|
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 28 2015 10:14 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2015 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Georgia Republican who recently became the chair of a key congressional subcommittee on science and technology, didn't vaccinate most of his children, he told a crowd at his first town hall meeting last week.
Loudermilk was responding to a woman who asked whether he'd be looking into (discredited) allegations that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had covered up information linking vaccines to autism. He responded with a rather unscientific personal anecdote: "I believe it's the parents' decision whether to immunize or not…Most of our children, we didn't immunize. They're healthy."
Source Is is too much to ask that the chair of a subcommittee on science and technology actually show some understanding and respect for science and technology? This issue really frames a lot I don't like about Republican ideology. "It's the parents' decision." Sounds nice, until you think about it. They're all about individual freedom. Never mind the society you live in. Never mind the ramifications of such decisions on the people around you. Never mind the scientists, never mind the environment. Just do what you feel is "right". The only reason prats like him can afford to make these "personal decisions" is because they're surrounded by enough people who do actually consider the lives and livelihood of the people around them (and do get their kids vaccinated). How is that for personal responsibility? His kids are healthy because others, not him, did the right thing. You don't live on island. And if people like Loudermilk did live on an island, they'd die, really quick, from ignorance. Vaccinate your germ-riddled kids, thank you.
Let them not vaccinate, just let me press charges for manslaughter and reckless endangerment if your kid gives mine some disease and they die from it when it could have been prevented via vaccine.
|
On February 28 2015 01:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 19:51 Wegandi wrote:
I see everyone is getting along just swell. How you all can sit here and debate about how twat #1 is less worse/marginally better than twat #2, or that your party is saintly, and the other party is the evil and keep straight faces seems so...what's the word quixotic. All the partisanry is drowning me in filth. Well, that ol' power grab called the Presidential election 'season' is heating up and the orthodox mumblings of the children, fear, fear, ISIS, security, WAR, tax, tax, regulate, control, power, is heating up, amid the media driven talking points and narrative assumptions. Frame those questions as biased as you can. Yes, you can do it.
Ok, sarcasm and cynicism aside, the current crop of candidates are worse than the choice between Nero and Caligula. I'm partial to Nero myself - might as well go all in on the bread and circus before the implosion. Who's with me? I don't know if now's the time to go into cynicism paralysis. i grant you that regardless of the party in power, things will get a whole lot worse before getting better. I'd rather vote for the best shot at having a strong recovery phase, rather than, say, excuses about how the bad could've been much much worse. I'll take the gentler slope to the erosion of personal liberty and the growth in the scope of collective societal "responsibility." I might even turn cautiously optimistic about the future reduction of corruption in Washington if Walker wins primary against media and perhaps GOP donor onslaught.
Walker lol, really? He is terrible; from a domestic and foreign angle. Oh, sure, more wars, so more taxation and spending. Some petty rhetoric about 'cuts', but no substance, and any cuts are immediately overthrown with his Neo-Con FP and strict adherence to the MIC. Then there is the fact that he is quid pro quo about the Federal Reserve and its inflationary taxation. Peronsal liberties? Walker is TERRIBLE. More of the same. Oh, but to placate the social conservatives who deeply want Government power to control others behaviors. Ya, real personal responsibility and freedom ya got there. Why no love for Rand? He's the least worse of the sad sops.
|
On February 28 2015 10:30 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2015 10:14 Leporello wrote:On February 28 2015 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Georgia Republican who recently became the chair of a key congressional subcommittee on science and technology, didn't vaccinate most of his children, he told a crowd at his first town hall meeting last week.
Loudermilk was responding to a woman who asked whether he'd be looking into (discredited) allegations that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had covered up information linking vaccines to autism. He responded with a rather unscientific personal anecdote: "I believe it's the parents' decision whether to immunize or not…Most of our children, we didn't immunize. They're healthy."
Source Is is too much to ask that the chair of a subcommittee on science and technology actually show some understanding and respect for science and technology? This issue really frames a lot I don't like about Republican ideology. "It's the parents' decision." Sounds nice, until you think about it. They're all about individual freedom. Never mind the society you live in. Never mind the ramifications of such decisions on the people around you. Never mind the scientists, never mind the environment. Just do what you feel is "right". The only reason prats like him can afford to make these "personal decisions" is because they're surrounded by enough people who do actually consider the lives and livelihood of the people around them (and do get their kids vaccinated). How is that for personal responsibility? His kids are healthy because others, not him, did the right thing. You don't live on island. And if people like Loudermilk did live on an island, they'd die, really quick, from ignorance. Vaccinate your germ-riddled kids, thank you. Let them not vaccinate, just let me press charges for manslaughter and reckless endangerment if your kid gives mine some disease and they die from it when it could have been prevented via vaccine.
Why you worried? You vaccinate your kids and they are safe, no?
Don't impose your views of healthcare on me and my family. I don't make you get sterilized because you're a liberal loon do I? Liberalism does more harm to society than measles ever will.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 28 2015 10:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2015 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 28 2015 10:12 Introvert wrote:On February 28 2015 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The University of Wisconsin requested that Gov. Scott Walker remove a requirement that all 26 campuses report allegations of sexual assaults to the state every year because it already submits similar information to the federal government, a UW spokesman said Friday.
The governor’s plan also calls for cutting out information about sexual assaults from orientation programs for new and existing UW students at all campuses, as well as removing the requirement that any employee who witnesses an assault or is told by a student that they’ve been assaulted report that information to the dean of students. SourceWhat is with Republicans and Rape? Do you read the articles you post? Or do you just fail to understand them? What's your complaint? You are insinuating that somehow the fact that Walker is a Republican has some relevence when the article makes it clear he's basically giving the board of regents the control they wanted. It's just part of an overall shift in control of the system.
