|
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 February 05 2015 09:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:27 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2015 07:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know where the hyperbole accusation comes from because that's quite literally what has happened, and I think don't think what he does qualifies as normal behaviour but maybe that's just me I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted. Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion. Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly! The most illuminating thing about the vaccine debacle is how republicans not only rely on knee-jerk anti-government thoughts, but they will go so far as to defend them without even really thinking about what it means. It's just a matter of less government, no matter what. I'll be honest, I fuckin love it lol. The vaccine debate is a perfect example of a situation where the very nature of a real world phenomena, that being disease and how it spreads, runs up against an ideological attachment to individualism. In a very general sense, weighing the right of a parent to not vaccinate their child against the right of the people that said child come into contact with to not worry about virulent disease provides the public with a clear litmus test for determining the quality of a candidate. To make matters even better, that's only one of two very strong arguments in favor of vaccination. The other, that being the right of a child to a certain baseline health and life quality regardless of parentage, speaks for itself. When did that happen? When republicans spoke in favor of a parent's right to choose if their child is vaccinated, regardless of what the CDC thinks. Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 09:52 coverpunch wrote:On February 05 2015 09:27 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2015 07:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know where the hyperbole accusation comes from because that's quite literally what has happened, and I think don't think what he does qualifies as normal behaviour but maybe that's just me I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted. Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion. Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly! The most illuminating thing about the vaccine debacle is how republicans not only rely on knee-jerk anti-government thoughts, but they will go so far as to defend them without even really thinking about what it means. It's just a matter of less government, no matter what. I'll be honest, I fuckin love it lol. The vaccine debate is a perfect example of a situation where the very nature of a real world phenomena, that being disease and how it spreads, runs up against an ideological attachment to individualism. In a very general sense, weighing the right of a parent to not vaccinate their child against the right of the people that said child come into contact with to not worry about virulent disease provides the public with a clear litmus test for determining the quality of a candidate. To make matters even better, that's only one of two very strong arguments in favor of vaccination. The other, that being the right of a child to a certain baseline health and life quality regardless of parentage, speaks for itself. Sorry to get in the way of a good circle jerk, but your framing of the issue is not consistent with the statements. This isn't an issue of individual choice to not vaccinate vs the collective right to safety against that communicable disease. Paul's primary example with his own children was that he felt uncomfortable with the standard vaccination schedule and wanted it done differently, with some vaccinations delayed and spread out. He never took a position against vaccination as a whole, in fact he praised it. But he tried to frame it as a question of medical bureaucratic standards vs individual choice to do things differently. It seems he doesn't like doctors and bureaucrats telling him what's best for him, which is one of those things that publicly nobody agrees with but lots of people ignore their doctor's advice. It's interesting because he's supposed to be a doctor himself, but maybe he's just living the adage that doctors make the worst patients. It was still a dumb place to make a stand for libertarian attitudes, but the framing is different from what you're saying. Also, this isn't ruining "Republicans", just Rand Paul. Nobody is talking about Chris Christie any more. The point is that medical bureaucratic standards are established as a result of science and statistics. They are the most correct perspective that exists. A parent choosing anything else is a decision to be less correct for the sake of some silly idea of freedom.
Hm, and yet America's vaccination schedule is different those of other countries like Canada and Australia. Are they doing science wrong or are we?
|
On February 05 2015 10:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 10:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:02 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:27 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion.
Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly! The most illuminating thing about the vaccine debacle is how republicans not only rely on knee-jerk anti-government thoughts, but they will go so far as to defend them without even really thinking about what it means. It's just a matter of less government, no matter what. I'll be honest, I fuckin love it lol. The vaccine debate is a perfect example of a situation where the very nature of a real world phenomena, that being disease and how it spreads, runs up against an ideological attachment to individualism. In a very general sense, weighing the right of a parent to not vaccinate their child against the right of the people that said child come into contact with to not worry about virulent disease provides the public with a clear litmus test for determining the quality of a candidate. To make matters even better, that's only one of two very strong arguments in favor of vaccination. The other, that being the right of a child to a certain baseline health and life quality regardless of parentage, speaks for itself. When did that happen? When republicans spoke in favor of a parent's right to choose if their child is vaccinated, regardless of what the CDC thinks. That's not correct. Parent's rights are not a biological mechanism for spreading disease. A parent's right to choose not to vaccinate their child provides a biological mechanism for disease to spread. Do you disagree? Depends if they use that right or not. I suppose I made the massively misguided assumption that a right is defended so that it could be used. It's OK, no one is perfect.
