Support NeoGAF

[synchronicity]

I get some entertainment from some of your posts Angular, but honestly to me it feels as if you are just looking for conflict.

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

Actually, no, I do not think it should be, but it is so it is my responsibility to inform myself and take the best steps possible from my point of information.

Interesting. So you think the decision of what goes into a child's body belongs to the government and not the parents? How far does this extend for you? Would you limit it to just vaccines, or would you apply it universally? Like a group of Jehovah's Witnesses that refuse medical treatment for their sick child? I think I know where you'd go on that one, but what about a parent who is providing a poor diet for their kids? Should the government have a say in how many candy bars a kid eats? Can the government force children to take their Flintstones Vitamins? Can the government force birth control on teenagers? Can the government decide that a child should take hormone therapy for gender reassignment even if the parent disagrees?

It's an interesting question when it involves parents and children. If we were talking about adults, of course adults have the freedom to choose for themselves. That's sort of implied in the whole adulthood thing, and a large part of our government is designed to enforce those freedoms, even when those freedoms would lead people into making immoral or self destructive choices.

But when it comes to children, those freedoms suddenly stop. A parent is the legal guardian of a child and makes the decision on their behalf, but there is a line they cross where we trust the government to take away that parent's freedom if we don't agree with the choices they make. Even when it isn't abuse or when the parent is legitimately acting in what they believe the child's best interest, if we disagree with that choice, we call for that parent to lose that right so easily.

Taking the children away is severe. If such a step was considered, the vaccines should first be made obligatory. Which, for some vaccines, would be reasonable. Failure to comply (without a good medical reason) could lead to fines and to forcible vaccinations, but taking the child away from the parents for this would be overshooting. Even parents who decide not to vaccinate their children at all don't do that out of ill intentions (usually), but thinking they are taking the best possible steps for their children.

Look, if you start forcing vaccinations and one of those kids ends up with autism - even if it was a coincidence and completely unrelated, that may have been the very reason the parents were avoiding vaccines - you open yourself up to a lawsuit from every parent with an autistic child that had vaccinations. Vaccines almost certainly don't cause autism is not the same thing as vaccines certainly don't cause autism, and as long as that doubt is there (and it will be until we do know what actually causes autism), you can't force it.

Though I am absolutely sure that a general decision against vaccinations is a harmful (abusive?) decision, it is very isolated, no further harm to the child is to be expected if the vaccination is enforced and the child remains with the parents. So taking the children from the parents would be a stupid decision.

Okay, let's tackle this one. Deciding against a vaccination is harmful (abusive?) in what way? Because it exposes your child to risk, right? But what is that risk really? The measles is a pretty serious disease, but chicken pox? Does skipping that vaccine really make a difference?

According to the CDC, in the 90s, 4 million people contracted the disease, 13,000 were hospitalized, and 150 people died from it every year. According to their own website, the vaccine - which is given to millions of children - only prevents about 100 deaths every year. The mortality rate of chicken pox is 0.0014%. This is a vaccine that is proven to work, but is it something that we need to give to every single child in America? And if I chose to not vaccinate for chicken pox, how much risk am I really causing my child to face?

In 1994, the year before the vaccine, there were roughly 68 million children under the age of 18, of which only 4 million contracted the disease, and of those, only 0.0014% died from it. And now that there is a vaccine, the herd immunity will change that number considerably. Honestly, children are more in danger of developing leukemia from having too much anti-bacteria soap in the house (child leukemia is rising about 1% every year, almost exclusively in affluent areas due to the amount of cleanliness preventing kids' immune system from developing correctly).

Now, I'm not saying that vaccinations are a bad thing. Not at all. I had the chicken pox as a kid and I don't remember enjoying it very much at all. And if you contract chicken pox as an adult, you are a whopping 25x more likely to suffer severe effects from it. But certainly for the chicken pox, the choice to not vaccinate that particular illness is not exposing your kid to undue risk, and shouldn't be considered harmful (abusive?).

The answer is that independent research institutes (state-funded) need to evaluate the vaccines and classify them as "necessity" (law-enforced), "recommended" (parent's choice), "not recommended" (parent's choice) or harmful (illegal to give).

Frankly, the majority of these research institutes are paid off too. For fifty years, we thought red meat caused heart disease because the sugar industry hid research and paid off researchers to hide the fact that it was sugar. It would be nice to have an independent body doing this research for the benefit of mankind, but given the amount of corruption in the pharmaceutical industry and government, it would be a damn hard thing to trust. I guess the first step in all of this would be to tackle that corruption, and the rest should naturally fall into place.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

This guy gets it.

I get some entertainment from some of your posts Angular, but honestly to me it feels as if you are just looking for conflict.

Not at all. I’d just rather people think for themselves.

 

[Yoshi]

Would you limit it to just vaccines, or would you apply it universally?

Not universally, but it would not be limited to vaccines. The general idea is: If you only hurt yourself, do what you want, if you hurt others, it is restricted. Not vaccinating (even yourself) for very contageous diseases is not just a decision for yourself (remember: Herd immunity). Denying your child treatment because you believe some ancient fairytales? Hurts others (namely your child), not your decision. Want to have a lip piercing? Only hurts yourself, have fun.

but what about a parent who is providing a poor diet for their kids? Should the government have a say in how many candy bars a kid eats? Can the government force children to take their Flintstones Vitamins? Can the government force birth control on teenagers? Can the government decide that a child should take hormone therapy for gender reassignment even if the parent disagrees?

No, diet is too specific a restriction and is not directly enough causing harm to warrant intervention. Similar with candy bars, flintstone vitamins. Government should make shure teenagers have free access to birht control, but not enforce it (hormonal ones have possible negative side effects and how would you ever enforce condom usage). Hormone therapy should be the decision of the medics and the child (but certainly not before puberty either way).

Look, if you start forcing vaccinations and one of those kids ends up with autism - even if it was a coincidence and completely unrelated, that may have been the very reason the parents were avoiding vaccines - you open yourself up to a lawsuit from every parent with an autistic child that had vaccinations. Vaccines almost certainly don't cause autism is not the same thing as vaccines certainly don't cause autism, and as long as that doubt is there (and it will be until we do know what actually causes autism), you can't force it.

Then these parents should be so nice to provide evidence that the vaccination caused autism, which they will of course fail to do, because it's utter bullshit. But if they, in some hilarious turn of events did succeed in providing said evidence, then yes, let them win the lawsuit.

Okay, let's tackle this one. Deciding against a vaccination is harmful (abusive?) in what way? Because it exposes your child to risk, right? But what is that risk really? The measles is a pretty serious disease, but chicken pox? Does skipping that vaccine really make a difference?

As I said each disease and corresponding vaccine should be evaluated separately. E.g. in Germany, chicken pox is not a recommended vaccination.

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

This guy gets it.

I'm pro-vaccination. I'm just anti-Big Pharma, and I think the vaccination war is too similar to social justice, where good points are being lost in an overly nasty war between people trying to out-moralize each other. I don't think vaccinations is a morality issue.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

But you also understand that I choose not to vax out of love and concern for my children’s well being.

 

[Redneckerz]

If my children aren’t sick, how anyone else going to get sick?

Anyone else isn't going to get sick if you don't vaccinate. Thats what Herd Immunity does to prevent that everyone else gets sick.

