Comments
-
@Gerggle, just so you know, genuine religious exemptions for vaccines are rare, it’s the nut job antivaxxer movement that started with the UK doctor Andrew Wakefield over concerns that vaccines caused autism that have been falsely claiming religious exemption.
-
I'm all for vaccinations but how do they figure that "religious objections" are the issue?
-
@Kliment Voroshilov, They’re not. They know they’re not. The problem is when an antivax parent doesn’t want to vaccinate their kid they claim it’s agains their religion as religious exemptions are the only actual way to get around vaccinating in some areas
-
@Roxas, I'd have to disagree with you. Certain people hold the belief that they want to keep their bodies "pure" and will even refuse blood transfusions. I don't think it's the government's place to tell them they can't have those beliefs and practice them. However mandating it for school children is a different matter in that you can always home school or go to a different School as you don't have a constitutional right to education.
-
@ALargeRacoon, yeah. I honestly have a feeling that this will be eventually found unconstitutional in a supreme court ruling. (Note, I do think everybody that can be vaccinated should be, I am just stating that this could be found in violation of the 1st amendment.)
-
@ALargeRacoon, I apologize I was not being clear. I am aware that people have actual religious beliefs that stop them from receiving vaccination and even cause them to refuse life saving transfusions. My initial point is that Religious beliefs is often the go to excuse that a lot of non-religious people jump to. I agree with you on all of your points. I don’t think the government should force anyone to get Vaccinated but exposing other children to what could be potentially fatal diseases isn’t good for anyone so if all else fails home school is an option.
-
@Roxas, homeschool or they could form their own private school(s).
-
@ALargeRacoon, That as well yes
-
@jayne cobb, I think unconstitutional if it applies to private schools as well as public. The supreme Court can place limitations on constitutional rights so long as there is a strong compelling governmental interest, which health of children and the general public would easily satisfy.
-
@ALargeRacoon, That is a fair point. Like how things like child pornography and calling in bomb threats aren't protected. I do think it could end up at least going to the supreme court for a ruling though.
-
@Roxas, oh or online schools. Since those are becoming a thing now.
-
@ALargeRacoon, for sure, I can't see anyone taking a serious stand believing that ppls religious beliefs supersedes the health of child and general public, religion is allowed, but thankfully isn't above the laws
-
@Roxas, so basically they retreat to the lowest common denominator to get their way pitiful
-
@ALargeRacoon, well their beliefs are stupid
-
@ALargeRacoon, you don’t have the constitutional right to education but I think the argument could be made that this would then be excluding people from government provided entities based on religion. We all know the exclusion is because of the potential for disease, but the argument can be made that the government is then taking a stance against that religion since the citizens are not allowed, under their private practice, to submit to the government restrictions. There is risk involved in allowing unvaccinated kids in schools but vaccinating is also not risk free since there have been thousands of settled court cases where the vaccine was the cause of some medical accident. It’s a very slippery slope and although I’m not anti-vaxx, I definitely don’t think the government should be forcing us to put things in our body because that gives them the reigns to power no one should want the government to wield.
-
I honestly thought that’s how it was until this anti-vax fad
-
vaccines can contain ingredients such as formaldehyde, mercury, monkey dna and fetus stem cells. obviously they work at preventing disease but they shouldn’t be forcing things with known carcinogens on everyone
-
@ADON , They are not. As long as they don’t attend any public schools they are not forced.
-
@ADON , monkey dna is almost exactly the same as ours- wait, why am I trying to reason with you... still, it’s not about “forcing carcinogens” on people, it’s about preventing diseases using rigorously tested, very safe vaccinations. And something containing mercury doesn’t mean it contains mercury that causes health issues. If you breathe carbon monoxide, that will kill you. Does that keep you from breathing oxygen, even though oxygen is a key element In Carbon monoxide? They make hydrogen bombs, which are known to kill people. Should we stop drinking water because it contains hydrogen?
-
@Caligo, do most people have a viable alternative to public school? No they don't. So saying your kid can't come to school is, considered a threat. Thus it's consider cooersion. Coercion (/koʊˈɜːrʒən, -ʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of threat. Medically this is against ethics and legally a criminal offence to coercion someone into medical treatment that they don't want.
