|
Post by Bartman on Sept 7, 2013 22:18:47 GMT -5
this thread was very informative.
I wasn't sure if sleeping with the campus slut would be a good idea in fear of contracting an STD. But I now realize if I eat an orange beforehand, I should be good to go.
thanks guys.
|
|
Y2J13
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Jul 3, 2013 17:02:19 GMT -5
Posts: 248
|
Post by Y2J13 on Sept 7, 2013 23:48:31 GMT -5
I stopped posting btw because I couldn't be bothered to hear Cobra Commander talk any more bollocks.
|
|
|
Post by GreyHaze:Big Bad Booty Daddy on Sept 7, 2013 23:53:03 GMT -5
I don't know, but honestly sometimes I have trouble believing that we really need all these vaccines. I swear I've taken like 20 physicals this year.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 8, 2013 1:06:54 GMT -5
Please don't call yourself a libertarian if you're for forced vaccinations. Should people be allowed to engage in behavior that endangers everyone? If the vaccines work, then what the do you have to worry about?
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Sept 8, 2013 6:34:46 GMT -5
Yay, the thread is still open today.
I'm surprised this instance hasn't been brought up yet. RAGNAROK, as a fellow atheist I'm sure you get just as outraged as I do when you read stories about children who die of treatable illnesses because the parents decide to just pray instead of seeking medical treatment for them. This isn't a hypothetical, this actually happens and it's only been recent that parents of this ilk are now brought up on charges for it. Would arresting them be infringing on personal rights? I mean...that sounds a lot like people would be forced to get medical treatment for children (which can include vaccinations).
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 8, 2013 8:23:11 GMT -5
Should people be allowed to engage in behavior that endangers everyone? If the vaccines work, then what the do you have to worry about? Because everyone's body chemistry is a little bit different, vaccines don't work on everyone. You could innoculate 100 people and you might have 1 or 2 of them that the vaccine didn't work on at all. They're still protected though because of herd immunity. If 98 out of 100 people are immune, what are the odds those 2 are going to come in contact with someone who has said disease? Virtually nil. But let's say only 50 people get innoculated and you have 1 now that the vaccine didn't work on. What are the odds that that 1 person will come in contact with someone who has said disease? Since you have half the population running around without being immunized the odds are much, much higher. That 1 person is no longer protected by herd immunity. Those who have chosen to not be immunized have now put the health of that 1 person at risk.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 8, 2013 13:35:03 GMT -5
Yay, the thread is still open today. I'm surprised this instance hasn't been brought up yet. RAGNAROK, as a fellow atheist I'm sure you get just as outraged as I do when you read stories about children who die of treatable illnesses because the parents decide to just pray instead of seeking medical treatment for them. This isn't a hypothetical, this actually happens and it's only been recent that parents of this ilk are now brought up on charges for it. Would arresting them be infringing on personal rights? I mean...that sounds a lot like people would be forced to get medical treatment for children (which can include vaccinations). Beautiful.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 8, 2013 17:43:41 GMT -5
If the vaccines work, then what the do you have to worry about? Because everyone's body chemistry is a little bit different, vaccines don't work on everyone. You could innoculate 100 people and you might have 1 or 2 of them that the vaccine didn't work on at all. They're still protected though because of herd immunity. If 98 out of 100 people are immune, what are the odds those 2 are going to come in contact with someone who has said disease? Virtually nil. But let's say only 50 people get innoculated and you have 1 now that the vaccine didn't work on. What are the odds that that 1 person will come in contact with someone who has said disease? Since you have half the population running around without being immunized the odds are much, much higher. That 1 person is no longer protected by herd immunity. Those who have chosen to not be immunized have now put the health of that 1 person at risk. Forcing someone to do something they don't want to do - even if those actions could potentially affect other people - is not okay.
|
|
Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Sept 8, 2013 20:59:29 GMT -5
Because everyone's body chemistry is a little bit different, vaccines don't work on everyone. You could innoculate 100 people and you might have 1 or 2 of them that the vaccine didn't work on at all. They're still protected though because of herd immunity. If 98 out of 100 people are immune, what are the odds those 2 are going to come in contact with someone who has said disease? Virtually nil. But let's say only 50 people get innoculated and you have 1 now that the vaccine didn't work on. What are the odds that that 1 person will come in contact with someone who has said disease? Since you have half the population running around without being immunized the odds are much, much higher. That 1 person is no longer protected by herd immunity. Those who have chosen to not be immunized have now put the health of that 1 person at risk. Forcing someone to do something they don't want to do - even if those actions could potentially affect other people - is not okay. So then we don't need speed limits right? forcing us to abide by a speed according to the area we are in because it could have an impact on others?
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 8, 2013 21:38:12 GMT -5
Forcing someone to do something they don't want to do - even if those actions could potentially affect other people - is not okay. So then we don't need speed limits right? forcing us to abide by a speed according to the area we are in because it could have an impact on others? No, I don't believe that speed limits are legitimate. We've been over this in other threads. But if you hit someone with your car, yes, you are guilty of negligence.