However, if multiple Angular's decide not to vaccinate, then everyone else is at risk of being exposed.

Do you understand this now?

You’re assuming they’d get sick which is kinda odd. Wouldn’t you want the opposite?

Like assuming that your kids won't get sick or die when you don't vaccinate because God looks over them? Yeah, i rather take my chances with the vaccine since that's a thing i can control myself.

I can't rely on a omnipresent deity to do the right thing. That would also remove all and every responsibility from you as a parent.

Where do these diseases come from anyway? Weren’t pox curses on people?

Deflecting questions as usual. See, you don't even know the origins of why we even need Herd Immunity to begin with, but you are quick to dismiss it. Just like OnThePathToWisdom did on the moon landing stuff.

Who the hell are you to judge the entirety of the life I’ve had with my children based on one trivial thing alone? Kiss my ass with that mess. You don’t know me or who I am.

Not vaccinating your kids on purpose by way of religious reasons isn't exactly trivial. Again, if multiple people like you in your community would do the same thing, everyone is at risk.

Which is why people call this irresponsible. Thanks to the collective efforts of others, you can be irresponsible.

Except it’s not child endangerment. If my children were in any danger, they wouldn’t be here now would they.

If you aren't telling them the whole story then you are a liability risk. No, they aren't in danger right now. But they will risk being in danger if they have to rely upon your decisions that you have set out for them.

That's why you are the liability risk.

God protects my children. Not you or anyone else.

With your decisionmaking (Which is theoretical since i have not visually seen the results of it), you certainly ain't protecting your kids or acting in their best interests. Mind you, this is solely my conclusion from your own posts here. It does not mean that i think you are a shitty parent, it just means that your decisionmaking is not serving your kids to the fullest and, given how you claim here that God protects your kids, insinuates you shift responsibility from yourself to a omnipresent deity.

I get some entertainment from some of your posts Angular, but honestly to me it feels as if you are just looking for conflict.

I mean, alternatives will always be accepted if they are backed up by something. Angular's alternative are just hollow phrases and twiddledee links from the multiverse.

This guy gets it.



Not at all. I’d just rather people think for themselves.

Is it not sad that you have to rely on someone else to explain what you seemingly are completely incapable of explaining?

Basically Angular, Your modus operandi in this thread is two-fold. First, you do this:

Which you then follow up with:

Do note that the above gif can also be used in your Flat Earth/Moon Landing rhetoric, and in that case for O OnThePathToWisdom aswell.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

This guy gets it.



Not at all. I’d just rather people think for themselves.

You’re not thinking for yourself and being that you clearly don’t have a medical degree you’re also not qualified to actually know shit about this.

Now why don’t you explain why you distrust doctors on this specific item, yet most likely take a doctors advice on other shit?

Listening to antivaxxers really beggars belief. A very close friend of mine is a doctor, I trust my doctor and I believe my emergency responder cousin who all tell me you are fucking retarded.

Thinking for myself implies taking the advice of trained medical professionals when they are speaking about the most successful medical procedure OF ALL OF TIME.

Also having had vaccinated my kid an see it work exactly as designed.... I don’t know why anybody would make such a stupid and risky judgement based on no evidence. I really hope there are penalties imposed on fools like you and I’m really glad that Aussie already did that and the Netherlands where I live is taking a close look at it.

 

[Antoon]

Smartphones and social media are the top child abusers. Dragqueens and furries are close second.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Anyone else isn't going to get sick if you don't vaccinate. Thats what Herd Immunity does to prevent that everyone else gets sick.

However, if multiple Angular's decide not to vaccinate, then everyone else is at risk of being exposed.

Do you understand this now?


Like assuming that your kids won't get sick or die when you don't vaccinate because God looks over them? Yeah, i rather take my chances with the vaccine since that's a thing i can control myself.

I can't rely on a omnipresent deity to do the right thing. That would also remove all and every responsibility from you as a parent.


Deflecting questions as usual. See, you don't even know the origins of why we even need Herd Immunity to begin with, but you are quick to dismiss it. Just like OnThePathToWisdom did on the moon landing stuff.


Not vaccinating your kids on purpose by way of religious reasons isn't exactly trivial. Again, if multiple people like you in your community would do the same thing, everyone is at risk.

Which is why people call this irresponsible. Thanks to the collective efforts of others, you can be irresponsible.


If you aren't telling them the whole story then you are a liability risk. No, they aren't in danger right now. But they will risk being in danger if they have to rely upon your decisions that you have set out for them.

That's why you are the liability risk.


With your decisionmaking (Which is theoretical since i have not visually seen the results of it), you certainly ain't protecting your kids or acting in their best interests. Mind you, this is solely my conclusion from your own posts here. It does not mean that i think you are a shitty parent, it just means that your decisionmaking is not serving your kids to the fullest and, given how you claim here that God protects your kids, insinuates you shift responsibility from yourself to a omnipresent deity.


I mean, alternatives will always be accepted if they are backed up by something. Angular's alternative are just hollow phrases and twiddledee links from the multiverse.


Is it not sad that you have to rely on someone else to explain what you seemingly are completely incapable of explaining?

Basically Angular, Your modus operandi in this thread is two-fold. First, you do this:

Which you then follow up with:

Do note that the above gif can also be used in your Flat Earth/Moon Landing rhetoric, and in that case for O OnThePathToWisdom aswell.

You think 12 year olds should be having sex. I really don’t think you’re qualified to speak on ANYTHING at this point.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/discussion-the-attempts-to-normalize-child-sexualization.1470994/

Listening to antivaxxers really beggars belief. A very close friend of mine is a doctor, I trust my doctor and I believe my emergency responder cousin who all tell me you are fucking retarded.

So I’m retarded even though the CDCs own information which I posted in this thread shows just how few many people actually die from these diseases and how few it was from the very beginning. We’re talking a few thousand per year out of a population of millions of people.

 

[synchronicity]

This guy gets it.



Not at all. I’d just rather people think for themselves.

Fair enough, but just because someone happens to be in agreement with the crowd does not necessarily mean that they haven't also thought for themselves.

 

[Luffytubby]

But you also understand that I choose not to vax out of love and concern for my children’s well being.

Vaccinate your kids. You are putting them and everyone at risk. Look at what happens to communities where the herd immunity drops. With more carriers walking around, the diseases risk developing new strands that will actually be resistant to existing vaccines. You risk putting everyone else at risk too.
Everywhere you go where people have chosen not to get vaccinated, you see disaster. The Orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn has had a whole epidemic. As has a Somali community in Minnesota.

These diseases are dangerous. Why are you toying with your kids lives over politics? Put your pride aside and do the right thing instead of making this about you. This is not about government imposing anything, or brave trans people. This is about you being an asshole. That you do something out of love and care doesn't matter. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Plenty of parents do terrible shit to their kids all the time out of love.

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

Vaccinate your kids. You are putting them and everyone at risk. Look at what happens to communities where the herd immunity drops. With more carriers walking around, the diseases risk developing new strands that will actually be resistant to existing vaccines. You risk putting everyone else at risk too.

