ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:05 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Hm. Is this too inflamatory? I'm still coming down, it's hard to tell.
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 8:16 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:55 am
Posts: 4234
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
RMG wrote:
Crashman wrote:
I can't see the issue with giving parents the right to say "Don't prick my girl with that, you prick."


Do you think parents should have the right to deny their children other vaccinations, because they think mercury causes autism or that the it's a government plot to inject tiny microphones into godfearing Americans or whatever? Parents shouldn't have the right to put their children's lives in jeopardy.


There was actually a huge thing in Vancouver a little while ago where the government stole children away from this family in order to give them blood transfusions in order to safe their lives because their parents faith forbid blood transfusions.

Ah, here's the story.

_________________
Remember, one always has what they need, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, we just don't know what we need.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hm. Is this too inflamatory? I'm still coming down, it's hard to tell.
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:59 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 239
Location: Oregon, then California, now Virginia.
Tamayo wrote:
Before I go spare on you -- how serious was this posting? Sometimes, sarcasm on the Internet goes awry, and perhaps I am missing your point. Perhaps, though, you're taking my dare. The thing is though, to me this issue has lost even potential for humour (thus my topic heading!) and so I am initially inclined to think it is the latter.



I kinda thought the last sentence gave it away, personally. I was not, at the time, particularly serious, but now that someone's tried to call me on it, I'm going to wiggle a bit and see if I can't milk it, somehow. It's been a while since I argued about...anything, actually, so I'm gonna be a bit rusty.


RMG wrote:
Crashman wrote:
I can't see the issue with giving parents the right to say "Don't prick my girl with that, you prick."


Do you think parents should have the right to deny their children other vaccinations, because they think mercury causes autism or that the it's a government plot to inject tiny microphones into godfearing Americans or whatever? Parents shouldn't have the right to put their children's lives in jeopardy.



I am fine with parents putting their children's lives in jeopardy. Are you fine with allowing our population to continue to grow, with greater and greater numbers being incapable of maintaining their functionality without an ever-increasing number of immunizations, vaccinations, and medications? It could potentially lead to major issues for the whole species, forcing us to become utterly dependant on government granted chemicals in a post-apocalyptic doomsday scenario that'd bomb at the box office.

Or something. I guess.


To be honest, though, I do find this very funny. Maybe it's the sadist in me.

_________________
We'll wipe out all the nasty crawly things that come into your home, regardless of whether they have jobs, families, or even personal firearms. Call Quadruple-E right this fucking second!

Before your neighbour does.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hm. Is this too inflamatory? I'm still coming down, it's hard to tell.
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 2:33 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
RMG wrote:
Crashman wrote:
I can't see the issue with giving parents the right to say "Don't prick my girl with that, you prick."


Do you think parents should have the right to deny their children other vaccinations, because they think mercury causes autism or that the it's a government plot to inject tiny microphones into godfearing Americans or whatever? Parents shouldn't have the right to put their children's lives in jeopardy.


Yeah, because the government always knows what to do and always does the right thing.

In cases where it's painfully obvious or a life-or death crisis situation, ok. If you start putting the government in charge of ordering everybody's medical care, you'll have a bureaucratic pencil-whipped autocracy making crucial decisions with outdated government-approved(after 20 years of processing) information. No fucking thanks.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hm. Is this too inflamatory? I'm still coming down, it's hard to tell.
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 4:18 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 1168
RMG wrote:
Crashman wrote:
I can't see the issue with giving parents the right to say "Don't prick my girl with that, you prick."

Do you think parents should have the right to deny their children other vaccinations, because they think mercury causes autism or that the it's a government plot to inject tiny microphones into godfearing Americans or whatever? Parents shouldn't have the right to put their children's lives in jeopardy.

That's not a yes or no question. We do not, for instance, allow parents to let their children drive cars until a certain age, both for the protection of the children and to keep the roads safer for the rest of us. On the other hand, most states allow children to drive tractors without a license, even though farm machinery is statistically far more dangerous to drive than a car.

The distinction was made by all those legistlatures for cultural reasons (family labor is a tradtion on farms) and for economic ones---child labor keeps family farms going that would otherwise go under.

Likewise, there is no set rule you can use to decide when a public health law is intruding into private decision. Through our governments, we require immunizations for measles, etc., both to protect individual children , overriding their parents judgment, and to protect the rest of us. One case of the measles is theoretically a private affair, but a measles epidemic is a public health matter.

