EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1081
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12320 Posts
On January 31 2019 04:37 Mohdoo wrote: I do not think conservative upbringing constitutes child abuse because conservative upbringings do not directly translate to increased medical risk. In the case of refusal to vaccinate, there are a few things to consider: 1. What is the reason for not vaccinating? If I wanted an abortion so that I could drink alcohol, that would make me a bad person. But if I wanted an abortion so that my wife doesn't die giving birth, I would not be a bad person. 2. What is the cost of vaccination? If the parents can't afford to vaccinate, they are not bad parents, but they are dumb and should look into finding other funding 3. What are the risks of not vaccinating? If we assume a child could die from not being vaccinated, and that an infected child can spread their infection to an infant that would die from the infection, it means (1) and (2) need to be major. In essence, (1) and (2) need to generally greatly overwhelm (3) in terms of scientific validity. In accordance with modern medicine, the medical risks of vaccination combined with other reasons to not vaccinate do not surpass the risks of not vaccinating. When we apply a similar thought process to "being conservative", we do not get as clear a picture. No increased medical risk if you're normative. Probably more likely to commit suicide if you're trans or gay, and will actively make your mental health worse. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On January 31 2019 04:47 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Do vaccinating children in the US requires the parents to pay? generally speaking, vaccines are covered by insurance as part of preventative care. there may be additional charges if you want the fancy nasal spray flu vaccine (vs the traditional shot) or some special formulation kind of thing. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On January 31 2019 04:51 Nebuchad wrote: No increased medical risk if you're normative. Probably more likely to commit suicide if you're trans or gay, and will actively make your mental health worse. You're saying there is not an increased medical risk created by not being vaccinated? | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12320 Posts
On January 31 2019 05:01 Mohdoo wrote: You're saying there is not an increased medical risk created by not being vaccinated? How could you possibly conclude that's what I'm saying? | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2603 Posts
His core objection is to declaring failure to vaccinate a clear case of child abuse. I feel like I understand this sentiment, because I approach the concept of child abuse on a human/personal level I.E. "I was abused as a child; My parents did not vaccinate me." Doesn't feel like it should be a legitimate statement. It feels more like a -possible- symptom of neglect / child abuse, not a clear indicator that the child is being mistreated. (I don't mean to speak for you, Nebuchad! Lemme know if I missed the mark  ) | ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + 750.136b Definitions; child abuse; degrees; penalties; exception; affirmative defense. Sec. 136b. (1) As used in this section: (a) "Child" means a person who is less than 18 years of age and is not emancipated by operation of law as provided in section 4 of 1968 PA 293, MCL 722.4. (b) "Cruel" means brutal, inhuman, sadistic, or that which torments. (c) "Omission" means a willful failure to provide food, clothing, or shelter necessary for a child's welfare or willful abandonment of a child. (d) "Person" means a child's parent or guardian or any other person who cares for, has custody of, or has authority over a child regardless of the length of time that a child is cared for, in the custody of, or subject to the authority of that person. (e) "Physical harm" means any injury to a child's physical condition. (f) "Serious physical harm" means any physical injury to a child that seriously impairs the child's health or physical well-being, including, but not limited to, brain damage, a skull or bone fracture, subdural hemorrhage or hematoma, dislocation, sprain, internal injury, poisoning, burn or scald, or severe cut. (g) "Serious mental harm" means an injury to a child's mental condition or welfare that is not necessarily permanent but results in visibly demonstrable manifestations of a substantial disorder of thought or mood which significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or ability to cope with the ordinary demands of life. (2) A person is guilty of child abuse in the first degree if the person knowingly or intentionally causes serious physical or serious mental harm to a child. Child abuse in the first degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment for life or any term of years. (3) A person is guilty of child abuse in the second degree if any of the following apply: (a) The person's omission causes serious physical harm or serious mental harm to a child or if the person's reckless act causes serious physical harm or serious mental harm to a child. (b) The person knowingly or intentionally commits an act likely to cause serious physical or mental harm to a child regardless of whether harm results. (c) The person knowingly or intentionally commits an act that is cruel to a child regardless of whether harm results. (d) The person or a licensee as licensee is defined in section 1 of 1973 PA 116, MCL 722.111, violates section 15(2) of 1993 PA 218, MCL 722.125. (4) Child abuse in the second degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment as follows: (a) For a first offense, not more than 10 years. (b) For a second or subsequent offense, not more than 20 years. (5) A person is guilty of child abuse in the third degree if any of the following apply: (a) The person knowingly or intentionally