Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, effective is more accurate. I picked my wording very carefully. I'm not one to use insults lightly but this topic enrages me. It's one thing to make choices that are detrimental to yourself, it's worse to make such choices that impact your children (who are helpless) but I think it's the ultimate disgrace to make choices that endanger the entire population.
So that means you're also against smoking and drinking...? Not trying to be snarky - but there are LOTS of activities that are socially acceptable that endanger others. And they are probably a whole lot more dangerous overall than lack of vaccination. (For the record, my children and I are vaccinated).
Anti-vaccination update: How the measles crisis struck Disneyland
21–30 of 41 posts
Re: Anti-vaccination update: How the measles crisis struck Disneyland
#22Bullshit. http://www.sott.net/article/290717-Chickenpox-vaccine-when-m...
The topics have a section for "science of the spirit" and there's a blog post on the front page that keeps theme with the about page representing this site as a group fighting to be heard over the scientists who are repressing them.
PS. Your link's article isn't even talking about the same thing as the original article. Thought you might want to know before reading it yourself.
Re: Anti-vaccination update: How the measles crisis struck Disneyland
#23Bullshit. http://www.sott.net/article/290717-Chickenpox-vaccine-when-m...
Re: Anti-vaccination update: How the measles crisis struck Disneyland
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Vaccinated people (because a vaccine is never 100% safe). s/safe/effective Also, I think you should rewrite your post without the insulting words in it. Writing it as such may be cathartic, but it is ineffective in convincing anyone.
You're right, effective is more accurate. I picked my wording very carefully. I'm not one to use insults lightly but this topic enrages me. It's one thing to make choices that are detrimental to yourself, it's worse to make such choices that impact your children (who are helpless) but I think it's the ultimate disgrace to make choices that endanger the entire population.
a lot of the time i see this sort of rage surface most assuredly (in myself and other people) for topics which:
a.i am definitely not guilty
b.someone else definitely is guilty
c.a lot of other people agree with me.. but not everyone
your argument as put forward satisfies these three points.as to your stated arguments, do you really think anti-vaxers want to make bad choices for their children? or are you saying you should be judged according the outcomes of actions, whether you had the correct foresight or not? the first is demonising them to make yourself feel superior / the second is demonising all parents for the myriad of things they do everyday to damage their children. which is it?
"I think it's the ultimate disgrace to make choices that endanger the entire population." once again here, is the prior knowledge / intent important? here if you are suggesting, foresight or not, it is bad to endanger the human race - as a logical test of sorts, what if it turns out that overpopulation is the biggest danger to the human race? would that change your stance? likewise, if intent is important, do you stop driving your suv? or is it just about scale? do you stop using fossil fuels?
the thing that gets me about the vax/antivax, is that neither side really understand the complexity of the argument. i actually know as many people whose children have had serious reactions to vaccinations as i do parents who children have had serious preventable illnesses. now, i know statistically this is due to vaccines preventing a whole lot more illnesses, and that for certain illnesses there is a minimum threshold of vaccinated people below which the effectiveness is seriously compromised. but at this very point what does it matter to the parents if they have just as much chance to hurt their child either way?
most anti-vaxers i have run into actually want to pick and choose the vaccinations and the timing, rather than the couple of hundred they are forced to get by the state (in three or four different injections). is it better to get all or none? is it better to force them into a position of getting all or none?
if you don't understand your own arguments, or the people you are trying to convince otherwise, how do you know you are not just reacting emotionally? who does it serve for you to get enraged?
*(because clearly it is just a stats vs economics thing, hardly something to get riled up about)
Re: Anti-vaccination update: How the measles crisis struck Disneyland
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, effective is more accurate. I picked my wording very carefully. I'm not one to use insults lightly but this topic enrages me. It's one thing to make choices that are detrimental to yourself, it's worse to make such choices that impact your children (who are helpless) but I think it's the ultimate disgrace to make choices that endanger the entire population.
ignoring the whole vax/anti-vax thing* i am really curious about people who are enraged about such things and why a particular topic like this enrages them? are you enraged about all things which endanger the population? or just some? a lot of the time i see this sort of rage surface most assuredly (in myself and other people) for topics which: a.i am definitely not guilty b.someone else definitely is guilty c.a lot…
I am selfishly enraged by the actions of people who put my children's health at risk (especially since they were premature and they are prone to catching a lot of bad stuff) because these people choose to ignore facts (most of the time for religious reasons).
