Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Incidence of measles, mumps and rubella all increase due to anti-vaccine campaign
Comments
-
I think a lot of the problems surrounding people being hysterical anti vaccine can be linked to "my ignorance is worth the same as your knowledge" idea that everyone's opinions on things are equal, even if they are arguing about something they don't fundamentally understand scientifically. It's why this movement and other nonsense like homeopathy and naturopathy have slithered into modern outlook on health.0
-
-
You're right, which is why I'm not using it to make the case for anti-vax. In case I haven't been absolutely and crystal clear, I am pro-vaccination.
What the above document is best for making a case for though, is that by trampling all over people's human rights, you are setting a precedent where those rights then become meaningless, because any justification you like can be used to disregard them when it suits a particular agenda.
This human rights talk is sensationalist nonsense, plain and simple.
The only agenda is for the greater good in that we can get rid of something quick and efficiently, or do it the half assed way and potentially have to deal with more severe complications as a result. It's like not taking a full dose of antibiotics, if enough people don't use them properly for the full term, enough then remain to mutate into something resistant to the antibiotics and then nobody is immune to them anymore.
If your concern is for human rights I'd love to hear your views in the days of mandatory smallpox vaccination, or would it still be ok to let a deadly disease run amuck in the population because a few paranoid parents who were ignorant of the processes were afraid of the vaccination more than the disease?
I've mentioned that 4 or 5 times now and it's making people run anyway so they don't have to deal with it. The same concept stands today as it did then. A disease is a disease. Eradication of disease is what medicine is all about and we're always striving to wipe out more and more for or own safety and well being.0 -
Taco Chips wrote: »I think a lot of the problems surrounding people being hysterical anti vaccine can be linked to "my ignorance is worth the same as your knowledge" idea that everyone's opinions on things are equal, even if they are arguing about something they don't fundamentally understand scientifically. It's why this movement and other nonsense like homeopathy and naturopathy have slithered into modern outlook on health.
It's the same case for the opposition of genetically modified organisms. It's extremely irritating, especially if it's something you are very knowledgeable about based off of first hand experience.0 -
Kristopherus wrote: »Was'nt that fella Wakefield and his claims totally discredited a few years ago? The national uptake for
these preventive jabs was in the region of 90% the last time I looked at the
figures. a gowl?
Yes, yes he was.
Vaccination should not be mandatory. But it should be done regardless.0 -
Advertisement
-
twowheelsgood wrote: »So you read the first sentence that pointed out that the girl lost the case and the second one that said medical interventions are constitutionally sound? Doesn’t quite support your assertion that “The State took a shìt all over the Constitution in this case too”
Because the State held jurisdiction over the Church and decided that freedom of religion only means freedom of religion when it suits them.On a different issue, might I ask what you attitude is to the tiny minority of adults who think children should be permitted to engage in sexual acts, provided the child gives “consent”?
Well, that came out of absolutely nowhere! :pac:
No, but seriously, since you ask the question, how about you give your own opinion first and then I'll have some idea where you're coming from, because otherwise we could go waaaay off-topic here into a completely different discussion.0 -
Educating them on why it's the wrong choice and hoping that they come to the realisation that it's the wrong choice.
Ok, I respect that 100%.
But we've gone past education with stuff like this. A Daily Mail article about Cherrie Blair not vaccinating her baby helped stoke hysteria, the Wakefield study. Ben Goldacre is a good read, skeptic or not in this area.
You can educate all you want, you'l always have people like zenno (no offence), people who are against big pharma (sorry!), people against big Government (sorry!).
Apologise for effecting peoples sensibilities, but I'm sorry, if I was a betting man, I'd have my mortgage on vaccines.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Your argument here is not specifically about vaccination. It is about whether or not parents have absolute autonomy or not in making decisions for their children. You seem to suggest they do. I say there are a number of situations where the state can and should override them.Well, that came out of absolutely nowhere! :pac:
No, but seriously, since you ask the question, how about you give your own opinion first and then I'll have some idea where you're coming from, because otherwise we could go waaaay off-topic here into a completely different discussion.
For example, I think they should be (and are) able to do so when parents do not provide what they state decides is a minimum standard of care for them.