Can you elaborate on why a right would be defended without it being intended to be used?
|
On February 05 2015 10:16 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 09:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:27 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2015 07:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know where the hyperbole accusation comes from because that's quite literally what has happened, and I think don't think what he does qualifies as normal behaviour but maybe that's just me I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted. Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion. Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly! The most illuminating thing about the vaccine debacle is how republicans not only rely on knee-jerk anti-government thoughts, but they will go so far as to defend them without even really thinking about what it means. It's just a matter of less government, no matter what. I'll be honest, I fuckin love it lol. The vaccine debate is a perfect example of a situation where the very nature of a real world phenomena, that being disease and how it spreads, runs up against an ideological attachment to individualism. In a very general sense, weighing the right of a parent to not vaccinate their child against the right of the people that said child come into contact with to not worry about virulent disease provides the public with a clear litmus test for determining the quality of a candidate. To make matters even better, that's only one of two very strong arguments in favor of vaccination. The other, that being the right of a child to a certain baseline health and life quality regardless of parentage, speaks for itself. When did that happen? When republicans spoke in favor of a parent's right to choose if their child is vaccinated, regardless of what the CDC thinks. On February 05 2015 09:52 coverpunch wrote:On February 05 2015 09:27 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2015 07:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know where the hyperbole accusation comes from because that's quite literally what has happened, and I think don't think what he does qualifies as normal behaviour but maybe that's just me I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted. Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion. Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly! The most illuminating thing about the vaccine debacle is how republicans not only rely on knee-jerk anti-government thoughts, but they will go so far as to defend them without even really thinking about what it means. It's just a matter of less government, no matter what. I'll be honest, I fuckin love it lol. The vaccine debate is a perfect example of a situation where the very nature of a real world phenomena, that being disease and how it spreads, runs up against an ideological attachment to individualism. In a very general sense, weighing the right of a parent to not vaccinate their child against the right of the people that said child come into contact with to not worry about virulent disease provides the public with a clear litmus test for determining the quality of a candidate. To make matters even better, that's only one of two very strong arguments in favor of vaccination. The other, that being the right of a child to a certain baseline health and life quality regardless of parentage, speaks for itself. Sorry to get in the way of a good circle jerk, but your framing of the issue is not consistent with the statements. This isn't an issue of individual choice to not vaccinate vs the collective right to safety against that communicable disease. Paul's primary example with his own children was that he felt uncomfortable with the standard vaccination schedule and wanted it done differently, with some vaccinations delayed and spread out. He never took a position against vaccination as a whole, in fact he praised it. But he tried to frame it as a question of medical bureaucratic standards vs individual choice to do things differently. It seems he doesn't like doctors and bureaucrats telling him what's best for him, which is one of those things that publicly nobody agrees with but lots of people ignore their doctor's advice. It's interesting because he's supposed to be a doctor himself, but maybe he's just living the adage that doctors make the worst patients. It was still a dumb place to make a stand for libertarian attitudes, but the framing is different from what you're saying. Also, this isn't ruining "Republicans", just Rand Paul. Nobody is talking about Chris Christie any more. The point is that medical bureaucratic standards are established as a result of science and statistics. They are the most correct perspective that exists. A parent choosing anything else is a decision to be less correct for the sake of some silly idea of freedom. Hm, and yet America's vaccination schedule is different those of other countries like Canada and Australia. Are they doing science wrong or are we?
Ahh yes, let's just pretend that the majority of people vociferously protesting as to their right to not vaccinate their child are doing so because they merely want to follow the Canadian or Australian schedules. This isn't just about the waffle house words of Rand Paul, who may very well have a reasonable view underneath the heavy dress of election-minded fence dancing, it's also about the mere fact that this is something that even needs to be debated. Public health is a real thing, believe it or not, and the reemergence of Measles as an epidemiological threat ought not prompt strange statements on the part of Republican White House hopefuls who, in their clearly spoken ambivalence, do not know enough about how public health administration actually works to speak intelligently on the subject. Reverting to this "I'm a parent first" bullshit is base populism at its worst, and though it most certainly works among certain demographics, both Democrat and Republican, one can hope that the basis with which we consider the role of vaccination in a society includes more than the knowledge of parents as an authority on the subject.
