|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 30 2015 15:40 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 15:04 Slaughter wrote:On January 30 2015 14:10 Bigtony wrote:On January 30 2015 13:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2015 12:41 Bigtony wrote:On January 30 2015 06:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2015 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I feel the huge acceptance for these things also has to do with the US free speech culture that has turned facts into matters of opinion. Like when young earth creationists are actually taken serious enough that people are going to debate them over two hours as if the matter wasn't already settled a long time ago. The fact that there is very little communication between religion and public institutions in the US ironically seems to produce way more radical forms of belief. Another huge problem is that children are generally seen as property in our society. The general line for any topic is, "They're MY kids and I can do whatever I want with them!" This comes up with education (home schooling), healthcare (vaccinations), and many other situations. Parents see children as their property to mold into whatever they wish and no one sees children as actually having the right to quality healthcare, education, etc. The only time children have rights that protect them from their parents' decisions are (supposedly) when they're still a fetus and haven't been born yet. "Crossed that barrier and are now an autonomous human being? Nope! You don't get any guarantee of quality education or healthcare because you're nothing but the property of your parents!" I'm not seeing the part where someone besides parents should get to mold their children? Why would the government get to choose what philosophies and value systems are appropriate? It's not a matter of other people "molding" children, but a matter of children having the right to quality education. We already take it as a given that all people have a right to a certain level of education, and yet somehow American society thinks that it's O.K. for a parent to deny their child that standard of education because it's what "they want to teach their kids and they get to because it's THEIR kid". When you do things like withhold your child from school and teach them that (for example) evolution isn't real and the Earth is 6,000 years old, you are not only 1) teaching them something demonstrably false, but 2) shaping their thinking in a limited manner so that they lack certain critical thinking tools when they're adults. Would you say that someone who has full time 1 on 1 or 2 on 1 instruction for their child is denying their child a quality education? That's what home schoolers are getting. Their outcomes are the same or better than their public school peers. Someone not believing in evolution isn't going to destroy their critical thinking. And if it did? Still not the government's business at all. Sources on home schooler outcomes? Would be interesting to see the statistics. Is there even criteria for home schooling? Or can any parent do it regardless of their own educational background/skills do it. For starters
AnotherAnd anotherIf you need more just google. It's a not-so well known fact. There is an incredible amount of ignorance related to homeschooling, most of which are old notions of "homeschoolers aren't socialized" or "somehow since a kid doesn't spend all day in class with geniuses his own age he will never know how to think critically". Just think about what you are saying and you will realize how truly dumb it sounds. Besides, if socialization is a pregnant 13 year old, I'm glad my kids are missing out on it.
Your sources seem to me like they show a bit of a mixed bag when it comes to home schooling. Aside from that, those mostly show results using standardized tests, which have nothing to do with critical thinking skills so the point someone made about underdeveloped critical thinking skills and the possibility of being restricted to a smaller range of ideas hasn't exactly been refuted. Besides you seem to have a rather pessimistic view of non home schooling environments.
|
On January 30 2015 15:51 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 15:44 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:25 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 13:18 IgnE wrote:
Is measles really that bad though guys? depends, is blindness and death a bad thing? And with modern medicine, this ranks about as likely as winning the lottery. Twice. One the same day. Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. obviously for a majority of cases it never gets that extreme, but that's still realistic possibility, even the most deadly outbreaks still has fairly relative "high" survival rate, but prevention is a lot easier than dealing with outbreak.
But with modern medicine "prevention" by vaccine carries a similar danger risk as contracting the disease itself. Both are low, but I am failing to see the case for vaccines in a society with a properly functioning healthcare field. This scare mongering about old folks and immune-compromised individuals is simply a fallacy. You could use the same argument to say we should quarantine anyone with the sniffles because immune-compromised individuals might be hurt if they catch the cold/flu/runny nose/etc.
