Fundies Block Cancer Vaccine - Page 7

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
[B]
1 Obviously children do not have total autonomy over their bodies. Neither do parents have total license to do what they want with their children.

2 There are mandatory vaccinations for any kids that want to get into public school for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, there are religious exemptions.

3 As a heathen parent who encourages his children to be sexually promiscous I just feel better knowing their peers aren't carrying HPV.


1 "Gosh, what would we do if parents had control of their children!"
Ima Stuped

2 Yea, and I guess that you would let them all then.... THEN drag their asses down to the basement for proper injections.

3 I this was not an attempt at sarcasism, then show up tomorrow at the employment bureau of Child Protective Svsc. I'm sure they would love yor tude!

Paz

Um, Chris, I'm not sure who you are trying to impress here, but if you really think that you've scored some debate win here, you are deluded.

When you said "play along" I think you are accurately reflecting your intent. You have no desire to seriously discuss an issue, but to simply play some sort of verbal game. You know damn well that religious freedom doesn't protect any and all behavior. If your religion says to discriminate against people you hire, kill your children for dishonoring the family, kill someone of another religion, molest children, mutilate little girls, or fly a jet into a tower, I'm sorry, but that's not allowed. Or should I say, "Sorry, according to Chris Cuilla we are going to violate the constitution and repress your freedom of religion."

Seriously, come back with something substantive or stop wasting our time.

Come again? I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you suggesting I molest my children in a basement or is it that the fundies would do this when they home schooled?

A little unclear on the quote too. Maybe it was something earlier in the thread I missed. Are people stupid for not understanding that parents are gaurdians, not owners, of their children? That parents do not have the right to do destructive things to their children? Or was it something else?

Seriously, I'm just not getting your meaning here.

*he isn't speaking english*

Your answers to the questions are yes. Just admit it.


Actually...I was reflecting yours...apparently...


Me? I think you are.


If my religious beliefs call for me to opt out of certain kinds of government intrusions into my body...this would certainly be protected I would think. Not a real stretch. But perhaps in your view it is.


And this has what to do with your suggestion of government-forced vaccinations? Right...nothing. It is a (verbal) smokescreen to distract from the position you hold. Who is playing the games? Me? I don't think so.


I think noting that you are advocating:

1. eliminating choice of what happens with certain people's bodies, and,

2. the government being allowed to force them to do a certain thing with their bodies, and,

3. certain people's religious freedoms (under the U.S. constitution) being eliminated for the sake of 1 and 2

Is very substantitive (and important).

P.S. I am not wasting your time.

It has everything to do with the verbal game that you are indeed playing. If you are honest then you will admit that YOUR answer to YOUR question must be YES, you do favor restricting peoples freedom of religion in CERTAIN situations if you interpret freedom of religion to mean the freedom to do ANYTHING the person wants.

If you insist on such a broad interpretation of the freedom of religion clause then Yes, WE both agree that in certain situations religious freedom is trumped by other people's health and safety (I am assuming you, in fact, don't tolerate the examples of religious expression I cited). If that is the Yes you want then you have it, but you are in the same boat as I, we are just quibbling over when and where religious freedoms are trumped by other people's safety.

We can keep playing the verbal game or we can move to the substantive stuff. Namely, does religious belief permit a parent to put their children or my children at unnecessary risk. I maintain, quite simply, that it doesn't.

Am I proposing stormtroopers knock down doors, strap kids to tables and give them injections? No. I'm proposing that HPV vaccine be added to the already mandatory vaccines required for school admitance. I further propose that the word mandatory actually mean mandatory in the sense that if you want to keep your kids as a fertile bed for virus propogation that you keep them away from my kids and send them to a pro-virus school or teach them at home.

If your not wasting my time, prove it and address the substance.

I have never even suggested such a thing. Stop lying.


You are talking about the government-forced vaccinations of people.


This particular thing only affects "other people's health and safety" if a) the person carries the HPV virus, and b) they have sexual contact with another person.

( NOTE: So, you are saying that a person does not have an ultimate "right of privacy" and "choice" over their body if it affects another person's life. )


Do I get a break on the part of my taxes that go to fund the public schools too if I am (essentially) forced out of them?

This would be a clever trick:

1. Establish a tax payer (forced collection of $) funded "public" educational system.

2. Establish a standard for entrance that some may find violates their reasonable religious beliefs...and exclude people that do not meet that standard.

Nice.

Funny. I thought that liberals/progressives were about freedom. Doesn't look like much freedom in what you would construct.


What "substance"? The substance of your position is forced-government vaccinations. How can I address this except with astonishment.

Chris you are, indeed, wasting my time by constantly trying to impose your strawman.

Oh hell, why am I wasting my time. I'll leave it to this. If one other senior member reads through your nonsense and decides that your argument is a substantive response to my comments and states as much in this thread I will respond to your recent post.