|
On February 05 2015 10:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 10:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:02 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:27 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
The most illuminating thing about the vaccine debacle is how republicans not only rely on knee-jerk anti-government thoughts, but they will go so far as to defend them without even really thinking about what it means. It's just a matter of less government, no matter what. I'll be honest, I fuckin love it lol. The vaccine debate is a perfect example of a situation where the very nature of a real world phenomena, that being disease and how it spreads, runs up against an ideological attachment to individualism. In a very general sense, weighing the right of a parent to not vaccinate their child against the right of the people that said child come into contact with to not worry about virulent disease provides the public with a clear litmus test for determining the quality of a candidate. To make matters even better, that's only one of two very strong arguments in favor of vaccination. The other, that being the right of a child to a certain baseline health and life quality regardless of parentage, speaks for itself. When did that happen? When republicans spoke in favor of a parent's right to choose if their child is vaccinated, regardless of what the CDC thinks. That's not correct. Parent's rights are not a biological mechanism for spreading disease. A parent's right to choose not to vaccinate their child provides a biological mechanism for disease to spread. Do you disagree? Depends if they use that right or not. I suppose I made the massively misguided assumption that a right is defended so that it could be used. It's OK, no one is perfect. Can you elaborate on why a right would be defended without it being intended to be used?
I don't think that matters. Your argument should be that voluntary vaccination will not work because too many will exercise the right to not vaccinate, and then supporting that argument with logic and evidence. Instead you're taking that presupposition and inferring the opposition's motive. Voluntary vaccination won't work, those advocating voluntary vaccination know it, therefore they are trying to undermine vaccination coverage, etc.
Back to why the right may matter. It could be an issue of flexibility. For example the timing of vaccine administration. Or it could be to preserve special groups, like the Amish, that don't pose a particular threat to broader society.
Regardless, we don't force people to do things without good cause. Therefore the argument should be that the mandate to vaccinate is necessary (or not).
|
On February 05 2015 10:30 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 10:16 coverpunch wrote:On February 05 2015 09:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:27 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2015 07:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know where the hyperbole accusation comes from because that's quite literally what has happened, and I think don't think what he does qualifies as normal behaviour but maybe that's just me I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted. Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion. Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly! The most illuminating thing about the vaccine debacle is how republicans not only rely on knee-jerk anti-government thoughts, but they will go so far as to defend them without even really thinking about what it means. It's just a matter of less government, no matter what. I'll be honest, I fuckin love it lol. The vaccine debate is a perfect example of a situation where the very nature of a real world phenomena, that being disease and how it spreads, runs up against an ideological attachment to individualism. In a very general sense, weighing the right of a parent to not vaccinate their child against the right of the people that said child come into contact with to not worry about virulent disease provides the public with a clear litmus test for determining the quality of a candidate. To make matters even better, that's only one of two very strong arguments in favor of vaccination. The other, that being the right of a child to a certain baseline health and life quality regardless of parentage, speaks for itself. When did that happen? When republicans spoke in favor of a parent's right to choose if their child is vaccinated, regardless of what the CDC thinks. On February 05 2015 09:52 coverpunch wrote:On February 05 2015 09:27 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2015 07:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know where the hyperbole accusation comes from because that's quite literally what has happened, and I think don't think what he does qualifies as normal behaviour but maybe that's just me I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted. Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion. Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly! The most illuminating thing about the vaccine debacle is how republicans not only rely on knee-jerk anti-government thoughts, but they will go so far as to defend them without even really thinking about what it means. It's just a matter of less government, no matter what. I'll be honest, I fuckin love it lol. The vaccine debate is a perfect example of a situation where the very nature of a real world phenomena, that being disease and how it spreads, runs up against an ideological attachment to individualism. In a very general sense, weighing the right of a parent to not vaccinate their child against the right of the people that said child come into contact with to not worry about virulent disease provides the public with a clear litmus test for determining the quality of a candidate. To make matters even better, that's only one of two very strong arguments in favor of vaccination. The other, that being the right of a child to a certain baseline health and life quality regardless of parentage, speaks for itself. Sorry to get in the way of a good circle jerk, but your framing of the issue is not consistent with the statements. This isn't