Another, if the parent’s religious beliefs are in conflict with the physical well-being of the child (no blood transfusions, prayers not medicine etc.)
And also in the situation I cite, where parents would involve their children in sexual acts. The state can and will intervene.
I know you disagree with me on the second point. I assume (?) you would agree with me on the third point but I am not sure how you might rationally justify the state wading in in that kind of a scenario but not in the religious beliefs one.0 -
This human rights talk is sensationalist nonsense, plain and simple.
I don't think wanting to uphold Human Rights is sensationalist nonsense. They apply across the board on a range of issues and we can't just pick and choose when they apply and when they shouldn't.The only agenda is for the greater good in that we can get rid of something quick and efficiently, or do it the half assed way and potentially have to deal with more severe complications as a result. It's like not taking a full dose of antibiotics, if enough people don't use them properly for the full term, enough then remain to mutate into something resistant to the antibiotics and then nobody is immune to them anymore.
I understand the frustration, I genuinely do, but I'm just saying that if we disregard the rules when they don't suit us, then we set a precedent where other groups can disregard the rules when it suits them.If your concern is for human rights I'd love to hear your views in the days of mandatory smallpox vaccination, or would it still be ok to let a deadly disease run amuck in the population because a few paranoid parents who were ignorant of the processes were afraid of the vaccination more than the disease?
My views would be the same Redzer - Information and education is the key to combatting disease, prevention as they say, is better than cure. That strategy would apply to the eradication of any disease. If you give people the information and educate them, then there is a change in society's attitude towards the disease, and then the disease is eradicated over time. That is a time and tested strategy that's been proven to work time and again throughout history.I've mentioned that 4 or 5 times now and it's making people run anyway so they don't have to deal with it. The same concept stands today as it did then. A disease is a disease. Eradication of disease is what medicine is all about and we're always striving to wipe out more and more for or own safety and well being.
And the worst disease of all is the spread of ignorance. That's what education and information is all about. So the blanket eradication strategy worked for one disease, smallpox, and we could use the blanket strategy to eliminate a great many others, but the question I'm asking, that nobody seems to want to think about is -
What cost to society will this blanket strategy have? What cost to society will disregarding people's human rights have?
Because there is always a cost, and it would be short sighted to think "Well it's eradicated a disease, that's good enough for me!0 -
So say 1 in 50 doesn't vaccinate their kids. That leaves 2% of the community of children in our schools at risk of contracting a potentially nasty disease, wherein complications could arise and WCS the end result could be death. Doesn't sound much but what if a few more parents suddenly change their minds and not vaccinate. The parents who originally abstained are now in a situation where their child is at greater risk and it downward spirals from there. Those who chose not to vaccinate are reliant on the majority who do vaccinate to keep the child at low risk. Makes no sense.
TL ; DR - I can exercise my civil rights but you better make damn sure the rest of you don't for little Johnnies sake0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think wanting to uphold Human Rights is sensationalist nonsense. They apply across the board on a range of issues and we can't just pick and choose when they apply and when they shouldn't.
I understand the frustration, I genuinely do, but I'm just saying that if we disregard the rules when they don't suit us, then we set a precedent where other groups can disregard the rules when it suits them.
My views would be the same Redzer - Information and education is the key to combatting disease, prevention as they say, is better than cure. That strategy would apply to the eradication of any disease. If you give people the information and educate them, then there is a change in society's attitude towards the disease, and then the disease is eradicated over time. That is a time and tested strategy that's been proven to work time and again throughout history.
And the worst disease of all is the spread of ignorance. That's what education and information is all about. So the blanket eradication strategy worked for one disease, smallpox, and we could use the blanket strategy to eliminate a great many others, but the question I'm asking, that nobody seems to want to think about is -
What cost to society will this blanket strategy have? What cost to society will disregarding people's human rights have?
Because there is always a cost, and it would be short sighted to think "Well it's eradicated a disease, that's good enough for me!
I am not taking about a beach of human rights I'm talking about vaccinations only.
This feels like a debate about same sex marriage where some people bring polygamy into it when it's completely unrelated.