This is an interesting moral position to take. By not vaccinating your children, you are putting others at risk. I understand the whole herd immunity thing, but how much of that is your responsibility to shoulder? Should you have to do something that you consider to be dangerous and immoral for the betterment of other? I think most of us would, given compelling evidence that it was worth it. But is it our responsibility or our fault if we don't? Should we be forced to give up our rights to favor others?

That's why I don't think you can frame the vaccination debate as a moral one. I think that the more you drill down into it, the more you are going to wrestle with the consequences of free will and personal rights - and these are issues that we've decided as a country are worth preserving. Morally, we might protect a community, but in losing valuable and important personal rights, we may be giving up a nation.

To get through to an anti-vaxxer, you can't try to shame them into it, or appeal to some sense of duty. The only way to get through is to show compelling evidence that it is the best choice for the child - and in cases where it may not be the best choice, or maybe isn't the only passable choice, I think you have to allow them the fact that making a different choice than you isn't as dangerous or immoral as you portray it to be. Personally, I'd start with the really dangerous diseases and try to convince them that the risks are far worse there rather than trying to get them to accept all vaccines without question just because they are vaccines.

Everywhere you go where people have chosen not to get vaccinated, you see disaster. The Orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn has had a whole epidemic. As has a Somali community in Minnesota.

What's interesting about these cases is that after they were over, there was a surge in vaccinations. According to a Vox (yuck) article, a breakout of 58 cases measles caused a surge in new vaccinations.

Measles is a bit nasty. 1 in 4 cases results in hospitalization, with 1-2 in 1,000 cases resulting in death. If you get brain inflammation (1 in 1,000 cases), there's a 15% chance of death, and much higher chance of having permanent complications for the rest of your life (such as being deaf or having nerve damage). 1 out of every 20 children with measles gets pneumonia, which is the most common cause of death associated with measles in young children.

BUT... as nasty as measles can be, it is hardly a death sentence. As far as I can tell, of those 58 cases of measles, nobody died or was permanently disabled from it. This isn't the 1700s anymore. We aren't going to wipe out all the Indians with a measles outbreak. I think the individual risk to a single unvaccinated child isn't not necessarily high enough to be considered child abuse. And when you think about it, it isn't like the vaccine is going anywhere. They can always get vaccinated later as adults, when their parents are no longer in charge of their health care.

I'm not saying that we should avoid vaccinations - measles is an extremely contagious disease and herd immunity really does make a huge difference in the scale of damage that measles can do (you might not have any deaths in 58 cases of measles, but will probably have several in a few thousand). If too many people forgo the vaccine, it could be a major health epidemic with some serious damage. I think it would be stupid to not vaccinate your child against the measles - why risk even a 1 in 1,000 chance of death if you don't have to - but I think the individual danger has been exaggerated. The danger from the measles is not individually, but in the scale of a serious outbreak. That requires a serious number of people to forgo vaccination, and at that point, do you go around blaming every parent individually?

And this brings us back to the morality of herd immunity. How much of eradicating the measles virus is your individual responsibility? There's a good discussion to be had there

This is about you being an asshole. That you do something out of love and care doesn't matter.

See, that's the thing. You can say that they are misinformed, but I don't think you can say they are being an asshole. Anti-vaxxers absolutely think they are doing the best thing for their children. You say it doesn't matter that they are doing it out of love, but how does that make them an asshole? Frankly, the best way to make sure that an anti-vaxxer absolutely doesn't listen to you is to call them an asshole or attempt to shame them into doing something they don't feel comfortable with. You need to understand where they are coming from and assuage their fears and worries, not make this into an us vs them pissing contest.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I'm curious what your position is on hormone therapy for transitioning children... Which side you consider to be the asshole on that one?

 

[Redneckerz]

You think 12 year olds should be having sex.

On your question ''So you believe 12 year olds should be practicing safe sex?'' i answered: ''Have i said that? Nah, i haven't said that. But to answer the question, if kids are given Sex-Ed then experiment away. I agree that 12 is on the low end of the scale, on average kids usually get into sex at ages 15-16. (The average age is actually rising, atleast in The Netherlands).''

Please tell me where in this cite there is a definitive admission that 12 year olds should be having sex. What you are purposefully dropping is context and moreover, you jump to conclusions.

Way to dismiss everything of the post you quoted by this attempt though. Admitting that throughout this entire time your entire logic falls upon the two aforementioned GIFS and you have yet to present anything credible is apparently too difficult for you.

I really don’t think you’re qualified to speak on ANYTHING at this point.

As if you are the moral authority here. Its not my problem that your reading comprehension skills on a forum are terrible enough that you rather believe a scripture than clear presentable text. Its not my problem that you make the decision to be irresponsible to your kids and then be dumbfounded that despite not vaccinating your kids they don't get sick. Gee, how did that happen? Herd Immunity? Nah, right?

Vaccinate your kids. You are putting them and everyone at risk. Look at what happens to communities where the herd immunity drops. With more carriers walking around, the diseases risk developing new strands that will actually be resistant to existing vaccines. You risk putting everyone else at risk too.

But his kids aren't getting sick, so why should he? Appealing to common sense is literally futile here.

 

[Luffytubby]

This is an interesting moral position to take. By not vaccinating your children, you are putting others at risk. I understand the whole herd immunity thing, but how much of that is your responsibility to shoulder? Should you have to do something that you consider to be dangerous and immoral for the betterment of other? I think most of us would, given compelling evidence that it was worth it. But is it our responsibility or our fault if we don't? Should we be forced to give up our rights to favor others?

That's why I don't think you can frame the vaccination debate as a moral one. I think that the more you drill down into it, the more you are going to wrestle with the consequences of free will and personal rights - and these are issues that we've decided as a country are worth preserving. Morally, we might protect a community, but in losing valuable and important personal rights, we may be giving up a nation.

To get through to an anti-vaxxer, you can't try to shame them into it, or appeal to some sense of duty. The only way to get through is to show compelling evidence that it is the best choice for the child - and in cases where it may not be the best choice, or maybe isn't the only passable choice, I think you have to allow them the fact that making a different choice than you isn't as dangerous or immoral as you portray it to be. Personally, I'd start with the really dangerous diseases and try to convince them that the risks are far worse there rather than trying to get them to accept all vaccines without question just because they are vaccines.

Living in society is oppression. If you don't like it, you can move to the wilderness. Thousands of people move away from cities where the government cannot dictate their freedom. Until then, and if you want to enjoy the conveniences of society, you gotta pay the piper and follow the rules. My own political ideology has a lot of notions that are in sympathy to libertarian ideals. But I find that the way that a lot of people in the US talk about "libertarian" ideals almost sound more like anarchy. Libertarian at the end of the day means that you should be able to do what you want without government interfering, as long as you're not hurting anybody.

I am not trying to frame this debate as a moral one. It's just a fact that vaccines are important. The resistence to it, is psychological. And it's psychological in the way you see peoples irrational fear manifest many different things. Artifical Sweetners? Go down that rabbit hole. Gluten? GMOs? Cloud Seeding? Take your pick. It's the same fears, across different topics. Vaccines are just another one to the bucket. Nothing inhibits people more than their fears. And the more fearful someone is, the more irrational and extremist they are prone to become.
There is a lot we still don't know about how babies and children develop behavioral, psychological and hormonal problems. We get better at diagnosing them, but it becomes more and more difficult of finding the root causes. You expose your kids to dangerous patogens every day. The clothing you bought for them, their deodorant, the micro plast from the tupperware disolving into their food, the smog they grow up with it from the polluted cities they live in. There are so many factors and causes. Some which are harmless, but has the potential to become dangerous when mixed with another harmless chemical.