For those who might weigh in on whether Chris's argument tactics merit a response, consider the following-

1 I never endorsed forced vaccinations. I said mandatory, with the consequences being a lack of voluntary participation in public schools where they might infect my kids.
2. I, like most thinking humans, concede that the right to religious freedom doesn't allow for people to hurt others in the name of their religion. It is therefore most obviously NOT a violation of the constitution to prohibit behavior that harms others whether or not it is advocated by a religion.
3. Finally, for those that are sympathetic to Chris's position, consider carefully whether it serves your position to champion his tactics. There are a few of us on appleinsider who actually enjoy getting to the substance of an issue rather than waste time. There IS a substantitive issue here, and I recognize that thoughtful people can present good arguments on the matter.

Since I doubt anyone will champion your cause, Chris, I'll offer the advice that you bring no legitimacy to your position by utilizing the tacts you do.

Finally...you get it. Don't blame me


What is the strawman exactly?


Ummm...lessee...


Wrong I guess.


This is your strawman. First, I have never said or suggested any such thing. Second, you have yet to prove how not getting vaccinated for HPV will "hurt others".


Yet you have continued to avoid the substance of your statement.


And what is the substantive issue as you see it? I have already sufficiently address the substantive issue of the thread as I see it.

Then...you chimed in with:


Which I could not let slide. Sorry for calling you on it. A bad habit of mine I guess.


What "cause" is that exactly? You appear to be quite confused.


1. I don't need your advice, thanks.

2. It is "tactics".

3. Which tactic is it that offends you so much? Pointing out your position?

Cripes yous can bs about nothin forever

Government-forced vaccinations is nothing?

Chris,

you are doing it again!

Can you not see the difference between the words "mandatory" and "forced"?

For example, it is mandatory to buy an airline ticket should you wish to fly from NY to Washington. No-one forces you to buy that ticket, as other options are available. Should you wish to fly, then you can be said to be forced to buy a ticket. You see the difference?

Public health vaccinations - if you wish your child to go to a public school, it should be mandatory to have the appropriate vaccinations. if your religeous beliefs prohibit such vaccinations, go to a private school or teach at home.

You are still free to practise your religeon. No prevention there.

And you are right, government forced vaccinations is almost certainly not nothing. Since the UK government made MMR vaccinations virtually obligatory in the 80's, no-one has died from measles. I'd call that a result, wouldn't you?

Nostrodamus: have you noticed Chris's signature? Highlights the futility of arguing anything with hime so clearly!

Cheers,

David

Well, certaintly. But our friend Nostrodamus also said:


Directly implying that, if I don't do it, the government would be more than happy to take care of it for me.


Very poor analogy. Very poor.

Let me change the anaology so that it fits better.

It is mandatory to buy tickets to fly between two cities. But it is also mandatory to be vaccinated against one or more sexually transmitted diseases as well. For personal, philosophical or religious reasons (well, and the fact that you don't plan to have sex with anyone on the flight), you feel that being vaccinated is unnecessary. You still have to pay for the tickets...but you don't get to fly.

Now...make it something that society considers more essential that flying to some city...like education (to pick a random example).




Do I get a tax break if I make this choice? Is it mandatory that I pay for something that because of a philosophical or religion belief about another thing that I would oppose (which is also mandatory) I cannot use? There are a variety of "opt out" things in the public school specifically for this reason. It isn't freedom to make some particular thing (let's say like a particular sex education program) mandatory that would violate some people's religious leanings and then make attendance (effectively) mandatory too because you take the $ for it, leaving that person/family with less/no $ for the alternatives you have suggested.

It is ridiculous to make this vaccine mandatory (without any opt-out option for religious reasons...which the others have BTW). If this was communicable in some more casual way than sexual intercourse, the argument might have some legs. But to sit there (as Nostrodamus has repeatedly done) and say that I would be endangering the health of the other little kiddies is ignorant and ridiculous. It demonstrates his ignorance of this health issue. The endangerment (as does the conveyance possibility) comes through sexual intercourse. So, unless Nostrodamus' kids expect to to be forcibly having sex with non-vaccinated kids, there shouldn't be a problem. And if they are...then we have a different problem don't we...one not solved through vaccinations...and the problem isn't with the unvaccinated kiddies...but the rapists.


First, if you are referring to: You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe

I'm not sure what this has to do with it. This isn't about "fact" or "evidence" it is about a policy position/opinion that makes two things mandatory that eliminate some freedom for some segment of the population. But, I guess liberals/progressives aren't as much about freedom as I had been led to believe.

EDIT: Not it if you want it to be about the "evidence", then Nostrodamus appears to ignoring the evidence that this is a virus that is conveyed sexually (specifically through sexual intercourse)...not by just going to school together. That is the "evidence" that is being disregarded in his (and perhaps your) "deep seated need to believe that this is a vital public health risk to allow unvaccinated (with HPV vaccination) kids into school.

