US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1679

On February 28 2015 13:43 Slaughter wrote:


Since when are news articles a valid source making medical claims? Its the equivalent of citing Wikipedia.

On February 28 2015 14:02 hannahbelle wrote:


So you dispute the accuracy of any news article related to science? Feel free to prove my assertions wrong any day now.

WASHINGTON — Democrats bailed out House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) from a predicament on Friday by helping him pass a bill to avert a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.

For one week.

The drama exploded when the House flamed out Friday afternoon by failing to pass a bill to fund DHS for a mere three weeks. The stunning failure of the GOP leadership's bill created uncertainty over DHS funding, prompting President Barack Obama to convene a meeting with key officials to brace for a shutdown.

The Senate acted first to approve a one-week "continuing resolution" to keep DHS funds flowing at existing levels. The measure was passed by a voice vote, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) subsequently adjourned the chamber until Monday afternoon.

The House went next, approving the one-week bill by an overwhelming 357-60 margin just two hours before the deadline, and sending the bill to Obama for his signature.

Before the vote, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wrote a letter to Democrats urging them to support the legislation.

"Your vote tonight will assure that we will vote for full funding next week," she wrote.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told reporters that the Speaker hadn't committed to bringing up a full DHS funding bill next week. In response a Democratic congressional aide disputed that characterization, saying Boehner had "100 percent, absolutely" committed to bring up a "clean" DHS bill through September next week.

On February 28 2015 12:54 hannahbelle wrote:


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.

Two young children died after parents refused to treat them with medicine

A Pennsylvania mother and father who believe in faith-healing were sent to jail Wednesday for causing the death of their young, sick child by refusing to take him to the doctor. It was the second of Herbert and Catherine Schaible’s children to die under their care.

“You’ve killed two of your children…not God, not your church, not religious devotion — you,” Philadelphia Judge Benjamin Lerner told the couple, as he sentenced them to between three and a half and seven years behind bars. The Schaibles pled no contest to third-degree murder in their eight-month-old son Brandon’s death last year from pneumonia.

The Schaibles lost a first child in 2009, a two-year-old who died from pneumonia. They were sentenced to ten years probation for involuntary manslaughter for that death. Part of their probation stated that they must seek medical care if another one of their children became sick.

On February 28 2015 14:07 Slaughter wrote:


The media is well known for misrepresenting or just getting wrong scientific concepts and studies. No one takes what the media says about a study at face value, they go read the actual study. You made claims and I said you needed sources and you made some vague reference to some news article. Not only are you taking your information from inappropriate sources, but you aren't even bothering to link them and you think the burden of proof is on me to do your work for you?

On February 28 2015 14:35 GreenHorizons wrote:


Not sure how those qualifications play out in the real world so I'll just ask about a more specific case.



Is this how you would want the situation to be handled?

Too harsh, not harsh enough, just right, something else?

Who would determine when an 'innocuous ailment' is no longer a reasonable description of the child's condition?

When would you require that they stop just praying and actually take their child to a medical professional to even be diagnosed as afflicted with anything more than a 'innocuous ailment'?

Or are you suggesting you wait until the kid dies and if the autopsy shows it was obviously more than a 'innocuous ailment' then you press charges? Then if it's not clear whether the symptoms were beyond a 'innocuous ailment' do you just not press charges at all?

How many times could a kid get 'innocuous ailment' and then die before you mandate the parents take any remaining or future children afflicted with 'innocuous ailments' to a doctor?

Separately, is there a reason you haven't answered where you stand on evolution?

On February 28 2015 14:41 hannahbelle wrote:


I'd be far from the only one in this thread that doesn't document a source for everything in their posts. The news articles I referenced where the common ones concerning the recent measles outbreak at Disney Land. Hardly obscure information.

So yes, the burden is on you to prove what I said is incorrect if you still believe it to be so. But since I'm a nice guy, here ya go. It's even from a pro-vaccine source.

Source

On February 28 2015 14:50 Slaughter wrote:


Your link pretty much backs what I said? I don't get how you think this refutes my point at all.

On February 28 2015 14:52 hannahbelle wrote:


I'll go slow. You asked me to provide a source that says the most at risk for infection from unvaccinated kids is other unvaccinated kids. I did so.

I never once claimed that the article would support my stance to not vaccinate my children, did I?

On February 28 2015 14:50 hannahbelle wrote:

I think I answered this in my post. If you aren't familiar with the risks of pneumonia in 8 month olds, then you should do the research to determine where it falls in my previous outline.

I didn't sit on the jury. Not sure.

You'll have to be more specific. Common ailments typically don't morph into life-threatening ones, so I am not sure what condition is making you seek further clarification.

You asked about treatment, not diagnosis. Most parents, regardless of their preferred treatment method, can judge severity of illness. My guess would be if you actually had kids, I wouldn't need to provide you clarification.

Am I?

I am assuming most people, including kids, only die once.

Probably for the same reason I haven't told you who my favorite hockey team is.

On February 28 2015 14:57 Slaughter wrote:


My claim was that there are people out there vulnerable, that was it. And look! The article talks about this point, and even shows how it also applies to those vaccinated because its not 100% effective! You just have a shit attitude that thinks "eh its not too large a number of people in the grand scheme of things so fuck em". I think you should go slow, for your own sake. The whole point of my argument is that your "well unvaccinated people are the most at risk", which is the most obvious fucking statement ever; but that there are people out there who can't make that choice or are in the small percentage where the vaccine is not effective. Your statement that you think I am trying to refute is irrelevant.