When you combine this, with the FDA - A government body that has failed decade after decade to properly regulate products until people have already gotten sick, have prompted distrust among consumers. Add to all of this that aparantly, nearly half of Americans read statistics on a third-grade level, and it tells you something about how most people are incapable of understanding the reality. When you combine this ignorance with their irrational fears of their kids being autistic (or otherwise damaged) you end up with cocktail that is the anti vaxxer movement.

Your freedom means less than the safety of others. The only x factor here is how many people will have to die and be hurt by a dangerous lack of policy before outrage will be high enough to force bipartial policy. I promise you that endless rows of scrawny spine lacking politicians will bend backwards for the opportunity to deliver mandatory vaccine laws.

What's interesting about these cases is that after they were over, there was a surge in vaccinations. According to a Vox (yuck) article, a breakout of 58 cases measles caused a surge in new vaccinations.

Measles is a bit nasty. 1 in 4 cases results in hospitalization, with 1-2 in 1,000 cases resulting in death. If you get brain inflammation (1 in 1,000 cases), there's a 15% chance of death, and much higher chance of having permanent complications for the rest of your life (such as being deaf or having nerve damage). 1 out of every 20 children with measles gets pneumonia, which is the most common cause of death associated with measles in young children.

BUT... as nasty as measles can be, it is hardly a death sentence. As far as I can tell, of those 58 cases of measles, nobody died or was permanently disabled from it. This isn't the 1700s anymore. We aren't going to wipe out all the Indians with a measles outbreak. I think the individual risk to a single unvaccinated child isn't not necessarily high enough to be considered child abuse. And when you think about it, it isn't like the vaccine is going anywhere. They can always get vaccinated later as adults, when their parents are no longer in charge of their health care.

I'm not saying that we should avoid vaccinations - measles is an extremely contagious disease and herd immunity really does make a huge difference in the scale of damage that measles can do (you might not have any deaths in 58 cases of measles, but will probably have several in a few thousand). If too many people forgo the vaccine, it could be a major health epidemic with some serious damage. I think it would be stupid to not vaccinate your child against the measles - why risk even a 1 in 1,000 chance of death if you don't have to - but I think the individual danger has been exaggerated. The danger from the measles is not individually, but in the scale of a serious outbreak. That requires a serious number of people to forgo vaccination, and at that point, do you go around blaming every parent individually?

And this brings us back to the morality of herd immunity. How much of eradicating the measles virus is your individual responsibility? There's a good discussion to be had there

I think you are underestimating the effects of measles. Vaccines surged in that community, because measles is a terrible disease. The argument sort of sells itself.

Secondly, even a small drop in herd immunity is enough to cause massive damage and outbreaks. When France had it's herd immunity lowered from 95% to 89%, it was enough to cause an epidemic that infected more than 15000 people, where as before there had only been less than 80 in the country on average. Secondly, if you put people in jepordy you are responsible.

If you are wreckless and a danger to other people on the road, you shouldn't drive. If your actions hurt others, directly or indirectly, you should not be in a position to do that.

See, that's the thing. You can say that they are misinformed, but I don't think you can say they are being an asshole. Anti-vaxxers absolutely think they are doing the best thing for their children. You say it doesn't matter that they are doing it out of love, but how does that make them an asshole? Frankly, the best way to make sure that an anti-vaxxer absolutely doesn't listen to you is to call them an asshole or attempt to shame them into doing something they don't feel comfortable with. You need to understand where they are coming from and assuage their fears and worries, not make this into an us vs them pissing contest.

First of all - Their intentions don't matter. Who gives a shit if they do it out of love? We're talking about peoples lives here. There are many, many people with weak immune systems who rely on near 100% herd immunity to survive. Just being in contact with a non-vacinated healthy kid who carries the disease is enough to kill those people.
I am not trying to shame anyone to do anything, but it is absolutely being an asshole to use your child as a shield for your own politics, and then justifying it with "I do it out of love". Parents said the same shit 100s years ago when it cames to their parental rights to beat the shit out of their kids, force them into marriage, oppose religion on them or other shit we find heinous today.

The whole argument of "I do it out of love" and "I mean well" is a selfish way of directing the conversation about yourself. Like your feelings matter, when it is about life and death to others. Fuck personal feelings. Society should enforce policies that protects its people, even when it sometimes impose on rights of individuals.
Tons of different organizations across the political spectrum sing the same song about the government impeding on their freedom. I can't do this or that (drugs, guns, abortions, workers, business, taxes). Its just the same shit, different subject.

I'm curious what your position is on hormone therapy for transitioning children... Which side you consider to be the asshole on that one?

Every subject and policy has the potential to have good intentions with worse outcomes. I don't think anyone on either side of an argument is an asshole in that debate (out of some principle) because this dilemma is not created on equal footing as the vaccine one. I think you know this, and I am wondering why you are asking for such a comparison when there are so many variables not vetted for here. And also, what does it matter?

My opinion is not that well intentioned ignorance on the whole is being "an asshole". I said it is being an asshole if you want ignore 99,999999% of medical science, along with all the replicated studies that universally show that vaccines are safe, then ignore than in hysteria and by proxy decide that putting others at risk is somehow a choice.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

if kids are given Sex-Ed then experiment away. I agree that 12 is on the low end of the scale, on average kids usually get into sex at ages 15-16.

Wasn’t too difficult. Children shouldn’t be experimenting anything sexual with anyone else. If you had a daughter, and she had sex Ed classes, would you allow her to experiment with another boy in your house? If you had a son, would you let him sex up another man’s daughter in your house? No other intentions other than experimenting with getting his peen wet? No job, no income, pays no bills, hasn’t experienced much of anything in life...you’d let that happen?

If you don't like it, you can move to the wilderness.

They make it extremely difficult to do that here.

 

[Straight Edge]

Wasn’t too difficult. Children shouldn’t be experimenting anything sexual with anyone else. If you had a daughter, and she had sex Ed classes, would you allow her to experiment with another boy in your house? If you had a son, would you let him sex up another man’s daughter in your house? No other intentions other than experimenting with getting his peen wet? No job, no income, pays no bills, hasn’t experienced much of anything in life...you’d let that happen?

When is a good age for sexual experimentation?

 

[Redneckerz]

Wasn’t too difficult. Children shouldn’t be experimenting anything sexual with anyone else. If you had a daughter, and she had sex Ed classes, would you allow her to experiment with another boy in your house?

I probably wouldn't know since these things usually are done in secret. If i would know, then you can imagine that interfering in that moment is going to get me angry eyes, no?

If you had a son, would you let him sex up another man’s daughter in your house?

Assuming there is a love interest (which it usually is) then yeah, when its consensual. Everything falls and dies with the respect both parties should have towards one another. Kids should explore these themes (as well as other things like you know, puberty and falling out against parents, which is usually around the same age as they become sexually active and interested) freely taking into account the aforementioned values.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

I don’t have anything else to say to you.