Diseases are serious. I think many can make the distinction and toe the line here. This isn't a trivial debate about right of religion or any other nonsense. That's just taking the discussion off topic and muddying the water0 -
twowheelsgood wrote: »Your argument here is not specifically about vaccination. It is about whether or not parents have absolute autonomy or not in making decisions for their children. You seem to suggest they do. I say there are a number of situations where the state can and should override them.
For example, I think they should be (and are) able to do so when parents do not provide what they state decides is a minimum standard of care for them.
Another, if the parent’s religious beliefs are in conflict with the physical well-being of the child (no blood transfusions, prayers not medicine etc.)
And also in the situation I cite, where parents would involve their children in sexual acts. The state can and will intervene.
I know you disagree with me on the second point. I assume (?) you would agree with me on the third point but I am not sure how you might rationally justify the state wading in in that kind of a scenario but not in the religious beliefs one.
A certain standard of living is a basic human right.
Freedom of religion is a basic human right.
Incest is not a human right.0 -
I am not taking about a beach of human rights I'm talking about vaccinations only.
This feels like a debate about same sex marriage where some people bring polygamy into it when it's completely unrelated.
But a breach of people's human rights is exactly what you're advocating in order to force them to vaccinate their children. The reason this feels like a discussion about SSM for me is because SSM is a basic human right, and those whom advocate objections to SSM are in breach of people's human rights.Diseases are serious. I think many can make the distinction and toe the line here. This isn't a trivial debate about right of religion or any other nonsense. That's just taking the discussion off topic and muddying the water
Human Rights are just as serious. That's why for a long time it sickened my shìt that stem cell research was held back by the whole ethics and morals debate when they could be used in the study and prevention of a number of genetic and other diseases, but again, at what cost to society?0 -
whatdoicare wrote: »I call BS seeing as the MMR vaccine is administered long before a baby starts to speak and you wrote a baby starting words etc. Unless it was some sort of genius baby!
Autism typically shows symptoms around the age of 3 . The old thinking was symptoms coincided with the booster shot for MMR and it was easy to scaremonger. The ingredient that Walker describes in his papers used as a preservative which he linked to Autism is no longer used in vaccines.
My mom works closely with Autism Ireland, my own brother has Autism. I gave my own daughter her shots a month ago without fear of her getting Autism.
Any baby I know who showed symptoms did so years after the shot and serious studies on Autism Ireland site found babies were diagnosed with Autism with or without vaccines, if they got combined or separate and no matter when they received them . It had no effect either way.
Its all facebook scaremongering.
That's incorrect.
Doctors will only start assessments at that age but Autism can show signs from much, much younger than that.0 -
-
MilanPan!c wrote: »Freedom to harm others isn't a human right either.
You're right, it's not, and I'm not one of them, but there are people that will use that argument as an objection to vaccines claiming the right to bodily integrity is also a fundamental human right.
You still haven't shown a shred of evidence that not having the vaccine is guaranteed to harm others. You honestly think the US wouldn't have implemented a blanket vaccine policy to force parents to vaccinate their children if they thought they could already?
Before you say they have, people can still opt out, which means they're not forced.0 -
You're right, it's not, and I'm not one of them, but there are people that will use that argument as an objection to vaccines claiming the right to bodily integrity is also a fundamental human right.
You still haven't shown a shred of evidence that not having the vaccine is guaranteed to harm others. You honestly think the US wouldn't have implemented a blanket vaccine policy to force parents to vaccinate their children if they thought they could already?
Before you say they have, people can still opt out, which means they're not forced.
Smoking indoors isn't guaranteed to hurt anyone, neither is drink driving, or driving your car on the wrong side of the m50, but none of those are human rights either.
The threat is seen as enough in all of those cases.
By doing any of those you are creating a more dangerous situation than society is ok with and will be punished if caught. Endangering someone. Not hurting them. Endangering them.
This is the same.
You may not understand it, or you may be simply trying to argue a nonsensical point, for a laugh, but its a nonsense.
We make rules against endangering others. Not vaccinating your kids creates danger for society.
Making society more dangerous is not a human right.0 -
ballsymchugh wrote: »discredited and struck off.
But Wow! What a widespread and lasting impression he made! He proved, if proof was needed, just how easy it is to scare people.
For me, the best persuader for any parent to vaccinate their child is to sit up all night with a sick child. Don't tell me "they're young and will shake it off in a few days". You'll find yourself praying, to whatever deity you prefer, to pass the illness to yourself and let the child recover.