an issue of individual choice to not vaccinate vs the collective right to safety against that communicable disease. Paul's primary example with his own children was that he felt uncomfortable with the standard vaccination schedule and wanted it done differently, with some vaccinations delayed and spread out. He never took a position against vaccination as a whole, in fact he praised it. But he tried to frame it as a question of medical bureaucratic standards vs individual choice to do things differently. It seems he doesn't like doctors and bureaucrats telling him what's best for him, which is one of those things that publicly nobody agrees with but lots of people ignore their doctor's advice. It's interesting because he's supposed to be a doctor himself, but maybe he's just living the adage that doctors make the worst patients. It was still a dumb place to make a stand for libertarian attitudes, but the framing is different from what you're saying. Also, this isn't ruining "Republicans", just Rand Paul. Nobody is talking about Chris Christie any more. The point is that medical bureaucratic standards are established as a result of science and statistics. They are the most correct perspective that exists. A parent choosing anything else is a decision to be less correct for the sake of some silly idea of freedom. Hm, and yet America's vaccination schedule is different those of other countries like Canada and Australia. Are they doing science wrong or are we? Ahh yes, let's just pretend that the majority of people vociferously protesting as to their right to not vaccinate their child are doing so because they merely want to follow the Canadian or Australian schedules. This isn't just about the waffle house words of Rand Paul, who may very well have a reasonable view underneath the heavy dress of election-minded fence dancing, it's also about the mere fact that this is something that even needs to be debated. Public health is a real thing, believe it or not, and the reemergence of Measles as an epidemiological threat ought not prompt strange statements on the part of Republican White House hopefuls who, in their clearly spoken ambivalence, do not know enough about how public health administration actually works to speak intelligently on the subject. Reverting to this "I'm a parent first" bullshit is base populism at its worst, and though it most certainly works among certain demographics, both Democrat and Republican, one can hope that the basis with which we consider the role of vaccination in a society includes more than the knowledge of parents as an authority on the subject.
No one argued that only parents should be involved.
|
If republicans were scientifically literate they would could have been far more nefarious with spread of misinformation in regards to vaccination "issue" (I put it on quotes, because it's not really an issue), and framed the debate around children who might be allergic to ingredients in vaccination ( a very real thing) as opposed "autism (mental disorder, since this tends to be the new buzzword that replaced autism) induced vaccination". But, then again, if they were scientifically literate they wouldn't of taken such a stance in the first place.
|
WASHINGTON -- Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler revealed a big win for net neutrality advocates on Wednesday, asking for strong authority to enforce open Internet protections.
In a Wired op-ed, Wheeler said he is proposing the FCC use its authority under Title II of the Communications Act to protect consumer broadband Internet. This move will allow the FCC to stop Internet service providers from charging content providers like Netflix more money for reliable Internet access.
"Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open Internet protections ever proposed by the FCC," he wrote.
Wheeler said that his "enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services." The FCC's plan includes equal rules for mobile and fixed networks and will be voted on by agency commissioners later this month.
Wheeler is also proposing that the agency, for the first time, should have strong authority over points of interconnection, the gateway between an Internet service provider and the rest of the Internet. The FCC will investigate complaints about unfair interconnection activities on a case-by-case basis.
Until recently, a Title II plan was a pipe dream for net neutrality advocates. But President Barack Obama came out in support of Title II reclassification and bright-line rules in November, and Wheeler, who had reportedly been considering alternative approaches, appears to now be on board.
A senior FCC official addressed the effect of the president's announcement on Wheeler's decision-making on a call with reporters Wednesday. "It was actually the aftermath of the president's announcement that proved to be so important," the official said, citing reactions from financial analysts and ISPs such as Sprint. "That reaction demonstrated convincingly that Title II could be tailored for the 21st century without harming investment."
Source
|
On February 05 2015 10:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler revealed a big win for net neutrality advocates on Wednesday, asking for strong authority to enforce open Internet protections.
In a Wired op-ed, Wheeler said he is proposing the FCC use its authority under Title II of the Communications Act to protect consumer broadband Internet. This move will allow the FCC to stop Internet service providers from charging content providers like Netflix more money for reliable Internet access.
"Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open Internet protections ever proposed by the FCC," he wrote.
Wheeler said that his "enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services." The FCC's plan includes equal rules for mobile and fixed networks and will be voted on by agency commissioners later this month.
Wheeler is also proposing that the agency, for the first time, should have strong authority over points of interconnection, the gateway between an Internet service provider and the rest of the Internet. The FCC will investigate complaints about unfair interconnection activities on a case-by-case basis.