I am selflessly enraged at anyone who endangers other people because I have empathy for these people and very low tolerance for irrationality.
Re: Anti-vaccination update: How the measles crisis struck Disneyland
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, effective is more accurate. I picked my wording very carefully. I'm not one to use insults lightly but this topic enrages me. It's one thing to make choices that are detrimental to yourself, it's worse to make such choices that impact your children (who are helpless) but I think it's the ultimate disgrace to make choices that endanger the entire population.
ignoring the whole vax/anti-vax thing* i am really curious about people who are enraged about such things and why a particular topic like this enrages them? are you enraged about all things which endanger the population? or just some? a lot of the time i see this sort of rage surface most assuredly (in myself and other people) for topics which: a.i am definitely not guilty b.someone else definitely is guilty c.a lot…
Of course not, they think they are doing the right thing, in much the same way that Mormons refuse blood transfusions for themselves and their children or that certain parents kill their children so they can get to heaven faster.
You're still building a straw man, though.
The intention is completely irrelevant here, what matters is the safety of the children and of the rest of the population.
Re: Anti-vaccination update: How the measles crisis struck Disneyland
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, effective is more accurate. I picked my wording very carefully. I'm not one to use insults lightly but this topic enrages me. It's one thing to make choices that are detrimental to yourself, it's worse to make such choices that impact your children (who are helpless) but I think it's the ultimate disgrace to make choices that endanger the entire population.
ignoring the whole vax/anti-vax thing* i am really curious about people who are enraged about such things and why a particular topic like this enrages them? are you enraged about all things which endanger the population? or just some? a lot of the time i see this sort of rage surface most assuredly (in myself and other people) for topics which: a.i am definitely not guilty b.someone else definitely is guilty c.a lot…
You're trying to use anecdotal data as data. That's not how science works.
Scientist are way, way ahead of you. Adverse effects are the number one thing that is studied when a new vaccine is being considered for public use. At least in the US (and most of the industrialized world), if a vaccine receives approval for wide use, it's because the statistical risk of adverse effects and the actual adverse effects are completely benign compared to the positive effect that the vaccine will have on the population.
Re: Anti-vaccination update: How the measles crisis struck Disneyland
#28So depressing. If you're not vaccinating your child, you are putting the following people at risk: - Other idiots like yourself who chose not to vaccinate their child and their very unlucky children. - Vaccinated people (because a vaccine is never 100% effective). - Babies too young to be vaccinated. And of course, you are taking part in resurrecting a disease that had been officially announced as eradicated in 2000.…
> Vaccinated people (because a vaccine is never 100% safe). s/safe/effective Also, I think you should rewrite your post without the insulting words in it. Writing it as such may be cathartic, but it is ineffective in convincing anyone.
Re: Anti-vaccination update: How the measles crisis struck Disneyland
#29So depressing. If you're not vaccinating your child, you are putting the following people at risk: - Other idiots like yourself who chose not to vaccinate their child and their very unlucky children. - Vaccinated people (because a vaccine is never 100% effective). - Babies too young to be vaccinated. And of course, you are taking part in resurrecting a disease that had been officially announced as eradicated in 2000.…
> Vaccinated people (because a vaccine is never 100% safe). s/safe/effective Also, I think you should rewrite your post without the insulting words in it. Writing it as such may be cathartic, but it is ineffective in convincing anyone.
Re: Anti-vaccination update: How the measles crisis struck Disneyland
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
ignoring the whole vax/anti-vax thing* i am really curious about people who are enraged about such things and why a particular topic like this enrages them? are you enraged about all things which endanger the population? or just some? a lot of the time i see this sort of rage surface most assuredly (in myself and other people) for topics which: a.i am definitely not guilty b.someone else definitely is guilty c.a lot…
> as to your stated arguments, do you really think anti-vaxers want to make bad choices for their children? Of course not, they think they are doing the right thing, in much the same way that Mormons refuse blood transfusions for themselves and their children or that certain parents kill their children so they can get to heaven faster. You're still building a straw man, though. The intention is completely irrelevant…