Shhh. Don't bother with facts. They don't support the war on women narrative and that is a problem.
|
“For me, the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems, is more than a mission,” Mr. Pachauri wrote. “It is my religion and my dharma. The IPCC needs strong leadership and dedication of time.”
Source
The scientific method is strong in this one.
|
On February 28 2015 11:35 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2015 10:30 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 10:14 Leporello wrote:On February 28 2015 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Georgia Republican who recently became the chair of a key congressional subcommittee on science and technology, didn't vaccinate most of his children, he told a crowd at his first town hall meeting last week.
Loudermilk was responding to a woman who asked whether he'd be looking into (discredited) allegations that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had covered up information linking vaccines to autism. He responded with a rather unscientific personal anecdote: "I believe it's the parents' decision whether to immunize or not…Most of our children, we didn't immunize. They're healthy."
Source Is is too much to ask that the chair of a subcommittee on science and technology actually show some understanding and respect for science and technology? This issue really frames a lot I don't like about Republican ideology. "It's the parents' decision." Sounds nice, until you think about it. They're all about individual freedom. Never mind the society you live in. Never mind the ramifications of such decisions on the people around you. Never mind the scientists, never mind the environment. Just do what you feel is "right". The only reason prats like him can afford to make these "personal decisions" is because they're surrounded by enough people who do actually consider the lives and livelihood of the people around them (and do get their kids vaccinated). How is that for personal responsibility? His kids are healthy because others, not him, did the right thing. You don't live on island. And if people like Loudermilk did live on an island, they'd die, really quick, from ignorance. Vaccinate your germ-riddled kids, thank you. Let them not vaccinate, just let me press charges for manslaughter and reckless endangerment if your kid gives mine some disease and they die from it when it could have been prevented via vaccine. Why you worried? You vaccinate your kids and they are safe, no? Don't impose your views of healthcare on me and my family. I don't make you get sterilized because you're a liberal loon do I? Liberalism does more harm to society than measles ever will.
Because that's not how vaccination works.
|
On February 28 2015 12:04 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2015 11:35 hannahbelle wrote:On February 28 2015 10:30 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 10:14 Leporello wrote:On February 28 2015 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Georgia Republican who recently became the chair of a key congressional subcommittee on science and technology, didn't vaccinate most of his children, he told a crowd at his first town hall meeting last week.
Loudermilk was responding to a woman who asked whether he'd be looking into (discredited) allegations that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had covered up information linking vaccines to autism. He responded with a rather unscientific personal anecdote: "I believe it's the parents' decision whether to immunize or not…Most of our children, we didn't immunize. They're healthy."
Source Is is too much to ask that the chair of a subcommittee on science and technology actually show some understanding and respect for science and technology? This issue really frames a lot I don't like about Republican ideology. "It's the parents' decision." Sounds nice, until you think about it. They're all about individual freedom. Never mind the society you live in. Never mind the ramifications of such decisions on the people around you. Never mind the scientists, never mind the environment. Just do what you feel is "right". The only reason prats like him can afford to make these "personal decisions" is because they're surrounded by enough people who do actually consider the lives and livelihood of the people around them (and do get their kids vaccinated). How is that for personal responsibility? His kids are healthy because others, not him, did the right thing. You don't live on island. And if people like Loudermilk did live on an island, they'd die, really quick, from ignorance. Vaccinate your germ-riddled kids, thank you. Let them not vaccinate, just let me press charges for manslaughter and reckless endangerment if your kid gives mine some disease and they die from it when it could have been prevented via vaccine. Why you worried? You vaccinate your kids and they are safe, no? Don't impose your views of healthcare on me and my family. I don't make you get sterilized because you're a liberal loon do I? Liberalism does more harm to society than measles ever will. Because that's not how vaccination works.
Yes it is. You vaccinate your kids to keep them "safe" and then mass vaccination makes the herd immunity effect kick in to keep those that are too weak or otherwise can't have the vaccine safe, because the massive amounts of vaccinated people effectively eradicate the disease.
I understand the theory. It makes his example perfectly invalid.
|
On February 28 2015 11:40 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +“For me, the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems, is more than a mission,” Mr. Pachauri wrote. “It is my religion and my dharma. The IPCC needs strong leadership and dedication of time.” SourceThe scientific method is strong in this one.
A: Let me get this straight: You, the oddly evasive and semi-critical of the theory of evolution, anti-vaxxer, climate change-denying pseudo-troll, are criticizing someone for being "anti-scientific"? You, of all people?
That is next-level cognitive dissonance right there.
B: You also understand that that particular quote actually has nothing to do with science? I don't agree with that quote, myself, but you get that he's talking about a moral philosophy, not anything that has to actually do with the scientific method, right? He's laying out his goals there: science can advise him how best to achieve those goals, but his goals are set by his own morality. He even admits that he's talking about his own moral system. In the quote itself.
I kind of feel like you are the one who might not actually have an understanding of the scientific method.
Man, I promised myself I would not respond to you anymore, I don't know why I even bother.....
But that's what the best trolls do. They suck you right back in. I will admit, you are good at what you do....
|
On February 28 2015 11:35 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2015 10:30 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 10:14 Leporello wrote:On February 28 2015 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Georgia Republican who recently became the chair of a key congressional subcommittee on science and technology, didn't vaccinate most of his children, he told a crowd at his first town hall meeting last week.
Loudermilk was responding to a woman who asked whether he'd be looking into (discredited) allegations that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had covered up information linking vaccines to autism. He responded with a rather unscientific personal anecdote: "I believe it's the parents' decision whether to immunize or not…Most of our children, we didn't immunize. They're healthy."