When is a good age for sexual experimentation?

When you’re married.

 

[Redneckerz]

I don’t have anything else to say to you.

I mean your position is kinda obvious because you believe in a religious path. I believe that kids should believe in whatever they want to believe. I am not pushing any faith upon them, so the road would be wide open for them.

Ofcourse, with your conservative onlook, this is analogus to heresy. The difference between you and me is that i don't berate people with a conservative onlook on things as long as they keep the common sense in check. You are both conservative and lacking in common sense. A deadly cocktail that leads to all kinds of peculiar takes.

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

Living in society is oppression. If you don't like it, you can move to the wilderness.

Well, that escalated quickly...

I am not trying to frame this debate as a moral one. It's just a fact that vaccines are important. The resistence to it, is psychological. And it's psychological in the way you see peoples irrational fear manifest many different things. Artifical Sweetners? Go down that rabbit hole. Gluten? GMOs? Cloud Seeding? Take your pick. It's the same fears, across different topics.

I have actually gone down those rabbit holes. And there's a variety of opinions on those that range from rational to irrational. I've read some stuff that I felt was, if not mind changing, at least mind challenging. But at the very least, if my goal was to promote artificial sweeteners to people who didn't want them, I wouldn't start the conversation by calling them assholes and threatening to take their children away. Maybe that's just me though.

Vaccines are just another one to the bucket. Nothing inhibits people more than their fears. And the more fearful someone is, the more irrational and extremist they are prone to become.

Then fix the fears, don't contribute to them. If someone feels overly pressured to do something, do you think that's going to reduce their anxiety about it, or increase it?

When you combine this, with the FDA - A government body that has failed decade after decade to properly regulate products until people have already gotten sick, have prompted distrust among consumers. Add to all of this that aparantly, nearly half of Americans read statistics on a third-grade level, and it tells you something about how most people are incapable of understanding the reality. When you combine this ignorance with their irrational fears of their kids being autistic (or otherwise damaged) you end up with cocktail that is the anti vaxxer movement.

So you admit that the FDA has "failed decade after decade to properly regulate products until have already gotten sick", but think not trusting them is ignorance or an irrational fear? Completely aside from the autism debate, don't you think we need to hold the FDA accountable for the things that we are putting into children's bodies?

For instance, China had a scandal in July about a faulty mandatory DPT vaccine that was given to children that was not up to production standards. The company in charge of this vaccine "forged production data, processing data and testing data". And about a decade ago, Zheng Xiaoyu, former head of then State Food and Drug Administration, was executed for taking bribes in return for approving untested drugs and medical equipment. This hasn't happened in the US so far, but it easily could - and it will. With rampant corruption in the pharmaceutical industry and in government, corners are being cut, and the burden of that corruption will be on your children. I think being concerned about that is entirely reasonable.

Your freedom means less than the safety of others.

This feels like the sort of thing a young person would say. The kind of person who would complain that their college professor made them feel unsafe in class.

Secondly, even a small drop in herd immunity is enough to cause massive damage and outbreaks. When France had it's herd immunity lowered from 95% to 89%, it was enough to cause an epidemic that infected more than 15000 people, where as before there had only been less than 80 in the country on average. Secondly, if you put people in jepordy you are responsible.

And what's the herd immunity in France now? Somethings tells anti-vaxxers don't generally stay that way after an outbreak. It's a problem that will solve itself.

First of all - Their intentions don't matter. Who gives a shit if they do it out of love? We're talking about peoples lives here.

We are talking about lives, that's right. And people have to do what is right by their understanding. If their understanding is flawed, it can be corrected with education. Where there is distrust, create trust. Being wrong doesn't make you an asshole. But you, you are being an asshole. You are the one insulting others and acting high and mighty about how they should raise their kids. Defer judgment to them on their children, and try to help them understand their choices rather than trying to shame and blame them for it.

I am not trying to shame anyone to do anything, but it is absolutely being an asshole to use your child as a shield for your own politics, and then justifying it with "I do it out of love".

I want you to read this sentence out loud and tell me if you notice anything weird about it.

 

[Croatoan]

Its like people don't understand herd immunity....

 

[Redneckerz]

Its like people don't understand herd immunity....

I mean he just dismisses your post. As he did to mines when he jumped to conclusions.

I wonder if his wife has the same idea about vaccinations as he does. I mean, there has to be someone in the family doing the thinking.

 

[Mohonky]

Its like people don't understand herd immunity....

Unfortunately we dont have heard immunity for stupid.

 

[Rentahamster]

You think 12 year olds should be having sex. I really don’t think you’re qualified to speak on ANYTHING at this point.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/discussion-the-attempts-to-normalize-child-sexualization.1470994/

Way to avoid having to answer his response to you. FYI, that's not the debate tactic of someone who's winning an argument.

 

[Arkhan]

Just a reminder that members having beliefs you oppose or cannot understand is not a good excuse to call them 'fucking retarded' or otherwise insult them. Discuss your positions without attacking others or leave the thread.

 

[Luffytubby]

I have actually gone down those rabbit holes. And there's a variety of opinions on those that range from rational to irrational. I've read some stuff that I felt was, if not mind changing, at least mind challenging. But at the very least, if my goal was to promote artificial sweeteners to people who didn't want them, I wouldn't start the conversation by calling them assholes and threatening to take their children away. Maybe that's just me though.

I said it was an asshole thing to do, to disregard the safety of your own kids and countless others for your own stubbornness. Secondly, I didn't bring up these other conspiracy scenarios to draw a contrast in consequence or their level of seriousness, but rather to say that the bad actors here are the same sort that is unable to vet information probably and who will use arguments like "Big Pharma has a lot of corruption, so everything should be met with skeptism". Thirdly, I am not here to promote or advocate for vaccines, because it goes without saying that you should be vaccinated.

Then fix the fears, don't contribute to them. If someone feels overly pressured to do something, do you think that's going to reduce their anxiety about it, or increase it?

No. People being angry with anti vaxxers being a primer for making them more anxious doesn't make any sense. Secondly; Everyone is anxious. You're not owned anything for being anxious. Stop being an asshole who puts other at harm. I don't care what you are. If you are antifa, a neo-nazi, a anti vaxxer. You cannot expect people to just pad you on the back because you feel pressure. Like most of us aren't. You don't get a free out of jail card because you wanna hurt others with your stupidity.

So you admit that the FDA has "failed decade after decade to properly regulate products until have already gotten sick", but think not trusting them is ignorance or an irrational fear? Completely aside from the autism debate, don't you think we need to hold the FDA accountable for the things that we are putting into children's bodies?

For instance, China had a scandal in July about a faulty mandatory DPT vaccine that was given to children that was not up to production standards. The company in charge of this vaccine "forged production data, processing data and testing data". And about a decade ago, Zheng Xiaoyu, former head of then State Food and Drug Administration, was executed for taking bribes in return for approving untested drugs and medical equipment. This hasn't happened in the US so far, but it easily could - and it will. With rampant corruption in the pharmaceutical industry and in government, corners are being cut, and the burden of that corruption will be on your children. I think being concerned about that is entirely reasonable.

