The Principle of Compulsory Vaccination - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14996195
@Pants-of-dog

I cannot respond to your rebuttals if you do not tag me.

Pants-of-dog wrote:By refusing vaccines, ypu are weakening herd immunity, which is the main defense against infectious diseases for people with compromised immune systems.

Not only do you weaken herd immunity, but also your own children become vectors.

So, the logical conclusion is that you should confine your own children and not let them out in public.

And this solution is, of course, morally questionable.

How do you resolve this?


I don't see how a subjective morality can determine a binding conclusion upon me.

Thus, assuming your moral philosophy of subjectivism and relativism; I see no reason why I should accept your moral opinions; after all, if morality is subjective, it has no bearing on my practice or beliefs.

Perhaps if morality were objective, you would have an argument.

Why should I accept your moral presuppositions if they are merely subjective preferences?

How do you resolve this?
#14996221
@Victoribus Spolia

Pretend it is an objective moral claim.

In fact, according to your definition of objective morality, I am making an objective moral claim because it is based on objective facts like contagion, and uses logic.

So, now that I have conceded that this is an objective moral claim, according to your definition, and therefore has "a binding conclusion upon" you, how do you resolve this?
#14996444
Pants-of-dog wrote:Pretend it is an objective moral claim.


I don't play pretend, i'm not a communist after all.

That being the case, I require a justification as to why morality, if subjective, can serve as a basis for obligating me to your position.

I see none.

After all, if morality is relative and subjective, than its authority is limited to being essentially a preference.
#14996449
blackjack21 wrote:Children are wards of their parents, who do have freedom.


They do not have the freedom to endanger the lives of their children.

blackjack21 wrote:Bullshit is declaring a measles emergency, when there is no emergency to the vaccinated, while we have a typhus epidemic in LA due to homelessness, squatter camps, etc. that are routinely ignored, because the root cause of the problem is neo-liberal policies.


Says a guy who voted for Trump, hilarious.

Truth To Power wrote:We can only have (natural) rights to things that we would have if others did not deprive us of them: mainly life, liberty, and property in the fruits of our labor.


Oh look, a Marxist.
#14996466
Rugoz wrote:They do not have the freedom to endanger the lives of their children.

Medicine is commerce. Refusing to take children who aren't sick to the doctor is no more endangering them in a legal sense than refusing to take them for ice cream. In a free society, people are not obligated to consume every helpful technology available to them. I understand the frustrations of people who want to "help" children, but confront parents/guardians who do not trust science. However, science is not naturally infused with goodness and honest people. Nuclear weapons and crystal methamphetamine come from science too. So does a lot of global warming hype that tries to shape policy and sway public opinion, most of it originated by politicians paying off scientists to say what political policies the "scientists" support. That doesn't even touch on scientific fraud that isn't financed by government.

Rugoz wrote:Says a guy who voted for Trump, hilarious.

Trump is a nationalist, not a neo-liberal. Open borders will naturally destroy all the efforts to eradicate diseases by controlling borders. So people who are for vaccinations and open borders simultaneously are pretty conflicted on this issue. Science, public policy and nationalist border control had diseases like typhus and tuberculosis wiped out in the United States. Open borders, illegal immigration, homelessness and drug addiction (also a byproduct of science) is reversing that "progress."
#14996485
Medicine is commerce. Refusing to take children who aren't sick to the doctor is no more endangering them in a legal sense than refusing to take them for ice cream. In a free society, people are not obligated to consume every helpful technology available to them. I understand the frustrations of people who want to "help" children, but confront parents/guardians who do not trust science. However, science is not naturally infused with goodness and honest people. Nuclear weapons and crystal methamphetamine come from science too. So does a lot of global warming hype that tries to shape policy and sway public opinion, most of it originated by politicians paying off scientists to say what political policies the "scientists" support. That doesn't even touch on scientific fraud that isn't financed by government.


Mostly simple hyperbole except the highlighted. You make a great argument for taking the commerce out of it and making it purely a government function. The nonsense about meth and nuclear weapons do not serve you well. I am used to you doing better.