Source Is is too much to ask that the chair of a subcommittee on science and technology actually show some understanding and respect for science and technology? This issue really frames a lot I don't like about Republican ideology. "It's the parents' decision." Sounds nice, until you think about it. They're all about individual freedom. Never mind the society you live in. Never mind the ramifications of such decisions on the people around you. Never mind the scientists, never mind the environment. Just do what you feel is "right". The only reason prats like him can afford to make these "personal decisions" is because they're surrounded by enough people who do actually consider the lives and livelihood of the people around them (and do get their kids vaccinated). How is that for personal responsibility? His kids are healthy because others, not him, did the right thing. You don't live on island. And if people like Loudermilk did live on an island, they'd die, really quick, from ignorance. Vaccinate your germ-riddled kids, thank you. Let them not vaccinate, just let me press charges for manslaughter and reckless endangerment if your kid gives mine some disease and they die from it when it could have been prevented via vaccine. Why you worried? You vaccinate your kids and they are safe, no? Don't impose your views of healthcare on me and my family. I don't make you get sterilized because you're a liberal loon do I? Liberalism does more harm to society than measles ever will.
You do know there are windows when children are not vaccinated right? Or that some people can't be vaccinated for various reasons? I gave a generalized example ~_~ Also good to see apparently you approve of people being sterilized in private, good ole eugenics days. Also not a liberal thank you very much, I don't identify with either side exclusively and really just dislike the far ends of both spectrum. I guess since people are so attached to placing complex and varied ideological views into a simple label I guess you could call me a "moderate".
|
On February 28 2015 12:12 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2015 11:40 hannahbelle wrote:“For me, the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems, is more than a mission,” Mr. Pachauri wrote. “It is my religion and my dharma. The IPCC needs strong leadership and dedication of time.” SourceThe scientific method is strong in this one. A: Let me get this straight: You, the oddly evasive and semi-critical of the theory of evolution, anti-vaxxer, climate change-denying pseudo-troll, are criticizing someone for being "anti-scientific"? You, of all people? That is next-level cognitive dissonance right there. B: You also understand that that particular quote actually has nothing to do with science? I don't agree with that quote, myself, but you get that he's talking about a moral philosophy, not anything that has to actually do with the scientific method, right? He's laying out his goals there: science can advise him how best to achieve those goals, but his goals are set by his own morality. He even admits that he's talking about his own moral system. In the quote itself. I kind of feel like you are the one who might not actually have an understanding of the scientific method. Man, I promised myself I would not respond to you anymore, I don't know why I even bother..... But that's what the best trolls do. They suck you right back in. I will admit, you are good at what you do....
First off, I'm not sure I have made any assertion concerning evolution on this board, so you may want to check on that one.
Second, how can you trust any claim being made this guy when he views is work as some sort of religious experience? That takes any and all ability to be objective and throws it straight out the window. The guy has already been found guilty of making wacky claims about the danger of "climate change" that have no scientific grounding, and then this quote comes out. And you wonder why people question the "science" he is pushing...
Third, I'm no troll. I just choose not to buy hook, line, and sinker the product of liberal thinking. I'm sure that makes my views radical to some, but troll I do not.
|
On February 28 2015 12:13 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2015 11:35 hannahbelle wrote:On February 28 2015 10:30 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 10:14 Leporello wrote:On February 28 2015 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Georgia Republican who recently became the chair of a key congressional subcommittee on science and technology, didn't vaccinate most of his children, he told a crowd at his first town hall meeting last week.
Loudermilk was responding to a woman who asked whether he'd be looking into (discredited) allegations that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had covered up information linking vaccines to autism. He responded with a rather unscientific personal anecdote: "I believe it's the parents' decision whether to immunize or not…Most of our children, we didn't immunize. They're healthy."
Source Is is too much to ask that the chair of a subcommittee on science and technology actually show some understanding and respect for science and technology? This issue really frames a lot I don't like about Republican ideology. "It's the parents' decision." Sounds nice, until you think about it. They're all about individual freedom. Never mind the society you live in. Never mind the ramifications of such decisions on the people around you. Never mind the scientists, never mind the environment. Just do what you feel is "right". The only reason prats like him can afford to make these "personal decisions" is because they're surrounded by enough people who do actually consider the lives and livelihood of the people around them (and do get their kids vaccinated). How is that for personal responsibility? His kids are healthy because others, not him, did the right thing. You don't live on island. And if people like Loudermilk did live on an island, they'd die, really quick, from ignorance. Vaccinate your germ-riddled kids, thank you. Let them not vaccinate, just let me press charges for manslaughter and reckless endangerment if your kid gives mine some disease and they die from it when it could have been prevented via vaccine. Why you worried? You vaccinate your kids and they are safe, no? Don't impose your views of healthcare on me and my family. I don't make you get sterilized because you're a liberal loon do I? Liberalism does more harm to society than measles ever will. You do know there are windows when children are not vaccinated right? Or that some people can't be vaccinated for various reasons? I gave a generalized example ~_~ Also good to see apparently you approve of people being sterilized in private, good ole eugenics days. Also not a liberal thank you very much, I don't identify with either side exclusively and really just dislike the far ends of both spectrum. I guess since people are so attached to placing complex and varied ideological views into a simple label I guess you could call me a "moderate".
The duck theorem says you're a liberal, you can dodge all you want.
