|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 29 2019 18:53 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 17:36 Excludos wrote:On January 29 2019 11:21 Gahlo wrote:On January 29 2019 11:03 Lazare1969 wrote:
The US has the lowest unemployment rate since 1969 though, so it's a little early to be predicting riots. By aggressive pushing of automation, I mean the corporate bigwigs going "Oh, they just passed a living wage? Automate everything possible now." This hasn't happened in the rest of the world, what makes US so special that no reasonable measures can take place there? Where has literally every automation replaceable job been done across a society?
Not sure where you're getting at. Of course automation is happening. But people still have jobs. McDonalds isn't going to replace all their staff with robots because they have to pay them a bit more (just an example, I am fully aware that McDonalds actually pay their employees an ok salary). Certain jobs are excessively expensive to automate, create worse results, and denies people proper customer service. The best jobs for automation are the monotone jobs like factory working..and guess what? They still happen despite the factory workers being paid a crap salary to begin with.
Giving your staff a liveable salary isn't going to make the choice of automation either way. It's just a bad excuse by paranoid people who aren't capable of looking outside of their own borders where this isn't an issue.
|
|
|
Local here. This outbreak isn't quite the stereotypical "granola hippies taking essential oils" situation. The outbreak is in Vancouver, which is a politically moderate suburb of Portland across the river in Washington. There are some hipsters' kids getting it now, but the outbreak started in a faith-healing church there.
This is a really frustrating situation: I wish personal freedom could include the freedom to forgo medical treatment, but it looks like our society is too stupid to handle it.
|
On January 30 2019 00:22 bloooargh wrote:Local here. This outbreak isn't quite the stereotypical "granola hippies taking essential oils" situation. The outbreak is in Vancouver, which is a politically moderate suburb of Portland across the river in Washington. There are some hipsters' kids getting it now, but the outbreak started in a faith-healing church there. This is a really frustrating situation: I wish personal freedom could include the freedom to forgo medical treatment, but it looks like our society is too stupid to handle it.
When it comes to children, parents should not be allowed to make choices that can have permanent negative effects at all. If such a choice is available, like foregoing critical medical needs, then some parents will make them. People who make claims about "personal freedom" are often the same people who needs babysitting the most, and while personal freedom vs negative impact on society can be argued for adults, absolutely no such argument can exist for children.
|
On January 30 2019 00:22 bloooargh wrote:Local here. This outbreak isn't quite the stereotypical "granola hippies taking essential oils" situation. The outbreak is in Vancouver, which is a politically moderate suburb of Portland across the river in Washington. There are some hipsters' kids getting it now, but the outbreak started in a faith-healing church there. This is a really frustrating situation: I wish personal freedom could include the freedom to forgo medical treatment, but it looks like our society is too stupid to handle it.
If anythnig the vaccination "issue" (or mental disorder) is the one thing hippie leftists/hipsters and conspiracy theorist right wingers share.
Too bad it hurts the children more than themselves...
|
On January 29 2019 21:10 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 17:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 29 2019 10:22 Plansix wrote:
Man, we aren’t even out of January yet and 2020 is looking great. I’m looking forward to this Democratic primary and sea of toxic bile that will come with it. As usual there is no way on earth the GOP wins this election but the left might manage to lose it again. It just happens that the guy next to you ideologically is your friend for right wingers, and your worse ennemy for the left. Don't worry Biff, I won't let the fact that Wulfey is shouting silly things at me get in the way of the big picture, and I can't vote in the US anyway. I appreciate the concern though.
My favorite joke:
Two leftists meet, what happens? One forms a splinter group.
Well, if leftists haven't learnt since giving each other president Trump, probably all hope is lost.
|
|
|
The proper frame of reference, imo, is to weigh the “freedom” of the parents against the “freedom” of the child. In that sense, it seems clear that legal recognition of a baseline guarantee of contemporarily adequate healthcare a la vaccines is an appropriate goal. Add in the “freedom” of the populace at large to be free from arbitrary disease exposure and the calculus seems pretty clear.
|
On January 30 2019 00:44 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 21:10 Nebuchad wrote:On January 29 2019 17:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 29 2019 10:22 Plansix wrote:
Man, we aren’t even out of January yet and 2020 is looking great. I’m looking forward to this Democratic primary and sea of toxic bile that will come with it. As usual there is no way on earth the GOP wins this election but the left might manage to lose it again. It just happens that the guy next to you ideologically is your friend for right wingers, and your worse ennemy for the left. Don't worry Biff, I won't let the fact that Wulfey is shouting silly things at me get in the way of the big picture, and I can't vote in the US anyway. I appreciate the concern though. My favorite joke: Two leftists meet, what happens? One forms a splinter group. Well, if leftists haven't learnt since giving each other president Trump, probably all hope is lost.
Dude you are swiss, you have no excuse. Wulfey votes FDP in Switzerland and you know it.
|
On January 30 2019 01:21 farvacola wrote:
The proper frame of reference, imo, is to weigh the “freedom” of the parents against the “freedom” of the child. In that sense, it seems clear that legal recognition of a baseline guarantee of contemporarily adequate healthcare a la vaccines is an appropriate goal. Add in the “freedom” of the populace at large to be free from arbitrary disease exposure and the calculus seems pretty clear.
so you propose forced vaccinations?
|
On January 30 2019 02:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2019 01:21 farvacola wrote:
The proper frame of reference, imo, is to weigh the “freedom” of the parents against the “freedom” of the child. In that sense, it seems clear that legal recognition of a baseline guarantee of contemporarily adequate healthcare a la vaccines is an appropriate goal. Add in the “freedom” of the populace at large to be free from arbitrary disease exposure and the calculus seems pretty clear. so you propose forced vaccinations? The state can already take a child away from a parent if they feel the parent is a danger to the child and can convince a judge of it, I can see the logic of refusing to vaccinate falling under endangering a child.