-
@shnickelfritz, he is right though, the MMR was created of aborted baby. See wi-38 for this... So for those who recognize abortion for the murder that it is, it would be unethical for them to take medial treatment based on this. Medically this is similar to how the German Nazi tested medial, stuff on the people they killed. One example was purposefully dunking Jews in ice water to see how the effects of hypothermia effected people. As they lost a, lot of pilots in the cold waters. The point of rejecting unethical medicine research and development, is, to discourage people from doing such in the beginning. Medical ethics is quite a complicated topi indeed.
-
@phalcon , it’s not even slightly coercion as anybody has the option of using homeschooling. Furthermore, even if we want to pretend that homeschooling isn’t an option, what if a kid who is unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons can’t be homeschooled, must attend public school and ends up contracting a life threatening preventable disease because some parents ignorantly decided against vaccinations? Medical professionals have deemed vaccines to be safe, so why would the government side with parents who don’t know what they’re talking about?
-
@Fuggles, yes, it very much is cooersion if you can't afford or have equal access to an alternative. And do you not see the contradiction in your own statment you just wrote? "medical professionals have dreamed vaccines safe".... While just before you wrote that some people can't get vaccines... Which would make them unsafe to that person. Also, you know are aware that there have been a number of drugs taken off the market right? Thilidamide was one of those ones that were framed safe, but that turned out to not be. Vioxx was taken off the market due to causing heart attacks. P
-
@phalcon , there is no contradiction if you have an understanding of how vaccines work. If somebody has a medical illness that has severely reduced their immune system then vaccines can be dangerous; however any child with a semi functioning immune system can handle a vaccine with no problem. This is why the big explosion in kids contracting preventable diseases we saw recently was almost exclusively seen in unvaccinated kids. Oh and by the way, by your definition, the government forcing us to wear clothes in public is coercion. Which leads me to believe that your definition isn’t great. And while medications do get taken off the shelves occasionally, that doesn’t mean that we should just ignore medical professionals entirely. They’re still leagues more trustworthy than uninformed parents who made all of their decisions based off of Facebook posts and debunked, decades old medical articles.
-
@Fuggles, oh for the love God don't even bother my man, he's not even being intellectually honest or coherent in his arguments, it's literally a soup of thoughts loosely attached, theres a stupid amount of research about vaccines readily available for decades, if he cared for reality he would've looked for it a long time ago
-
@RomeoStealYoGurl, yeeeeaaaah, you’re right. It just hurts the brain to read this stuff.
-
@RomeoStealYoGurl, so only people like you who are the ones who lack intellect. I'm actually pro vaccine. But I'm I also support personal freedom, and I am also a, medical professional.. This means I work within the confines of medical ethics and laws. Which means no forced or coerced treatments.
-
@Fuggles, the point is, the unknown. That's why people have the right to say no. As we say in medicine once you out in you can't take out. And ethically it's about risk vs benift and a how the patient weights those. I've literally seen people refuse treatment that would save their life. But that's the right they have. You're allowed to be stupid. However medical professionals are not allowed to assault stupid people.
-
@phalcon , if you want to get yourself killed, then I won’t stop you. That’s your decision and your right to treat yourself terribly. But public schools should safe for kids to attend without fear of preventable diseases. Some kids can’t be vaccinated, and sometimes vaccinations just straight up fail, leading the kid to not be immunized. For these kids, we should do our best to maintain a herd immunity, and the best way to do so is by making vaccinations mandatory for public school. What’s more important here, the law, or human lives?
-
@Fuggles, well let's play "am I a hypocrite" I see your using the argument, "the safety of others is the most impoarnt thing" to justify mandatory vacations. So do you ever take or eat food in the presence of others? Do you only eat hypoallergenic foods? There around 170 food substances identified as causing anaphylaxis shock. Stiaticly 200 people a year die from food based allergies. That's of course not including those who don't die. Last death from measles for example was two years ago. So what's your take for food in schools? What's your take for food you will eat near others? After all a person is like 400x more likely to die from a, food allergy than from getting mesasls from someone else for example. So? How did you fair for "am I a hypocrite"? Personally if you didn't say all outside food should be banned in schools and only hypoallergenic meals served by the school should be allowed, you would be a hypocrite.