Until recently, a Title II plan was a pipe dream for net neutrality advocates. But President Barack Obama came out in support of Title II reclassification and bright-line rules in November, and Wheeler, who had reportedly been considering alternative approaches, appears to now be on board.
A senior FCC official addressed the effect of the president's announcement on Wheeler's decision-making on a call with reporters Wednesday. "It was actually the aftermath of the president's announcement that proved to be so important," the official said, citing reactions from financial analysts and ISPs such as Sprint. "That reaction demonstrated convincingly that Title II could be tailored for the 21st century without harming investment." Source
I would like to think John Oliver's rant on his show got this shit rolling.
|
On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Regardless, we don't force people to do things without good cause. Therefore the argument should be that the mandate to vaccinate is necessary (or not).
You don't think the measles resurgence presents an argument for mandating vaccinations? Doctors and the CDC would not say a kid with unique medical conditions that make vaccination a bad idea should still get vaccinated. The argument is that everyone who can be vaccinated safely should be. There is no disadvantage to vaccination, but the recent measles outbreak should the advantage. I'm not sure what you see as the downside.
|
On February 05 2015 10:46 wei2coolman wrote:
If republicans were scientifically literate they would could have been far more nefarious with spread of misinformation in regards to vaccination "issue" (I put it on quotes, because it's not really an issue), and framed the debate around children who might be allergic to ingredients in vaccination ( a very real thing) as opposed "autism (mental disorder, since this tends to be the new buzzword that replaced autism) induced vaccination". But, then again, if they were scientifically literate they wouldn't of taken such a stance in the first place.
They didn't. Rand Paul, in one fraction of one sentence, made a statement that could be interpreted that way. However, he clarified that he did not support the idea that vaccines caused autism. Other republicans came out and reiterated that vaccines to not cause autism.
It takes a very hateful and ignorant mind to take all that in, and decide that Republicans have taken the stance that vaccines cause autism.
|
United States20254 Posts
On February 05 2015 09:52 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 09:27 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2015 07:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know where the hyperbole accusation comes from because that's quite literally what has happened, and I think don't think what he does qualifies as normal behaviour but maybe that's just me I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted. Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion. Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly! The most illuminating thing about the vaccine debacle is how republicans not only rely on knee-jerk anti-government thoughts, but they will go so far as to defend them without even really thinking about what it means. It's just a matter of less government, no matter what. I'll be honest, I fuckin love it lol. The vaccine debate is a perfect example of a situation where the very nature of a real world phenomena, that being disease and how it spreads, runs up against an ideological attachment to individualism. In a very general sense, weighing the right of a parent to not vaccinate their child against the right of the people that said child come into contact with to not worry about virulent disease provides the public with a clear litmus test for determining the quality of a candidate. To make matters even better, that's only one of two very strong arguments in favor of vaccination. The other, that being the right of a child to a certain baseline health and life quality regardless of parentage, speaks for itself. Sorry to get in the way of a good circle jerk, but your framing of the issue is not consistent with the statements. This isn't an issue of individual choice to not vaccinate vs the collective right to safety against that communicable disease. Paul's primary example with his own children was that he felt uncomfortable with the standard vaccination schedule and wanted it done differently, with some vaccinations delayed and spread out. He never took a position against vaccination as a whole, in fact he praised it. But he tried to frame it as a question of medical bureaucratic standards vs individual choice to do things differently. It seems he doesn't like doctors and bureaucrats telling him what's best for him, which is one of those things that publicly nobody agrees with but lots of people ignore their doctor's advice. It's interesting because he's supposed to be a doctor himself, but maybe he's just living the adage that doctors make the worst patients. It was still a dumb place to make a stand for libertarian attitudes, but the framing is different from what you're saying. Also, this isn't ruining "Republicans", just Rand Paul. Nobody is talking about Chris Christie any more.
He seems to be just anti-anyone telling him to do anything. I mean isn't this the guy that dodged standard recertification in his own field and set up his own association because he disagreed with some of their rules?
|
On February 05 2015 10:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Regardless, we don't force people to do things without good cause. Therefore the argument should be that the mandate to vaccinate is necessary (or not). You don't think the measles resurgence presents an argument for mandating vaccinations? Doctors and the CDC would not say a kid with unique medical conditions that make vaccination a bad idea should still get vaccinated. The argument is that everyone who can be vaccinated safely should be. There is no disadvantage to vaccination, but the recent measles outbreak should the advantage. I'm not sure what you see as the downside.