Open borders will naturally destroy all the efforts to eradicate diseases by controlling borders.


This is not really a thing. We don't really do it as a practical matter. As a point though...I do not know anyone who is for open borders. Certainly the democrats are not. They deported more under Obama than Bush did and Reagan was the amnesty president.

Open borders, illegal immigration, homelessness and drug addiction (also a byproduct of science) is reversing that "progress."


Nonsense. None of it true. Nice troll though. Sadly it does not make sense. You really are off your game today.
#14996494
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I don't play pretend, i'm not a communist after all.

That being the case, I require a justification as to why morality, if subjective, can serve as a basis for obligating me to your position.

I see none.

After all, if morality is relative and subjective, than its authority is limited to being essentially a preference.


Again, you are faced with a moral dilemma, and the dilemma is an objective moral issue according to your own definti9n of objective morality.

If you are afraid of debating me about this, feel free to dodge once more with this unrelated issue.

As it stands now, there is no moral justification for anti-vaxxers to risk the health of others.

Since this is the case, it is morally justifiable to restrict the activities of anti-vaxxers in order to protect the rest of us.
#14996547
@blackjack21, You seem to strongly go against science. You also seem to twist the words of progress, labeling the failures of social progress due to the progress itself, rather than the capitalist conditions that don't allow it.

For example, in a conservative capitalist economy, a strong woman loses her job and ends up homeless because the capitalists think that this is wrong because that's how they were raised. She didn't lose her job because she is a feminist (and btw I am a feminist), she lost her job because the managers didn't like how she was socially progressive.
#14996609
Drlee wrote:You make a great argument for taking the commerce out of it and making it purely a government function.

I don't trust lawyers to make medical decisions, and I don't trust doctors to provide legal advice.

Pants-of-dog wrote:As it stands now, there is no moral justification for anti-vaxxers to risk the health of others.

People who don't get vaccines are not risking the health of those who have been vaccinated. They are just leaving themselves at risk.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since this is the case, it is morally justifiable to restrict the activities of anti-vaxxers in order to protect the rest of us.

The whole point of vaccines is that you don't have to quarantine people to protect them from a disease for which they have been vaccinated. If you feel the need to be protected from contracting a disease for which there are vaccinations, you are ultimately disputing the scientific merit of vaccines yourself.

SSDR wrote:@blackjack21, You seem to strongly go against science.

I don't oppose science. I do oppose scientism. I also oppose conflating science with a moral good. It takes science to make a date rape drug, to give your feminist mind something to chew on.

SSDR wrote:You also seem to twist the words of progress, labeling the failures of social progress due to the progress itself, rather than the capitalist conditions that don't allow it.

Drug addiction isn't limited to capitalist societies. You could characterize drug dealers as capitalists, but I doubt even one of them has read Smith's The Wealth of Nations.

SSDR wrote:For example, in a conservative capitalist economy, a strong woman loses her job and ends up homeless because the capitalists think that this is wrong because that's how they were raised. She didn't lose her job because she is a feminist (and btw I am a feminist), she lost her job because the managers didn't like how she was socially progressive.

Nobody says you have to have a job. You can always start your own business. It's something wealthy people and immigrants do. People who get educated in public schools are convinced that the only way to make a living is to "get a job."
#14996622
More blithering incompetence from Drlee


Drlee wrote::roll:

You are using statistics from 1900 to 1963.


Yeah, you can go look at the tables for yourself, they're posted on the CDC website.



Care to discuss the effectiveness of reporting cases and complications in this time frame? Do you really think rural doctors were reporting measles deaths accurately in those days? You have already said you do not think doctors are accurately reporting vaccine incidents today and today we are infinitely better at doing it.

So you want us to believe that your stupid graph is correct? I could tear it apart in seconds. The things reported in 1901 were not even the same as those reported in 1950. Indeed there was not even mandatory reporting of measles until 1912 so throw that decade of nonsense out. Then see what the numbers are if associated pneumonia is specifically added. You can't. The data are not there.