It may be a tough transition, but with the safety net that modern medical treatments provide, it would be best to let everyone run the risk of contracting measles when they are young and healthy to provide the long lasting immunity that natural immunity provides, rather than this junk immunity pushed by "experts".
|
On January 30 2015 15:57 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 15:51 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 15:44 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:25 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 13:18 IgnE wrote:
Is measles really that bad though guys? depends, is blindness and death a bad thing? And with modern medicine, this ranks about as likely as winning the lottery. Twice. One the same day. Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. obviously for a majority of cases it never gets that extreme, but that's still realistic possibility, even the most deadly outbreaks still has fairly relative "high" survival rate, but prevention is a lot easier than dealing with outbreak. But with modern medicine "prevention" by vaccine carries a similar danger risk as contracting the disease itself. Both are low, but I am failing to see the case for vaccines in a society with a properly functioning healthcare field. This scare mongering about old folks and immune-compromised individuals is simply a fallacy. You could use the same argument to say we should quarantine anyone with the sniffles because immune-compromised individuals might be hurt if they catch the cold/flu/runny nose/etc. It may be a tough transition, but with the safety net that modern medical treatments provide, it would be best to let everyone run the risk of contracting measles when they are young and healthy to provide the long lasting immunity that natural immunity provides, rather than this junk immunity pushed by "experts".
http://violentmetaphors.com/2014/03/25/parents-you-are-being-lied-to/
|
On January 30 2015 15:53 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 15:40 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:04 Slaughter wrote:On January 30 2015 14:10 Bigtony wrote:On January 30 2015 13:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2015 12:41 Bigtony wrote:On January 30 2015 06:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2015 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I feel the huge acceptance for these things also has to do with the US free speech culture that has turned facts into matters of opinion. Like when young earth creationists are actually taken serious enough that people are going to debate them over two hours as if the matter wasn't already settled a long time ago. The fact that there is very little communication between religion and public institutions in the US ironically seems to produce way more radical forms of belief. Another huge problem is that children are generally seen as property in our society. The general line for any topic is, "They're MY kids and I can do whatever I want with them!" This comes up with education (home schooling), healthcare (vaccinations), and many other situations. Parents see children as their property to mold into whatever they wish and no one sees children as actually having the right to quality healthcare, education, etc. The only time children have rights that protect them from their parents' decisions are (supposedly) when they're still a fetus and haven't been born yet. "Crossed that barrier and are now an autonomous human being? Nope! You don't get any guarantee of quality education or healthcare because you're nothing but the property of your parents!" I'm not seeing the part where someone besides parents should get to mold their children? Why would the government get to choose what philosophies and value systems are appropriate? It's not a matter of other people "molding" children, but a matter of children having the right to quality education. We already take it as a given that all people have a right to a certain level of education, and yet somehow American society thinks that it's O.K. for a parent to deny their child that standard of education because it's what "they want to teach their kids and they get to because it's THEIR kid". When you do things like withhold your child from school and teach them that (for example) evolution isn't real and the Earth is 6,000 years old, you are not only 1) teaching them something demonstrably false, but 2) shaping their thinking in a limited manner so that they lack certain critical thinking tools when they're adults. Would you say that someone who has full time 1 on 1 or 2 on 1 instruction for their child is denying their child a quality education? That's what home schoolers are getting. Their outcomes are the same or better than their public school peers. Someone not believing in evolution isn't going to destroy their critical thinking. And if it did? Still not the government's business at all. Sources on home schooler outcomes? Would be interesting to see the statistics. Is there even criteria for home schooling? Or can any parent do it regardless of their own educational background/skills do it. For starters
AnotherAnd anotherIf you need more just google. It's a not-so well known fact. There is an incredible amount of ignorance related to homeschooling, most of which are old notions of "homeschoolers aren't socialized" or "somehow since a kid doesn't spend all day in class with geniuses his own age he will never know how to think critically". Just think about what you are saying and you will realize how truly dumb it sounds. Besides, if socialization is a pregnant 13 year old, I'm glad my kids are missing out on it. Your sources seem to me like they show a bit of a mixed bag when it comes to home schooling. Aside from that, those mostly show results using standardized tests, which have nothing to do with critical thinking skills so the point someone made about underdeveloped critical thinking skills and the possibility of being restricted to a smaller range of ideas hasn't exactly been refuted. Besides you seem to have a rather pessimistic view of non home schooling environments.
