|
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 September 18 2015 23:18 jcarlsoniv wrote:@DPB: Show nested quote +Rubio: “40% of people who come here illegally, come here illegally.” Wtf? I'm pretty sure he said "40% of people who are here illegally come here legally". Meaning that they went through the correct process initially, but then stayed and didn't follow through? I'm not sure - I'll admit I don't know a lot about immigration policy/procedures. Ah okay, thanks! I rewatched those few seconds a few times to try to understand what he was saying haha Show nested quote +-Personally, Rand Paul resonated with me the most. I agree wholeheartedly. I wish he could get more time/support from the right - he's someone who I could have a conversation with and then not want to tear my hair out afterwards.
Agreed. Of course, he has no shot of winning the Republican primary because he's not using the stereotypically conservative talking points, so that's unfortunate.
|
The iCarly surge is over as soon as it began. People are starting to look at her record, and unlike her face it's not pretty.
Some stuff from WaPo
|
|
United States41991 Posts
Sad thing is Trump's anti vaccine stance will be very likely to result in the deaths of children. I don't know how someone can justify speaking out about something so important to public health from a position of ignorance. It'd be less morally bankrupt if he'd just stood up and advocated a pack of cigarettes a day to prevent autism, at least that way the primary victims would be the people who believed him and not their children, or children who can't get vaccinated for health reasons.
|
Hey Trump isn't anti-vaccine. He just wants to space them out a bit.
|
On the Trump and vaccine's thing:
My kid's doctor also said that spacing out vaccines is important because there hasn't been sufficient testing and research on grouped vaccines.
So while I am 100% a believer that to go to public schools you need to be vaccinated, I also think nothing he said during the debate is out of line with a general responsible view on vaccines. People are looking for things that aren't there.
|
Trump has previously stated that vaccines cause autism. On both twitter and in public. He just isn't saying it now because he isn't a complete moron. Just an idiot who thinks Obama isn't' an US citizen, is Muslim and thinks vaccines cause autism. You know, a guy who lives in reality.
|
On September 19 2015 01:59 Eliezar wrote: On the Trump and vaccine's thing:
My kid's doctor also said that spacing out vaccines is important because there hasn't been sufficient testing and research on grouped vaccines.
So while I am 100% a believer that to go to public schools you need to be vaccinated, I also think nothing he said during the debate is out of line with a general responsible view on vaccines. People are looking for things that aren't there.
I don't know enough about vaccines to refute the idea of spreading them out, and when he said that, I nodded along and thought "that's not an unreasonable position to have".
However, he posed anecdotal evidence that having many vaccines closely together causes autism, and has said in the past that vaccines cause autism. This is a very problematic movement, and presenting that conclusion with no evidence is both asinine and dangerous.
|
United States41991 Posts
On September 19 2015 02:06 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 01:59 Eliezar wrote: On the Trump and vaccine's thing:
My kid's doctor also said that spacing out vaccines is important because there hasn't been sufficient testing and research on grouped vaccines.
So while I am 100% a believer that to go to public schools you need to be vaccinated, I also think nothing he said during the debate is out of line with a general responsible view on vaccines. People are looking for things that aren't there.
I don't know enough about vaccines to refute the idea of spreading them out, and when he said that, I nodded along and thought "that's not an unreasonable position to have". However, he posed anecdotal evidence that having many vaccines closely together causes autism, and has said in the past that vaccines cause autism. This is a very problematic movement, and presenting that conclusion with no evidence is both asinine and dangerous. Spreading something out isn't automatically a reasonable position to have. The current schedule is most likely the current schedule for a reason. If I offered to spread you evenly over the places you most often frequent that might sound reasonable enough to someone who was not familiar with the limits of organic lifeforms, indeed it might sound like basically no change because you already occupy those places in the same proportion when averaged over a few days. However I imagine you'd object to me doing it with a hacksaw.
Just because something sounds reasonable to the uninformed doesn't mean it's okay.
|
If you link vaccines to autism in anyway you are being ignorant. The scientific community wasted so much money/time/energy to showing that this link does not exist. But I guess its like climate change, people just don't give a fuck what science says.
|
On September 19 2015 02:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 02:06 jcarlsoniv wrote:On September 19 2015 01:59 Eliezar wrote: On the Trump and vaccine's thing:
My kid's doctor also said that spacing out vaccines is important because there hasn't been sufficient testing and research on grouped vaccines.
So while I am 100% a believer that to go to public schools you need to be vaccinated, I also think nothing he said during the debate is out of line with a general responsible view on vaccines. People are looking for things that aren't there.