:knife: The data most certainly is there, it may not have been compiled at the federal level but every state, county, and town had been keeping records for well over a century by that time. So no, you can't " throw that decade of nonsense out", we have comprehensive data and if you go look at the tables, complications like pneumonia are routinely stated in the form of multiple CoD codes.

You're lucky this is pofo where there's only one or two who can appreciate what utter mendacity you're engaging in here.



So what is a mere 500 dead kids. Right Sivad? A pittance. What should we worry about 1000 in danger of lifetime disability from brain injury. How much money is that worth. You have no kids Sivad. Why should you worry? 48000 hospitalized is nothing. An expensive nothing but what do you care? I see you have not considered that 6% of people infected get pneumonia. Are these deaths and injuries from superimposed pneumonia reported as measles? You don't know. No clue. Few studies would stake their reputation on all cases of measles induced pneumonia even being recognized as that. You brag about .2% fatal as if it were nothing?



Don't talk to me about the children, the fraud and malfeasance of the babbitts is responsible for inflicting untold suffering on children.


6% of people infected get pneumonia


:lol: Not even close to 6%, what you're doing here is only counting reported cases of measles when we know 85 - 90 percent of measles cases go unreported.

You don't know. No clue.


I actually looked at the tables, you're just talking straight out your ass. And the kicker is these are official CDC stats, they're posted on the agency's website.


Few studies would stake their reputation on all cases of measles induced pneumonia even being recognized as that.


The CDC did exactly that.


You brag about .2% fatal as if it were nothing?


Not even close to .2, the official UK number is .02% and the CDC Pink Book states:

"Before 1963, approximately 500,000 cases and 500 deaths were reported annually, with epidemic cycles every 2-3 years. However, the actual number of cases was estimated at 3-4 million annually."

So that's a case fatality rate of .0125%(on the high end).

And since you do not understand a thing about how pandemics work why should we expect you to know about factoring for population density, access to health care and the growth of immune compromised populations? Never mind the concentration of people into cities and the doubling of the population. The increase in minorities and immigrants who are disproportionately affected. No clue.


You're the one who doesn't have a clue, the simple fact is the death rate for measles had drastically plummeted well before the introduction of the vaccine. It's not even controversial, so all you're doing here is trying to baffle us with bullshit.

In other words your statistics are shit. They are deliberately misleading. And if you had a clue about how to view such data you would not have posted them.


Another extra lame bluff comically backfires on Drlee.
#14996623
Babbott and Gordon in ‘Modem measles’. American Journal of Medical Science 1954; 228:334-361, reported here:
“Whatever its toll in industrialized countries, where the measles fatality rate is 1 per 10,000 cases (Babbott and Gordon, 1954)…”
#14996639
@blackjack21, Yes drugs and fatal technologies came from science, but it is how humans use them, and if humans avoid them, such as rape drugs. And rape drugs have NOTHING to do with feminism you barking dog.

In order to start your own company, you have to KNOW people, you have to have CUSTOMERS and TRADERS, you have to have a good REPUTATION, you have to have MONEY TO INVEST IN (and where would you get that money? Family, friends, inheritance, loans that you HAVE TO PAY BACK), and there is a lot of RISK.

People have to LIKE you. Customers and traders don't have to buy nor exchange from you. People don't have to think good about you (customers can hate you because you're a feminist so they refuse to shop from you!). Family doesn't have to give money to you in order to help you start your own company (so if you're not obedient, they're not giving you shit). And if your company FAILS, where are you going to live? Who's gonna pay your bills while you have to pay back your debts? So if people don't support you because you're socially progressive, then you're out of financial support.
#14996646
Sivad wrote:Yeah, that's not an intelligent response. Just because the benefits outweigh the risks with one vaccine doesn't mean that's true of all vaccines. And we're not just talking about specific vaccines, the entire schedule is being mandated and since neither the schedule as a whole or the individual vaccines have been properly studied we can't even begin to quantify the risks to any reasonable degree of accuracy.