On February 28 2015 14:57 Slaughter wrote:


My claim was that there are people out there vulnerable, that was it. And look! The article talks about this point, and even shows how it also applies to those vaccinated because its not 100% effective! You just have a shit attitude that thinks "eh its not too large a number of people in the grand scheme of things so fuck em". I think you should go slow, for your own sake. The whole point of my argument is that your "well unvaccinated people are the most at risk", which is the most obvious fucking statement ever; but that there are people out there who can't make that choice or are in the small percentage where the vaccine is not effective. Your statement that you think I am trying to refute is irrelevant.

On February 28 2015 15:02 GreenHorizons wrote:

I think I answered this in my post. If you aren't familiar with the risks of pneumonia in 8 month olds, then you should do the research to determine where it falls in my previous outline.

I didn't sit on the jury. Not sure.

You'll have to be more specific. Common ailments typically don't morph into life-threatening ones, so I am not sure what condition is making you seek further clarification.

You asked about treatment, not diagnosis. Most parents, regardless of their preferred treatment method, can judge severity of illness. My guess would be if you actually had kids, I wouldn't need to provide you clarification.

Am I?

I am assuming most people, including kids, only die once.

Probably for the same reason I haven't told you who my favorite hockey team is.

I'm pretty sure plenty of first time parents don't know the difference between a bad cough and pneumonia. So again, when would not going to a doctor to find out become a criminal offense?

Don't think you need to be on the jury to make a assessment on whether you think 0 jail time is appropriate for letting your child die from a preventable illness? Or whether 3 1/2 and 7 years is appropriate for the second time you let it happen? I'm not asking whether it fits the current law, I'm asking whether you think the law (as written) appropriately punishes people for doing things like this?

Common ailments don't morph but most serious problems often manifest first as the symptoms of common ailments. My question is at what point is that no longer a reasonable excuse to not go to the doctor. Sounds like you would leave it up to the people who are refusing to go at all in the first place?

Don't be dense... I was obviously talking about parents of multiple children...

No one asked you who your favorite hockey team was? People have asked you your stance on evolution? I think I should ask how old you think the earth is too?

Not to mention if only half of the Tea Party and half of the liberal anti-vaxx crowd 'exercised their freedom of choice', herd immunity would be shot and then what would we have to do?

On February 28 2015 15:17 hannahbelle wrote:


If its irrelevant or blatantly obvious, why bother asking for a source?

It's not that my attitude is "eh its not too large a number of people in the grand scheme of things so fuck em", but rather, "eh its not too large a number of people in the grand scheme of things so as a society we typically don't ask people to abandon their parental rights in these low impact scenarios". Typically, it has been the history that we, as a society, don't remove peoples rights, especially parental or spousal, without very compelling reasons. My view is simply that this vaccine scenario is simply not compelling enough. And you have provided no argument otherwise. What is the bar on public safety, above which we are willing to deprive people of their God given rights as parents? Should I be jailed if my child gives another child the flu? Should I have to pay doctors bills if another child contracts a cold as a result of contact with my child? Should we jail parents that don't make their kids wash their hands everytime they use the bathroom? What about every time they get dirty? Would that bar be every 30 minutes for safety? What about every 10 minutes to be sure. After all, no one doubts the science that kids can get sick from putting dirty hands in their mouths. There has to be a line somewhere.

Through this whole vaccine discussion, now and many pages ago, you guys seem to miss the point in your blind rage. I know how vaccines supposedly work. I understand the theory behind them. I don't doubt they do a lot of good in places that lack modern medicine and modern sanitation. But I believe it is and should be my right not to to vaccinate my children if I so desire.

On February 28 2015 15:29 Slaughter wrote:

Silly slippery slope argument is silly. But since your using it lets indulge. You do realize that if anti-vaxxers grew to where they were the majority the herd immunity that keeps incidences of these diseases low will evaporate yes? Is it perfectly ok to "not vaccinate" when disease rates start to edge towards pre-vaccination levels? How many deaths are worth your precious autonomy? Your arguments just seem like you really just are anti-establishment so anything that is taking a shot at larger social/political institutions (outside of religious ones) is something you support. Regardless of what the consensus opinion says or what the potential consequences are. You scoff and distrust anything that is mainstream and cling to fringe shit because "they are telling it how it is and exposing those baddies at Big xyz".

On February 28 2015 15:29 hannahbelle wrote:


Regardless of ones stance on faith healing, this question is nigh impossible to answer.

We are talking treatment not prevention remember? Before I comment on the law as written, please provide me a copy so I can see if I agree. I am not sure I know what the law says in the case.

When it becomes reasonable that it isn't a common ailment.

I answered the question you ask. If you don't want a sarcastic answer don't ask dumb questions.

Just because one has been asked and the other not, doesn't mean my reason for not answering is not the same.


I'm sure it would be Armageddon.

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 15:44 GreenHorizons wrote:


What is your stance on evolution? Approximately how old do you think the planet Earth is?

The United States condemns the brutal murder of Boris Nemtsov, and we call upon the Russian government to conduct a prompt, impartial, and transparent investigation into the circumstances of his murder and ensure that those responsible for this vicious killing are brought to justice

On February 28 2015 16:11 lastpuritan wrote:


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/world/europe/boris-nemtsov-russian-opposition-leader-is-shot-dead.html

Is that all the pressure US can put on as a nation?

Biden, Kerry, Psaki and Marie Harf are saying everything they want (mostly political) when such thing happen in a smaller country.