Also, don't tell me (as my buddy in Texas once tried) that "all illness is God's will and we shouldn't interfere". If you are a believer, why did He make us smart enough to invent medicines?
And as for "infringing my civil liberties"? Grab yourself by the lapels, give yourself a shake and get your priorities in the correct order. Child's welfare first; all other priorities are beyond the horizon.
Preventative medicine is available, so use it.
Sorry for rant....bad experience in past! If only we had....etc.0 -
MilanPan!c wrote: »Smoking indoors isn't guaranteed to hurt anyone, neither is drink driving, or driving your car on the wrong side of the m50, but none of those are human rights either.
The threat is seen as enough in all of those cases.
By doing any of those you are creating a more dangerous situation than society is ok with and will be punished if caught. Endangering someone. Not hurting them. Endangering them.
This is the same.
You may not understand it, or you may be simply trying to argue a nonsensical point, for a laugh, but its a nonsense.
We make rules against endangering others. Not vaccinating your kids creates danger for society.
Making society more dangerous is not a human right.
Look at you trying to argue a point I haven't made, and changing the wording of your own argument too when it doesn't suit you! You realised it wasn't possible to hurt someone by inaction, so then you changed it to endangering someone. You're still incorrect.
You'd better go sit in the "vaccines cause autism" corner, because like them, you have produced no evidence whatsoever to guarantee that not getting vaccinated causes measles, mumps or rubella.
I'm not arguing anything for a laugh either btw, but if you can't come up with evidence pretty soon I'm bowing out of this discussion. It's becoming rather tedious your trying to prick my conscience with your lack of evidence. You're wasting your time as I don't have a conscience when it comes to people who believe there's no harm in discarding other people's basic human rights for their own ends.0 -
Look at you trying to argue a point I haven't made, and changing the wording of your own argument too when it doesn't suit you! You realised it wasn't possible to hurt someone by inaction, so then you changed it to endangering someone. You're still incorrect.
You'd better go sit in the "vaccines cause autism" corner, because like them, you have produced no evidence whatsoever to guarantee that not getting vaccinated causes measles, mumps or rubella.
I'm not arguing anything for a laugh either btw, but if you can't come up with evidence pretty soon I'm bowing out of this discussion. It's becoming rather tedious your trying to prick my conscience with your lack of evidence. You're wasting your time as I don't have a conscience when it comes to people who believe there's no harm in discarding other people's basic human rights for their own ends.
You are using exactly the same argument they do when they say "you can't PROVE there's no link between vaccines and autism so I win!"
It is absolutely possible to hurt someone via inaction, it is, however impossible to prove that a specific instance of inaction will cause a specific instance of harm, unless a time machine is invented.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think that parents should be FORCED to have their kids vaccinated.
But I do think every parent should and every means possible, short of force or taking kids into care should be looked at. Parents who don't vaccinate their kids are a real health risk.
The idea of force/taking kids away if they're not vaccinated was the kind of thing that people on the No side of the Children's Rights Referendum were suggesting would happen if it passed - let's not make that a reality for them!!0 -
Look at you trying to argue a point I haven't made, and changing the wording of your own argument too when it doesn't suit you! You realised it wasn't possible to hurt someone by inaction, so then you changed it to endangering someone. You're still incorrect.
You'd better go sit in the "vaccines cause autism" corner, because like them, you have produced no evidence whatsoever to guarantee that not getting vaccinated causes measles, mumps or rubella.
I'm not arguing anything for a laugh either btw, but if you can't come up with evidence pretty soon I'm bowing out of this discussion. It's becoming rather tedious your trying to prick my conscience with your lack of evidence. You're wasting your time as I don't have a conscience when it comes to people who believe there's no harm in discarding other people's basic human rights for their own ends.
This is where we see the wheels come off eh?
Trying to claim this is the first post I've used the word endanger... I'm starting to see why you were so worried about anti-vax'er being called nuts...
Anyway, here's the posts where I've used the term endanger.MilanPan!c wrote: »I know you'd like it to be, but endangering others isn't a human right, and it runs contrary to the document you think protects your right to potentially hurt others.MilanPan!c wrote: »No where does the United Nations General Assembly Universal Declaration of Human Rights give you permission to endanger your neighbours.