Well it's to emphasize your rather pessimistic view on home-schooled environments. The results aren't mixed. It is pretty decisive.
Not sure how you go about measuring critical thinking skills. And the children are restricted to what they are taught, the same as a public school child is. Most of my fellow homeschool parents make it a point to prepare their children for the wider world, we just introduce topics at an age appropriate level, rather than letting someone else, that doesn't know our children's maturity level or learning style, decide they know what is best. Ultimately there will be some that provide a very narrow education to their children, but even the worst case of homeschooling doesn't seem to add up to the worst case outcome of public schooling.
On a purely unbiased level, kids are kids. Some are smart, some are not. I have seen homeschooled kids that act like they were locked in a closet all of their life, and I have seen public school kids that can barely function in public and can't hold an intelligent conversation even if their life depended on it. Just as I have seen really smart kids come out of homeschool, and really smart kids come out of public school. But the simple truth is that taken as an aggregate whole, homeschoolers perform better on most any objective measurement of academic performance.
|
On January 30 2015 15:59 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 15:57 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:51 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 15:44 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:25 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 13:18 IgnE wrote:
Is measles really that bad though guys? depends, is blindness and death a bad thing? And with modern medicine, this ranks about as likely as winning the lottery. Twice. One the same day. Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. obviously for a majority of cases it never gets that extreme, but that's still realistic possibility, even the most deadly outbreaks still has fairly relative "high" survival rate, but prevention is a lot easier than dealing with outbreak. But with modern medicine "prevention" by vaccine carries a similar danger risk as contracting the disease itself. Both are low, but I am failing to see the case for vaccines in a society with a properly functioning healthcare field. This scare mongering about old folks and immune-compromised individuals is simply a fallacy. You could use the same argument to say we should quarantine anyone with the sniffles because immune-compromised individuals might be hurt if they catch the cold/flu/runny nose/etc. It may be a tough transition, but with the safety net that modern medical treatments provide, it would be best to let everyone run the risk of contracting measles when they are young and healthy to provide the long lasting immunity that natural immunity provides, rather than this junk immunity pushed by "experts". http://violentmetaphors.com/2014/03/25/parents-you-are-being-lied-to/
Ok, let me know if any of that contradicts what I said. Because I read it, and it didn't. In fact it agreed in most places. It just uses a healthy dose of scare mongering to paint the picture it wants people to see.
Just look at the underlying data behind the statistics. The issue is that certain socio-economic class of people are much more prone to being susceptible to these disease and bad side effects. But at the end of the day, I don't think the measles is the number one concern for some kid growing up in public housing with rat feces on the floor of their bedroom.
|
Well no one really takes standardized tests seriously when measuring academic achievement for one, two the group that scored the lowest were also homeschoolers and three I don't know where you got this idea that I have a pessimistic view on home schooling.
Its fine if its done the right way, which is why I asked if there were any standards or oversight for it. My point wasn't to stereotype the whole group but to point out the potential for it to have adverse effects on the child by restricting their world view to the point that they are simple carbon copies of their parents ideologically because they haven't been taught anything else. Again I never said this was the norm in home schooling situations.
On January 30 2015 16:05 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 15:59 Slaughter wrote:On January 30 2015 15:57 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:51 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 15:44 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:25 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 13:18 IgnE wrote:
Is measles really that bad though guys? depends, is blindness and death a bad thing? And with modern medicine, this ranks about as likely as winning the lottery. Twice. One the same day. Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. obviously for a majority of cases it never gets that extreme, but that's still realistic possibility, even the most deadly outbreaks still has fairly relative "high" survival rate, but prevention is a lot easier than dealing with outbreak. But with modern medicine "prevention" by vaccine carries a similar danger risk as contracting the disease itself. Both are low, but I am failing to see the case for vaccines in a society with a properly functioning healthcare field. This scare mongering about old folks and immune-compromised individuals is simply a fallacy. You could use the same argument to say we should quarantine anyone with the sniffles because immune-compromised individuals might be hurt if they catch the cold/flu/runny nose/etc. It may be a tough transition, but with the safety net that modern medical treatments provide, it would be best to let everyone run the risk of contracting measles when they are young and healthy to provide the long lasting immunity that natural immunity provides, rather than this junk immunity pushed by "experts". http://violentmetaphors.com/2014/03/25/parents-you-are-being-lied-to/ Ok, let me know if any of that contradicts what I said. Because I read it, and it didn't. In fact it agreed in most places. It just uses a healthy dose of scare mongering to paint the picture it wants people to see. Just look at the underlying data behind the statistics. The issue is that certain socio-economic class of people are much more prone to being susceptible to these disease and bad side effects. But at the end of the day, I don't think the measles is the number one concern for some kid growing up in public housing with rat feces on the floor of their bedroom.