You didn't read my post, did you?
Edit: You didn't watch Rand Paul's interview either, yes?
|
On February 05 2015 11:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 10:52 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Regardless, we don't force people to do things without good cause. Therefore the argument should be that the mandate to vaccinate is necessary (or not). You don't think the measles resurgence presents an argument for mandating vaccinations? Doctors and the CDC would not say a kid with unique medical conditions that make vaccination a bad idea should still get vaccinated. The argument is that everyone who can be vaccinated safely should be. There is no disadvantage to vaccination, but the recent measles outbreak should the advantage. I'm not sure what you see as the downside. You didn't read my post, did you? Edit: You didn't watch Rand Paul's interview either, yes?
On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I don't think that matters. Your argument should be that voluntary vaccination will not work because too many will exercise the right to not vaccinate, and then supporting that argument with logic and evidence
The measles outbreak proved that voluntary vaccination does not work because too many exercised the right to not vaccinate.
Do you disagree?
On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Back to why the right may matter. It could be an issue of flexibility.
Most vaccination guidelines are +/- a year or more. I don't think that flexibility is an issue.
On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Regardless, we don't force people to do things without good cause. Therefore the argument should be that the mandate to vaccinate is necessary (or not).
The Measles outbreak presented a good cause to mandate vaccinations.
Edit: My argument is against Christie saying a parent should have the right to choose whether they vaccinate their child or not. Not something related to autism.
|
On February 05 2015 11:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 11:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:52 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Regardless, we don't force people to do things without good cause. Therefore the argument should be that the mandate to vaccinate is necessary (or not). You don't think the measles resurgence presents an argument for mandating vaccinations? Doctors and the CDC would not say a kid with unique medical conditions that make vaccination a bad idea should still get vaccinated. The argument is that everyone who can be vaccinated safely should be. There is no disadvantage to vaccination, but the recent measles outbreak should the advantage. I'm not sure what you see as the downside. You didn't read my post, did you? Edit: You didn't watch Rand Paul's interview either, yes? Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I don't think that matters. Your argument should be that voluntary vaccination will not work because too many will exercise the right to not vaccinate, and then supporting that argument with logic and evidence The measles outbreak proved that voluntary vaccination does not work because too many exercised the right to not vaccinate. Do you disagree? + Show Spoiler +On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Back to why the right may matter. It could be an issue of flexibility. Most vaccination guidelines are +/- a year or more. I don't think that flexibility is an issue. On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Regardless, we don't force people to do things without good cause. Therefore the argument should be that the mandate to vaccinate is necessary (or not). The Measles outbreak presented a good cause to mandate vaccinations. Edit: My argument is against Christie saying a parent should have the right to choose whether they vaccinate their child or not. Not something related to autism.
I think it's more accurate to say that it proved that voluntary vaccination can fail.
|
On February 05 2015 11:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 11:04 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 11:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:52 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Regardless, we don't force people to do things without good cause. Therefore the argument should be that the mandate to vaccinate is necessary (or not). You don't think the measles resurgence presents an argument for mandating vaccinations? Doctors and the CDC would not say a kid with unique medical conditions that make vaccination a bad idea should still get vaccinated. The argument is that everyone who can be vaccinated safely should be. There is no disadvantage to vaccination, but the recent measles outbreak should the advantage. I'm not sure what you see as the downside. You didn't read my post, did you? Edit: You didn't watch Rand Paul's interview either, yes? On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I don't think that matters. Your argument should be that voluntary vaccination will not work because too many will exercise the right to not vaccinate, and then supporting that argument with logic and evidence The measles outbreak proved that voluntary vaccination does not work because too many exercised the right to not vaccinate. Do you disagree? + Show Spoiler +On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Back to why the right may matter. It could be an issue of flexibility. Most vaccination guidelines are +/- a year or more. I don't think that flexibility is an issue. On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Regardless, we don't force people to do things without good cause. Therefore the argument should be that the mandate to vaccinate is necessary (or not). The Measles outbreak presented a good cause to mandate vaccinations. Edit: My argument is against Christie saying a parent should have the right to choose whether they vaccinate their child or not. Not something related to autism. I think it's more accurate to say that it proved that voluntary vaccination can fail.
