|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 9, 2013 0:01:17 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? If you can prove that their negligence caused harm to the child, then the child obviously should not be in their care. Similar to beatings.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 9, 2013 0:02:15 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. Why the should I need to follow a speed limit? If I don't hit anyone, what is the ing problem? The Germans have no problem on the audobon.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 29, 2024 22:38:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2013 0:20:04 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. Why the should I need to follow a speed limit? If I don't hit anyone, what is the ing problem? The Germans have no problem on the audobon. Wow.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 9, 2013 5:37:07 GMT -5
And if the kid dies, then so what? If you can prove that their negligence caused harm to the child, then the child obviously should not be in their care. Similar to beatings. Umm, the kid is dead at this point. Isn't that slightly problematic? Sent from my GT-N8013 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Sept 9, 2013 6:04:32 GMT -5
If you can prove that their negligence caused harm to the child, then the child obviously should not be in their care. Similar to beatings. The Jenny McCarthy body count site? If you can prove that their negligence caused harm to the child, then the child obviously should not be in their care. Similar to beatings. Umm, the kid is dead at this point. Isn't that slightly problematic? That was my original point, because up until recently religious reasons were an actual defense. But now, a state or two (Oregon is one I think) has actually passed legislation that ended legal protection for religious parents that try to refuse medical treatment.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 9, 2013 6:53:07 GMT -5
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. As long as there's not an immediate threat to the kid's life, yes. If you can make a medical argument that the kid WILL die (not might, could or possibly, but will) then he should get the treatment. Otherwise it's up to the parents IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 9, 2013 9:35:33 GMT -5
If you can prove that their negligence caused harm to the child, then the child obviously should not be in their care. Similar to beatings. Umm, the kid is dead at this point. Isn't that slightly problematic? Sent from my GT-N8013 using proboards Parental negligence happens all the time. It's an unfortunate side effect of people having children.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 9, 2013 10:11:13 GMT -5
Umm, the kid is dead at this point. Isn't that slightly problematic? Sent from my GT-N8013 using proboards Parental negligence happens all the time. It's an unfortunate side effect of people having children. Yes, but we make every effort to step in BEFORE the kid is actually dead.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 9, 2013 11:12:36 GMT -5
Parental negligence happens all the time. It's an unfortunate side effect of people having children. Yes, but we make every effort to step in BEFORE the kid is actually dead. Sure, but you can't just say, "they didn't give the child a vaccine" and proclaim negligence. It hasn't been proven that vaccines are bad, but there is definitely reason to be hesitant. Within the "libertarian" community, there is a lot of variation in how people would handle situations like parental negligence. It's a tough one because we do want to say, "live and let live." But of course, that's always with the caveat of as long as they're not hurting anyone else.We can look at things like food and say - yes, the child will die if he or she does not get food. But comparing that to vaccines is very tough because there is only the SLIGHT possibility that a child will contract one of these potentially deadly illnesses if they are not vaccinated. Flu shots are very similar, really. Something like 23,000 - 36,000 (depending on the year) people die from the flu each year. They have flu shots, which are supposed to reduce your chances of getting it. But then again, many people also say that the only times they get the flu is when they get the shot. So... a) If a child didn't get a shot, gets the flu and dies; is that negligence? b) Is it negligence if the child doesn't get the shot, gets the flu and doesn't die? c) Is it negligence if the child DOES get shot, then gets the flu? d) What about if we later find out (hypothetically) that, within scenario "C," the shot actually CAUSED the flu which killed the child? Then is it negligence because the parent did the wrong thing? A true, hardcore libertarian would have a very simple answer for all of your questions here... It is not any one person's responsibility - whether they "brought them into the world" or not - to take care of anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 9, 2013 12:27:20 GMT -5
There's no reason to be hesitant about vaccines. I'm sorry, but there just isn't. If you deliberately expose your child to a health risk, then that is flat out negligence. Worse, you deliberately expose me to a health risk as well. A child that is not vaccinated grows up into an adult who is not vaccinated. The refusal to vaccinate is the reason we see diseases like measles making a come back in the developed world. You mean to tell me that measles making a comeback isn't bad for everyone?
