to beliefs? And continue with vaccinations and antibiotics. Not feeding your child is against the law. Not having your child attend school is against the law. Basic health care is no different, and shouldn't be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
Truga posted:Any, where the child in question is going to have a significantly better quality of life for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:And who gets to make that determination? If I decide that female children would have a significantly better quality of life being raised in atheist/agnostic/Unitarian Universalist households than fundamentalist Muslim households, can we take female children away from fundamentalist Muslim couples and give them to atheists/agnostics/Unitarians? The same people who decide it right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:And who gets to make that determination? CPS
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:38
|
|
|
Obviously people who don't want to feed their kids should be the ones in charge of deciding whether their kids are fed or not, and not those drat doctors and Washington spendocrats.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
Truga posted:CPS So if President Trump fired the entire CPS bureaucracy and replaced them with people who agree that fundamentalist Muslim upbringing is harmful to girls, and began a program of actively taking away the female children of fundamentalist Muslims, this would be OK, good, and just? Or would you care to revise your non-answer?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
No, that would not be OK. What's up with that strawman/slippery slope combo
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
I guess we can't have any laws or authorities at all since someone might abuse them at some point in the future. Anarchy is the only morally correct option.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
Truga posted:CPS If the cps were staffed by aliens in disguise who wish for the destruction of mankind, and they enacted a mandatory lethal vaccine, would that be OK hmm? You like that? You want all humans to die? I'll give you 5 minutes to revise your non answer 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:An argument that you don't like and don't have a good answer for isn't the same as a bad faith argument. And my argument is an entirely rational question to put to someone who favors making something mandatory on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis. If a simple cost-benefit analysis is sufficient for mandating vaccinations, why is this principle inapplicable to things that aren't vaccinations without resorting to special pleading? If a simple cost-benefit analysis is insufficient for making something mandatory, when y'all shouldn't be advancing it like some sort of checkmate. It's not up to me to flesh out the nuance of your argument for you if you want me to agree with you. Do you not realize that you're also resorting to special pleading? We already mandate a whole host of measures for child welfare purposes: infants have to be in car seats, you can't give alcohol to a child, you have to educate your children, etc. For some reason forcing all of these "burdens" onto a parent is fine, but force them to vaccinate their children and that's suddenly a bridge too far? Why? And yes, immediately jumping to an extreme is a bad faith argument. You really shouldn't be surprised that people accuse you of making a bad faith argument when you accuse them of wanting to bring back prohibition because they're being pro-vaccination quote:That's rather the point though. If you say "X should be mandatory because it has the overall least risk to the health of the child" and I say "that can also be used to justify Y", you have to provide some argument other than "nu-uh" or "they're different." If there is some magic numerical threshold of harm that X and Y are on different sides of, you should be able to articulate that... and also be prepared to support banning/mandating everything on the X side of it. It's your standard, after all. You're the one defining the terms. If your argument has more nuance than what you said, maybe you should flesh it out more, instead of acting like everyone is stupid for not agreeing with your reductive premise. "If you're willing to make murder illegal on the basis of murder being bad, then you're going to have to make eating ice cream illegal because ice cream headaches are also bad, ergo we should just let murder be legal because we wouldn't want to slide down that slippery slope" -- This is the argument that you're making. I don't know, maybe we can have the public health benefits provided by mandatory vaccination without accidentally banning skateboards, too. Maybe we don't have to operate only in extremes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
Judges shouldn't be able to try cases because what if President Trumps I through VII eventually replace all judges with people who instantly find all Muslims guilty, got you there liberals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
I mean, it's not that I don't get it. I'd be all for voluntary vaccination everywhere. However, I live in a country where it's mandatory, and we still have lower rates than say, Finland, where it's voluntary. Because people here will whine to their doctors about their super special snowflake child and how vaccination will give them autism until said doctor just pushes the exempt button so they can get on with their lives. It's still a small number, but it is a number. I'd be for voluntary *everything*, I'm an anarcho-commie shitlord. But people are too stupid. Maybe one day we can try to cross that bridge, but that day is not today in most, if not all places around the world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
Truga posted:No, that would not be OK. What's up with that strawman/slippery slope combo Well, so far your argument has been that the state can take away children if being away from their birth parents would give them a "significantly better quality of life." I asked who gets to define "significant" and "better", and you answered that CPS does. Which is basically a nonsensical appeal to authority/status quo. So I posed a question about what you would think if CPS was staffed with people who had a radically different idea of what a better quality of life consists of than you do. You said that you would not be OK with that, which rather strongly implies that you think that there are some sort of universal precepts that government bureaucrats should follow when determining what constitutes a "significantly better quality of life," rather than CPS having the ability to make that determination as you stated earlier. So what are those precepts? This whole discussion is apparently necessary because the, for lack of a better term, anti-anti-vaxx posters seem loathe (for some reason) to acknowledge the idea that there should be a universal standard for determining what constitutes harm to a child and then discuss what those standards are, and the results of applying them to things that aren't vaccination in order to test them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:And who gets to make that determination? If I decide that female children would have a significantly better quality of life being raised in atheist/agnostic/Unitarian Universalist households than fundamentalist Muslim households, can we take female children away from fundamentalist Muslim couples and give them to atheists/agnostics/Unitarians? This is basically an argument for dismantling all forms of authority out of fear that authority can be used for less-than-good purposes. Is that the argument that you're trying to make? Do you really think this is the appropriate thread for that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So what are those precepts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_rights
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This whole discussion is apparently necessary because the, for lack of a better term, anti-anti-vaxx posters seem loathe (for some reason) to acknowledge the idea that there should be a universal standard for determining what constitutes harm to a child and then discuss what those standards are, and the results of applying them to things that aren't vaccination in order to test them. The better term is "pro-vaccination". Here you are trying to drag the thread into an ethical discussion on defining a "universal standard" for determining child harm, but that seems pretty loving pointless and stupid because A) there's no objectively correct answer to this problem and B) nothing that anyone here says is going to convince you that mandatory vaccination is actually a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 11:04
|
|