I know you think it does. But it doesn't.MilanPan!c wrote: »Are you suggesting it's sane to allow your belief in a debunked conspiracy theory motivate you to endanger your children and your neighbours?
Or that it's sane to allow your personal fear of crossed rubicons endanger your children or your neighbours...?
Cause I clear that up: it's not.
I'd also point out that 80% of people who've answered the poll have said they they think it should be mandatory. So. There's a much greater chance of you being lonely than me.MilanPan!c wrote: »Such a straw man.
This is like cops that don't report the crimes of other cops, because the shoe might someday be on the other foot.
If it's wrong, it's wrong. Endangering your neighbour is wrong. Your neighbour endangering you is wrong.
Again I say there's not a guarantee to endanger your neighbour in any constitution of Human Rights legislation.
Belief that your nutty idea about freedom trumps my safety is not a protected religious of cultural belief.MilanPan!c wrote: »This is it exactly.
You have no RIGHT to endangering strangers.MilanPan!c wrote: »You are of course endangering your neighbour. You are increasing the risk to them.
This is just painfully obvious to everyone but you.
A few more points I guess.
People that believe that their personal freedom extends to endangering their neighbour are mentally ill. Society would collapse if we all felt we had the right to hurt people when it suited us. Plus the obvious ramifications is that your neighbours freedom extends to hurting you. Something I think you'd not be a big fan of.
And yet you argue that people have the right to endanger society because of freedom.
It's mush-headed.MilanPan!c wrote: »It's obviously not.
Forcing you to not endanger your neighbours is an established role of society.MilanPan!c wrote: »I'm not.
I'm a hard man on people that want to endanger them.
It's the same reason I am against drink driving and murder and rape:
People can't just do what they want if it harms someone else.MilanPan!c wrote: »Here's the parts of the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS that the anti-vax crowd at against:
-All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Endangering your brother is not being a good brother
-Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Endangering your neighbour limits their security of person
-(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
People who refuse to get their children vaccinated are failing in their obligation to their community
-(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
People that don't get their children vaccinated fail in the just requirements of morality and general welfare.
---
So.
Maybe this document isn't the best one to base an anti-vax case on.MilanPan!c wrote: »Would I? Yes.
But it wouldn't be full. Some people - as we've discussed - can't be vaccinated due to health issues.
Everyone else, yes.
Because individuals have no right to endanger their neighbours. That's not a guaranteed freedom.MilanPan!c wrote: »So much nonsense it's hard to reply to it all.
I'll try and hit the highlight.
- You think Chicken Pox and Measles are the same?
- Society actually DOES adjudicate pretty much everything, either through legal challenges or elections or through changing mores in culture.
- You think rules aren't there to protect people??
- Lot's of rules are forced on people; you think you should be allowed to endanger your neighbour and that anyone who disagrees is basically the same as a sex abuser?
- you worry about individuals freedom, but have no problem with letting individuals harm society - that's your bottom line. It's pathetic.MilanPan!c wrote: »Eh again no.
You have no right to endanger your neighbour. At all.
If you refuse you're children should be vaccinated against your will.
Then they don't miss any school.MilanPan!c wrote: »If they are actually endangering society as a whole then they to should be stopped.
We aren't all little kingdoms unto ourself; we're members of a collective called society.MilanPan!c wrote: »You should have discussions with these people. They feel THEY are the educated one and you're the sheep being manipulated by big pharma.
This attitude is one of, "everyone I agree with it a hero," and, "and everyone else is brain dead idiot that believes whatever big brother tells them."
At the same time they're potentially hurting society and their children.
Some things we all agree aren't on. One of those is endangering the majority.
This is a prime example of the majority's rights trumping the individual's.
---
Your claim is:Look at you trying to argue a point I haven't made, and changing the wording of your own argument too when it doesn't suit you! You realised it wasn't possible to hurt someone by inaction, so then you changed it to endangering someone.
Changed it to endangering huh?