In the case of most diseases, endemic or epidemic, governments not only consider the direct costs in lives and misery, but also the indirect costs. A disease that leaves several thousand or tens of thousands of human bodies each year maimed in some way is a direct burden to general society.

For all the rhetoric about rights and such you'll hear, I expect it all comes down to women having sex. If a few thousand women and girls wind up dead or mutilated each year because of some horrible disease, that is not as important to those legislators as a few thousand more women and girls having sex because the government providing a vaccine makes them think having sex isn't a horrible sin.

After all, most of those dead or mutilated girls were probably having sex outside of marriage, and that is a crime punishable by death in some countries. American legislatures would never directly assign such a punishment for carnal sin, but they can certainly rationalize their way into doing so indirectly.

_________________
"We are not going to die! And do you know why? Because Thomas is too pretty to die. And because I'm too stubborn to die. And most of all because tomorrow is Oktoberfest, Butters, and <i>polka will never die!</i>"


Last edited by Boss Out of Town on Thu May 17, 2007 7:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Yes, I am aware you were being ironic.
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 5:40 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
Crashman wrote:
Are you fine with allowing our population to continue to grow, with greater and greater numbers being incapable of maintaining their functionality without an ever-increasing number of immunizations, vaccinations, and medications? It could potentially lead to major issues for the whole species, forcing us to become utterly dependant on government granted chemicals in a post-apocalyptic doomsday scenario that'd bomb at the box office.

In fact, vaccines are vastly preferable to other treatments for exactly this reason. Vaccines do not encourage the formation of antibiotic/antiviral resistant strains of diseases.

It is possible, (though unfortunately somewhat unlikely, as the reemergence of polio in Africa and Asia shows) to actually drive a disease into extinction through universal immunization. Then the need for medication actually decreases because there are no more reservoirs of infection.




<i>Edit: Note that one of the primary reasons polio IS resurgent is parents purposely avoiding vaccinating their children because they believe the UN vaccines are actually part of a western plot to sterilize Muslim children.</i>

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 10:18 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
OK, I can get how throwing around condoms in JR High can raise some ire because you are actively promoting sex in that way. A vaccine? I don't get it. I have heard some doubts as to how effective the vaccine is and against how many strains. If it is handed out, people should know just how much risk they still have.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2007 6:19 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 1168
Clay_Allison wrote:
OK, I can get how throwing around condoms in JR High can raise some ire because you are actively promoting sex in that way. A vaccine? I don't get it. I have heard some doubts as to how effective the vaccine is and against how many strains. If it is handed out, people should know just how much risk they still have.

All that information is readily available, I'm sure. It gets passed around routinely these days to anyone wants to look it up.

It is important to understand that this is a wedge issue, not a rational issue. One characteristic of wedge issues is disproportionate attention and passion. Like "partial birth abortion" (a political term, not a medical one) the vaccine is a simple, useful rallying cry for right-wing polticos. It isn't that they don't believe in their argument, most of them do, more or less. The vaccine issue, minus the math that might make logical argument possible about it, makes a great rallying cry for the faithful.

_________________
"We are not going to die! And do you know why? Because Thomas is too pretty to die. And because I'm too stubborn to die. And most of all because tomorrow is Oktoberfest, Butters, and <i>polka will never die!</i>"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2007 12:42 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
It's a rallying cry one way, but that particular issue is more of a rallying cry for the leftist faithful to embarass right-wingers who won't let that one go as a lost cause.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2007 7:58 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 1168
Clay_Allison wrote:
It's a rallying cry one way, but that particular issue is more of a rallying cry for the leftist faithful to embarass right-wingers who won't let that one go as a lost cause.

Except, as the orginal post indicates, the cause is not "lost" for the right. They have an iron grip on many state legislatures and are on the offensive all over the country. The "Partial Birth Abortion" ban is just one of dozens of laws designed by poltical activists to enforce what amounts to 19th Century Victorian prudery on the rest of the population. Abstinance-only sex education, restrictions on health-class level sex-education, campaigns against the "morning after" pill, general restrictions on birth control pills, laws to assert the "human" status of the fetus, "pharmacists rights," to refuse to provide contraceptives, and claims of "fathers rights" in a woman's pregnancy, all part of the the same political movement. I believe there was at least one case--in Texas, I think--where a rapist sued for his right to prevent his victim from aborting his child.