There's an intractable problem with having public health measures contingent on convincing amateur scientists of the validity of the medical evidence. Preventing epidemics is a legitimate function of government and, like all government actions, it depends at some level on the threat of coercion. This coercion needs to be applied with some recognition of individual concerns, to the extent this can be done without negating the purpose of public vaccination (which is to eliminate a readily accessible host population for infectious diseases).

Questions of scientific validity should be reserved to an expert medical committee empowered to review evidence and call witnesses.
#14996648
SSDR wrote:@blackjack21, Yes drugs and fatal technologies came from science, but it is how humans use them, and if humans avoid them, such as rape drugs. And rape drugs have NOTHING to do with feminism you barking dog.

It has been a favorite topic of feminists over the last several years, and was highlighted during the effort to destroy Bill Cosby.

SSDR wrote:In order to start your own company, you have to KNOW people, you have to have CUSTOMERS and TRADERS, you have to have a good REPUTATION, you have to have MONEY TO INVEST IN (and where would you get that money? Family, friends, inheritance, loans that you HAVE TO PAY BACK), and there is a lot of RISK.

People have to LIKE you. Customers and traders don't have to buy nor exchange from you. People don't have to think good about you (customers can hate you because you're a feminist so they refuse to shop from you!). Family doesn't have to give money to you in order to help you start your own company (so if you're not obedient, they're not giving you shit). And if your company FAILS, where are you going to live? Who's gonna pay your bills while you have to pay back your debts? So if people don't support you because you're socially progressive, then you're out of financial support.

You must be very young. This is the kind of thinking from the mind of a child--someone still dependent upon adults for support. I'm guessing high school or early college years. Generally, people get money from working. Not from family and friends. It's why immigrants with no education tend to be more successful than middle class kids who think someone else has to give them money.

Generally, lots of people start companies just as contractors. That is, they have a job, but are technically not an employee of the company they "work" for. This allows them to work for multiple companies, and write off business expenses. However, they have to pay their own benefits and bill accordingly. That doesn't take tons of money. It does take knowledge. You have to know that an $80k a year salaried employee actually costs the business considerably more--like $115k or so. Businesses owners already know that. People who think like employees (think pecking order) typically don't. So unfortunately, the "brain wash" of "getting a job" keeps your mind in that subservient way of thinking. At my age, I am doing the big company thing, because of the cost of health insurance.

If you're young, you would do yourself a big favor by going to women entrepreneur meet-ups. You won't learn what you need to know in school, because it is a hotbed of socialists.
#14996654
Sivad wrote:More blithering incompetence from Drlee

Yeah, you can go look at the tables for yourself, they're posted on the CDC website.

:knife: The data most certainly is there, it may not have been compiled at the federal level but every state, county, and town had been keeping records for well over a century by that time. So no, you can't " throw that decade of nonsense out", we have comprehensive data and if you go look at the tables, complications like pneumonia are routinely stated in the form of multiple CoD codes.

You're lucky this is pofo where there's only one or two who can appreciate what utter mendacity you're engaging in here.

Don't talk to me about the children, the fraud and malfeasance of the babbitts is responsible for inflicting untold suffering on children.

:lol: Not even close to 6%, what you're doing here is only counting reported cases of measles when we know 85 - 90 percent of measles cases go unreported.

I actually looked at the tables, you're just talking straight out your ass. And the kicker is these are official CDC stats, they're posted on the agency's website.

The CDC did exactly that.

Not even close to .2, the official UK number is .02% and the CDC Pink Book states:

"Before 1963, approximately 500,000 cases and 500 deaths were reported annually, with epidemic cycles every 2-3 years. However, the actual number of cases was estimated at 3-4 million annually."

So that's a case fatality rate of .0125%(on the high end).

You're the one who doesn't have a clue, the simple fact is the death rate for measles had drastically plummeted well before the introduction of the vaccine. It's not even controversial, so all you're doing here is trying to baffle us with bullshit.

Another extra lame bluff comically backfires on Drlee.


If the fatality rate from measles is so low that we should not worry about it, then your fear of vaccines is unfounded because there are substantially fewer illnesses and fatalities associated with vaccines.
#14996671
@blackjack21, I am against all recreational drug usage because it promotes social decay and it promotes psychologies that are potentially a threat to the survival of humanity. Druggies tend to have messed up views, so they inflict crimes and internal abuses to society, which alone is a threat to the survival of humanity.

