EPTI'm sure whatever topic next surfaces in the news will provide another great battleground for driving a point home. This one's the quintessence of beating a dead horse.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1965
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
I'm sure whatever topic next surfaces in the news will provide another great battleground for driving a point home. This one's the quintessence of beating a dead horse. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23613 Posts
On May 15 2015 05:58 Danglars wrote: For the sake of a thread on politics, can you two just drop the bickering on details when you can't come to terms? This is like a thread pollution version of CCStealthBlue's Environmental Disaster of the Week. It just sickens you. Any forum-goer can read 10 pages and see the gist of both sides in racism and sexism in jobs, and I doubt another two pages will be the clincher in persuading the reader who's being disingenuous and who's arguing in good faith. I'm sure whatever topic next surfaces in the news will provide another great battleground for driving a point home. This one's the quintessence of beating a dead horse. For someone not shy about pointing out how I'm wrong or openly disagreeing with me, it's curious you didn't do it here (I'll chalk it up to trying to do the right thing so we can move on). We aren't really bickering details though. I'm pointing out the assumptions he made about how HR actually works, invalidates the very point he was making. I think someone/people like you (meaning people who typically disagree with me) just coming out and saying that his point was ridiculous to start with would put an end to it quicker than trying to make it seem like we were quibbling details that didn't matter to the point he tried to assert though. Either way, if no one mentions it, I don't see a need to discuss it further at this point. | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
On May 15 2015 05:58 Danglars wrote: For the sake of a thread on politics, can you two just drop the bickering on details when you can't come to terms? This is like a thread pollution version of CCStealthBlue's Environmental Disaster of the Week. It just sickens you. Any forum-goer can read 10 pages and see the gist of both sides in racism and sexism in jobs, and I doubt another two pages will be the clincher in persuading the reader who's being disingenuous and who's arguing in good faith. I'm sure whatever topic next surfaces in the news will provide another great battleground for driving a point home. This one's the quintessence of beating a dead horse. What the hell is wrong with StealthBlue posting news about incidents in which serious damage to the environment was done? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
California's state Senate has passed a bill to eliminate "personal belief exemptions" that currently allow parents to opt out of having their school-age children vaccinated. SB 277, sponsored by Democratic Sens. Richard Pan of Sacramento and Ben Allen of Santa Monica, passed 25 to 10 and now advances to the Assembly. The bill's sponsors introduced the legislation following an outbreak of measles in Disneyland that started in December and sickened dozens. Most of those who became ill had never been vaccinated against measles. "When you have pockets of low vaccination," Pan, a pediatrician, said, "we need to do more to protect our communities. ... This is a matter of public safety." The San Jose Mercury News says the bill "would require children to be vaccinated before entering kindergarten. Medical exemptions are permitted but exemptions based on personal and religious objections are not." Lisa Aliferis of member station KQED in San Francisco says the vote was largely along party lines, with many Republicans opposing it. "Getting a religious exemption is not unreasonable," said Sen. Joel Anderson, R-San Diego, according to Aliferis. "Don't get caught up with zeal. ... You can gain more with honey than you can with vinegar." KQED says that if the bill becomes law, California would become the third state to have such a strict requirement. Source | ||
KwarK
United States43536 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23613 Posts
On May 15 2015 07:46 KwarK wrote: Yeah, better not get caught up with zeal over stopping children die from diseases we already wiped out once. Let's be reasonable on that subject, I'm sure both sides have merit. You can gain more with honey than you can with vinegar though Kwark. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On May 15 2015 07:53 Nyxisto wrote: just vaccinate the little fuckers, why does every medical issue have to be turned into some kind of war of freedom : ( Because of the somewhat sad medical history of the US - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment | ||
|
KwarK
United States43536 Posts
On May 15 2015 10:03 Ghostcom wrote: Because of the somewhat sad medical history of the US - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment I wish shit like that was why people didn't trust the government but I don't think it is. I don't think most people even know about stuff like that. It's more a general ignorance and distrust of science in my opinion. The same way that people will genuinely believe the government is after their guns to create a police state while their civil liberties are stripped in countless other ways. Distrust doesn't need to be linked to wrongdoing, a lot of people just really enjoy distrust, especially when it allows them to believe that people almost universally agreed to be smarter than they are are wrong and they are uniquely right. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23613 Posts