Back in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, there was a real left-wing connection to the medical aspects of women's rights. Margaret Sanger and other reformers were linked to the socialist movement. However, their oppostion was not right-wing activists, but mainstream American culture. By the mid-20th Century mainstream conservatives, moderates, and liberals hemmed and hawwed about the details of contraceptive availability, but they mostly defaulted the issue to doctors and public health officials.

The "new right" created by conservative activists over the last few decades is anchored on anti-establishment relgious conservatives uneasily allied with corporate conservatives. Traditional establishment conservatives and the medical and scientific establishments were allies, considering themselves part of the middle-class "center" of American culture. Movement conservatives consider the medical and scientific establlishment their enemies, part of the liberal conspiracy to destroy America.

Left-wing activists are not remotely as influencial in America as they were a generation ago and are just one of the factions involved in this ongoing quarrel. Here, they find common cause with a more or less apolitical scientific establishment trying to keep relgiious activists off their turf, liberals worried about losing ground on gender issues, and a spectrum of of liberarians, moderates, and tradtional conservatives trying to maintain the old consensus on religious activists keeping their noses out of other people's business.

You will be hearing more and stranger stories of this sort in the future.

_________________
"We are not going to die! And do you know why? Because Thomas is too pretty to die. And because I'm too stubborn to die. And most of all because tomorrow is Oktoberfest, Butters, and <i>polka will never die!</i>"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2007 12:52 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
Quote:
The "new right" created by conservative activists over the last few decades is anchored on anti-establishment relgious conservatives uneasily allied with corporate conservatives. Traditional establishment conservatives and the medical and scientific establishments were allies, considering themselves part of the middle-class "center" of American culture. Movement conservatives consider the medical and scientific establlishment their enemies, part of the liberal conspiracy to destroy America.


And here I am, my own breed of darwinian individualist, stuck with those retrogrades in the short term for some modicum of personal freedom. If you go the other way you have a bureaucrat regulating everything from your diet to your bowel movements.

That's the reason I never get along with leftists or fascists (rightists), their answer to anything is that the government should make your damned decisions, you should just drink the kool-aide, work for the "greater good" (of the politicians) and wait for your turn in the euthanasia booth.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2007 4:19 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 1168
Clay_Allison wrote:
And here I am, my own breed of darwinian individualist, stuck with those retrogrades in the short term for some modicum of personal freedom. If you go the other way you have a bureaucrat regulating everything from your diet to your bowel movements.

Aw, and therein lies a double irony. "The Conservative Movement," as its founders call it, flourished on a threefold alliance: libertarian conservatives (government is bad), corporate conservatives (businessmen are superior citizens) and relgious conservatives (the Bible is the literal word, anyone who isn't born again is going to hell and probably trying to destroy Christianity). The relgious conservatives include a goodly number of Opus Dei-style right-wing Catholics, but are mainly Evangelical Protestants.

Driving evolution out of the schools and public life is one of the goals of the Evangelicals, as they associate it with moral relativism, socialism, feminism, Western liberalism, and the other enemies who have been oppressing them for centuries. However, Western Liberalism was created by the Enlightenment, several generations before Darwin. Social Darwinism, a philosophy Darwin despised, was invented and promoted by business conservatives as the moral foundation of the "Robber Baron" era. As I think J.P Morgan described it, wealth was God's way of saying "this is my son, with whom I am well pleased." If people were poor, it was their own fault, and if they died, it was nature reducing the "surplus population."

So, the principle purveyors of immorality, as the Evangelicals understand it, are their allies the corporate conservatives. As a corrupting influence, a handful of college professors promoting philisophical navel-gazing are a sour fart compared to the storm of moral debasement promoted by relentless consumer culture and the glorification of greed.

Too their credit, the Libertarians caught on to this paradox about five or six years and led the way in criticizing the ruling coalition even before Iraq and Katrina showed the rest of us how hopelessly screwed up it was, and how authoritarian were its ultimate goals.

There you have the second irony. Doctrinaire libertarians supported an alleged "small government" movement that has proved to be a "huge, corrupt, and oppressive government" reality.

But, I digress . . .

_________________
"We are not going to die! And do you know why? Because Thomas is too pretty to die. And because I'm too stubborn to die. And most of all because tomorrow is Oktoberfest, Butters, and <i>polka will never die!</i>"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hm. Is this too inflamatory? I'm still coming down, it's hard to tell.
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:51 am 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:14 pm
Posts: 123
Clay_Allison wrote:
Yeah, because the government always knows what to do and always does the right thing.