When you work in a conservative society, you have to bond with your employers as family, otherwise they'll not like you for being "selfish" or even "anti social." You can work very hard, but if an employer doesn't personally like you, because you may be an atheist, or have a radical political viewpoint, they CAN get rid of you! I known an atheist (I am an atheist btw) who lived in the States, and she got fired THREE times for being an atheist. She worked hard, had a college degree, and did her jobs well, but she got terminated THREE times due to being an atheist. Many employers, especially conservative employers, like to personally know who their workers are for various reasons.

Immigrants in the States tend to be more successful because they HELP each other. They do under the table jobs for each other, do their taxes wrong, and lie about themselves. They also change the owners' names of their companies so that they don't have to pay extra taxes. And these immigrants enforce conservative values, such as family or religion, so that only people who think like them, can be wealthier.

For example, let's say there are two Russian immigrants who live in the States. One is a socialist, feminist, atheist, and anti family. The other is a capitalist, sexist, Orthodox Christian, and pro family. Both come to the States poor. Well, many Russians who live in the States tend to be conservative, so they are going to help the conservative Russian over the socialist Russian. The socialist Russian will only work at wage paying corporations, get on state assistance, and not have a lot of wealth. The conservative Russian immigrant however, will work for a profit sharing family owned company, be forced to attend weddings, funerals, and forced to buy Christmas presents for their employer's children, and have more wealth, but their life will be dictated by their conservative employer. If they resist, they will lose their job because their employer DOESN'T like them.

Nobody has to buy from you. Nobody has to do deals with you. So if they personally don't like you because they need those beliefs to motivate them to work because they're lacking real consciousness, they'll loathe you since you (I am talking in third person point of view) don't need that. Many people in the private company sector tend to be right wingers because those are the politics that are enforced. Anyone who resists, such as a socialist, will lose their customers, and no one will want to shop from them.

The private company sector also lacks an economic safety net. Companies go out. Capitalist economics have ups and downs. So if your company goes out of business, who's gonna pay your bills while you find another job? Family? You see how that right there enforces the family institution? This also enforces religion because people use religion to cope with economic instability.

When you go to entrepreneur meet ups, no one will want to do deals with a socialist. This alone will prevent socialist realizations from rising. And I am a socialist. And public western schools are not full of socialists. They are full of capitalist liberals.
#14996723
SSDR wrote:When you work in a conservative society, you have to bond with your employers as family, otherwise they'll not like you for being "selfish" or even "anti social." You can work very hard, but if an employer doesn't personally like you, because you may be an atheist, or have a radical political viewpoint, they CAN get rid of you! I known an atheist (I am an atheist btw) who lived in the States, and she got fired THREE times for being an atheist. She worked hard, had a college degree, and did her jobs well, but she got terminated THREE times due to being an atheist. Many employers, especially conservative employers, like to personally know who their workers are for various reasons.

I'm guessing she got fired for being an asshole. I work in a publicly-traded capitalist corporation. I have a co-worker who is a lesbian. She came to California to attend a lesbians in technology event at company expense. The idea that capitalists are all conservatives or hate atheists is absurd. However, an employment agreement is a master-servant agreement. If you have a job, you are a servant. It is your duty to serve. Pissing off your master by expressing your political views on the job is not likely going to go over very well.

SSDR wrote:Immigrants in the States tend to be more successful because they HELP each other. They do under the table jobs for each other, do their taxes wrong, and lie about themselves. They also change the owners' names of their companies so that they don't have to pay extra taxes. And these immigrants enforce conservative values, such as family or religion, so that only people who think like them, can be wealthier.

Both my maid and my gardener have their own businesses. They are service providers to me. They are not my employees. They probably do not report all of the income they make, particularly cash payments. By the way, there are lots of rich liberals too. Poverty is generally related more to low IQ, a poor work ethic, mental illness, or substance abuse.