The article links to studies that refute your point out that vaccines carry similar risks to contracting the diseases themselves. Vaccines are safe and should be administered, if you think that the article linked above is "fear mongering" then its obvious that you probably won't change your mind anyway. There have already been incidents where outbreaks that have caused deaths have been traced back to someone who wasn't vaccinated (the whole Disney thing going on now?). The numbers are lower now but if more and more people stop vaccinating then the deaths will rise.
|
On January 30 2015 16:11 Slaughter wrote:
Well no one really takes standardized tests seriously when measuring academic achievement for one, two the group that scored the lowest were also homeschoolers and three I don't know where you got this idea that I have a pessimistic view on home schooling.
Its fine if its done the right way, which is why I asked if there were any standards or oversight for it. My point wasn't to stereotype the whole group but to point out the potential for it to have adverse effects on the child by restricting their world view to the point that they are simple carbon copies of their parents ideologically because they haven't been taught anything else. Again I never said this was the norm in home schooling situations.
Every college out there takes standardized testing seriously. Sure it's not the only factor on admissions, but to deny it's taken seriously is ludicrous.
To answer your other question, each state has their own standards and guidelines for homeschooling. Some are more strict and some are more lenient. As far as I know, there hasn't even been a correlation shown between the state laws governing homeschooling and actual outcomes vis-à-vis testing.
I more fear that kids are being minted out carbon copies of whatever their teacher or professor tells them, belying the need for critical thinking because "all of the experts say it must be so"! It must be remembered that science usually only ever advances because someone bucks the prevailing wisdom and rows against the current.
|
They see standardized testing as a filter, nothing more; sure as hell isn't seen as something that actually measures future student success.
Students are taught generally to think and to do their research. In science you don't take what someone says at face value, you look at the evidence, the data, their methodology, etc before you agree with their position.
|
On January 30 2015 16:17 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 16:11 Slaughter wrote:
Well no one really takes standardized tests seriously when measuring academic achievement for one, two the group that scored the lowest were also homeschoolers and three I don't know where you got this idea that I have a pessimistic view on home schooling.
Its fine if its done the right way, which is why I asked if there were any standards or oversight for it. My point wasn't to stereotype the whole group but to point out the potential for it to have adverse effects on the child by restricting their world view to the point that they are simple carbon copies of their parents ideologically because they haven't been taught anything else. Again I never said this was the norm in home schooling situations. Every college out there takes standardized testing seriously. Sure it's not the only factor on admissions, but to deny it's taken seriously is ludicrous. To answer your other question, each state has their own standards and guidelines for homeschooling. Some are more strict and some are more lenient. As far as I know, there hasn't even been a correlation shown between the state laws governing homeschooling and actual outcomes vis-à-vis testing. I more fear that kids are being minted out carbon copies of whatever their teacher or professor tells them, belying the need for critical thinking because "all of the experts say it must be so"! It must be remembered that science usually only ever advances because someone bucks the prevailing wisdom and rows against the current.