So yeah sure.
|
On January 30 2019 02:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2019 01:21 farvacola wrote:
The proper frame of reference, imo, is to weigh the “freedom” of the parents against the “freedom” of the child. In that sense, it seems clear that legal recognition of a baseline guarantee of contemporarily adequate healthcare a la vaccines is an appropriate goal. Add in the “freedom” of the populace at large to be free from arbitrary disease exposure and the calculus seems pretty clear. so you propose forced vaccinations?
Particularly once public access to affordable healthcare becomes the norm.
|
That puts an incredible amount of trust in the medical establishment.
Try to see the argument from the other side. If someone is sure that a vaccination is going to harm their child, whatever you want to charge them with is something they could be charged with either way.
If they avoid vaccinations they are endangering their child.
If they get the kid vaccinated thinking they are going to damage their kid in doing so then they are attempting to endanger their child.
|
On January 30 2019 02:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
That puts an incredible amount of trust in the medical establishment.
Try to see the argument from the other side. If someone is sure that a vaccination is going to harm their child, whatever you want to charge them with is something they could be charged with either way.
If they avoid vaccinations they are endangering their child.
If they get the kid vaccinated thinking they are going to damage their kid in doing so then they are attempting to endanger their child.
But it's not s grey area and both sides are not equally valid. The people thinking vaccines will injure their child are just wrong and ignorant and their opinion is invalid. Just because they believe something stupid doesn't mean their stupid opinion should be weighed the same as scientific evidence.
|
Medical establishment skepticism here in the US is not totally uncalled for, which is why I do think any push towards mandatory vaccinations needs to be accompanied by a thorough reworking of how medicine works here in the US. There could also be different frameworks for different kinds of vaccines where contagious disease vaccinations require a greater showing for exception than non-contagious disease vaccinations.
|
On January 30 2019 02:47 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2019 02:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
That puts an incredible amount of trust in the medical establishment.
Try to see the argument from the other side. If someone is sure that a vaccination is going to harm their child, whatever you want to charge them with is something they could be charged with either way.
If they avoid vaccinations they are endangering their child.
If they get the kid vaccinated thinking they are going to damage their kid in doing so then they are attempting to endanger their child. But it's not s grey area and both sides are not equally valid. The people thinking vaccines will injure their child are just wrong and ignorant and their opinion is invalid. Just because they believe something stupid doesn't mean their stupid opinion should be weighed the same as scientific evidence.
To believe that vaccines are harmful you would have to believe something that was reported in the mainstream press a few years ago.
You can't have Trump's environmental policy being climate change denial and then legislate against people thinking that vaccines are harmful.The whole of the government would have to go to jail first.
|
On January 30 2019 02:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
That puts an incredible amount of trust in the medical establishment.
Try to see the argument from the other side. If someone is sure that a vaccination is going to harm their child, whatever you want to charge them with is something they could be charged with either way.
If they avoid vaccinations they are endangering their child.
If they get the kid vaccinated thinking they are going to damage their kid in doing so then they are attempting to endanger their child. This is a problem that is already solved.
See every other situation where the government can stop in for child endangerment.
|
The US does have a big problem with people believing things that are proven to be factually false. And for some reason they believe that their random ideas are equally worthwile as scientific consensus.
The biggest instance of that are the climate change deniers, but you also have young earth creationists and anti-vaxxers. And those are just the ones i can come up with at the spot, there are a lot of groups in very gray areas that are incredibly entrenched in US mainstream politics.
I really hope this "feelings are more important than facts" stuff goes away at some point. Just because you believe something, and someone else believes something else does not mean that both are equally valid points of view, and the truth needs to be somewhere in the middle in between the two. Sometimes you are just wrong, and what you believe to be true is utter bullshit. But now it has reached the point where people are so entrenched in their point of view that they think that science is their enemy, just because scientists say that the thing they believe in is not true. If science itself is an enemy to you, you are probably just wrong.
There needs to be a whole new culture of accepting being wrong. If a politician changes his position because new facts arise, that should not be viewed negatively as "flip-flopping". People who assume that they are always correct from the start are far more likely to be wrong. And being wrong is not bad. Staying wrong after you have been shown proof that you were wrong is far worse than changing your opinion.
|
On January 30 2019 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2019 02:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
That puts an incredible amount of trust in the medical establishment.
Try to see the argument from the other side. If someone is sure that a vaccination is going to harm their child, whatever you want to charge them with is something they could be charged with either way.
If they avoid vaccinations they are endangering their child.
If they get the kid vaccinated thinking they are going to damage their kid in doing so then they are attempting to endanger their child. This is a problem that is already solved. See every other situation where the government can stop in for child endangerment.
I don't understand why people can't see problems with this.
You can find testimony online from scientists and doctors (probably being paid off) stating categorically that you shouldn't get your kids vaccinated.
How does the government legislate which scientists and doctors we legally have to listen to and which ones we legally have to ignore?
BTW I feel i should state that obviously I think vaccines are good and do only what they are supposed to do.
|
The US has a pretty long history of controversial state sponsored practices when it comes to medicine. Our healthcare system and big pharma also being terrible make them easy targets to hate on. It's not really a coincidence that people wouldn't trust the government when they say something is perfectly safe and mandatory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