|
|
facemeat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 24, 2011 0:38:10 GMT -5
Posts: 2,891
|
Post by facemeat on Sept 8, 2013 22:02:42 GMT -5
Because everyone's body chemistry is a little bit different, vaccines don't work on everyone. You could innoculate 100 people and you might have 1 or 2 of them that the vaccine didn't work on at all. They're still protected though because of herd immunity. If 98 out of 100 people are immune, what are the odds those 2 are going to come in contact with someone who has said disease? Virtually nil. But let's say only 50 people get innoculated and you have 1 now that the vaccine didn't work on. What are the odds that that 1 person will come in contact with someone who has said disease? Since you have half the population running around without being immunized the odds are much, much higher. That 1 person is no longer protected by herd immunity. Those who have chosen to not be immunized have now put the health of that 1 person at risk. Forcing someone to do something they don't want to do - even if those actions could potentially affect other people - is not okay. That's preposterous. What if someone doesn't want to be "forced" not to drink and drive? Or text and drive? Or smoke in public? If your actions can directly harm others, you should be forced to stop them, and not after someone is harmed, but before.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 8, 2013 22:18:03 GMT -5
Because everyone's body chemistry is a little bit different, vaccines don't work on everyone. You could innoculate 100 people and you might have 1 or 2 of them that the vaccine didn't work on at all. They're still protected though because of herd immunity. If 98 out of 100 people are immune, what are the odds those 2 are going to come in contact with someone who has said disease? Virtually nil. But let's say only 50 people get innoculated and you have 1 now that the vaccine didn't work on. What are the odds that that 1 person will come in contact with someone who has said disease? Since you have half the population running around without being immunized the odds are much, much higher. That 1 person is no longer protected by herd immunity. Those who have chosen to not be immunized have now put the health of that 1 person at risk. Forcing someone to do something they don't want to do - even if those actions could potentially affect other people - is not okay. So, the question that was asked of Ragnarok then (which he apparently ain't gonna answer). Your thoughts on the idiots who refuse to take their kid to the doctor for religious reasons. They should be allowed to do that?
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 8, 2013 22:27:25 GMT -5
If you can PROVE that your actions directly cause another person to be injured, then that is a completely different story than just "driving fast" and *not* hurting anyone.
When it comes to young people with religious parents, it's unfortunate, but you kind of have to let them do what they think is right. I agree, they are idiots. But if we're going to say that they get to keep their kids, then they need to be able to do what they think is right.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 8, 2013 22:32:31 GMT -5
If you can PROVE that your actions directly cause another person to be injured, then that is a completely different story than just "driving fast" and *not* hurting anyone. When it comes to young people with religious parents, it's unfortunate, but you kind of have to let them do what they think is right. I agree, they are idiots. But if we're going to say that they get to keep their kids, then they need to be able to do what they think is right. And if the kid dies, then so what?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 8, 2013 22:34:15 GMT -5
I know the religious parents whose kid died argument is a good one to use on Cobra but it does raise some concerns.
If the government thinks the kid is sick but their parents won't do anything, they take them. Now what if the government doesn't like some of their other religious practices? What about Jehovah's Witnesses and their blood transfusion belief? Should their kids be taken away if the government doesn't like that they won't let their kids receive blood?
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 8, 2013 22:37:35 GMT -5
I know the religious parents whose kid died argument is a good one to use on Cobra but it does raise some concerns. If the government thinks the kid is sick but their parents won't do anything, they take them. Now what if the government doesn't like some of their other religious practices? What about Jehovah's Witnesses and their blood transfusion belief? Should their kids be taken away if the government doesn't like that they won't let their kids receive blood? The blood transfusion thing doesn't necessarily pose a risk to the kid's life though. The second it does, I think someone should step in though. If it's an adult it's a different story to me. As long as the adult is of sound mind, they should be allowed to refuse a blood transfusion even if it means they die.
|
|
Y2J13
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Jul 3, 2013 17:02:19 GMT -5
Posts: 248
|
Post by Y2J13 on Sept 8, 2013 22:41:49 GMT -5
Good God, I am so sick of this "freedom" bullsh*t. There's a different between not receiving daily beatings and rapings, and following a speed limit goddammit.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 8, 2013 22:48:46 GMT -5
I know the religious parents whose kid died argument is a good one to use on Cobra but it does raise some concerns. If the government thinks the kid is sick but their parents won't do anything, they take them. Now what if the government doesn't like some of their other religious practices? What about Jehovah's Witnesses and their blood transfusion belief? Should their kids be taken away if the government doesn't like that they won't let their kids receive blood? The blood transfusion thing doesn't necessarily pose a risk to the kid's life though. The second it does, I think someone should step in though. If it's an adult it's a different story to me. As long as the adult is of sound mind, they should be allowed to refuse a blood transfusion even if it means they die. So then we get to what can a parent do and until what age? There may be things parents do with their babies that those kids may not agree to/with at 15. Should a parent force that 15 year old to do whatever they want (obviously within the law but even despite the kid's objection)? Parents should use their best judgement but what if the kid doesn't like what was done? Too bad? That seems a bit rude to me.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 8, 2013 22:53:35 GMT -5
The blood transfusion thing doesn't necessarily pose a risk to the kid's life though. The second it does, I think someone should step in though. If it's an adult it's a different story to me. As long as the adult is of sound mind, they should be allowed to refuse a blood transfusion even if it means they die. So then we get to what can a parent do and until what age? There may be things parents do with their babies that those kids may not agree to/with at 15. Should a parent force that 15 year old to do whatever they want (obviously within the law but even despite the kid's objection)? Parents should use their best judgement but what if the kid doesn't like what was done? Too bad? That seems a bit rude to me. That's part of being a kid though. Kids have to do all kinds of crap they don't like because their parent forces them to.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 8, 2013 23:03:07 GMT -5
So then we get to what can a parent do and until what age? There may be things parents do with their babies that those kids may not agree to/with at 15. Should a parent force that 15 year old to do whatever they want (obviously within the law but even despite the kid's objection)? Parents should use their best judgement but what if the kid doesn't like what was done? Too bad? That seems a bit rude to me. That's part of being a kid though. Kids have to do all kinds of crap they don't like because their parent forces them to. Then go to the blood transfusion scenario. 15 year old wants it, parents say no. The doctor goes against the kid's wish. The kid is screwed until they are 18.
|
|