Have you not taken your meds this morning?0 -
I wouldn't support forcing parents to vaccinate their kids, but I'd be open to the idea of using some kind of incentive or coercion by e.g. making it a requirement for school admission (instead of a baptismal cert...!!!)0
-
You'd better go sit in the "vaccines cause autism" corner, because like them, you have produced no evidence whatsoever to guarantee that not getting vaccinated causes measles, mumps or rubella.
Am joining this debate late but an unvaccinated US kid traveled to Europe, contracted measles and upon return passed it on to other unvaccinated children, clearly putting them at risk
Acc. to article it was the first outbreak in 17 years
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/infectious-diseases/articles/2010/03/22/measles-outbreak-triggered-by-unvaccinated-child0 -
I wouldn't support forcing parents to vaccinate their kids, but I'd be open to the idea of using some kind of incentive or coercion by e.g. making it a requirement for school admission (instead of a baptismal cert...!!!)
I'm almost certain there are some schools / pre-schools who do this. No admission without vaccination.0 -
I wouldn't support forcing parents to vaccinate their kids, but I'd be open to the idea of using some kind of incentive or coercion by e.g. making it a requirement for school admission (instead of a baptismal cert...!!!)
The problem there is that the nuts that refuse the MMR jab could just as easily refuse to educate their children... there's entire threads on here about the schools brainwashing kids... I wouldn't be surprised if some people avoided the jab JUST to be able to opt out of schooling...
So... that's basically a non-starter... and it doesn't solve the problem.. the kids need to be vaccinated to protect society as a whole...0 -
You are using exactly the same argument they do when they say "you can't PROVE there's no link between vaccines and autism so I win!"
It is absolutely possible to hurt someone via inaction, it is, however impossible to prove that a specific instance of inaction will cause a specific instance of harm, unless a time machine is invented.
B0 for me it's not a case of who wins or who loses, this is a discussion, not a debate, and over the last few pages we've had incest, same-sex marriage, and now smoking and drink driving, when all I've asked for is evidence that not getting a child vaccinated is guaranteed to cause them to develop MMR. If they cannot provide evidence to back up their claims, then they have no right to force anyone to get vaccinated.
The end simply doesn't justify the means. If it did, they'd have done it already. By using Milan Panic's logic, one could make a justifiable case for anything that would disregard a person's human rights, because y'know, there's always a risk that so and so might happen. Is that risk great enough to suggest that we disregard human rights?
They're going to need a far more compelling argument than "because such and such might happen!". By that logic, I probably shouldn't have stepped outside my door this morning, I'm endangering people just by my very existence.0 -
Am joining this debate late but an unvaccinated US kid traveled to Europe, contracted measles and upon return passed it on to other unvaccinated children, clearly putting them at risk
Acc. to article it was the first outbreak in 17 years
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/infectious-diseases/articles/2010/03/22/measles-outbreak-triggered-by-unvaccinated-child
From that article:What began as a family trip to Switzerland in 2008 ended up as a public health nightmare in California.
The family's 7-year-old boy, who was intentionally unvaccinated against measles, was exposed to the virus while traveling in Europe. When he returned home to San Diego, he unknowingly exposed a total of 839 people, and an additional 11 unvaccinated children contracted the disease.
This is the cost of letting people behave like lunatics... they're playing with the health of others... and no society has laws designed to protect the rights of people who are wilfully endangering their neighbours.0 -
B0 for me it's not a case of who wins or who loses, this is a discussion, not a debate, and over the last few pages we've had incest, same-sex marriage, and now smoking and drink driving, when all I've asked for is evidence that not getting a child vaccinated is guaranteed to cause them to develop MMR. If they cannot provide evidence to back up their claims, then they have no right to force anyone to get vaccinated.
The end simply doesn't justify the means. If it did, they'd have done it already. By using Milan Panic's logic, one could make a justifiable case for anything that would disregard a person's human rights, because y'know, there's always a risk that so and so might happen. Is that risk great enough to suggest that we disregard human rights?
They're going to need a far more compelling argument than "because such and such might happen!". By that logic, I probably shouldn't have stepped outside my door this morning, I'm endangering people just by my very existence.
BS.
We have hundreds of laws to protect against potential damage.0 -
Advertisement
-
MilanPan!c wrote: »Have you not taken your meds this morning?
No doubt you'd use my disagreeing with you as a justification to force me to take them if I didn't...0
Advertisement