Big Pharma has corruption in it like every public and private sector in the US (and most of the world). Yeah, I bring up the FDAs neutered regulatory body up because I sympathize with skeptics of asking questions. But asking questions and being anxious is far removed from deliberately doing harm to others out of being afraid. Your line of reasoning is based on questioning anything through some purity test. There is a lot fucked up things going on with Pharma, so obviously vaccines are bad. You don't possess the critical thinking to comprehend that virtually all of science and regulatory bodies across the world are in total agreement that vaccines are safe?
There are corruption everywhere. the police is corrupt, the government is corrupt, the media is corrupt. Doesn't mean that everything is black or white. That you cannot trust anything.

Its a tactic to say "look - the verdict is still out on climater change. We are just asking questions". Because it's a tactic that works, and the number of vaccine skeptics who are not getting their shots are increasing. Particularly in certain pockets of the population.

This feels like the sort of thing a young person would say. The kind of person who would complain that their college professor made them feel unsafe in class.

It "feels" like that because you have a chip on your shoulder. No, you don't get it. I am appealing to the rule of law. I am saying that you have policy that infringes on peoples freedom for the safety of others. Because you believe in a society where lots of people have to get along, and because the risk of harm, disaster, panic and widespread problems (diseases, hysteria, wahtever) increases. So you make laws to protect people that lots of people don't like. The evil corrupt government demands there must be fire exits and fire extinguishers. They pass laws on how many people can be on an venue. They tell people how fast they can go on the roads. So obviously, that infringes on your freedom, maaaaaaaaannn. And like now with vaccines, the government, like totally owns your body.

And what's the herd immunity in France now? Somethings tells anti-vaxxers don't generally stay that way after an outbreak. It's a problem that will solve itself.

Actually, it has gotten so bad, that in jan 2018 they decided to have 11 vaccines mandatory, because skeptism is growing because of the ill fated strategy you're promoting. You cannot engage these people with information, logic and facts.

Children born in France as from Monday will now receive eleven compulsory vaccines, up from three prior compulsory shots, or risk being barred from French nurseries or schools; the French government's announcement seeks to stamp-out growing nationwide skepticism towards vaccines and one of the world's highest vaccine rejection rates.
French minister of Solidarity and Health, Agnes Buzyn, announced the measure seeking to extend vaccine coverage further than the current 70 percent of child population already vaccinated.
"I do not like to impose obligations, it goes against my character but with vaccinations it is justified" Buzyn pointed out adding that no repressive measures had been taken out against non-complying parents apart from warning them they won't be able to enroll their children at any creches, nurseries, schools or Summer camps, both private or public.
The eight new compulsory vaccines are: polio, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenza bacteria (flu), pneumococcus and meningococcus C, which are now incorporated on France's mandatory vaccine list along with diphtheria (since 1938), tetanus (since 1940) and poliomyelitis (since 1964).
Buzyn added there was no need to include additional penal or financial punishment.
In theory, the French penal code provides up to two years in prison and a 30,000 euro fine to anyone trying to avoid vaccinating their children without a legitimate cause and although sentencing is very rare in these cases, French state monitoring will begin next June 1.

We are talking about lives, that's right. And people have to do what is right by their understanding. If their understanding is flawed, it can be corrected with education. Where there is distrust, create trust. Being wrong doesn't make you an asshole. But you, you are being an asshole. You are the one insulting others and acting high and mighty about how they should raise their kids. Defer judgment to them on their children, and try to help them understand their choices rather than trying to shame and blame them for it.

Uhhm no. If you're understanding is that it its okay to harm other people, then no. And anti vaxxers understanding is that its okay to harm others because they articulate and legitimate quak science, conspiracy theories and "questioning" which probes apathy which in the case of things like vaccines and climate change are as bad as being directly against it. As I said before- This is psychological, and the way it plays out and the reason why more and more people are flocking to being against or critical of vaccines, is because of that "I am just asking questions".

You are right, being wrong doesn't make you an asshole. Being told you are wrong and that you are hurting many others with your actions, your voice and what you stand for, by the entirety of the field of science across the world, and then deciding to make it all about yourself "I am just doing whats right for me maaaannn. I love my kids maaaannn. Big pharmaaa. corruption." is being an asshole.

Being a flat earther doesn't hurt anyone. Thinking GMOs and fluoride will give you cancer doesn't hurt anyone. You are allowed to have those thoughts. Vaccines are different because it's not about you. And I, nor should anyone give a fuck about your understanding about something that is obvious. Studies and studies have shown that anti vaxxers are not susceptible to facts, logic or truth. Because like other people who need to cling their fucking groups and hive mind, they need to be reafirmed in the shit they believe in. They cannot be independent, so they have to feel like they fight the system along with other enlightened people who know the "truth".

If you think that I am here to convince anyone, you are wrong. Because I gave up on people like OP a long time ago. Not in the sense that I don't think people like him cannot grow beyond this speil, but in the sense of what it represents. Which is, that people who believe in conspiracies, tend to make it about themselves. See the usage of "I feel" and arguments like "I am just doing this for X and Y reasons". It's not really about their kids. Not really. It's really about them. And that unique to anti vaxxers. What prompts people to fall into these traps are self absorption(this is about me, and everyone are sheep who don't see the truth like me), self-entitlement(fuck the consequences, as long as I have my sense of "freedom") and self-persecution("they are out to get me. so I am the oppressed one, and people should martyr me and feel sorry for me).

I understand why they feel that way. Because I feel that way too, and I think most are. From the countless toxic antigens that are put in our bodies everywhere, it makes sense that people freak out. But people have to have the independence to snap out of it and reason with basic logic. And sometimes, being straight with people is a better way of conveying information- At least to some of the lurkers or posters who haven't posted yet. There are times to be understanding, but we know the reasons for why anti-vaxxers are that way. They are not alone in our fear. But they are rocking the boat, and them doing that risk drowning us all. So people have every right at this point. After anti-vaxxers have dismissed all the facts and done the goal posting over and over, for people to say: "enough". You are being an asshole. Stop it.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Hmm. So the department of justice admitted that the flu vaccine is dangerous? Should I label all of those who have stuck their kids up as being abusive parents?

https://newspunch.com/dept-justice-flu-shot-dangerous/

 

[Redneckerz]

Unfortunately we dont have heard immunity for stupid.

Well heard immunity would be something like being impervious to hearing anything or being deaf, but in this case i do find the term very fitting as Angular isnt really hearing what either we say or what he says.

Way to avoid having to answer his response to you. FYI, that's not the debate tactic of someone who's winning an argument.

I don't think Angular is here to win an argument, rather signing up for the contest of making the most disingenous post on GAF.

Just a reminder that members having beliefs you oppose or cannot understand is not a good excuse to call them 'fucking retarded' or otherwise insult them.

There is people with opposing beliefs and there is people deliberately trying to be a matador here. The former allows for debate, the latter is just frustrating and needs acknowledgement instead of giving it a platform. That's exactly what the matador wants.

Hmm. So the department of justice admitted that the flu vaccine is dangerous? Should I label all of those who have stuck their kids up as being abusive parents?

https://newspunch.com/dept-justice-flu-shot-dangerous/

You could start with addressing posts properly instead of cherrypicking.

Also fitting tagline of the link: ''Where mainstream fears to tread''. Yeah, that's a strong case right there. Vaccinations are mainstream, you know?