The government sometimes doing the wrong thing (even often times) is not an argument against the government doing any particular thing. We're looking for a reason why this would be problematic, not that it might be problematic. Normally i would say "I think we're all open to the possibility that there's a problem, but we can't really say there is unless we figure out what that problem is."

But in this case, fuck that. This is bullshit. I'm not saying i can't be convinced, but i am saying you've got a LONG fuckin' way to go.

Quote:
In cases where it's painfully obvious or a life-or death crisis situation, ok. If you start putting the government in charge of ordering everybody's medical care, you'll have a bureaucratic pencil-whipped autocracy making crucial decisions with outdated government-approved(after 20 years of processing) information. No fucking thanks.

See, here's a reason why this might be a bad idea, but once again this isn't really a reason this is a bad idea so much as a reason why government is a bad idea. It might be a good reason, or it might be a really stupid reason, but it isn't an argument against the points raised here. It is a cleverly constructed red herring.

Also, to those saying "Sure, I don't mind putting my child's life in danger!" there's more to it than that: the government has a responsibility to ensure the public health, and one argument regarding that is that keeping STDs from infecting people falls within that responsibility, thus the government has a duty to act.

_________________
<a href="http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_019.htm">"God is powered by irony."</a>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: if you're worried about the government making medical decisions for you then why let the government decide who you can let make medical decisions for you? I guess that is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUE however.
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:24 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:14 pm
Posts: 2045
Protecting the population against ANY illness by requiring a one-time puncture of the skin with only the side effect being a bandaid is hardly beyond "promote the general Welfare" in any reasonable interpretation.

It appears to me that this is a power the US government has, ought to have, and is required to use.


I'm fairly sure there is no constitutional right to have a virus and you'll be hard pressed to find any sane person who thinks viruses are good for people, so why is it an encroachment on a person's rights to keep them from getting viruses and to keep them from giving viruses to other people? It isn't a "medical decision" because being vaccinated has no possible negative effects. You may as well argue against fluoridated water.

I suppose you could refuse all vaccination on the grounds that your religion frowns upon intentional punctures of the skin, but then you're walking that oh so thin line between "religion" and "delusion."

_________________
All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:21 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2428
Location: In the ether, Hand of DM poised for enervation at will
I think what bothers me the most about the reasoning behind this decision is what they're implying. (Or at least what I perceive it to imply)

To myself, by denying the vaccinations, those in charge seem to be sending a message saying "Vaccinations against STDs makes girls into whores, and if they get an STD by sleeping around, and recieve cervical cancer because of it, then so be it. They shouldn't be whores."

The overall tone of "morals" over health disturbs me.

_________________
The scent of Binturong musk is often compared to that of warm popcorn.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:12 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
I'm surprised the monetary portion of the debate hasn't been brought up.

Everyone talks about morals being the cause one way or the other, but what about cold hard cash?

Anyone thought of the cost of a proprietary vaccine (as it is new and a generic won't be available for a time due to patent laws and such) that the state would have to burden? What about those people who do not wish to have to pay for someone else's healthcare?

Yes, I would get my children (why would I want my son to get genital warts. That would suck.) immunized, but I wouldn't at all expect anyone else to pay for it, and on the same note, I wouldn't want at all to have to pay for someone else to be forced to do something.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:40 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:34 am
Posts: 2715
Location: Podunk, MI
The monetary end of the discussion is ultimately pointless. Here's why.

It should be noted that, typically, the government is in the business of acquiring things for the general public that people may not wish to pay for, but ultimately use anyways or arguably need- as is the case with a standing military force (Even and especially defense), roads (Imagine attempting to keep people who don't want to pay for roads off of them), et cetera. Whether this is good or bad doesn't really matter, it's just how things are in general.

I would suggest that the US government has stepped up to the bat and considered the act of vaccination something that is for the general public. As has been set in precedent by the US with offering no cost/low cost vaccinations to the public for a wide range of diseases- non-communicable (Tetanus) and otherwise (Chickenpox)- it stands to reason that this vaccine should be (And will eventually be) treated in the same manner. But of course, it takes a long time for red tape to be navigated.

In the mean time? The people will do as they will.

As for the morals, I'm in agreeance with most everyone in here; the idea of limiting a vaccination based on the idea that "loose" women will be the only ones to get it and will ultimately suffer is laughably stupid.