causes physical harm to a child. (b) The person knowingly or intentionally commits an act that under the circumstances poses an unreasonable risk of harm or injury to a child, and the act results in physical harm to a child. (6) Child abuse in the third degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years. (7) A person is guilty of child abuse in the fourth degree if any of the following apply: (a) The person's omission or reckless act causes physical harm to a child. (b) The person knowingly or intentionally commits an act that under the circumstances poses an unreasonable risk of harm or injury to a child, regardless of whether physical harm results. (8) Child abuse in the fourth degree is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year. (9) This section does not prohibit a parent or guardian, or other person permitted by law or authorized by the parent or guardian, from taking steps to reasonably discipline a child, including the use of reasonable force. (10) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that the defendant's conduct involving the child was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence in light of all the facts and circumstances known to the defendant at that time. The defendant has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. As used in this subsection, "domestic violence" means that term as defined in section 1 of 1978 PA 389, MCL 400.1501. It isn't a hard stretch to fit failure to vaccinate within its ambit, particular as a second degree offense. Keep in mind that this is only the penal statute; the lead up to any charge under it would involve a multitude of rules and regulations promulgated by the state agency tasked with child welfare oversight. Generally speaking, termination of parental rights actions are only pursued after repeated parental failures to fix the problem(s) identified by a caseworker and the process usually takes place over the course of years rather than days, weeks, or months (with emergency exceptions, of course). It's also worth noting that government mandated vaccinations could work better if implemented via an enforcement scheme parallel to child abuse prevention, like truancy. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On January 31 2019 05:10 Nebuchad wrote: How could you possibly conclude that's what I'm saying? I thought you just said if you are normative, there is not an increased medical risk. I thought that sounded weird, so I asked for clarification. What exactly did you mean? Can you elaborate? | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
Unless Graham is dumber than a sack of rocks, this is just a dog and pony show. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28706 Posts
On January 31 2019 06:11 Mohdoo wrote: I thought you just said if you are normative, there is not an increased medical risk. I thought that sounded weird, so I asked for clarification. What exactly did you mean? Can you elaborate? Nebuchad's point is that if you consider not vaccinating your kid child abuse, then there will be quite a lot of stuff (some ideological-political-religious) that ends up being considered child abuse. If one presumes that some of the more gay-bashing types of conservative-religious upbringing is (very) negative for the mental health of homosexual children it's not a far stretch to ask 'at what point can you call a well intentioned parental misstep caused by ignorance rather than malice' 'child abuse'. I mean, saying that a non-vaccinated kid gets sick due to this lacking vaccination x % of the time, you can also argue that a heterosexual looking child might turn out gay x % of the time, so even if there's never intentional abuse thrown towards the child then there's a % chance of it having very negative consequences. Then if you argue 'but vaccinations isn't just about your own child it's about the entire community', then it's not hard to argue 'but climate change represents a much bigger threat to humanity than the reemergence of measles, bad as that might be, thus raising your child to have the belief that climate change is not man made is a worse transgression from that point of view'. Designating stupid and ignorant behavior with such a vile description as 'child abuse' feels a bit off to me, and especially when it's a decision somewhat reflected in political leanings. I'm not sure that's a can of worms anyone should want to open. I'm not really arguing about the legal definition here, more of a 'my gut feeling says that neglect is a much better description than abuse'. Like it was alleged before, if someone tells me they were abused by their parents, I'm not expecting the followup to be 'they didn't give me vaccinations'. I mean, what if someone thinks 'vaccinations are fine but there are too many during a too short period of time' so they only get half the vaccinations? Nebuchad isn't arguing that vaccinations aren't a big deal, but.. There are other things parents do that are equally damaging to their child or the child's future dealings with his or her surroundings that very few people would argue constitute 'child abuse'. All his questions have been trying to determine whether there's consistency to your thought, if you're willing to make the logical extension of your statement, or if it's isolated towards vaccinations (presumably because your surroundings are so anti anti-vacc that you've been able to develop these thoughts without anyone contesting them). | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On January 31 2019 07:08 Liquid`Drone wrote: Nebuchad's point is that if you consider not vaccinating your kid child abuse, then there will be quite a lot of stuff (some ideological-political-religious) that ends up being considered child abuse. If one presumes that some of the more gay-bashing types of conservative-religious upbringing is (very) negative for the mental health of homosexual children it's