I don't know enough about vaccines to refute the idea of spreading them out, and when he said that, I nodded along and thought "that's not an unreasonable position to have". However, he posed anecdotal evidence that having many vaccines closely together causes autism, and has said in the past that vaccines cause autism. This is a very problematic movement, and presenting that conclusion with no evidence is both asinine and dangerous. Spreading something out isn't automatically a reasonable position to have. The current schedule is most likely the current schedule for a reason. If I offered to spread you evenly over the places you most often frequent that might sound reasonable enough to someone who was not familiar with the limits of organic lifeforms, indeed it might sound like basically no change because you already occupy those places in the same proportion when averaged over a few days. However I imagine you'd object to me doing it with a hacksaw. Just because something sounds reasonable to the uninformed doesn't mean it's okay.
I didn't say it's a reasonable position, I said it's not unreasonable. I'm a single dude, but if I try to imagine the perspective of a parent, I can understand if they would stop for a second to think "hmm that's a lot of stuff they're doing".
I'm not saying I share that position either - I agree with you, things are scheduled the way they are for a reason. I place quite a lot of trust in science, especially when consensus has been reached. I believe very strongly that vaccines need to be kept up with universally (outside of obvious medical exceptions). That doesn't mean I can't understand their thought process.
But their thought process becomes entirely irrelevant when they spout incorrect assertions that they've read or heard and have been refuted through scientific consensus.
|
On the Obama and Islam thing:
I haven't really cared one way or another and haven't really thought about it, but he has had a string of quotes that would make you think that was a reasonable belief.
If you read Obama you would read him almost as if he has a position similar to Joseph Campbell, but you can take lots of facts about Obama and present them in a way to make him a Muslim. For example: He had a "Koran" (his spelling, not mine) on the bookshelf at home, went to Muslim religious school for 2 years in high school I think it was, has referred to Christians as "they" and "you" in ways to make him sound separate from them, and has stated stuff like "Islam has always been a part of America's story".
Again, I think he's more of the Joseph Campbell persuasion or likely a lot like my college religion professor and not really a Christian or a Muslim. However, it is not unreasonable to have thought that he is a Muslim or ludicrous or something. Its not correct from what I can tell, but I can see signs that would lend towards that view and it is part of why I think he is Joseph Cambpell-esque.
|
"Who needs facts or science when you have opinions and belief?" - Republican Party 2015 and the Poll leader Trump.
Eliezar - The man attends a Christian Church every Sunday. He is fucking Christian. Just because he has a library that happens to have other religious text doesn't validate the argument. This isn't' some chem trails shit. I'm having flash backs to Good Night and Good Luck where reading socialist ligature made you a communist.
|
On September 18 2015 22:15 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2015 21:57 Plansix wrote:On September 18 2015 13:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 18 2015 11:42 Slaughter wrote: I really hope that guy in that 1st question was just using hyperbole....I mean he can't really believe that Obama is not an American and a Muslim. Not that him being a muslim would be a bad thing if it were true. And holy shit was he talking about "training camps" here in the US? Lol plz. The majority of the Republican party thinks he is either foreign born or are not sure (same for the Muslim thing). It's not hyperbole, it's most of the modern Republican party. Is anyone really shocked that a sizable section of the US population believes totally fictitious reasons why the first black President shouldn’t be President? I question the validity of the saying the "majority of Republicans" believe that. Maybe it's because I'm in New England, but is there a statistic that backs that claim up? (Question directed more at GH, I suppose)
Well there was this too.
A majority of Republican voters, 54 percent, think that President Obama is a Muslim, according to a new survey from the left-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP).
Asked whether they thought Obama is a Christian or Muslim or if they were unsure, 32 percent said they were unsure. Fourteen percent said he was a Christian.
Source
|
On September 19 2015 01:53 IgnE wrote: Hey Trump isn't anti-vaccine. He just wants to space them out a bit.
Not sure if you're kidding or not, but at the start of it he was vehemently anti-vaccine, then he dialed it back a bit when he saw that other candidates weren't as crazy with their medicine platforms... but he still thinks that vaccines cause autism (ridiculous), and even if he tries to say something like "I just want them spaced out a bit", that's STILL ridiculous because there's no evidence that that causes issues.
On September 19 2015 01:59 Eliezar wrote: On the Trump and vaccine's thing:
My kid's doctor also said that spacing out vaccines is important because there hasn't been sufficient testing and research on grouped vaccines.
So while I am 100% a believer that to go to public schools you need to be vaccinated, I also think nothing he said during the debate is out of line with a general responsible view on vaccines. People are looking for things that aren't there.