Is it that you think it's okay for voluntary vaccinations to fail sometimes? What value do you see as gained from allowing voluntary vaccinations to fail sometimes? Obviously there is a health component that is lost, so you must see some redeeming quality to allowing parents the ability to choose. Otherwise, choosing to have voluntary vaccination to increase the # of infections per year is purely deciding to have more infection. I don't think that's what you advocate for, so I am asking how you consider the cost:benefit analysis that yields parent choice as more important than reducing infection rates.
|
On February 05 2015 11:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 11:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 11:04 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 11:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:52 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Regardless, we don't force people to do things without good cause. Therefore the argument should be that the mandate to vaccinate is necessary (or not). You don't think the measles resurgence presents an argument for mandating vaccinations? Doctors and the CDC would not say a kid with unique medical conditions that make vaccination a bad idea should still get vaccinated. The argument is that everyone who can be vaccinated safely should be. There is no disadvantage to vaccination, but the recent measles outbreak should the advantage. I'm not sure what you see as the downside. You didn't read my post, did you? Edit: You didn't watch Rand Paul's interview either, yes? On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I don't think that matters. Your argument should be that voluntary vaccination will not work because too many will exercise the right to not vaccinate, and then supporting that argument with logic and evidence The measles outbreak proved that voluntary vaccination does not work because too many exercised the right to not vaccinate. Do you disagree? + Show Spoiler +On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Back to why the right may matter. It could be an issue of flexibility. Most vaccination guidelines are +/- a year or more. I don't think that flexibility is an issue. On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Regardless, we don't force people to do things without good cause. Therefore the argument should be that the mandate to vaccinate is necessary (or not). The Measles outbreak presented a good cause to mandate vaccinations. Edit: My argument is against Christie saying a parent should have the right to choose whether they vaccinate their child or not. Not something related to autism. I think it's more accurate to say that it proved that voluntary vaccination can fail. Is it that you think it's okay for voluntary vaccinations to fail sometimes? What value do you see as gained from allowing voluntary vaccinations to fail sometimes? Obviously there is a health component that is lost, so you must see some redeeming quality to allowing parents the ability to choose. Otherwise, choosing to have voluntary vaccination to increase the # of infections per year is purely deciding to have more infection. I don't think that's what you advocate for, so I am asking how you consider the cost:benefit analysis that yields parent choice as more important than reducing infection rates.
You're making good arguments now. My heart is all a flutter!
The Rand Paul argument is that things like public awareness and education will keep vaccination rates high enough. I take it you either think that won't work, or that it'll require periodic outbreaks to remind people why vaccines are important?
|
On February 05 2015 11:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 11:15 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 11:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 11:04 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 11:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:52 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Regardless, we don't force people to do things without good cause. Therefore the argument should be that the mandate to vaccinate is necessary (or not). You don't think the measles resurgence presents an argument for mandating vaccinations? Doctors and the CDC would not say a kid with unique medical conditions that make vaccination a bad idea should still get vaccinated. The argument is that everyone who can be vaccinated safely should be. There is no disadvantage to vaccination, but the recent measles outbreak should the advantage. I'm not sure what you see as the downside. You didn't read my post, did you? Edit: You didn't watch Rand Paul's interview either, yes? On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I don't think that matters. Your argument should be that voluntary vaccination will not work because too many will exercise the right to not vaccinate, and then supporting that argument with logic and evidence The measles outbreak proved that voluntary vaccination does not work because too many exercised the right to not vaccinate. Do you disagree? + Show Spoiler +On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Back to why the right may matter. It could be an issue of flexibility. Most vaccination guidelines are +/- a year or more. I don't think that flexibility is an issue. On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Regardless, we don't force people to do things without good cause. Therefore the argument should be that the mandate to vaccinate is necessary (or not). The Measles outbreak presented a good cause to mandate vaccinations. Edit: My argument is against Christie saying a parent should have the right to choose whether they vaccinate their child or not. Not something related to autism. I think it's more accurate to say that it proved that voluntary vaccination can fail. Is it that you think it's okay for voluntary vaccinations to fail sometimes? What value do you see as gained from allowing voluntary vaccinations to fail sometimes? Obviously there is a health component that is lost, so you must see some redeeming quality to allowing parents the ability to choose. Otherwise, choosing to have voluntary vaccination to increase the # of infections per year is purely deciding to have more infection. I don't think that's what you advocate for, so I am asking how you consider the cost:benefit analysis that yields parent choice as more important than reducing infection rates. You're making good arguments now. My heart is all a flutter! The Rand Paul argument is that things like public awareness and education will keep vaccination rates high enough. I take it you either think that won't work, or that it'll require periodic outbreaks to remind people why vaccines are important?