I hate when people say this shit because it ignores the biggest caveat of having burden of proof.
|
On January 30 2015 16:11 Slaughter wrote:Well no one really takes standardized tests seriously when measuring academic achievement for one, two the group that scored the lowest were also homeschoolers and three I don't know where you got this idea that I have a pessimistic view on home schooling. Its fine if its done the right way, which is why I asked if there were any standards or oversight for it. My point wasn't to stereotype the whole group but to point out the potential for it to have adverse effects on the child by restricting their world view to the point that they are simple carbon copies of their parents ideologically because they haven't been taught anything else. Again I never said this was the norm in home schooling situations. Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 16:05 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:59 Slaughter wrote:On January 30 2015 15:57 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:51 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 15:44 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:25 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 13:18 IgnE wrote:
Is measles really that bad though guys? depends, is blindness and death a bad thing? And with modern medicine, this ranks about as likely as winning the lottery. Twice. One the same day. Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. obviously for a majority of cases it never gets that extreme, but that's still realistic possibility, even the most deadly outbreaks still has fairly relative "high" survival rate, but prevention is a lot easier than dealing with outbreak. But with modern medicine "prevention" by vaccine carries a similar danger risk as contracting the disease itself. Both are low, but I am failing to see the case for vaccines in a society with a properly functioning healthcare field. This scare mongering about old folks and immune-compromised individuals is simply a fallacy. You could use the same argument to say we should quarantine anyone with the sniffles because immune-compromised individuals might be hurt if they catch the cold/flu/runny nose/etc. It may be a tough transition, but with the safety net that modern medical treatments provide, it would be best to let everyone run the risk of contracting measles when they are young and healthy to provide the long lasting immunity that natural immunity provides, rather than this junk immunity pushed by "experts". http://violentmetaphors.com/2014/03/25/parents-you-are-being-lied-to/ Ok, let me know if any of that contradicts what I said. Because I read it, and it didn't. In fact it agreed in most places. It just uses a healthy dose of scare mongering to paint the picture it wants people to see. Just look at the underlying data behind the statistics. The issue is that certain socio-economic class of people are much more prone to being susceptible to these disease and bad side effects. But at the end of the day, I don't think the measles is the number one concern for some kid growing up in public housing with rat feces on the floor of their bedroom. The article links to studies that refute your point out that vaccines carry similar risks to contracting the diseases themselves. Vaccines are safe and should be administered, if you think that the article linked above is "fear mongering" then its obvious that you probably won't change your mind anyway. There have already been incidents where outbreaks that have caused deaths have been traced back to someone who wasn't vaccinated (the whole Disney thing going on now?). The numbers are lower now but if more and more people stop vaccinating then the deaths will rise.
The numbers are miniscule in either case, and we certain do not mandate medical treatment in other areas of life based on such small probabilities. In no other area of medicine do we mandate that someone take a drug for the benefit of someone else.
The absolute numbers involved are so low in terms of total population as to be next to irrelevant. This measles outbreak is more media scare mongering to prop up big Pharma than anything else. After all, they would have a hard time meeting their payroll without all of the Viagra commercials now wouldn't they...
|
On January 30 2015 16:23 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 16:17 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 16:11 Slaughter wrote:
Well no one really takes standardized tests seriously when measuring academic achievement for one, two the group that scored the lowest were also homeschoolers and three I don't know where you got this idea that I have a pessimistic view on home schooling.
Its fine if its done the right way, which is why I asked if there were any standards or oversight for it. My point wasn't to stereotype the whole group but to point out the potential for it to have adverse effects on the child by restricting their world view to the point that they are simple carbon copies of their parents ideologically because they haven't been taught anything else. Again I never said this was the norm in home schooling situations. Every college out there takes standardized testing seriously. Sure it's not the only factor on admissions, but to deny it's taken seriously is ludicrous. To answer your other question, each state has their own standards and guidelines for homeschooling. Some are more strict and some are more lenient. As far as I know, there hasn't even been a correlation shown between the state laws governing homeschooling and actual outcomes vis-à-vis testing. I more fear that kids are being minted out carbon copies of whatever their teacher or professor tells them, belying the need for critical thinking because "all of the experts say it must be so"! It must be remembered that science usually only ever advances because someone bucks the prevailing wisdom and rows against the current. I hate when people say this shit because it ignores the biggest caveat of having burden of proof.