Second, just me? Now that's just crazy and naive.

Chris,

A number of points:

1. my analogy was there purely to describe the difference between the words 'mandatory' and 'government forced'. As such, it was fine.

Forget flying, forget cities, forget anything. Try this:

If you want to do X, you must do Y. "Must" can be replaced by "mandatory".

If you have no choice about performing X, then "must" can be replace by "forced".

[I re-read your comment about the coloured shirsts. Doesn't work - there is probably a travel supplier that wpu;dn't insist in a particular coloured shirt]

2. tax breaks. Classic straw-man. There are plenty of things that I resent my tax payments being used for. For example, I, and my employer, pay for private medical insurance. So should I get a discount on my income taxes? No, because having private medical insurance is a choice I have made. The government should not care what I decide to do over and above their provisions.

3. where I genrally have an issue with you is when you expand specific points into a catch-all. Here you are saying, and I quote "Government-forced vaccinations is nothing?" into a general 'all government forced vaccinations are bad' kind of statement.

If the desease is communcicable via ordinary contact, such as mumps, rubella, measles, then YES, in a publicly funded school it is not unreasonable for the government to insist on vaccinations.

In the case of sexually transmitted diseases the argumnent doesn't stand up. So I would agree with you the the vaccine for cervical cancer should not be mandatory for attendance at a publicly funded school.

4. Your signature. If your position on a matter that cannot be proved one way or another (eg the ark :-) ) then no-one should bother debating/arguing with you. No point at all.


5. Liberals/progressives. I'm not sure that the terms are interchangeable, For me, a liberal is one who's postion is someone who does what s/he wants provided it soes not negatively affect a third party. Does that agree with your definition?

Cheers,

David

PS your improved airline analogy is no 'better' than mine. it is only better if you are told about the shirt colour after you buy the ticket. That doesn't happen. Schools tell you BEFORE you enroll about the conditions........

Bad example. In the one I speak of...the government forcibly takes my $ for something it provides to me...then makes me do something else to get that thing it provides.


Never said that. (I do find it amusing though, that some people do hold the position that the government DOES have the right to mandate certain things to be done to our bodies.)


Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by iMac David
[B]In the case of sexually transmitted diseases the argumnent doesn't stand up.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

Thank you. This is what I have been talking about.


Thanks you. And that is what I have been talking about...not generally about vaccinations.


But the $ has/is already being taken. So it still stands.

Chris,

I'm not great at this cutting and pasting, so I'll have a go:


What? In the same way the government takes $ for you to maintain the roads, but makes you buy a car to make use of said road?


? why is it amusing? The government insisted that children have immunisation against various diseases, the death rate has collapsed, and you find that position amusing? I really, really, don't understand you. For the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT discussing cervical cancer here.

You wrote :


which I read as meaning you agree that vaccinations are OK for ordinarily communicable diseases (within the context of this debate). So you find your own position amusing?

Finally, if you pay your dollars for a ticket, and THEN you are given a condition, then you have a right to be annoyed. In the case of taxes, we are told - "pay x% of salary and we (the governement) will spend it as we see fit. Don't like it, don't vote for us." There can't be any other way.

David

No.

Clearly there ARE some situations where it is OK for the government to tell people what they can/cannot do with their bodies. I don't necessarily disagree with this proposition.

The amusing (ironic) part is that, well, there is not an absolute "right of choice/control/privacy" (which is the foundational principle for some other issues) over our bodies.


If only it were so simple.

Great,

so you do agree that in SOME situations it is OK for governments to dictate what we do with our bodies. Finally you begin to see that not every question can be a simple yes/no answer.

You progress

I'm not at all sure what you mean by "amusing/ironic" re absolute choice. Adults DO have an absolute choice. If we are ill, and the doctors suggest Y, then adults are perfectly at liberty to tell them to f off (well, in the UK we are). For children the matter is more complex, as the starting point is that children don't have the full faculties to decide. Usually parents step in.

Finally, of course it isn't as simple as I suggest. But can you imagine the practicalities of a government having a checklist of spending programmes that you can tick (or not) according to your conscience?! Blimey.........

David

Finally? Get off it. I've never suggested such a thing.


I've tried to explain as best I can. Sorry if that is insufficient.

Other fish to fry...so we'll catch up on (other) things another time.

Later.

Chris,

sorry again, but I have to call you on:


[in relation to Yes/No answers.]

Bottom page 6, in response to Nostrodamus you wrote:


The answer isn't "Yes". The answer is "Yes in certain circumastances".

Anyway, as you say, other, bigger, better fish are frying. You stick to your debating technique, and I'll stick to mine.

Cheers,

David