But lets read that over 5 year old report, shall we? The NewsPunch link links to a site called HealthImpactNews, again with a fitting tagline: ''News that Impacts Your Health that Other Media Sources may censor!'' Sounds like a very unbiased site indeed.

Heading over to the actual Powerpoint from NASA itself. According to HIN, this is what is said:

Spoiler

The last report issued in 2013 by the Department of Justice (Vaccine Court), for compensation made by the Health and Human Services for people injured or killed by vaccines, was released in December 2013, covering the period of 8/16/2013 through 11/15/2013. The report is available as a Power Point presentation here.

There were 139 claims settled during this time period, with 70 of them being compensated. So, just over 50% of the claims filed for vaccine damages were compensated during this period.

Once again, the greatest percentage of damages compensated were for the influenza vaccine, and most of those were for Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS). Yet these facts, tucked away in a file on the Department of Health and Human Services website, are never reported in the mainstream media. So we will report them here. You can also read the report yourself in the Power Point file here.

Of the 70 cases compensated, 42 of them were for the flu vaccine, or 60% of the cases settled where compensation was awarded for injury or death due to the vaccine. The combined total of the other 40% of cases settled included the following vaccines: Hep B, Tetanus, HPV, DTaP, MMR, IPV, PCV, Hib, Meningococcal, Varicella, TD.

So we are literally looking at less than 150 cases here. On a population as big as the US, this is literally peanuts.

Even better: only 70 out of 139 cases were compensated and ONLY 42 cases were actually about the flu vaccine. The others were a mixture of vaccines, and only from August to November 2013.

42 cases. forty two.

So on average, we are talking less than 450 people a year for flu vaccine related incidents.

It is thus strange that the piece concludes: ''Clearly, the flu vaccine is the most dangerous vaccine in America today, but that fact is not mentioned by the mainstream media, nor is it likely to be reported to you by your doctor. ''

On a population of 300 million, an edge case of 42 cases (42!!! Not 139, not 70, 42!) or 450 cases (approx) every year is enough to conclude that the flu vaccine is the most dangerous vaccine in the US today?

You are aware that every individual's physiology and inner workings is unique to every individual, thus not every individual reacts to the same treatment equally? These margins are taken into account: Some people will indeed have by-effects from something like a flu vaccine.

In other words, your link proves didgeridoo nothing and only seeks to fearmonger over accepted margins in medical science.

Oh, i forgot. You won't be answering to me since you already made the weird conclusion that i think 12 year olds should have sex. Not that that had anything to do with this topic, mind you.

 

[badblue]

Hmm. So the department of justice admitted that the flu vaccine is dangerous? Should I label all of those who have stuck their kids up as being abusive parents?

https://newspunch.com/dept-justice-flu-shot-dangerous/

"139 claims were settled by the Vaccine Court " It also links to healthimpactnews.com as a source, which contains a link to a PDF file on HRSA.gov that does not exist.


https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season-2017-2018.htm

CDC estimates that from 2010-2011 to 2013-2014, influenza-associated deaths in the United States ranged from a low of 12,000 (during 2011-2012) to a high of 56,000 (during 2012-2013)

The bigger number is the more pertinent risk factor IMO.

Also your sources are questionable.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/news-punch/

Founded in November 2018, News Punch is a Los Angeles-based clickbait news website that promotes extreme right wing conspiracy theories and pseudoscience misinformation. The website is founded and edited by Sean Adl-Tabatabai, who was the founder of YourNewsWire. In fact, News Punch is actually YourNewsWire redirected under a new domain name with a clean attractive website. All previous fake YourNewsWire stories have been ported over to this website/domain. Not much has changed.

In review, News Punch (aka YourNewsWire) is a far right wing conspiracy and pseudoscience website that also routinely publishes fake news. Headlines use loaded emotional language such as this: I Was In The Illuminati I’m Going To Tell You Everything, Shocking Expose. Politically, story selection almost always favors the right through negative stories regarding liberal policy and politicians such as this: CIA Insider: Hillary Clinton Most Treasonous Leader In History. Further, the sources utilized by News Punch are some of the least credible out there, such as Infowars and the Gateway Pundit.

News Punch routinely publishes anti-vaccination propaganda, stories of impending world war 3 and extraterrestrial stories, just to name a few. Further, YourNewsWire (Now News Punch) has made Factcheck.org’s fake news list. as well as having an abysmal track record with fact checkers. Finally, according to Poynter Institute, YourNewsWire (News Punch) has more false claims by IFCN fact checkers than any other website.

Overall, we rate News Punch a Questionable source based on extreme right wing bias and promotion of tin foil hat conspiracies. This website has zero credibility due to routine publishing of fake news. (D. Van Zandt 11/13/2018)

and:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/health-impact-news/

Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

Factual Reporting: LOW

Notes: Health Impact News is pure pseudoscience. According to Web of Trust this site has been flagged for misleading claims, alternative and/or controversial medicine. The site misleads people with quackery that is actually dangerous to your health if you take their claims seriously. Health Impact News is fiercely anti-vaccine and GMO. This is one of the worst purveyors or junk science on the internet. (D. Van Zandt 8/10/2016)

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Hmm. It was on a radio show I was listening to this morning. All of those pictures are still up on one of those sites. I don’t think you can just make up government documents and get away with it.

 

[badblue]

Hmm. It was on a radio show I was listening to this morning. All of those pictures are still up on one of those sites. I don’t think you can just make up government documents and get away with it.

I never said you information was wrong. I said that your sources are questionable, I cannot fine the report they are talking about and that the risk factors are vastly different. It doesn't make any sense to say this vaccine is bad because of the 42 flu vaccine related injuries (you're sources words), compared to the 56,000 deaths resulting from the flu during that same time frame.

They also say that GBS was the bulk of those 42 flu vaccine related injuries.

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare neurological disorder in which the body's immune system mistakenly attacks part of its peripheral nervous system—the network of nerves located outside of the brain and spinal cord. GBS can range from a very mild case with brief weakness to nearly devastating paralysis, leaving the person unable to breathe independently. Fortunately, most people eventually recover from even the most severe cases of GBS. After recovery, some people will continue to have some degree of weakness.

Guillain-Barré syndrome can affect anyone. It can strike at any age (although it is more frequent in adults and older people) and both sexes are equally prone to the disorder. GBS is estimated to affect about one person in 100,000 each year.

So it really the vaccine that is the problem, or the people that have GBS?

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

I don’t think you can just make up government documents and get away with it.

Why not? The government does it all the time.

So it really the vaccine that is the problem, or the people that have GBS?

Part of the anti-vaxxer movement is the belief that vaccines cause GBS.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

I just want to make it clear that it’s not my intention to spread disinformation.

 

[badblue]

Part of the anti-vaxxer movement is the belief that vaccines cause GBS.

Well, from what I'm reading they are not wrong. But they are also not right either, since it looks like if someone has GBS getting the vaccine or the flu itself could trigger it. So these are the people that would need to be protected by heard immunity.

I just want to make it clear that it’s not my intention to spread disinformation.

But you are fine with following that same disinformation?

 

[Redneckerz]

Hmm. It was on a radio show I was listening to this morning. All of those pictures are still up on one of those sites. I don’t think you can just make up government documents and get away with it.

