US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1968

On May 16 2015 04:03 Ghostcom wrote:
Contagiousness is a bad argument as the kids aren't actually sick and we are not even sure they will ever contract the disease. You are effectively arguing that it is okay to violate the right to self-determination to treat healthy kids. Additionally, were we to accept that contagiousness was an important distinction then what we are really arguing is the potential to harm others right? In that case you really should be in front of the line when it comes to pregnant women smoking/drinking... Furthermore, are you willing to tie people to a bed whilst you treat them for their contagious diseases? The classic case is that of an addict who needs treatment for tuberculosis but is unwilling.

On May 16 2015 04:07 coverpunch wrote:

They picked samples making the point that no single reason dominates why people are skeptical of vaccines. People aren't showing a broad trend of invoking God, claiming infringement on their rights, or showing scientific ignorance (not completely anyways). So a lot of the argumentation here is off topic because it simply isn't addressing the kinds of things people actually say when they oppose mandatory vaccinations. Pew's main survey shows that people claiming to be Democrats were slightly more likely to claim vaccines were dangerous.

To be fair, the way the debate has played out in the California Senate is even more off base than TL, but that's how you screw up the budget of the world's 7th largest economy with every conceivable blessing.

It is worth noting that very few unvaccinated children are left that way because their parents are claiming a personal benefit. The vast majority have simply fallen behind on the vaccine schedule, which might be a softer anti vax where parents don't like having their kids stuck multiple times. Whether doctors can force them to accept their screaming kids in the name of public health is a very different question. The answer will almost certainly vary if you've ever actually had to deal with such a child.

On May 16 2015 04:13 oneofthem wrote:
no need for an essay on it. your pointthat vac deniers are well informed is not necessarily supported by your evidence because of the obviously targeted selection of these responses

On May 16 2015 04:14 ZasZ. wrote:


Are we talking about vaccines or not? Contagiousness is a fine argument within this context, and vaccines are not a treatment they are vaccines. For vaccinations to work, they need to be given to healthy children so that no one contracts the disease. Pregnant women who smoke or drink is a fickle beast because for one, you are dealing with addictive chemicals. I would imagine there are women who don't want to smoke or drink while they are pregnant but are unable to do so. Should they be criminalized? Maybe, but it depends on how you feel about addiction. Also, unless their drinking and/or smoking causes injury to the fetus, it is difficult to prove or enforce, because these behaviors occur in private for the most part. There are many ways to gate access to certain services for children depending on whether or not the child has been vaccinated.

And yes, I would be willing to tie people to a bed to treat them for contagious diseases. If they do not have the sense to get themselves treated for something that could be dangerous to others, they lose their right to self-determination as far as I am concerned. Obviously, for people who are unable to afford treatment, you have to meet them in the middle somewhere so you are not just criminalizing people for being poor.

On May 16 2015 04:21 Ghostcom wrote:


We are talking about the potential slippery slope that violating the right to self-determination opens. I'm well within the context.

I think it is becoming clear that you and I will have to disagree. I'm not very interested in living in a society where the hallmark for when people lose their right to self-determination is when they by inaction hurt others. Following that line of logic to it's natural conclusion is rather frightening to be honest.

On May 16 2015 04:21 Ghostcom wrote:


We are talking about the potential slippery slope that violating the right to self-determination opens. I'm well within the context.

I think it is becoming clear that you and I will have to disagree. I'm not very interested in living in a society where the hallmark for when people lose their right to self-determination is when they by inaction hurt others. Following that line of logic to it's natural conclusion is rather frightening to be honest.

On May 16 2015 04:36 Djzapz wrote:
Just a quick question. Massachusetts abolished the death penalty in 1984, so why the fuck is capital punishment on the table for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev? I'm not super familiar with the weird idea of US "justice".

On May 16 2015 04:36 Djzapz wrote:
Just a quick question. Massachusetts abolished the death penalty in 1984, so why the fuck is capital punishment on the table for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev? I'm not super familiar with the weird idea of US "justice".

MIAMI (AP) – A handful of Miami Beach police officers sent hundreds of racially offensive and pornographic emails and possibly jeopardized dozens of criminal cases in which they are witnesses, the department's chief said Thursday.

An internal investigation revealed that two of the 16 officers were high-ranking within the Miami Beach Police Department and were the main instigators, Chief Daniel Oates told reporters. One has retired, and the other was fired Thursday.

Oates said the probe revealed about 230 emails demeaning to African-Americans and women or pornographic in nature. Many were depictions of crude racial jokes involving President Barack Obama or black celebrities such as golfer Tiger Woods. One shows a woman with a black eye and the caption, "Domestic violence. Because sometimes, you have to tell her more than once."

One of the racially offensive emails depicted a board game called "Black Monopoly" in which every square says "go to jail."

Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle said about 540 cases in which the officers were witnesses are being reviewed to determine if they are tainted racially. Some charges could be dropped as a result or prisoners freed from jail.

On May 16 2015 04:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:


Its a federal case, the death penalty is on the table for federal cases and the feds are pretty damn good at getting the death penalty when they want it and quick to execute. He's a goner.

On May 16 2015 04:48 NovaTheFeared wrote:


I don't know about that, wiki says the feds haven't executed anyone since 2003.

On May 16 2015 04:51 Djzapz wrote:

How do the authorities randomly select a bunch of people who are open to death penalty with random chance though? Just takes a guy like me and you'll never have a consensus.

On May 16 2015 04:52 NovaTheFeared wrote:


The lawyers among us may chime in on this one, but I believe during jury selection that is made a criteria that you are capable of voting for the death penalty if the law applies. If you say I'm morally opposed to the death penalty and will never vote for it even if the facts and law warrant it, you get stricken from the pool.

One of the racially offensive emails depicted a board game called "Black Monopoly" in which every square says "go to jail."