I'm sorry, but I think a system that steps in AFTER someone is dead is a really broken system.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 9, 2013 13:23:53 GMT -5
There's no reason to be hesitant about vaccines. I'm sorry, but there just isn't. If you deliberately expose your child to a health risk, then that is flat out negligence. Worse, you deliberately expose me to a health risk as well. A child that is not vaccinated grows up into an adult who is not vaccinated. The refusal to vaccinate is the reason we see diseases like measles making a come back in the developed world. You mean to tell me that measles making a comeback isn't bad for everyone? I'm sorry, but I think a system that steps in AFTER someone is dead is a really broken system. I know your M.O. is to be skeptical of everything, but there are many, many scientists and experts who do not agree with vaccinations. I'm not saying that I do, but to just disregard the concerns that people have is pretty unfair. I also think it's extremely important to remember that vaccinations are not immunizations. Something like 20% of the people who have contracted measles were vaccinated for it. I'm also assuming that a number of people who contracted measles were too young (or too old) to be vaccinated. So to be safe, roughly 1/3 of people who contract and spread the measles are already taking the things you are saying we should be forced to take. The last thing to consider, with things like measles, is that .3% of people who get measles will die from it. I'm sorry, but I'll take my freedom and my 99.7% chance of survival.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 9, 2013 13:25:27 GMT -5
"Other people might die" is the exact reason that communists use for wealth redistribution.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 9, 2013 14:03:50 GMT -5
There's no reason to be hesitant about vaccines. I'm sorry, but there just isn't. If you deliberately expose your child to a health risk, then that is flat out negligence. Worse, you deliberately expose me to a health risk as well. A child that is not vaccinated grows up into an adult who is not vaccinated. The refusal to vaccinate is the reason we see diseases like measles making a come back in the developed world. You mean to tell me that measles making a comeback isn't bad for everyone? I'm sorry, but I think a system that steps in AFTER someone is dead is a really broken system. I know your M.O. is to be skeptical of everything, but there are many, many scientists and experts who do not agree with vaccinations. I'm not saying that I do, but to just disregard the concerns that people have is pretty unfair. I also think it's extremely important to remember that vaccinations are not immunizations. Something like 20% of the people who have contracted measles were vaccinated for it. I'm also assuming that a number of people who contracted measles were too young (or too old) to be vaccinated. So to be safe, roughly 1/3 of people who contract and spread the measles are already taking the things you are saying we should be forced to take. The last thing to consider, with things like measles, is that .3% of people who get measles will die from it. I'm sorry, but I'll take my freedom and my 99.7% chance of survival. I'd love to see the scientists and doctors opposed to vaccinations and what their reasons. Vaccinations are not effective on 100% of the population. That's where herd immunity kicks in. I'd challenge the 20% number, but let's say it's right for the sake of argument. That means 80% of those who contracted measles weren't immunized and gave it to the 20% who were immunized. Take out that 80% and you cut the number of people that measles can incubate in way down. There's a reason that measles was basically eliminated in the US until recent years and that reason was/is vaccinations. You freedom stops the second you threaten the health of the general population. Should someone with ebola be allowed to wander freely down the streets? Or should we forcibly quarantine that person if we have to?
|
|
Y2J13
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Jul 3, 2013 17:02:19 GMT -5
Posts: 248
|
Post by Y2J13 on Sept 9, 2013 14:12:03 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. Why the should I need to follow a speed limit? If I don't hit anyone, what is the ing problem? The Germans have no problem on the audobon. To quote The Undertaker...."Not everything is about you, mother er!" You're endangering other people's lives. Last time I checked, having the right to life and walking the streets feeling safe was one of those precious "freedoms" you love so much. Someone elses life is more important than you driving like a ing maniac because you feel like it. EDIT: Also, it's autobahn not 'audobon'.
|
|
Y2J13
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Jul 3, 2013 17:02:19 GMT -5
Posts: 248
|
Post by Y2J13 on Sept 9, 2013 14:14:29 GMT -5
"Other people might die" is the exact reason that communists use for wealth redistribution. What does that have to do with anything?! I don't know what 1980s propaganda films you've been watching, but not all Communists are evil. Hell, communism is a good idea in theory.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 9, 2013 14:30:36 GMT -5
"Other people might die" is the exact reason that communists use for wealth redistribution. What does that have to do with anything?! I don't know what 1980s propaganda films you've been watching, but not all Communists are evil. Hell, communism is a good idea in theory. Not only is it a good idea in theory, it actually does work as long as everyone agrees to abide by it. Many small communities are fairly communistic. The system works because they don't tolerate anyone who is lazy and won't work.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 9, 2013 14:57:16 GMT -5
I'd love to see the scientists and doctors opposed to vaccinations and what their reasons. www.vaccinationcouncil.org/about/This is one of many groups of professionals that work to refute the safety of vaccinations. Again, I am not saying that I necessarily agree with people, only there there is evidence that leads many to believe that there could very well be a correlation between vaccines and other diseases. Vaccinations are not effective on 100% of the population. That's where herd immunity kicks in. I'd challenge the 20% number, but let's say it's right for the sake of argument. www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-19/measles-makes-a-comeback-in-u-dot-s-dot-as-222-cases-reported-in-2011I was just going off of my memory from what I've heard other people say, but it appears the number is 14%. That means 80% of those who contracted measles weren't immunized and gave it to the 20% who were immunized. Take out that 80% and you cut the number of people that measles can incubate in way down. Of course. But it's not someone else's responsibility to take care of your health. If you can prove that