Second, I perfectly understand vaccination schedules. I listen to the spiel every time I take my kids to the doctor. Your example fails to support your post. You don't want it to be picked apart, make a better example, especially when you choose to make such radical statements such as being able to make people liable for manslaughter because they do not conform to your dogmatic views on what is acceptable parental choice in their children's healthcare.
|
On February 28 2015 10:30 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2015 10:14 Leporello wrote:On February 28 2015 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Georgia Republican who recently became the chair of a key congressional subcommittee on science and technology, didn't vaccinate most of his children, he told a crowd at his first town hall meeting last week.
Loudermilk was responding to a woman who asked whether he'd be looking into (discredited) allegations that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had covered up information linking vaccines to autism. He responded with a rather unscientific personal anecdote: "I believe it's the parents' decision whether to immunize or not…Most of our children, we didn't immunize. They're healthy."
Source Is is too much to ask that the chair of a subcommittee on science and technology actually show some understanding and respect for science and technology? This issue really frames a lot I don't like about Republican ideology. "It's the parents' decision." Sounds nice, until you think about it. They're all about individual freedom. Never mind the society you live in. Never mind the ramifications of such decisions on the people around you. Never mind the scientists, never mind the environment. Just do what you feel is "right". The only reason prats like him can afford to make these "personal decisions" is because they're surrounded by enough people who do actually consider the lives and livelihood of the people around them (and do get their kids vaccinated). How is that for personal responsibility? His kids are healthy because others, not him, did the right thing. You don't live on island. And if people like Loudermilk did live on an island, they'd die, really quick, from ignorance. Vaccinate your germ-riddled kids, thank you. Let them not vaccinate, just let me press charges for manslaughter and reckless endangerment if your kid gives mine some disease and they die from it when it could have been prevented via vaccine.
Moreover IMO anyone who doesn't vaccinate and their kid dies I think they should be charged with their child's preventable death as well.
|
On February 28 2015 12:15 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2015 12:12 BallinWitStalin wrote:On February 28 2015 11:40 hannahbelle wrote:“For me, the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems, is more than a mission,” Mr. Pachauri wrote. “It is my religion and my dharma. The IPCC needs strong leadership and dedication of time.” SourceThe scientific method is strong in this one. A: Let me get this straight: You, the oddly evasive and semi-critical of the theory of evolution, anti-vaxxer, climate change-denying pseudo-troll, are criticizing someone for being "anti-scientific"? You, of all people? That is next-level cognitive dissonance right there. B: You also understand that that particular quote actually has nothing to do with science? I don't agree with that quote, myself, but you get that he's talking about a moral philosophy, not anything that has to actually do with the scientific method, right? He's laying out his goals there: science can advise him how best to achieve those goals, but his goals are set by his own morality. He even admits that he's talking about his own moral system. In the quote itself. I kind of feel like you are the one who might not actually have an understanding of the scientific method. Man, I promised myself I would not respond to you anymore, I don't know why I even bother..... But that's what the best trolls do. They suck you right back in. I will admit, you are good at what you do.... First off, I'm not sure I have made any assertion concerning evolution on this board, so you may want to check on that one. Second, how can you trust any claim being made this guy when he views is work as some sort of religious experience? That takes any and all ability to be objective and throws it straight out the window. The guy has already been found guilty of making wacky claims about the danger of "climate change" that have no scientific grounding, and then this quote comes out. And you wonder why people question the "science" he is pushing...
Yeah, you know who would've disproved those wacky claims? Scientists. It's how the method works. The fact that his claims were panned means that it's working. You said it yourself, they had no scientific grounding, and were thus criticized.
Anyways, I'm going to bed. My bad on the evolution thing, if you didn't make any claims, I thought I recalled you mentioning it in the context of home-schooling.
.....out of curiosity, what exactly ARE you views on evolution? I feel like they're relevant to this particular issue....
Edit: Nothing in you're post above to Slaughter "picked him apart". Stop pre-declaring your internet "victory" without actually posting much of anything of substance....it just reads weird.
|
On February 28 2015 12:17 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2015 12:13 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 11:35 hannahbelle wrote:On February 28 2015 10:30 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 10:14 Leporello wrote:On February 28 2015 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Georgia Republican who recently became the chair of a key congressional subcommittee on science and technology, didn't vaccinate most of his children, he told a crowd at his first town hall meeting last week.
Loudermilk was responding to a woman who asked whether he'd be looking into (discredited) allegations that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had covered up information linking vaccines to autism. He responded with a rather unscientific personal anecdote: "I believe it's the parents' decision whether to immunize or not…Most of our children, we didn't immunize. They're healthy."
Source Is is too much to ask that the chair of a subcommittee on science and technology actually show some understanding and respect for science and technology? This issue really frames a lot I don't like about Republican ideology. "It's the parents' decision." Sounds nice, until you think about it. They're all about individual freedom. Never mind the society you live in. Never mind the ramifications of such decisions on the people around you. Never mind the scientists, never mind the environment. Just do what you feel is "right". The only reason prats like him can afford to make these "personal decisions" is because they're surrounded by enough people who do actually consider the lives and livelihood of the people around them (and do get their kids vaccinated). How is that for personal responsibility? His kids are healthy because others, not him, did the right thing. You don't live on island. And if people like Loudermilk did live on an island, they'd die, really quick, from ignorance. Vaccinate your germ-riddled kids, thank you. Let them not vaccinate, just let me press charges for manslaughter and reckless endangerment if your kid gives mine some disease and they die from it when it could have been prevented via vaccine. Why you worried? You vaccinate your kids and they are safe, no? Don't impose your views of healthcare on me and my family. I don't make you get sterilized because you're a liberal loon do I? Liberalism does more harm to society than measles ever will. You do know there are windows when children are not vaccinated right? Or that some people can't be vaccinated for various reasons? I gave a generalized example ~_~ Also good to see apparently you approve of people being sterilized in private, good ole eugenics days. Also not a liberal thank you very much, I don't identify with either side exclusively and really just dislike the far ends of both spectrum. I guess since people are so attached to placing complex and varied ideological views into a simple label I guess you could call me a "moderate". The duck theorem says you're a liberal, you can dodge all you want. Second, I perfectly understand vaccination schedules. I listen to the spiel every time I take my kids to the doctor. Your example fails to support your post. You don't want it to be picked apart, make a better example, especially when you choose to make such radical statements such as being able to make people liable for manslaughter because they do not conform to your dogmatic views on what is acceptable parental choice in their children's healthcare.