I understand his argument. My point is that what we have been doing does not work well enough. We wouldn't be discussing this if it worked well enough. No matter what, the %chance of infection is way, way, way lower when it is mandated. Sure, we can educate and it will help. Or we can make it mandatory and do a much better job. You are not answering my question. Why the aversion to mandating it? What benefit is gained?
|
This is just typical jonny evasion. Just disagree with everything his opponent says until after 5 pages of back and forth he's backed into a corner and abruptly ends the conversation. It's tiresome. No one likes people who spend so much time avoiding what they think is the crux of the matter in an effort to either a) avoid taking a position or b) confuse the opposition.
|
On February 05 2015 09:55 dAPhREAk wrote:
are all republicans anti-vaccination, or just a subset? honestly, this whole anti-vaccination trend seems to me to be overblown.
all rebublicans is a subset of all republicans,
check yourself before you wreck yourself.
|
On February 05 2015 11:30 IgnE wrote:
This is just typical jonny evasion. Just disagree with everything his opponent says until after 5 pages of back and forth he's backed into a corner and abruptly ends the conversation. It's tiresome. No one likes people who spend so much time avoiding what they think is the crux of the matter in an effort to either a) avoid taking a position or b) confuse the opposition.
Pfft, typical IgnE ignorance.
On February 05 2015 11:29 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 11:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 11:15 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 11:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 11:04 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 11:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:52 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Regardless, we don't force people to do things without good cause. Therefore the argument should be that the mandate to vaccinate is necessary (or not). You don't think the measles resurgence presents an argument for mandating vaccinations? Doctors and the CDC would not say a kid with unique medical conditions that make vaccination a bad idea should still get vaccinated. The argument is that everyone who can be vaccinated safely should be. There is no disadvantage to vaccination, but the recent measles outbreak should the advantage. I'm not sure what you see as the downside. You didn't read my post, did you? Edit: You didn't watch Rand Paul's interview either, yes? On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I don't think that matters. Your argument should be that voluntary vaccination will not work because too many will exercise the right to not vaccinate, and then supporting that argument with logic and evidence The measles outbreak proved that voluntary vaccination does not work because too many exercised the right to not vaccinate. Do you disagree? + Show Spoiler +On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Back to why the right may matter. It could be an issue of flexibility. Most vaccination guidelines are +/- a year or more. I don't think that flexibility is an issue. On February 05 2015 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Regardless, we don't force people to do things without good cause. Therefore the argument should be that the mandate to vaccinate is necessary (or not). The Measles outbreak presented a good cause to mandate vaccinations. Edit: My argument is against Christie saying a parent should have the right to choose whether they vaccinate their child or not. Not something related to autism. I think it's more accurate to say that it proved that voluntary vaccination can fail. Is it that you think it's okay for voluntary vaccinations to fail sometimes? What value do you see as gained from allowing voluntary vaccinations to fail sometimes? Obviously there is a health component that is lost, so you must see some redeeming quality to allowing parents the ability to choose. Otherwise, choosing to have voluntary vaccination to increase the # of infections per year is purely deciding to have more infection. I don't think that's what you advocate for, so I am asking how you consider the cost:benefit analysis that yields parent choice as more important than reducing infection rates. You're making good arguments now. My heart is all a flutter! The Rand Paul argument is that things like public awareness and education will keep vaccination rates high enough. I take it you either think that won't work, or that it'll require periodic outbreaks to remind people why vaccines are important? I understand his argument. My point is that what we have been doing does not work well enough. We wouldn't be discussing this if it worked well enough. No matter what, the %chance of infection is way, way, way lower when it is mandated. Sure, we can educate and it will help. Or we can make it mandatory and do a much better job. You are not answering my question. Why the aversion to mandating it? What benefit is gained? Well, I guess one benefit would be religious freedom in the case of the Amish and another being any added (and valid) flexibility. Beyond that the onus seems to be in proving that vaccine coverage can work without mandates, which I cannot do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