So you are saying that my statement is factually incorrect? You have to remember that we live in a small microcosm of time. Things in dispute today may not be settled for a hundred years. It may be settled your way or mine, but it would be foolish to declare any matter as settled science would it not? After all, even Newton's laws have been tweaked as time as went on...
|
On January 30 2015 16:25 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 16:11 Slaughter wrote:Well no one really takes standardized tests seriously when measuring academic achievement for one, two the group that scored the lowest were also homeschoolers and three I don't know where you got this idea that I have a pessimistic view on home schooling. Its fine if its done the right way, which is why I asked if there were any standards or oversight for it. My point wasn't to stereotype the whole group but to point out the potential for it to have adverse effects on the child by restricting their world view to the point that they are simple carbon copies of their parents ideologically because they haven't been taught anything else. Again I never said this was the norm in home schooling situations. On January 30 2015 16:05 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:59 Slaughter wrote:On January 30 2015 15:57 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:51 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 15:44 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:25 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 13:18 IgnE wrote:
Is measles really that bad though guys? depends, is blindness and death a bad thing? And with modern medicine, this ranks about as likely as winning the lottery. Twice. One the same day. Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. obviously for a majority of cases it never gets that extreme, but that's still realistic possibility, even the most deadly outbreaks still has fairly relative "high" survival rate, but prevention is a lot easier than dealing with outbreak. But with modern medicine "prevention" by vaccine carries a similar danger risk as contracting the disease itself. Both are low, but I am failing to see the case for vaccines in a society with a properly functioning healthcare field. This scare mongering about old folks and immune-compromised individuals is simply a fallacy. You could use the same argument to say we should quarantine anyone with the sniffles because immune-compromised individuals might be hurt if they catch the cold/flu/runny nose/etc. It may be a tough transition, but with the safety net that modern medical treatments provide, it would be best to let everyone run the risk of contracting measles when they are young and healthy to provide the long lasting immunity that natural immunity provides, rather than this junk immunity pushed by "experts". http://violentmetaphors.com/2014/03/25/parents-you-are-being-lied-to/ Ok, let me know if any of that contradicts what I said. Because I read it, and it didn't. In fact it agreed in most places. It just uses a healthy dose of scare mongering to paint the picture it wants people to see. Just look at the underlying data behind the statistics. The issue is that certain socio-economic class of people are much more prone to being susceptible to these disease and bad side effects. But at the end of the day, I don't think the measles is the number one concern for some kid growing up in public housing with rat feces on the floor of their bedroom. The article links to studies that refute your point out that vaccines carry similar risks to contracting the diseases themselves. Vaccines are safe and should be administered, if you think that the article linked above is "fear mongering" then its obvious that you probably won't change your mind anyway. There have already been incidents where outbreaks that have caused deaths have been traced back to someone who wasn't vaccinated (the whole Disney thing going on now?). The numbers are lower now but if more and more people stop vaccinating then the deaths will rise. The numbers are miniscule in either case, and we certain do not mandate medical treatment in other areas of life based on such small probabilities. In no other area of medicine do we mandate that someone take a drug for the benefit of someone else. The absolute numbers involved are so low in terms of total population as to be next to irrelevant. This measles outbreak is more media scare mongering to prop up big Pharma than anything else. After all, they would have a hard time meeting their payroll without all of the Viagra commercials now wouldn't they...
Ok so your dismissing the small numbers of deaths that are happening now....Like I said before, what happens when more and more people stop vaccinating at these "irrelevant" deaths skyrocket? Is it ok then to vaccinate?