Its a perfectly valid example, just because I did not state the specific reasons for the theoretical kid being vulnerable doesn't mean they don't exist. Besides plz, the comment wasn't entirely serious to begin with, it was more facetious than anything else with an underlying question of potential repercussions for those that put others at risk. Considering society punishes people for placing others in danger for dangerous behavior it is an interesting thought for those who think its a public health issue.
|
On February 28 2015 12:17 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2015 12:13 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 11:35 hannahbelle wrote:On February 28 2015 10:30 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 10:14 Leporello wrote:On February 28 2015 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Georgia Republican who recently became the chair of a key congressional subcommittee on science and technology, didn't vaccinate most of his children, he told a crowd at his first town hall meeting last week.
Loudermilk was responding to a woman who asked whether he'd be looking into (discredited) allegations that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had covered up information linking vaccines to autism. He responded with a rather unscientific personal anecdote: "I believe it's the parents' decision whether to immunize or not…Most of our children, we didn't immunize. They're healthy."
Source Is is too much to ask that the chair of a subcommittee on science and technology actually show some understanding and respect for science and technology? This issue really frames a lot I don't like about Republican ideology. "It's the parents' decision." Sounds nice, until you think about it. They're all about individual freedom. Never mind the society you live in. Never mind the ramifications of such decisions on the people around you. Never mind the scientists, never mind the environment. Just do what you feel is "right". The only reason prats like him can afford to make these "personal decisions" is because they're surrounded by enough people who do actually consider the lives and livelihood of the people around them (and do get their kids vaccinated). How is that for personal responsibility? His kids are healthy because others, not him, did the right thing. You don't live on island. And if people like Loudermilk did live on an island, they'd die, really quick, from ignorance. Vaccinate your germ-riddled kids, thank you. Let them not vaccinate, just let me press charges for manslaughter and reckless endangerment if your kid gives mine some disease and they die from it when it could have been prevented via vaccine. Why you worried? You vaccinate your kids and they are safe, no? Don't impose your views of healthcare on me and my family. I don't make you get sterilized because you're a liberal loon do I? Liberalism does more harm to society than measles ever will. You do know there are windows when children are not vaccinated right? Or that some people can't be vaccinated for various reasons? I gave a generalized example ~_~ Also good to see apparently you approve of people being sterilized in private, good ole eugenics days. Also not a liberal thank you very much, I don't identify with either side exclusively and really just dislike the far ends of both spectrum. I guess since people are so attached to placing complex and varied ideological views into a simple label I guess you could call me a "moderate". The duck theorem says you're a liberal, you can dodge all you want. Second, I perfectly understand vaccination schedules. I listen to the spiel every time I take my kids to the doctor. Your example fails to support your post. You don't want it to be picked apart, make a better example, especially when you choose to make such radical statements such as being able to make people liable for manslaughter because they do not conform to your dogmatic views on what is acceptable parental choice in their children's healthcare.
So where do you stand on evolution and "Faith healing' for treatable life threatening illnesses?
Is the government saying that praying God saves your kid from pneumonia (Instead of healthcare) is Manslaughter also making people "conform to your dogmatic views on what is acceptable parental choice in their children's healthcare."?
|
On February 28 2015 12:23 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2015 12:17 hannahbelle wrote:On February 28 2015 12:13 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 11:35 hannahbelle wrote:On February 28 2015 10:30 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 10:14 Leporello wrote:On February 28 2015 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Georgia Republican who recently became the chair of a key congressional subcommittee on science and technology, didn't vaccinate most of his children, he told a crowd at his first town hall meeting last week.
Loudermilk was responding to a woman who asked whether he'd be looking into (discredited) allegations that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had covered up information linking vaccines to autism. He responded with a rather unscientific personal anecdote: "I believe it's the parents' decision whether to immunize or not…Most of our children, we didn't immunize. They're healthy."