Interestingly enough, it's often times psychologically WORSE to space vaccines and shots out over multiple visits and extended periods of time with younger kids, because they're still in a behaviorist mindset such that they can become conditioned to equate every single doctor visit with a shot/ pain. It's a lot like bringing a pet to a vet... if 9 out of the 10 vet visits are enjoyable but the 10th has shots or other discomfort for the animal, it's easier for them to *get over it* instead of them learning that every single vet visit = painful (which is why many pets hate the vet so much).
There's no reason to think that vaccines should be spread out (medically, psychologically, etc.). So no matter how the conservatives want to phrase their vaccine issues, they're completely unjustified.
|
On September 19 2015 02:23 Slaughter wrote: If you link vaccines to autism in anyway you are being ignorant. The scientific community wasted so much money/time/energy to showing that this link does not exist. But I guess its like climate change, people just don't give a fuck what science says.
This is a serious problem in discussion.
I have actually read through the vaccine case studies that showed that there was a higher percentage of people who got poison ivy (or something weird like that) after getting a vaccine than ended up with Autism (I'm talking like 500 page case study). However, if you are involved in the medical community then you know that we haven't tested everything. Here is an example for you: Say you are taking medicines A, B, C, and D. Every 2 medicine combination has been tested out of them, 99% of the time every 3 combination has been tested. However, when someone has a crazy response and you look...you are almost never going to have all 4 tested together. So the Pharmacist can't even help advice you...there hasn't been testing done.
Also, I was going along with the 97% of scientists agree that global warming is man made (although I think this entire sentence is stupid and not accurate at all). Then I read THIS WEEK an article from the Wall Street Journal that showed that the 97% figure seems to have no basis (I think it was from August of last year or something). As they dug it up they were finding numbers like around 60%.
But all of that is meaningless like the original sentence.
1) We know the earth will naturally get way warmer than it is now (we are in a cooler period). 2) We need to prepare for the earth to be a warmer place 3) We can look at Venus and see what happened there 4) We need to work for solutions that will help us deal with the warming earth and make sure we aren't accelerating the problem.
I think there is a problem of people being brainwashed by repeated statements and then trying to bully others to accept them when they are not necessarily fact. For instance, can someone point to a study that examined the autism rate of children who were given the combo vaccines vs children that had them spread out? Has that study even been done? That is how science works...we have to keep asking and keep looking.
For the record on autism, the strongest correlation in the US is days of rain fall to autism rate per the study I read in 2008. The researchers were suggesting that if there is something in the environment that causes it, that it might have something related to that and proposed studies on things like lack of sunlight, tv watching, etc that would be more common for children who couldn't go outside as much. Just an interesting thought.
|
On September 19 2015 02:25 Eliezar wrote: On the Obama and Islam thing:
I haven't really cared one way or another and haven't really thought about it, but he has had a string of quotes that would make you think that was a reasonable belief.
If you read Obama you would read him almost as if he has a position similar to Joseph Campbell, but you can take lots of facts about Obama and present them in a way to make him a Muslim. For example: He had a "Koran" (his spelling, not mine) on the bookshelf at home, went to Muslim religious school for 2 years in high school I think it was, has referred to Christians as "they" and "you" in ways to make him sound separate from them, and has stated stuff like "Islam has always been a part of America's story".
Again, I think he's more of the Joseph Campbell persuasion or likely a lot like my college religion professor and not really a Christian or a Muslim. However, it is not unreasonable to have thought that he is a Muslim or ludicrous or something. Its not correct from what I can tell, but I can see signs that would lend towards that view and it is part of why I think he is Joseph Cambpell-esque.
Absolute bullshit. This isn't a fucking investigation. It's not a wishy-washy, ambiguous conversation. "Oh he had a Koran in his house so therefore he's Muslim" are you fucking kidding? How about this:
"Hey Obama, what religious affiliation do you identify as?" >"Christian." "Do you believe that Jesus is our Lord and Savior?" >"Yes." "Great! I'm going to fuck off now."
People aren't calling him a Muslim because he's read the Q'uran. They're calling him a Muslim because it's yet another bigoted remark to push conservatives away from agreeing with him on anything. It's the Us vs. Them mentality for Christians. It's connecting him to 9/11 and the Middle East conflict. It's just like why he's also called an atheist, and a satanist, and the anti-christ. It's just easier because he's half-black, and obviously those people are bad and Muslims are bad too obviously and hey Kenya/ Africa/ Middle East? #hismiddlenameishussein It's some seriously fucked up shit.
|
On September 19 2015 02:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 02:06 jcarlsoniv wrote:On September 19 2015 01:59 Eliezar wrote: On the Trump and vaccine's thing:
My kid's doctor also said that spacing out vaccines is important because there hasn't been sufficient testing and research on grouped vaccines.