|
On January 30 2015 16:27 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 16:25 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 16:11 Slaughter wrote:Well no one really takes standardized tests seriously when measuring academic achievement for one, two the group that scored the lowest were also homeschoolers and three I don't know where you got this idea that I have a pessimistic view on home schooling. Its fine if its done the right way, which is why I asked if there were any standards or oversight for it. My point wasn't to stereotype the whole group but to point out the potential for it to have adverse effects on the child by restricting their world view to the point that they are simple carbon copies of their parents ideologically because they haven't been taught anything else. Again I never said this was the norm in home schooling situations. On January 30 2015 16:05 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:59 Slaughter wrote:On January 30 2015 15:57 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:51 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 15:44 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:25 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 13:18 IgnE wrote:
Is measles really that bad though guys? depends, is blindness and death a bad thing? And with modern medicine, this ranks about as likely as winning the lottery. Twice. One the same day. Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. obviously for a majority of cases it never gets that extreme, but that's still realistic possibility, even the most deadly outbreaks still has fairly relative "high" survival rate, but prevention is a lot easier than dealing with outbreak. But with modern medicine "prevention" by vaccine carries a similar danger risk as contracting the disease itself. Both are low, but I am failing to see the case for vaccines in a society with a properly functioning healthcare field. This scare mongering about old folks and immune-compromised individuals is simply a fallacy. You could use the same argument to say we should quarantine anyone with the sniffles because immune-compromised individuals might be hurt if they catch the cold/flu/runny nose/etc. It may be a tough transition, but with the safety net that modern medical treatments provide, it would be best to let everyone run the risk of contracting measles when they are young and healthy to provide the long lasting immunity that natural immunity provides, rather than this junk immunity pushed by "experts". http://violentmetaphors.com/2014/03/25/parents-you-are-being-lied-to/ Ok, let me know if any of that contradicts what I said. Because I read it, and it didn't. In fact it agreed in most places. It just uses a healthy dose of scare mongering to paint the picture it wants people to see. Just look at the underlying data behind the statistics. The issue is that certain socio-economic class of people are much more prone to being susceptible to these disease and bad side effects. But at the end of the day, I don't think the measles is the number one concern for some kid growing up in public housing with rat feces on the floor of their bedroom. The article links to studies that refute your point out that vaccines carry similar risks to contracting the diseases themselves. Vaccines are safe and should be administered, if you think that the article linked above is "fear mongering" then its obvious that you probably won't change your mind anyway. There have already been incidents where outbreaks that have caused deaths have been traced back to someone who wasn't vaccinated (the whole Disney thing going on now?). The numbers are lower now but if more and more people stop vaccinating then the deaths will rise. The numbers are miniscule in either case, and we certain do not mandate medical treatment in other areas of life based on such small probabilities. In no other area of medicine do we mandate that someone take a drug for the benefit of someone else. The absolute numbers involved are so low in terms of total population as to be next to irrelevant. This measles outbreak is more media scare mongering to prop up big Pharma than anything else. After all, they would have a hard time meeting their payroll without all of the Viagra commercials now wouldn't they... Ok so your dismissing the small numbers of deaths that are happening now....Like I said before, what happens when more and more people stop vaccinating at these "irrelevant" deaths skyrocket? Is it ok then to vaccinate?
I am not dismissing them, anymore than the media dismisses death by neglect that happens every day, or black on black gun violence.
Again, study the underlying statistics and demographics of who dies from these diseases. as with everything else, this needs to be taken in the appropriate context. Even if 1000 people died of a mysterious disease, I would not advocate everyone taking pills with documented side effects to prevent it, unless they were part of the small subsection of the population that made up the vast majority of the 1000 deaths.
I'm out for the night, I'll pick this up later if you still want to ride the ride.
|
On January 30 2015 16:22 Slaughter wrote:
They see standardized testing as a filter, nothing more; sure as hell isn't seen as something that actually measures future student success.
Students are taught generally to think and to do their research. In science you don't take what someone says at face value, you look at the evidence, the data, their methodology, etc before you agree with their position.
They see it as a measure of student performance, call it a filter or any other name. And until a better way is constructed to measure academic performance, we go with what we have. If you have a better way to measure it, I am all ears. Measuring future performance is a crap shoot with any student. Just like the stock market, past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future success.
I think you have a very optimistic notion of what kids are taught in public school. I think everyone agrees with the scientific method, but I work in finance for a living. I know as well as anyone that you can make the data tell several different stories depending on what you want it to say. To say that scientists, professors, or teachers are somehow immune to personal beliefs affecting judgment or class material is naïve at the very least.
|
On January 30 2015 16:37 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 16:22 Slaughter wrote:
They see standardized testing as a filter, nothing more; sure as hell isn't seen as something that actually measures future student success.