Source Is is too much to ask that the chair of a subcommittee on science and technology actually show some understanding and respect for science and technology? This issue really frames a lot I don't like about Republican ideology. "It's the parents' decision." Sounds nice, until you think about it. They're all about individual freedom. Never mind the society you live in. Never mind the ramifications of such decisions on the people around you. Never mind the scientists, never mind the environment. Just do what you feel is "right". The only reason prats like him can afford to make these "personal decisions" is because they're surrounded by enough people who do actually consider the lives and livelihood of the people around them (and do get their kids vaccinated). How is that for personal responsibility? His kids are healthy because others, not him, did the right thing. You don't live on island. And if people like Loudermilk did live on an island, they'd die, really quick, from ignorance. Vaccinate your germ-riddled kids, thank you. Let them not vaccinate, just let me press charges for manslaughter and reckless endangerment if your kid gives mine some disease and they die from it when it could have been prevented via vaccine. Why you worried? You vaccinate your kids and they are safe, no? Don't impose your views of healthcare on me and my family. I don't make you get sterilized because you're a liberal loon do I? Liberalism does more harm to society than measles ever will. You do know there are windows when children are not vaccinated right? Or that some people can't be vaccinated for various reasons? I gave a generalized example ~_~ Also good to see apparently you approve of people being sterilized in private, good ole eugenics days. Also not a liberal thank you very much, I don't identify with either side exclusively and really just dislike the far ends of both spectrum. I guess since people are so attached to placing complex and varied ideological views into a simple label I guess you could call me a "moderate". The duck theorem says you're a liberal, you can dodge all you want. Second, I perfectly understand vaccination schedules. I listen to the spiel every time I take my kids to the doctor. Your example fails to support your post. You don't want it to be picked apart, make a better example, especially when you choose to make such radical statements such as being able to make people liable for manslaughter because they do not conform to your dogmatic views on what is acceptable parental choice in their children's healthcare. Its a perfectly valid example, just because I did not state the specific reasons for the theoretical kid being vulnerable doesn't mean they don't exist. Besides plz, the comment wasn't entirely serious to begin with, it was more facetious than anything else with an underlying question of potential repercussions for those that put others at risk. Considering society punishes people for placing others in danger for dangerous behavior it is an interesting thought for those who think its a public health issue.
You are always free to ask people you associate your too young to vaccinate child with if they are vaccinated and avoid those people. The live exposure time for measles is fairly small, so the chances of accidentally contracting it unwittingly is also correspondingly small. Even with the Disney land outbreak, in terms of sheer numbers of potential transfers, the actual transfer rate was small, and supposedly, most always to other unvaccinated children.
You rabid vaccinators would do well to tamper down the fear mongering concerning unvaccinated children. Even your bought and paid for scientists conducting the research admit that the most danger is other unvaccinated children of parents who are well aware of the "risks" they are taking by not vaccinating. Your proposal to explore legal liability from willful endangerment seems rather dramatic when the preponderance of evidence would indicate that any potential danger is mostly to others of the same group you suppose to hold liable.
|
On February 28 2015 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2015 12:17 hannahbelle wrote:On February 28 2015 12:13 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 11:35 hannahbelle wrote:On February 28 2015 10:30 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 10:14 Leporello wrote:On February 28 2015 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Georgia Republican who recently became the chair of a key congressional subcommittee on science and technology, didn't vaccinate most of his children, he told a crowd at his first town hall meeting last week.
Loudermilk was responding to a woman who asked whether he'd be looking into (discredited) allegations that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had covered up information linking vaccines to autism. He responded with a rather unscientific personal anecdote: "I believe it's the parents' decision whether to immunize or not…Most of our children, we didn't immunize. They're healthy."
Source Is is too much to ask that the chair of a subcommittee on science and technology actually show some understanding and respect for science and technology? This issue really frames a lot I don't like about Republican ideology. "It's the parents' decision." Sounds nice, until you think about it. They're all about individual freedom. Never mind the society you live in. Never mind the ramifications of such decisions on the people around you. Never mind the scientists, never mind the environment. Just do what you feel is "right". The only reason prats like him can afford to make these "personal decisions" is because they're surrounded by enough people who do actually consider the lives and livelihood of the people around them (and do get their kids vaccinated). How is that for personal responsibility? His kids are healthy because others, not him, did the right thing. You don't live on island. And if people like Loudermilk did live on an island, they'd die, really quick, from ignorance. Vaccinate your germ-riddled kids, thank you. Let them not vaccinate, just let me press charges for manslaughter and reckless endangerment if your kid gives mine some disease and they die from it when it could have been prevented via vaccine. Why you worried? You vaccinate your kids and they are safe, no? Don't impose your views of healthcare on me and my family. I don't make you get sterilized because you're a liberal loon do I? Liberalism does more harm to society than measles ever will. You do know there are windows when children are not vaccinated right? Or that some people can't be vaccinated for various reasons? I gave a generalized example ~_~ Also good to see apparently you approve of people being sterilized in private, good ole eugenics days. Also not a liberal thank you very much, I don't identify with either side exclusively and really just dislike the far ends of both spectrum. I guess since people are so attached to placing complex and varied ideological views into a simple label I guess you could call me a "moderate". The duck theorem says you're a liberal, you can dodge all you want. Second, I perfectly understand vaccination schedules. I listen to the spiel every time I take my kids to the doctor. Your example fails to support your post. You don't want it to be picked apart, make a better example, especially when you choose to make such radical statements such as being able to make people liable for manslaughter because they do not conform to your dogmatic views on what is acceptable parental choice in their children's healthcare. So where do you stand on evolution and "Faith healing' for treatable life threatening illnesses? Is the government saying that praying God saves your kid from pneumonia (Instead of healthcare) is Manslaughter also making people "conform to your dogmatic views on what is acceptable parental choice in their children's healthcare."?
First, before I answer, I will say that I will answer the faith healing question as posed, which is treating an existing health issue. This is different that our concurrent discussion on vaccination, which is, by definition, about preventing disease.
I believe that God says to not tempt Him. Relying soley on prayer to heal a child when He has given us medical ways to save said children is not something I would personally do and would not advocate others to do. That being said, there is a difference in relying on faith to heal a child from a rather innocuous ailment, say a common cold, and healing a child from a treatable form of cancer. You would need to account for the chance of serious injury or fatality. If that chance is onerous, my arbitrary number would be 5-10%, then I would expect that the parents not allowing the treatment would be akin to them letting their child play in a busy street and treated similarly. If the chance is under that threshold, and the worst outcome occurs, even death, I wouldn't be amenable to punishing the parents for their choice in treatment method. Mainly because I don't believe it would fall under the legal guidelines around reasonable foreseeability for the consequence of an action. No one reasonably expects someone to die from a cold, regardless of how said cold is treated.
|
On February 28 2015 12:40 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2015 12:23 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 12:17 hannahbelle wrote:On February 28 2015 12:13 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 11:35 hannahbelle wrote:On February 28 2015 10:30 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 10:14 Leporello wrote:On February 28 2015 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Georgia Republican who recently became the chair of a key congressional subcommittee on science and technology, didn't vaccinate most of his children, he told a crowd at his first town hall meeting last week.