an individual has given you a disease, then you might have a case. But that's not really possible. There's a reason that measles was basically eliminated in the US until recent years and that reason was/is vaccinations. Dude you're acting like there's some massive outbreak. That article I linked to above says that 25 people in the entire country had measles from January to April 2012. Even if we triple that to stay on the course, that's what? 75 people in the country who have it? And .3% of them die? So in all likelihood, no one died from it? You freedom stops the second you threaten the health of the general population. Should someone with ebola be allowed to wander freely down the streets? Or should we forcibly quarantine that person if we have to? If it can be proven that a person is giving people a disease, then of course they need to be quarantined. But that can't even come close to being proven. I go back to the flu thing. If someone has the flu, should the government be locking them up? A LOT more people die of the flu (both percentage wise and total deaths wise) than the measles. Yet mother ers show up to school, work, etc. with it every day.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 9, 2013 15:29:20 GMT -5
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. As long as there's not an immediate threat to the kid's life, yes. If you can make a medical argument that the kid WILL die (not might, could or possibly, but will) then he should get the treatment. Otherwise it's up to the parents IMO. So then there is nothing parents can't do to/for their children since they aren't legally recognized adults? "Other people might die" is the exact reason that communists use for wealth redistribution. I am so sick of the communist boogeyman.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 9, 2013 18:50:15 GMT -5
As long as there's not an immediate threat to the kid's life, yes. If you can make a medical argument that the kid WILL die (not might, could or possibly, but will) then he should get the treatment. Otherwise it's up to the parents IMO. So then there is nothing parents can't do to/for their children since they aren't legally recognized adults? In short, pretty much yes. As long as the parents actions don't endanger or harm the child, then yes the parents can do pretty much whatever they want. Let's be honest here, kids don't have a whole lot of rights as it is. If you're a kid you have a right to not be abused (and even then it's pretty much limited to physical/sexual abuse) and that's about it. Until you get older and actually start contributing something to society a kid has very few rights compared to an adult.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 9, 2013 19:30:36 GMT -5
I'd love to see the scientists and doctors opposed to vaccinations and what their reasons. www.vaccinationcouncil.org/about/This is one of many groups of professionals that work to refute the safety of vaccinations. Again, I am not saying that I necessarily agree with people, only there there is evidence that leads many to believe that there could very well be a correlation between vaccines and other diseases. Go look at their reasons for opposing vaccination. Their very first reason is that vaccines cause autism. This is something that has been PROVEN to be false in multiple studies. It's completely and totally bogus. Yet they use it as their very first point and further more it seems to be their only point. They flat out state that fourteen studies have shown no link between vaccination and autism and then they claim the studies are all bogus. Every one of them. Their entire argument is based on this and a lovely documentary they made themselves about how companies make money by making vaccines. Heaven forbid. Their doctors on their board are homeopaths and some of them are very sketchy. Dr. Humphries is a homeopath (don't get me started) and bases her conclusions about vaccines on a general feeling more than anything. She's a nephrologist (kidney doctor) how this qualifies her to determine the efficacy of vaccines is beyond me. Mayer Eisenstein is the next one of the list. He is a pediatrician so at least he's in a field where he would be expected to know something about child hood vaccines. He's not a good doctor though. He lost a wrongful death suit to the family of a newborn to the tune of $30 mil. That is a crap ton of money. he has a long history of being sued for malpractice. Also, he claims he has a drug that can "cure" autism. Autism experts and endocrinologists alike say this is bunk. The guy is a sham and a fraud. He tells people you can also cure/prevent autism with a wonderful vitamin concoction that, conveniently enough, his wife produces and sells. Lovely. Then you have Dr. Sherri Tenpenny. She is certified in Emergency Medicine, Osteopathic Neuromusculoskeletal Medicine and Integrative and Holistic Medicine. Emergency Medicine would obviously have nothing at all to do with vaccinations. Osteopathy and holistic medicine also has nothing at all to do with vaccines. None of these people on the board of directors are immunologists or infectious disease specialists. None of them have any background in either of those fields either. None of these people is even qualified to speak on the efficacy of vaccines as none of them have any expertise in the field or any related fields. Would you go to a brain surgeon with a question about the risks of a heart surgery? Of course not. Nor would you go to a cardio surgeon to discuss the pros/cons of a brain surgery. Just because they're doctors doesn't make them qualified. The only one who might be remotely qualified is Eisenstein, but are you really going to trust a guy with a slew of malpractice suits following him around? It is your responsibility to not endanger my health. I don't expect you to bring me food and chicken soup when I'm in bed. I do expect you to not act in an irresponsible manner that puts my health at risk. I have no clue where that article gets it's data. The CDC says otherwise. In the first 6 months or so of 2008 there were 64 cases. 63 of the 64 were people who were unvaccinated or undocumented vaccination status. In 2011 there were 118 just from February to May (http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2011/05/us-measles-surge-year-biggest-1996). Again, 90% were people who had not been vaccinated. The church in Texas had 21 cases alone. NPR reports that just this year so far they've had twice as many cases as they did in all of 2012 (http://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217746942/texas-megachurch-at-center-of-measles-outbreak). This is a disease that was declared to be eradicated in the US several years ago. Now it is coming back and threatening the general health because people are not vaccinated. No harm is being done? No. I can easily avoid someone who has the flu. We are talking about diseases that we can eradicate with vaccines (the flu ain't one of them).
|
|