-
@phalcon , wow... Just fúcking wow. I read all your moronic comments, there is no fùcking way your a "medical professional". You are a joke, you speak from ignorance and half truths. You also use stupid arguments that aren't remotely the same as the type of subject your using them against. I pray you never have kids because the last thing we need is more Facebook educated people in this world who think they can just have opinion then make up facts to support it. Please keep your stupidity to yourself. Thank you.
-
@phalcon , Ignoring the many, many grammatical errors in your comment, the argument works basically the same. For vaccines, we know there are people who may not be able to receive vaccinations due to age, poor health, whatever, so it is the responsibility of everyone else to be vaccinated and maintain a herd immunity to protect them. Similarly, if you know there is someone with a food allergy in your school, it is your responsibility to not bring that food near them. You can eat whatever you want as long as you are not knowingly putting someone else in danger. Similarly, you don’t need vaccines as long as you aren’t knowingly putting someone else at risk. However, the difference with vaccines is that we know for a fact that being unvaccinated puts others at serious risk, so you should be vaccinated if you are able.
-
@Steaknuggets, what a pathetic person you are. Nice job at performing an ad hominem logical fallacy. Grow up and get back to me when you can act like an adult and not just someone who throws out insults at people. Go read some writings on medial ethics. This is a long established topic, about what is right and wrong. On the odd chance you might actually be capable of changing, I'll throw this out. One of the big area of this topic in recent times is the right of Jehovah Witnesses to refuse blood based products. This includes the rights of parents to refuse it for their children. What you are also so patheticly incapable of seeming to understand, in medicine, a practitioner may not do what ever they want to the patient. This includes not being allowed to do things that are actually the best for the patient. This means even if the patent is wanting to chose an option that will kill them for not taking the treatment that will save their lives. This is the fundamental ethic.
-
@NarwhalAssassin, the argument isn't if vaccine are benificial though. I think they are. The heart of this topic is the right of the individual to make their own choices without coersion. Or parents the right to chose for their kids. In the medical community and even under law the rights of the individual to refuse medical treatment is enshrined in both ethics and law. Further, this, topic branches into socialism / communism. That is to consider, individual freedom trumps group in order to prevent tyranny. The old give them an inch and they take a mile. So who judges what's best for society? Who then decides just how far they can take it? What if someone decides it's best for society to sterilize all people with an iq less that 110? That way dumb people won't breed. Population will be lowered as well? Just think to some of the society's that existed where the individual doesn't have freedom but rather some government official does. Thats so USSR, China, Nazi Germany.
-
@phalcon , I agree, it is a right of the individual to refuse medical treatment. However, this is in regards to treatments which affect only the patient. For example, I could refuse surgery to remove a tumor in my lung as that only affects me. Vaccines affect the people around you as well, though, so your right to refuse treatment is trumped by other people’s right to be protected. It’s just like with STDs: you can refuse treatment for your disease, but knowingly transmitting it to others without their consent is a crime and you will be arrested. As for your IQ example, that isn’t related at all.
-
@NarwhalAssassin, have you studied the concept of eugenics? Or even know what that is? I've been facanated with these kind of moral topics since I was a, kid, some 20+ years ago. This area of discussion was largely introduced to me by Star Trek. Part of their stories line were the eugenics wars. Where Khan came from. Ultimately many episodes delt with a society that limited the rights of the individuals vs the society. Or rather individual rights being oppressed for the perceived benift of a society. The common them is that we're individual rights are squashed, no matter how good the motives are, tyranny and oppression take over. Thats, the point I'm trying to make people see. You might be willing to sacrifice a, little freedom here, a, little freedom there, and before you know it, yousoon find you have no freedom left. You probably heard the analogy of put a frog in hot water, they jump out, slowly turn the heat up and you cook them.