Students are taught generally to think and to do their research. In science you don't take what someone says at face value, you look at the evidence, the data, their methodology, etc before you agree with their position. They see it as a measure of student performance, call it a filter or any other name. And until a better way is constructed to measure academic performance, we go with what we have. If you have a better way to measure it, I am all ears. Measuring future performance is a crap shoot with any student. Just like the stock market, past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future success. I think you have a very optimistic notion of what kids are taught in public school. I think everyone agrees with the scientific method, but I work in finance for a living. I know as well as anyone that you can make the data tell several different stories depending on what you want it to say. To say that scientists, professors, or teachers are somehow immune to personal beliefs affecting judgment or class material is naïve at the very least.
No I do not have an optimistic notion of kids in public school. I have college freshmen every semester who clearly were not prepared correctly for college. Like I mentioned in a previous post there was a kid this week who was surprised that DNA was in living things other than humans. As for the standardized tests and measuring future student success, there are better measures out there but its a simple matter of time and the very large number of students applying every year.
As for scientists being affected by their personal beliefs, of course they are. There has been mountains of literature devoted to that and one of the main thrusts of the whole post-modernist movement years ago was a critique of that very thing. Plus while as you say you can manipulate data, but in science you have all your peers looking over your work and calling bullshit if you did shenanigans.
|
On January 30 2015 15:57 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 15:51 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 15:44 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:25 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 13:18 IgnE wrote:
Is measles really that bad though guys? depends, is blindness and death a bad thing? And with modern medicine, this ranks about as likely as winning the lottery. Twice. One the same day. Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. obviously for a majority of cases it never gets that extreme, but that's still realistic possibility, even the most deadly outbreaks still has fairly relative "high" survival rate, but prevention is a lot easier than dealing with outbreak. But with modern medicine "prevention" by vaccine carries a similar danger risk as contracting the disease itself. Both are low, but I am failing to see the case for vaccines in a society with a properly functioning healthcare field. This scare mongering about old folks and immune-compromised individuals is simply a fallacy. You could use the same argument to say we should quarantine anyone with the sniffles because immune-compromised individuals might be hurt if they catch the cold/flu/runny nose/etc. It may be a tough transition, but with the safety net that modern medical treatments provide, it would be best to let everyone run the risk of contracting measles when they are young and healthy to provide the long lasting immunity that natural immunity provides, rather than this junk immunity pushed by "experts".
Junk immunity?
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/measels.PNG)
Source
Cases of the measles plummeted towards zero after vaccination. It works, the data doesn't lie.
It's also rare to be harmed by vaccination. Moreover, waiting to treat someone after they contract a disease can have side-effects as well and tends to be more expensive.
Edit: Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program.
This sounds contradictory. Natural immunity is the way to go - but wait - prevention via hygiene is the way to go? I'm not sure how it makes sense for you to advocate both. It's either good for people to get the disease and gain immunity (chicken pox) or you actively try to prevent ever getting it.
|
|
|
You know I hear a lot about how people are tired of the "everyone gets a trophy" and "don't tell them they suck" type society some think we have become, but I don't hear enough of that from those same people about "opinions".
I feel like too many opinions get too many trophies. Bad/failed ideas need to be called out and recognized for what they are and the people who cling to incorrect information should be shamed and shunned until they change their minds or learn to keep those wrong ideas to themselves and the circles who agree with them. No different than what people are advocating on the sports field (Bad ideas/information would be like poor performance).
|
On January 30 2015 15:45 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 05:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Americans are a special kind of stupid.
Our culture is extremely anti-intellectual and we have (relatively) huge parts of our population that are anti-science...
Because the rest of the world is so different. GMOs and witch doctors say hi.
nobody is against researching GMOs. It's just if you give me the choice between GMO food and non GMO/organic food I will choose the latter. if the market is flooded with cheap GMOs where only a few companies have the patents and shit - no thank you. I won't have my choice limited that way. and I am not the only one.
in all likelihood, with all the climate change GMOs will become only more relevant anyway.
and bringin in voodoo doctors is hilarious ^^
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
these last couple pages is like one of those old disney cartoon westerns. town vs criminals vs indians with benny hill music.
and yes these euros arguing against gmo are the indians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