not a far stretch to ask 'at what point can you call a well intentioned parental misstep caused by ignorance rather than malice' 'child abuse'. I mean, saying that a non-vaccinated kid gets sick due to this lacking vaccination x % of the time, you can also argue that a heterosexual looking child might turn out gay x % of the time, so even if there's never intentional abuse thrown towards the child then there's a % chance of it having very negative consequences. Then if you argue 'but vaccinations isn't just about your own child it's about the entire community', then it's not hard to argue 'but climate change represents a much bigger threat to humanity than the reemergence of measles, bad as that might be, thus raising your child to have the belief that climate change is not man made is a worse transgression from that point of view'. Designating stupid and ignorant behavior with such a vile description as 'child abuse' feels a bit off to me, and especially when it's a decision somewhat reflected in political leanings. I'm not sure that's a can of worms anyone should want to open. I'm not really arguing about the legal definition here, more of a 'my gut feeling says that neglect is a much better description than abuse'. Like it was alleged before, if someone tells me they were abused by their parents, I'm not expecting the followup to be 'they didn't give me vaccinations'. I mean, what if someone thinks 'vaccinations are fine but there are too many during a too short period of time' so they only get half the vaccinations? Nebuchad isn't arguing that vaccinations aren't a big deal, but.. There are other things parents do that are equally damaging to their child or the child's future dealings with his or her surroundings that very few people would argue constitute 'child abuse'. All his questions have been trying to determine whether there's consistency to your thought, if you're willing to make the logical extension of your statement, or if it's isolated towards vaccinations (presumably because your surroundings are so anti anti-vacc that you've been able to develop these thoughts without anyone contesting them). I don't see the problem here. Religious homosexuality bashing is damaging and abusive if their children happen to be gay and should he labeled abuse and the parents should be punished. Same as how not vaccinating a kid puts them at risk of death permanent disability or being in an iron lung for life and is also abuse. If you think those things should be called something other than abuse such as neglect or mistreatment, sure. But if you think parents should be free to do those things just because they believe something that is clearly wrong and at odds with science, then I'm sorry but you're just wrong. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
If these anti vaxxers knew they'd be doing potential harm to their kids and others (!} by not getting them vaccinated, I suppose many of them would get their kids vaccinated. This is not malicious intent, this is careless neglect. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28706 Posts
| ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
On January 31 2019 07:16 hunts wrote: I don't see the problem here. Religious homosexuality bashing is damaging and abusive if their children happen to be gay and should he labeled abuse and the parents should be punished. Same as how not vaccinating a kid puts them at risk of death permanent disability or being in an iron lung for life and is also abuse. If you think those things should be called something other than abuse such as neglect or mistreatment, sure. But if you think parents should be free to do those things just because they believe something that is clearly wrong and at odds with science, then I'm sorry but you're just wrong. ehhhhh careful here. You're talking about a country that has very deep roots in the idea of religious freedom, and while I personally agree that it is irresponsible parenting to neglect vaccinations, can we really call it objectively wrong if parents choose to follow their religious beliefs rather than what science tells them? tricky to say. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8158 Posts
On January 31 2019 02:22 Toadesstern wrote: I'd personally compare not vaccinating your children to letting your kid smoke before they turn 16 or whatever the legal age for that is elsewhere. I don't think I'd want to call either of these two child abuse even though I'm obviously against both. Almost, difference is in age. A teenager who decides to smoke does it of his own volition, while a child has no say in whether he or she gets vaccinated. It would be closer to forcing your child to smoke, which I think we can both agree on would constitute as child abuse. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2603 Posts
On January 31 2019 05:59 farvacola wrote: Here's a child abuse penal statute to take a gander at, for those interested. + Show Spoiler + 750.136b Definitions; child abuse; degrees; penalties; exception; affirmative defense. Sec. 136b. (1) As used in this section: (a) "Child" means a person who is less than 18 years of age and is not emancipated by operation of law as provided in section 4 of 1968 PA 293, MCL 722.4. (b) "Cruel" means brutal, inhuman, sadistic, or that which torments. (c) "Omission" means a willful failure to provide food, clothing, or shelter necessary for a child's welfare or willful abandonment of a child. (d) "Person" means a child's parent or guardian or any other person who cares for, has custody of, or has authority over a child regardless of the length of time that a child is cared for, in the custody of, or subject to the authority of that person. (e) "Physical harm" means any injury to a child's physical condition. (f) "Serious physical harm" means any physical injury to a child that seriously impairs the child's health or physical well-being, including, but not limited