SSDR wrote:For example, let's say there are two Russian immigrants who live in the States. One is a socialist, feminist, atheist, and anti family. The other is a capitalist, sexist, Orthodox Christian, and pro family. Both come to the States poor. Well, many Russians who live in the States tend to be conservative, so they are going to help the conservative Russian over the socialist Russian. The socialist Russian will only work at wage paying corporations, get on state assistance, and not have a lot of wealth. The conservative Russian immigrant however, will work for a profit sharing family owned company, be forced to attend weddings, funerals, and forced to buy Christmas presents for their employer's children, and have more wealth, but their life will be dictated by their conservative employer. If they resist, they will lose their job because their employer DOESN'T like them.

I know lots of Russians. They came to America, because they hate communism and socialism. Of course, I am older than you, so I know lots of people who lived under the Soviet Union and hated the socialists/communists.

I have never purchased gifts for my employer's kids, nor have I received gifts from anyone who reported to me. You have a pretty weird idea of what you think goes on in America.

SSDR wrote:Nobody has to buy from you. Nobody has to do deals with you. So if they personally don't like you because they need those beliefs to motivate them to work because they're lacking real consciousness, they'll loathe you since you (I am talking in third person point of view) don't need that. Many people in the private company sector tend to be right wingers because those are the politics that are enforced. Anyone who resists, such as a socialist, will lose their customers, and no one will want to shop from them.

That's pretty weird. In the United States, the major debate right now is that big firms like Google suppress conservatives. The health insurance my employer provides allows me to get a sex change for a co-pay well under $50. Maybe my employer wants me to become a woman and a lesbian, but they can fuck themselves if they ever try to enforce that on me. I'm happy with my manhood.

SSDR wrote:The private company sector also lacks an economic safety net. Companies go out. Capitalist economics have ups and downs. So if your company goes out of business, who's gonna pay your bills while you find another job? Family? You see how that right there enforces the family institution? This also enforces religion because people use religion to cope with economic instability.

You are probably better off studying zoology first, so that you can distinguish between pure bullshit socialist arguments propagated in a total environment like a college. Humans are social animals. Families are not arbitrary constructs.

SSDR wrote:When you go to entrepreneur meet ups, no one will want to do deals with a socialist.

Well, socialists in practice tend to be the people who resent the wealth of others, and in business tend to be the ones to embezzle funds. Not that it matters much. If you live in a socialist society, you're fucked anyway. Cuba, North Korea, Myanmar, Venezuela--take your pick. Socialism is not how most rationally self-interested people want to live.
#14996728
I particularly like how Sivad defends data on one hand and denies it on the other:
Not even close to 6%, what you're doing here is only counting reported cases of measles when we know 85 - 90 percent of measles cases go unreported.


I see. So the problem is far worse than we imagine. And you still oppose vaccination. :roll:

There used to be a great program called Ted Macks Amateur Hour. Very entertaining. Sadly anit-vaxxers are not entertaining. It is unfair to make fun of the handicapped.
#14996729
quetzalcoatl wrote:
Questions of scientific validity should be reserved to an expert medical committee empowered to review evidence and call witnesses.


This is like a twilight zone episode where the one guy is normal but everybody else is impossibly dense. I have multiple expert committees as well as a number of top public health officials stating that vaccines haven't been sufficiently studied, that they could be causing everything from neurodevelopmental disorders to autoimmune diseases. It doesn't seem like you people are interested scientific validity, you just want the illusion of safety and it doesn't matter what the facts are.

Infectious disease is scary and you just really really desperately need for there to be a perfect magic bullet that protects you from that deeply terrifying threat. I also think that the miracle of vaccines is a major plank of the heroic mythos of science and progress, it's like a secular founding myth for a lot of people and people have a lot of their cultural identity invested in it so skeptical questioning is bound to trigger a lot of irrational angst, all the obtuse denial the skeptic encounters is really only to be expected.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

So have people given up on blaming that terrorist […]

@ingliz good to know, so why have double standar[…]

...Or maybe because there are many witnesses sayin[…]

Sounds like perfect organized crime material ex[…]