On May 15 2015 10:21 KwarK wrote: I wish shit like that was why people didn't trust the government but I don't think it is. I don't think most people even know about stuff like that. It's more a general ignorance and distrust of science in my opinion. The same way that people will genuinely believe the government is after their guns to create a police state while their civil liberties are stripped in countless other ways. Distrust doesn't need to be linked to wrongdoing, a lot of people just really enjoy distrust, especially when it allows them to believe that people almost universally agreed to be smarter than they are are wrong and they are uniquely right. That is actually a legitimate reason cited in black communities for why they are sometimes skeptical of the idea government mandated vaccines. It wasn't that long ago they were still ignoring letters in the 60's and it continued through into the 70's. It's also said in jest a lot. That said, there's Texas. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On May 15 2015 10:21 KwarK wrote: I wish shit like that was why people didn't trust the government but I don't think it is. I don't think most people even know about stuff like that. It's more a general ignorance and distrust of science in my opinion. The same way that people will genuinely believe the government is after their guns to create a police state while their civil liberties are stripped in countless other ways. Distrust doesn't need to be linked to wrongdoing, a lot of people just really enjoy distrust, especially when it allows them to believe that people almost universally agreed to be smarter than they are are wrong and they are uniquely right. This is actually, not true, if you look at actual respondents. ![[image loading]](http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/02/Why-Do-You-Think-Vaccines-Are-Unsafe.png) Most of these samples seem to indicate that people do fundamentally understand how vaccines work but they veer off at a certain point. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43536 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
 | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On May 15 2015 22:01 KwarK wrote: And when they veer off is when they think "I don't get how this works" is a sufficient reason to disagree with the doctor telling them that they need it. It's not. They think they're qualified to have opinions with nothing backing them up, which is fine until they turn those opinions into public health issues. Uhh, that would be the entire foundation of the Helsinki declaration - patients have a right to govern their own bodies (and in the case of legal guardians their kids bodies.) | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On May 15 2015 22:05 Ghostcom wrote: Uhh, that would be the entire foundation of the Helsinki declaration - patients have a right to govern their own bodies (and in the case of legal guardians their kids bodies.) which is specifically about medical research... and says nothing regarding population health considerations | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
On May 15 2015 22:05 Ghostcom wrote: Uhh, that would be the entire foundation of the Helsinki declaration - patients have a right to govern their own bodies (and in the case of legal guardians their kids bodies.) The Helsinki Declaration does not, however, get into a discussion as to the possibility that governments have an interest in protecting children from the stupidity of their legal guardians. Furthermore, since 2000, the DoH is less and less relevant. Edit: and yeah, what puerk said. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On May 15 2015 22:09 farvacola wrote: The Helsinki Declaration does not, however, get into a discussion as to the possibility that governments have an interest in protecting children from the stupidity of their legal guardians. Furthermore, since 2000, the DoH is less and less relevant. Edit: and yeah, what puerk said. Yeah because the declaration being specifically concerned with research means that the underlying principles are totally only reserved for when it comes to research... I must once again implore you to ACTUALLY READ MY POSTS (you are 0/3 so far). If you did you would notice that I did not say it was against the declaration specifically but against the foundation, i.e. underlying principles, of it. The same principles concerning right to governing ones own body is by the way present in GCP so the principle stays completely relevant even after 2000. (And I actually disagree with you regarding relevancy - the GCP is actually heavily criticized for not being the DoH which has led to the shitstorm that is healthresearch being outsourced to India). | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On May 15 2015 22:27 Ghostcom wrote: Yeah because the declaration being specifically concerned with research means that the underlying principles are totally only reserved for when it comes to research... The "underlying principles" of the Declaration of Helsinky are not relevant with regards to what we're discussing here. | ||
| ||