to, brain damage, a skull or bone fracture, subdural hemorrhage or hematoma, dislocation, sprain, internal injury, poisoning, burn or scald, or severe cut. (g) "Serious mental harm" means an injury to a child's mental condition or welfare that is not necessarily permanent but results in visibly demonstrable manifestations of a substantial disorder of thought or mood which significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or ability to cope with the ordinary demands of life. (2) A person is guilty of child abuse in the first degree if the person knowingly or intentionally causes serious physical or serious mental harm to a child. Child abuse in the first degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment for life or any term of years. (3) A person is guilty of child abuse in the second degree if any of the following apply: (a) The person's omission causes serious physical harm or serious mental harm to a child or if the person's reckless act causes serious physical harm or serious mental harm to a child. (b) The person knowingly or intentionally commits an act likely to cause serious physical or mental harm to a child regardless of whether harm results. (c) The person knowingly or intentionally commits an act that is cruel to a child regardless of whether harm results. (d) The person or a licensee as licensee is defined in section 1 of 1973 PA 116, MCL 722.111, violates section 15(2) of 1993 PA 218, MCL 722.125. (4) Child abuse in the second degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment as follows: (a) For a first offense, not more than 10 years. (b) For a second or subsequent offense, not more than 20 years. (5) A person is guilty of child abuse in the third degree if any of the following apply: (a) The person knowingly or intentionally causes physical harm to a child. (b) The person knowingly or intentionally commits an act that under the circumstances poses an unreasonable risk of harm or injury to a child, and the act results in physical harm to a child. (6) Child abuse in the third degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years. (7) A person is guilty of child abuse in the fourth degree if any of the following apply: (a) The person's omission or reckless act causes physical harm to a child. (b) The person knowingly or intentionally commits an act that under the circumstances poses an unreasonable risk of harm or injury to a child, regardless of whether physical harm results. (8) Child abuse in the fourth degree is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year. (9) This section does not prohibit a parent or guardian, or other person permitted by law or authorized by the parent or guardian, from taking steps to reasonably discipline a child, including the use of reasonable force. (10) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that the defendant's conduct involving the child was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence in light of all the facts and circumstances known to the defendant at that time. The defendant has the burden of establishing the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. As used in this subsection, "domestic violence" means that term as defined in section 1 of 1978 PA 389, MCL 400.1501. It isn't a hard stretch to fit failure to vaccinate within its ambit, particular as a second degree offense. Keep in mind that this is only the penal statute; the lead up to any charge under it would involve a multitude of rules and regulations promulgated by the state agency tasked with child welfare oversight. Generally speaking, termination of parental rights actions are only pursued after repeated parental failures to fix the problem(s) identified by a caseworker and the process usually takes place over the course of years rather than days, weeks, or months (with emergency exceptions, of course). It's also worth noting that government mandated vaccinations could work better if implemented via an enforcement scheme parallel to child abuse prevention, like truancy. Thanks! The subject causes a fissure between logical and emotional reasoning, for me. Logically, I understand that legally 'forcing' parents to vaccinate their children against preventable and dangerous diseases is a good thing, and opposing something that is likely only positive is silly... ...but emotionally, lumping it in with the concept of "child abuse" makes me uncomfortable. I was a (relatively minor) victim of child abuse in the common understanding of the word, but if I were to extend the full definition to people I know, an alarmingly small number of people -weren't- "abused" as children, which starts to make the term feel useless. But again, the argument is about the legal definition of child abuse, not how the phrase shows up in common vernacular, so... I'll get over it, emotionally. Probably. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On January 31 2019 03:59 Sermokala wrote: Its actually as accurate today after tomorrow. The reason why its so cold is beacuse its the air thats suppose to directly over the polar caps. Its a polar vortex of cold where the air pressure is low enough to bring air from as high in the atmosphere as its safe to. This weather system is actually a result of global warming as it destabilizes the weather patterns that are normally in place to prevent this from happening. Sunday, where I live it will be 42 degrees, Thats global warming chaos for you. I can't imagine how the Somalian immigrants are doing I hope we don't have some horror story about that in the coming days. Is there any weather that wouldn't affirm your conviction in Global Warming? Just wondering. It's cold. It's AGW. It's warm. It's AGW. Less than typical amount of storms. AGW. More than typical AGW. Also, please stop using weather as a corollary to climate. You're about as tone deaf as the people who use this weather to say see - Global Warming doesn't exist. | ||
| ||