Loudermilk was responding to a woman who asked whether he'd be looking into (discredited) allegations that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had covered up information linking vaccines to autism. He responded with a rather unscientific personal anecdote: "I believe it's the parents' decision whether to immunize or not…Most of our children, we didn't immunize. They're healthy."
Source Is is too much to ask that the chair of a subcommittee on science and technology actually show some understanding and respect for science and technology? This issue really frames a lot I don't like about Republican ideology. "It's the parents' decision." Sounds nice, until you think about it. They're all about individual freedom. Never mind the society you live in. Never mind the ramifications of such decisions on the people around you. Never mind the scientists, never mind the environment. Just do what you feel is "right". The only reason prats like him can afford to make these "personal decisions" is because they're surrounded by enough people who do actually consider the lives and livelihood of the people around them (and do get their kids vaccinated). How is that for personal responsibility? His kids are healthy because others, not him, did the right thing. You don't live on island. And if people like Loudermilk did live on an island, they'd die, really quick, from ignorance. Vaccinate your germ-riddled kids, thank you. Let them not vaccinate, just let me press charges for manslaughter and reckless endangerment if your kid gives mine some disease and they die from it when it could have been prevented via vaccine. Why you worried? You vaccinate your kids and they are safe, no? Don't impose your views of healthcare on me and my family. I don't make you get sterilized because you're a liberal loon do I? Liberalism does more harm to society than measles ever will. You do know there are windows when children are not vaccinated right? Or that some people can't be vaccinated for various reasons? I gave a generalized example ~_~ Also good to see apparently you approve of people being sterilized in private, good ole eugenics days. Also not a liberal thank you very much, I don't identify with either side exclusively and really just dislike the far ends of both spectrum. I guess since people are so attached to placing complex and varied ideological views into a simple label I guess you could call me a "moderate". The duck theorem says you're a liberal, you can dodge all you want. Second, I perfectly understand vaccination schedules. I listen to the spiel every time I take my kids to the doctor. Your example fails to support your post. You don't want it to be picked apart, make a better example, especially when you choose to make such radical statements such as being able to make people liable for manslaughter because they do not conform to your dogmatic views on what is acceptable parental choice in their children's healthcare. Its a perfectly valid example, just because I did not state the specific reasons for the theoretical kid being vulnerable doesn't mean they don't exist. Besides plz, the comment wasn't entirely serious to begin with, it was more facetious than anything else with an underlying question of potential repercussions for those that put others at risk. Considering society punishes people for placing others in danger for dangerous behavior it is an interesting thought for those who think its a public health issue. You are always free to ask people you associate your too young to vaccinate child with if they are vaccinated and avoid those people. The live exposure time for measles is fairly small, so the chances of accidentally contracting it unwittingly is also correspondingly small Citation Needed. Even with the Disney land outbreak, in terms of sheer numbers of potential transfers, the actual transfer rate was small, and supposedly, most always to other unvaccinated children. Citation Needed You rabid vaccinators would do well to tamper down the fear mongering concerning unvaccinated children. Even your bought and paid for scientists conducting the research admit that the most danger is other unvaccinated children of parents who are well aware of the "risks" they are taking by not vaccinating Citation Needed. Your proposal to explore legal liability from willful endangerment seems rather dramatic when the preponderance of evidence would indicate that any potential danger is mostly to others of the same group you suppose to hold liable.
|
On February 28 2015 12:57 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2015 12:40 hannahbelle wrote:On February 28 2015 12:23 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 12:17 hannahbelle wrote:On February 28 2015 12:13 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 11:35 hannahbelle wrote:On February 28 2015 10:30 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 10:14 Leporello wrote:On February 28 2015 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Georgia Republican who recently became the chair of a key congressional subcommittee on science and technology, didn't vaccinate most of his children, he told a crowd at his first town hall meeting last week.
Loudermilk was responding to a woman who asked whether he'd be looking into (discredited) allegations that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had covered up information linking vaccines to autism. He responded with a rather unscientific personal anecdote: "I believe it's the parents' decision whether to immunize or not…Most of our children, we didn't immunize. They're healthy."