-
@NarwhalAssassin, also std are not a good parallel either. Just because one is not vacannated doesn't make the suddenly a carrier of a disease. Now if you have meselss say, and then go out in public then that would parallel your std example. But same thing, how many people have STDs and don't know about it? Those people are not charged.
-
@phalcon , I do know what eugenics is, and I know that requiring vaccinations to attend public school is not at all related to eugenics. Banning vaccinations completely would be closer to eugenics, as it would be saying “if your immune system is too weak to fight off disease, too bad for you.” Also, keep in mind that it doesn’t say all children must be vaccinated. Only those attending public school must be. If you don’t want to vaccinate, that’s cool. You just won’t be allowed access to this public service. This does not encroach on your personal freedoms as you still have the right to education, it just limits your choices.
-
@phalcon , except there’s no need to ban foods because we already have systems in place to protect children with allergies. If a child has a severe allergy (for example nuts or deodorants), then those products are banned from the school; and even in the case of them having an allergic reaction epipens can be found throughout any school that TAs or teachers can use to help them. So no, it’s not the same thing in the slightest. As well, the reason allergies kill more people every year than measles is because (and this should be pretty obvious) people have been vaccinated for measles for a long time. We’ve maintained a herd immunity for a decades now, but with every ignorant parent putting their child’s life at risk we step one step closer to preventable disease resurgences in schools.
-
@phalcon , I will say I do agree with what you said about people have a right to refuse medical treatments for themselves. But we are talking about children. Who can't make choices themselves. If your a oarent and choose not to get a vaccine for yourself that's fine. But forcing your opinion and beliefs on a child is wrong. And if your child gets a preventative illness and dies. The parent should have manslaughter or even out right murder charges brought up. Even more so if someone else's child dies. And for me personally if someone uses religion as a defence, that's just retarded. Religion is retarded, there is no god, and we are all going to fade into nothing. But by all means refuse treatment for yourself but we need to protect kids from their stupid ass, mostly stay at home moms who read facebook posts like they are medical journals. So happy kids themselves are demanding to be vaccinated but a lot of kids never make it to the age they can do that.
-
@phalcon , thalidomide was taken off BRITISH markets in the 1960s. UK fda did not, and does not, test as thoroughly as the USFDA. Homeschooling is an option for pretty much anyone that refuses vaccines. Honestly, I want to address all of your Jew/nazi claims, but from reading your error-riddled and incredibly ignorant writing, I think you are either a troll or very happily ignorant, and possibly just straight stupid. I try to love all of my funnypics comrades, but you, sir, are not a comrade. You are an enemy of children and parents who try to keep them healthy (yes, a mother of a 5 month old child in Georgia recently bemoaned that her child got measles from an unvaccinated child. Her child was one month too young to be vaccinated). Please educate yourself and try to save this country and culture from idiocy like that in your comments. Downvote me all you want, I don’t give a shjt. You’re either a troll or a dick. Either way, you’re an a$shole.
-
@phalcon , also, I HAVE studied eugenics EXTENSIVELY. What you are saying makes no sense- if anything, vaccination prevents eugenic practices. Why would “master race” lovers want all children to be healthy? Wouldn’t they want only the “master race” to survive? Try studying REAL eugenics, not Star Trek. It’s a good show, but not an educational one.
-
@ADON , In the off chance anyone actually comes back to read these comments, I just want to say these were really fun to read! The personal attacks are pretty lame but everyone had really interesting points of view on the topic. My main purpose for posting the comment was to get people thinking about the subject in a way that you never considered before. Most people have never heard what ingredients are getting injected into you with every vaccination. But, by introducing you to some facts you may not of heard of, I am hoping you can empathize with why people think the way they do with this subject. I personally am vaccinated but I do recognize there is some pretty fvcked up stuff they toss in those things.
-
@ADON , I have considered everything that you commented about. You introducing “conflict” is just you being an a-hole and making other people’s lives have more stress and strife. So... why? People can think on their own regardless of you. You are not a “thought messiah”. You are not delivering a new message. You’re just supplying uninformed thoughts to uninformed people who will take you seriously. You’re worse than Jenny McCarthy. If you really don’t believe what you say, then you’re just spouting bullshjt for the sake of spouting bullshjt. Get a fvcking life.