Pictures can be embedded in a site and saved locally.

I never said you information was wrong. I said that your sources are questionable, I cannot fine the report they are talking about and that the risk factors are vastly different. It doesn't make any sense to say this vaccine is bad because of the 42 flu vaccine related injuries (you're sources words), compared to the 56,000 deaths resulting from the flu during that same time frame.

They also say that GBS was the bulk of those 42 flu vaccine related injuries.


So it really the vaccine that is the problem, or the people that have GBS?

I am literally saying similar, so i agree here

Part of the anti-vaxxer movement is the belief that vaccines cause GBS.

Oh, this gif becomes ever so relevant again..

I just want to make it clear that it’s not my intention to spread disinformation.

And yet here you are doing just that with very questionable links.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

But you are fine with following that same disinformation?

I’m saying it may or may not be based on the information you presented about the site. Like I said, I heard it this morning and thought it was relevant to this thread, searched it and that was among the results I got.

 

[MC Safety]

This guy claimed I was afraid of getting sick, and now here he is telling everyone he's acting out of concern for his kids and grasping for links to prove the doctors are trying to poison him and his family.

Really, who's scared?

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Grasping? yeah you should have seen me maniacally searching the airwaves for this very topic this morning just so I could post in this thread.

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

Oh, this gif becomes ever so relevant again..

The CDC website says that if there is a connection between the flu vaccine and GBS, then it would be 1-2 cases per million flu shots, which is in line with the 42 people who died from the flu shots due to GBS out of the 300 million flu shots given every year. Do you have a cute animated gif for that?

 

[badblue]

I’m saying it may or may not be based on the information you presented about the site. Like I said, I heard it this morning and thought it was relevant to this thread, searched it and that was among the results I got.

I think you are missing my point. Your own admitted anti vaccine stance is based off of similar bad information so i'm confused as to why you can, in a way, admit that your source of information may not be credible but not question the all of the other bad information anti vaccine advocates peddle?

 

[Redneckerz]

The CDC website says that if there is a connection between the flu vaccine and GBS, then it would be 1-2 cases per million flu shots, which is in line with the 42 people who died from the flu shots due to GBS out of the 300 million flu shots given every year.

Which is still far away from calling it the most dangerous vaccine in the US.

Do you have a cute animated gif for that?

Ehhh, i am not your enemy here.

I think you are missing my point. Your own admitted anti vaccine stance is based off of similar bad information so i'm confused as to why you can, in a way, admit that your source of information may not be credible but not question the all of the other bad information anti vaccine advocates peddle?

Employing rational thinking here. I like it.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

I think you are missing my point. Your own admitted anti vaccine stance is based off of similar bad information so i'm confused as to why you can, in a way, admit that your source of information may not be credible but not question the all of the other bad information anti vaccine advocates peddle?

I don’t think it’s all bad. We have actual cases of injury among children due to vaccines. Wether it be too many at once or mercury or jabbing your kid with a light version of the disease, you can’t say there haven’t been issues. If there were no issues, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

Which is still far away from calling it the most dangerous vaccine in the US.

The dangers of vaccines are greatly exaggerated, sure, but they do exist. I think it important to be honest about these dangers, rather than downplay them. For instance, the flu vaccine is largely optional for most people. The flu vaccine is most important for kids under 5 and adults over 65 (or parents or healthcare workers who are around these groups), but most healthy adults don’t need the vaccine except to avoid a miserable few days. And last year’s vaccine had a 1% protection rate against the most virulent strain that year. These are all things that help make an informed decision, and they tend to be glossed over because of this peer pressure to believe all vaccines aren’t just safe, they are your duty as an American. I don’t believe in blind adherence to anything, ever.

Ehhh, i am not your enemy here.

Anybody who tries to debate with a bumper sticker slogan, trite platitude, or animated gif is my enemy, regardless of sides. The world is complex and nuanced, and so should be the debate. Appealing to mockery has no place in it.

 

[Redneckerz]

The dangers of vaccines are greatly exaggerated, sure, but they do exist. I think it important to be honest about these dangers, rather than downplay them.

True. But i am not expecting that from this thread given the OP. I am doing my part, though.

For instance, the flu vaccine is largely optional for most people. The flu vaccine is most important for kids under 5 and adults over 65 (or parents or healthcare workers who are around these groups), but most healthy adults don’t need the vaccine except to avoid a miserable few days. And last year’s vaccine had a 1% protection rate against the most virulent strain that year. These are all things that help make an informed decision, and they tend to be glossed over because of this peer pressure to believe all vaccines aren’t just safe, they are your duty as an American. I don’t believe in blind adherence to anything, ever.

Its mandatory over here for kids, along with a host of other things. Lately, anti-vaxxing has seen a rise in the NL, pre-dominantly in the Bible Belt - a host of cities centered around conservative christanity.

I am not an American, by the way

Anybody who tries to debate with a bumper sticker slogan, trite platitude, or animated gif is my enemy, regardless of sides. The world is complex and nuanced, and so should be the debate. Appealing to mockery has no place in it.

Trust me, i would have done a better debate elsewhere, just not this thread.

Angular has demonstrated that the only kind of response is mockery, as factual discourse is not the main point of contention here.

 

[badblue]

I don’t think it’s all bad. We have actual cases of injury among children due to vaccines. Wether it be too many at once or mercury or jabbing your kid with a light version of the disease, you can’t say there haven’t been issues. If there were no issues, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

There are, but the numbers just throw this sort of thinking into the realms of absurdity. Letting someone you care about face a large risk illness because you are off put my the much smaller risk associated with vaccines goes against logic. Millions and millions of people around the world receive vaccines and don't have any negative reaction to them. Without these vaccines, the potential for million and million of people to die is there.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

But literally a few thousand out of 325 million isn’t exactly what I’d call a large risk. I’m not trying to be funny but wouldn’t that also be numbers throwing it into the realm of absurdity?

 

[MC Safety]

Grasping? yeah you should have seen me maniacally searching the airwaves for this very topic this morning just so I could post in this thread.

You followed a radio program to a news link to prove your point and then you came on the message board. That's some effort there.

I'm not sure whether you're genuine or not. If you're trolling, you're deep into it, enough for it to be worrisome. If you're genuine, then I might suggest you dodged my question.

 

[Redneckerz]

But literally a few thousand out of 325 million isn’t exactly what I’d call a large risk. I’m not trying to be funny but wouldn’t that also be numbers throwing it into the realm of absurdity?

''Hmm. So the department of justice admitted that the flu vaccine is dangerous? Should I label all of those who have stuck their kids up as being abusive parents?''

You literally could have come up with that on your own if you actually read the link before posting it and asking the linked questions in an attempt to stir shit.

Like, no shit that a couple of thousand people experience side-effects or even death when using a flu vaccine. Everyone's metaphysiology is unique, so ofcourse some people will have side-effects.

Your questionnaire acted as if you were surprised that flu vaccines can be lethal for some people.

I'm not sure whether you're genuine or not. If you're trolling, you're deep into it, enough for it to be worrisome. If you're genuine, then I might suggest you dodged my question.

Its the former, don't bother, ill just debunk his theories and be done with it.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Hey badblue , so you’re not misguided by the misinterpretation of my post the few thousand I was referring to was this.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056803.htm