Source Is is too much to ask that the chair of a subcommittee on science and technology actually show some understanding and respect for science and technology? This issue really frames a lot I don't like about Republican ideology. "It's the parents' decision." Sounds nice, until you think about it. They're all about individual freedom. Never mind the society you live in. Never mind the ramifications of such decisions on the people around you. Never mind the scientists, never mind the environment. Just do what you feel is "right". The only reason prats like him can afford to make these "personal decisions" is because they're surrounded by enough people who do actually consider the lives and livelihood of the people around them (and do get their kids vaccinated). How is that for personal responsibility? His kids are healthy because others, not him, did the right thing. You don't live on island. And if people like Loudermilk did live on an island, they'd die, really quick, from ignorance. Vaccinate your germ-riddled kids, thank you. Let them not vaccinate, just let me press charges for manslaughter and reckless endangerment if your kid gives mine some disease and they die from it when it could have been prevented via vaccine. Why you worried? You vaccinate your kids and they are safe, no? Don't impose your views of healthcare on me and my family. I don't make you get sterilized because you're a liberal loon do I? Liberalism does more harm to society than measles ever will. You do know there are windows when children are not vaccinated right? Or that some people can't be vaccinated for various reasons? I gave a generalized example ~_~ Also good to see apparently you approve of people being sterilized in private, good ole eugenics days. Also not a liberal thank you very much, I don't identify with either side exclusively and really just dislike the far ends of both spectrum. I guess since people are so attached to placing complex and varied ideological views into a simple label I guess you could call me a "moderate". The duck theorem says you're a liberal, you can dodge all you want. Second, I perfectly understand vaccination schedules. I listen to the spiel every time I take my kids to the doctor. Your example fails to support your post. You don't want it to be picked apart, make a better example, especially when you choose to make such radical statements such as being able to make people liable for manslaughter because they do not conform to your dogmatic views on what is acceptable parental choice in their children's healthcare. Its a perfectly valid example, just because I did not state the specific reasons for the theoretical kid being vulnerable doesn't mean they don't exist. Besides plz, the comment wasn't entirely serious to begin with, it was more facetious than anything else with an underlying question of potential repercussions for those that put others at risk. Considering society punishes people for placing others in danger for dangerous behavior it is an interesting thought for those who think its a public health issue. You are always free to ask people you associate your too young to vaccinate child with if they are vaccinated and avoid those people. The live exposure time for measles is fairly small, so the chances of accidentally contracting it unwittingly is also correspondingly small Citation Needed. Even with the Disney land outbreak, in terms of sheer numbers of potential transfers, the actual transfer rate was small, and supposedly, most always to other unvaccinated children. Citation Needed You rabid vaccinators would do well to tamper down the fear mongering concerning unvaccinated children. Even your bought and paid for scientists conducting the research admit that the most danger is other unvaccinated children of parents who are well aware of the "risks" they are taking by not vaccinating Citation Needed. Your proposal to explore legal liability from willful endangerment seems rather dramatic when the preponderance of evidence would indicate that any potential danger is mostly to others of the same group you suppose to hold liable.
Go read the news articles.
|
On February 28 2015 13:38 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2015 12:57 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 12:40 hannahbelle wrote:On February 28 2015 12:23 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 12:17 hannahbelle wrote:On February 28 2015 12:13 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 11:35 hannahbelle wrote:On February 28 2015 10:30 Slaughter wrote:On February 28 2015 10:14 Leporello wrote:On February 28 2015 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Source Is is too much to ask that the chair of a subcommittee on science and technology actually show some understanding and respect for science and technology? This issue really frames a lot I don't like about Republican ideology. "It's the parents' decision." Sounds nice, until you think about it. They're all about individual freedom. Never mind the society you live in. Never mind the ramifications of such decisions on the people around you. Never mind the scientists, never mind the environment. Just do what you feel is "right". The only reason prats like him can afford to make these "personal decisions" is because they're surrounded by enough people who do actually consider the lives and livelihood of the people around them (and do get their kids vaccinated). How is that for personal responsibility? His kids are healthy because others, not him, did the right thing. You don't live on island. And if people like Loudermilk did live on an island, they'd die, really quick, from ignorance. Vaccinate your germ-riddled kids, thank you. Let them not vaccinate, just let me press charges for manslaughter and reckless endangerment if your kid gives mine some disease and they die from it when it could have been prevented via vaccine. Why you worried? You vaccinate your kids and they are safe, no? Don't impose your views of healthcare on me and my family. I don't make you get sterilized because you're a liberal loon do I? Liberalism does more harm to society than measles ever will. You do know there are windows when children are not vaccinated right? Or that some people can't be vaccinated for various reasons? I gave a generalized example ~_~ Also good to see apparently you approve of people being sterilized in private, good ole eugenics days. Also not a liberal thank you very much, I don't identify with either side exclusively and really just dislike the far ends of both spectrum. I guess since people are so attached to placing complex and varied ideological views into a simple label I guess you could call me a "moderate". The duck theorem says you're a liberal, you can dodge all you want. Second, I perfectly understand vaccination schedules. I listen to the spiel every time I take my kids to the doctor. Your example fails to support your post. You don't want it to be picked apart, make a better example, especially when you choose to make such radical statements such as being able to make people liable for manslaughter because they do not conform to your dogmatic views on what is acceptable parental choice in their children's healthcare. Its a perfectly valid example, just because I did not state the specific reasons for the theoretical kid being vulnerable doesn't mean they don't exist. Besides plz, the comment wasn't entirely serious to begin with, it was more facetious than anything else with an underlying question of potential repercussions for those that put others at risk. Considering society punishes people for placing others in danger for dangerous behavior it is an interesting thought for those who think its a public health issue. You are always free to ask people you associate your too young to vaccinate child with if they are vaccinated and avoid those people. The live exposure time for measles is fairly small, so the chances of accidentally contracting it unwittingly is also correspondingly small Citation Needed. Even with the Disney land outbreak, in terms of sheer numbers of potential transfers, the actual transfer rate was small, and supposedly, most always to other unvaccinated children. Citation Needed You rabid vaccinators would do well to tamper down the fear mongering concerning unvaccinated children. Even your bought and paid for scientists conducting the research admit that the most danger is other unvaccinated children of parents who are well aware of the "risks" they are taking by not vaccinating Citation Needed. Your proposal to explore legal liability from willful endangerment seems rather dramatic when the preponderance of evidence would indicate that any potential danger is mostly to others of the same group you suppose to hold liable. Go read the news articles.
Since when are news articles a valid source making medical claims? Its the equivalent of citing Wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