So while I am 100% a believer that to go to public schools you need to be vaccinated, I also think nothing he said during the debate is out of line with a general responsible view on vaccines. People are looking for things that aren't there.
I don't know enough about vaccines to refute the idea of spreading them out, and when he said that, I nodded along and thought "that's not an unreasonable position to have". However, he posed anecdotal evidence that having many vaccines closely together causes autism, and has said in the past that vaccines cause autism. This is a very problematic movement, and presenting that conclusion with no evidence is both asinine and dangerous. Spreading something out isn't automatically a reasonable position to have. The current schedule is most likely the current schedule for a reason. If I offered to spread you evenly over the places you most often frequent that might sound reasonable enough to someone who was not familiar with the limits of organic lifeforms, indeed it might sound like basically no change because you already occupy those places in the same proportion when averaged over a few days. However I imagine you'd object to me doing it with a hacksaw. Just because something sounds reasonable to the uninformed doesn't mean it's okay.
The current vaccine schedule is the way it is because it reduces the chance that a child can catch those diseases. When you spread the vaccines out more, you give those diseases a larger window of time to infect a child, and every disease except one that has a mandatory vaccination is deadly, and the last one causes permanent disability.
You can argue about the precise details of the schedule (I think there's some argument between the American and British vaccine schedules), but it's not like they're just sticking kids for fun.
|
On September 19 2015 02:39 Eliezar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 02:23 Slaughter wrote: If you link vaccines to autism in anyway you are being ignorant. The scientific community wasted so much money/time/energy to showing that this link does not exist. But I guess its like climate change, people just don't give a fuck what science says. This is a serious problem in discussion. I have actually read through the vaccine case studies that showed that there was a higher percentage of people who got poison ivy (or something weird like that) after getting a vaccine than ended up with Autism (I'm talking like 500 page case study). However, if you are involved in the medical community then you know that we haven't tested everything. Here is an example for you: Say you are taking medicines A, B, C, and D. Every 2 medicine combination has been tested out of them, 99% of the time every 3 combination has been tested. However, when someone has a crazy response and you look...you are almost never going to have all 4 tested together. So the Pharmacist can't even help advice you...there hasn't been testing done. Also, I was going along with the 97% of scientists agree that global warming is man made (although I think this entire sentence is stupid and not accurate at all). Then I read THIS WEEK an article from the Wall Street Journal that showed that the 97% figure seems to have no basis (I think it was from August of last year or something). As they dug it up they were finding numbers like around 60%. But all of that is meaningless like the original sentence. 1) We know the earth will naturally get way warmer than it is now (we are in a cooler period). 2) We need to prepare for the earth to be a warmer place 3) We can look at Venus and see what happened there 4) We need to work for solutions that will help us deal with the warming earth and make sure we aren't accelerating the problem. I think there is a problem of people being brainwashed by repeated statements and then trying to bully others to accept them when they are not necessarily fact. For instance, can someone point to a study that examined the autism rate of children who were given the combo vaccines vs children that had them spread out? Has that study even been done? That is how science works...we have to keep asking and keep looking. For the record on autism, the strongest correlation in the US is days of rain fall to autism rate per the study I read in 2008. The researchers were suggesting that if there is something in the environment that causes it, that it might have something related to that and proposed studies on things like lack of sunlight, tv watching, etc that would be more common for children who couldn't go outside as much. Just an interesting thought.
Gonna have to call you out on this one: the autism-vaccine link is bullshit. It was fully retracted by the Lancet (the journal which published it), and the doctor who wrote it was shown to have financial interests-- he also lost his license.
There is no meaningful correlation, let along causative link between autism and vaccines. I don't know what kind of ridiculous 500 page case study you're citing. Don't try creating "reasonable doubt" about various scientific issues when there really isn't.
|
On September 19 2015 02:46 ticklishmusic wrote: The autism-vaccine link is bullshit. It was fully retracted by the Lancet (the journal which published it), and the doctor who wrote it was shown to have financial interests-- he also lost his license.
Yeah the vaccine-autism discussion and the Obama-Muslim discussion are two things that I rarely find worthwhile to even bother talking about anymore, especially on TL, where I expect most TLers to know better than the common, ignorant person (based on anecdotal evidence).
|
|
|
|