_________________
"Oh, look who it is / It's my supportive wife/ And she thinks she's going to squeal/ Hey where do you think you're going?/ Don't you walk away from me/ You put down that telephone /You're not calling anyone"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: this is problem with libertarianism in a nutshell.
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:39 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:14 pm
Posts: 2045
krylex wrote:
I'm surprised the monetary portion of the debate hasn't been brought up.

Everyone talks about morals being the cause one way or the other, but what about cold hard cash?

Anyone thought of the cost of a proprietary vaccine (as it is new and a generic won't be available for a time due to patent laws and such) that the state would have to burden? What about those people who do not wish to have to pay for someone else's healthcare?

Yes, I would get my children (why would I want my son to get genital warts. That would suck.) immunized, but I wouldn't at all expect anyone else to pay for it, and on the same note, I wouldn't want at all to have to pay for someone else to be forced to do something.
this is an argument against somewhat-socialized healthcare and "big government" in general not an argument against this vaccine.

What if people were required to pay for their child's vaccine, tax deductible? This would bypass the HANDS OUT OF MY POKET TAXMAN factor, and have the public health benefits.

_________________
All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: this is problem with libertarianism in a nutshell.
PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:45 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
arwing wrote:
krylex wrote:
I'm surprised the monetary portion of the debate hasn't been brought up.

Everyone talks about morals being the cause one way or the other, but what about cold hard cash?

Anyone thought of the cost of a proprietary vaccine (as it is new and a generic won't be available for a time due to patent laws and such) that the state would have to burden? What about those people who do not wish to have to pay for someone else's healthcare?

Yes, I would get my children (why would I want my son to get genital warts. That would suck.) immunized, but I wouldn't at all expect anyone else to pay for it, and on the same note, I wouldn't want at all to have to pay for someone else to be forced to do something.
this is an argument against somewhat-socialized healthcare and "big government" in general not an argument against this vaccine.

What if people were required to pay for their child's vaccine, tax deductible? This would bypass the HANDS OUT OF MY POKET TAXMAN factor, and have the public health benefits.


I understand I'm not arguing against a vaccine. I'm arguing against a mandatory, state-funded vaccine.

Yes, the religious nutters are the ones on the news about this getting shot down, but all of the people in the government aren't religious nutters. It is highly probable that the reason many people voted against the vaccine is for the same reasons I have stated.

I also believe (although I could be mistaken) that there was a bit of confusion on the accuracy of the vaccine. Something to the tune of it not being above 95% effective. I'll have to research more into it, but I'm in the middle of the ocean with less than dial up speeds at the moment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: libertarianism != anarchy, dude.
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:32 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:14 pm
Posts: 2045
krylex wrote:
arwing wrote:
this is an argument against somewhat-socialized healthcare and "big government" in general not an argument against this vaccine.

What if people were required to pay for their child's vaccine, tax deductible? This would bypass the HANDS OUT OF MY POKET TAXMAN factor, and have the public health benefits.


I understand I'm not arguing against a vaccine. I'm arguing against a mandatory, state-funded vaccine.

Yes, the religious nutters are the ones on the news about this getting shot down, but all of the people in the government aren't religious nutters. It is highly probable that the reason many people voted against the vaccine is for the same reasons I have stated.

I also believe (although I could be mistaken) that there was a bit of confusion on the accuracy of the vaccine. Something to the tune of it not being above 95% effective. I'll have to research more into it, but I'm in the middle of the ocean with less than dial up speeds at the moment.
You really think that the health of the general public is not a cause worthy of funding? You don't think the government should keep otherwise incurable diseases from rampaging though the population by means of a minor inconvenience?

I'm sorry if this imposes on your right not to be pricked in the arm sometime before entering certain grades.

Looking out for the welfare of the people is pretty much the reason any government exists.

_________________
All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: libertarianism != anarchy, dude.
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:20 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:34 am
Posts: 2715
Location: Podunk, MI
arwing wrote:
You really think that the health of the general public is not a cause worthy of funding? You don't think the government should keep otherwise incurable diseases from rampaging though the population by means of a minor inconvenience?

I'm sorry if this imposes on your right not to be pricked in the arm sometime before entering certain grades.

Looking out for the welfare of the people is pretty much the reason any government exists.


Oh man. Opinion buddies, represent!

_________________
"Oh, look who it is / It's my supportive wife/ And she thinks she's going to squeal/ Hey where do you think you're going?/ Don't you walk away from me/ You put down that telephone /You're not calling anyone"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group