Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Zo
Feb 22, 2005

LIKE A FOX
Reading about actual cases of neurological degradation caused by vaccines is pretty heavy. And in these real, rare cases, it's not some casual 'tism or whatever, but the kids can degrade to a total vegetative state.

Imgaine how lovely those parents must feel. No matter how much they tell themselves that it was just bad luck, that they had their kids best interest in mind, etc, in the end they effectively poisoned their mostly healthy child and robbed them of their future*.

Man, just realized i could be an awesome anti-vaxxer.

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-5080.Opinion.5-18-2015.1.PDF

The case i was reading if anyone is interested. Kid gets owned by vaccine (well in theory; it's not proven, just likely in this case), parents try to get paid under the vaccine act, evil government rep tries to deny them under obviously bullshit reasons, court throws out decision of evil rep several times. Very dramatic.



*not what i believe, obviously, but rather what i think those parents feel

Zo fucked around with this message at 01:37 on May 21, 2015

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Zo
Feb 22, 2005

LIKE A FOX

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.

But enough about the reinstatement of prohibition.

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.

Zo
Feb 22, 2005

LIKE A FOX

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 :smug:

Zo
Feb 22, 2005

LIKE A FOX

Dead Reckoning posted:

Determining when someone is qualified to exercise various rights and privileges based on an objective measurement of their age is the exact opposite of legislating based on nebulous concepts like "a better quality of life."

It's not though. We don't imprison people for arbitrary reasons, or because they are bad. We imprison them for objectively breaking one or more predefined rules we've spelled out as a society. If someone hasn't broken the law, you can't put them in jail, no matter how much of an rear end in a top hat they are.
How do you decide if they've "objectively" broken them? Does that mean you are advocating for declaring non-guilty in all cases where there's no stone cold video evidence of a crime? Since, you know, deciding whether a set of evidence meets the "beyond reasonable doubt" bar is an objective call. Care to rescind your poorly thought out statement?

  • Locked thread