-
@shnickelfritz, you really ought to dig deeper into people comments. When I talk about Star trek and eugenics, I'm talking about a spark of an idea that expands beyond that initial spark. So what Star Trek may be the start it's not the end point in my looking into topics like eugenics. It's the same thing many people do when it comes to studying literature, digging into the story, digging into the message of the story, why it works why it doesn't work. Thats what made old Star trek so much better. Even now Orville where these shows dig into moral and ethical delimmas. And there is clear pros and cons to the arguments on both sides of forced medial treatment, or forced social behavior. Another good one is current duscission on artificial intelligence. They hypothesis is what if we make something so ai smart that it thinks that it knows better than us and will start controlling us? You know see iRobot. Etc. All these shows really deal with these systems all lead to tyrany and....
-
@shnickelfritz,.... And oppression, the loss of individual freedoms. And the usual conclusions is, even if people make the wrong choices, individual freedoms are better than the loss of freedoms.
-
@shnickelfritz, and again dig deeper into my point. I never said mass vacanation is eugencis. I said the same rational of mandating vaccines are the rationel that would be used to justify eugenics. That is "if it's for the betterment of society, you lose your freedom to decide on your own". That is the ideology that someone or a group of people knows best, and therefor the individual loses their right to decide. They aren't the same thing, but it's the same base ideology that makes, forced vaccinations a dangerous thing. Because it opens the flood gates to the next level of control.
-
@phalcon , yea, I understand what all of those shows are saying. I’ve seen iRobot, Star Trek, black mirror, all of that stuff. I get it. I’ve seen all of that shjt. I’m no one is forcing vaccines! They require them for public school b¬ every kid should be punished for their p. And I understand it not because I’ve watched a few episodes of tv but because I have actually read the literature behind the ideas. And as far as “the next level of control” goes, I know all about the “science” as well as the right and left hand path of “magick”, the path to enlightenment in Buddhism as well as Hinduism, and a few other ways of becoming “beyond” the ways humanity. And as for literature, I have a goddamn degree in literature and criminal science❣️
-
@shnickelfritz, so that leads to the question, how do we figure out where to draw the line? How do we avoid living in a, society like they address? Or on the flip side, do you want to live in that kind of society where everyone tells you how to live your life, and you get no say? I mean some people do actually want that.
-
@shnickelfritz, are being an idiot. I don’t need to “study” your “sources”. I have written papers, as has my partner, on similar subjects and we actually researched them. You’re not smart because you’ve watched Star Trek and Orville. You’ve watched some content specifically created for viewers like yourself. I’m not trying to devalue you, but fvck you for assuming I don’t know what I’m talking about, because I do. Just like I know I’ve wasted my time responding to you. So, just to be clear: I tried to reason, but I don’t think you care about reason. Vaccinations are important and that has nothing to do with collective control of the population, just the preservation of precious human life.
-
@shnickelfritz, you seem to suffer from reading comprehension issues. To repeat myself, shows like this where something that gave me my initial exposure to these topics. Then later I dug deeper into these topics. Some how you seem to be unable to comprehend that I've look more into these topics than just watching an episode of some tv show. And as I said before I support vaccinations. And again you lack reading comprehension, "forced vacanations" is about collective control over people, not voluntary vacanations. The topic has never been about if vacanations are good or bad, the topic is should society be able to force people to have medical treatment against their will, or not.
-
Next up, New York to require all girls to grow thick thighs and all boys to grow bangs and become broody. Governor says, “We found ppl like to be told what to do. Now there is no limit to my power”
This is necessary....if you’ve driven through Brooklyn you would see the amount of money wasted because of all the school Desks, Chairs, supplies, that was littering the streets from antivax religions (Do your own thing no judgement) but when my states taxes are being wasted and my fellow New Yorkers and Long Islanders health is threatened because of this then I agree there needs to be a change. Science brought us Medicine, if you believe in religion some god gave people the gift of intelligence to create something that will help us enjoy the gift of life so just do the right thing