Posted on 08/17/2015 8:44:37 AM PDT by Enlightened1
Thanks for admitting that you just come with a prejudice and follow through.
In principle, I think moron parents should have the right to make medical decisions that endanger their children’s lives, like refusing to have them vaccinated. If they want to needlessly subject their children to horrible diseases that have been practicality eradicated from the developed world, I suppose that is their choice.
But, I think it is insane to turn an issue that only affects a tiny, irrational, misinformed minority into a litmus test issue. It is a lot like what the Democrats do when they pander sexual deviants.
You doubt vaccines are money makers? Logically, if vaccine companies fund pro-vaccination campaigns without opening admitting the funding source (see California last month), there’s a profit motive involved. This was the same reason the insurance companies with pro-Obamacare - they were looking at the impact of a slew of mandatory customers coming their way.
Do you people want your children exposed to unvaccinated children. I remember when kids died of measles.
Sanitation is definitely a factor in preventing disease. Having a healthy constitution is another. That being said, there is no reason to dismiss the value of vaccines for known and seriously dangerous diseases.
In this debate, there may be some wiggle room for diseases that do not pose a serious threat to others, but in the cases in which they do, I think the weight of evidence moves towards the compulsory rather than the voluntary.
Ebola, for example. It has a proven track record of being horribly infectious and viciously deadly at the same time. Obviously controlling the spread by sanitation is a necessary component, but acquired immunity from vaccine would reduce the death count in such circumstance as when the other methods have broken down.
I think some people on this thread are objecting to vaccines such as the HPV vaccine, regarding which there has been many assertions and much bad publicity.
I think that if there is reasonable doubt as to the efficacy or value of a vaccine, then usage of it should be voluntary, but when there is no reasonable doubt regarding the threat of the disease versus the benefit of the vaccine, the usage of it should be compulsory.
At this point I do not think the HPV vaccine falls into the category of something which needs to be compulsory.
You call it "prejudice", while I call it "experience." Since you seldom deviate from arguing "straw men", I find it mostly not worth the trouble to bother with you.
And by the way, your comment above is another "straw man." You are falsely coloring a disinclination to argue with you because of past experience, with the word "prejudice" which has deliberate negative connotations associated with being unfair to someone.
No, you've had a hearing, you aren't being "pre-judged" you are "post-judged", and my judgement is that you seldom say anything worth rebutting.
If it walks, talks, and acts like a duck it isn’t a goose!
Do you feel the same way about parents subjecting their children to bad food and bad sanitation? At what point does the child have rights that the state needs to protect?
I am inclined to think that refusing to give your child a known protection against very serious and deadly diseases constitutes a rejection of parental obligations.
Besides if you really thought it was vain you would just pretend I wasn’t there.
You set yourself up as some big authority when in actuality you succeed in being some big pompous self-filled clown.
Who gives a hoot what you are inclined to think. You hold yourself ipso facto superior.
I'm quite sure that at least 30% of people in general society would be able to take the ‘3 am phone call’, and it is a problem with our society that we think that politicians are somehow uniquely qualified for this. If the 3am phone call involves a military incursion or incident, you get the leaders of your military on the phone and gather your team of advisors - and get the coffee brewing.
If that 3am phone call involves the implosion of Asian financial markets, or something along those lines, you call in your best financial advisors. You get advice, and you make decisions - often joint decisions. There is absolutely nothing about going to law school (like so many politicians) and then spending your time in politics that uniquely qualifies you for that role. Nothing. There is nothing about being a governor, or senator, or any other high elected office that makes you more knowledgeable about business than a successful businessman, or to know more about a military crisis than the joint chiefs, or to know more about what's best for medicine than a doctor, etc. etc. Nothing.
Regarding ‘vision’ I don't want any candidate imposing their personal vision on this nation. I just want a President who protects the individual rights of citizens to shape their own lives, and who in that context takes the oath to protect our nation from enemies foreign and domestic seriously. It's been the ‘vision’ of the social engineers who are overrepresented in politics that has in many instances hurt the country.
Regarding the second amendment issue, I'm on the same side as you (as I probably am with most things). If Carson's (or anyone else’s) views disqualifies him/them for your vote, that's entirely understandable. I just don't want us to fall into the ‘he's got no government experience’ trap, and get the same candidates and results that we've had for too long now.
From what i've been reading, both vaccines and anti-biotics tend to have very small profit margins compared to "drugs."
That vaccines make some profit cannot be denied, else no one would make them at all, but this is a very different thing from claiming that they make large profits.
Again, from what reading I have done on the subject, it would appear that vaccines do not.
You also have a tendency to post inanities, and no, i'm not going to bother remember those either.
Haw haw haw your puffery is so obvious. I don’t care how “inane” you think that is. Truth is truth however phrased.
An easy habit to get into when arguing with people such as yourself. I've argued with brilliant people, and as a result I have less patience with people who insist on being silly.
Of course you want people to rely on YOUR “some reading” like you are the Official Reader.
I.e. you are in it for the intellectual titillation.
Sometimes truth is just plain BORING from that standpoint.
Anyone with a passing knowledge of the subject would appear to you as a "big authority". You simply jump into these discussions without really thinking through your position.
He’s not a conservative.
Your attitude says everything you can’t argue away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.