Not sure if if this thread belongs here but whats the big fucking deal on people against Vaccines. Isnt that what prevents us from diseases? What's you thoughts on the whole topic
Sig by @Brokendeck
Anti Vaccination Bullshit
3,845 Views | 36 Replies
At 2/10/15 10:36 PM, Wegra wrote: Not sure if if this thread belongs here but whats the big fucking deal on people against Vaccines. Isnt that what prevents us from diseases? What's you thoughts on the whole topic
You're not likely to find someone on here who genuinely is against vaccines. You'll most likely hear an echo chamber. Much of the debate on vaccines is due to a fraudulent 1998 article published in the medical journal The Lancet, which falsely claimed a link between the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and autism. There are those who say vaccines don't work, and they are all a scam by Big Pharma. Or, people just can't afford them.
At 2/11/15 07:35 AM, zornuzkull wrote: I have a question why would the government deliberately want to kill or make there citizens ill?...
I'm sure there are many conspiracy theorists who would love to answer that question.
The pro Anti Vaccination seems to only be in California. Is there another state that agrees about vaccination being a bad thing?
At 2/10/15 10:36 PM, Wegra wrote: Not sure if if this thread belongs here but whats the big fucking deal on people against Vaccines. Isnt that what prevents us from diseases? What's you thoughts on the whole topic
I'm just not passionately invested in the debate. My kid has already undergone a couple of rounds of vaccinations. But I didn't march him into the pediatrician's office with great fanfare so that I could make a political point. I did it because the risks involved in vaccination seem to be less probable than the risks involved in not vaccinating. And there are risks involved in vaccinating, even if the MMR-autism study was debunked by the same peer-reviewed process that approved the publication in the first place. Some children possess immunodeficiency disorders that make them vulnerable to the negative effects of vaccines. Some of these children have access to medical prescreenings that can identify these weaknesses in advance; others do not. In addition, recent medical research indicates that some children who experience serious negative effects following a vaccination do not exhibit any immunodeficiency disorder. There are two explanations for this: 1) either they possess an immunodeficiency disorder not yet diagnosed by the medical community, or 2) the relationship between vaccines and negative effects is not as simple as we've assumed.
Bottom line is this: I take a more sympathetic view of "anti-vaxxers" than their rabid opponents. Every parent wants what's best for his child, anti- and pro-vaxxers alike. Not every parent who hesitates to vaccinate his child is necessarily motivated by some sort of irrational impulse. You can, if you like, accuse such hesitant parents of engaging in a faulty cost-benefit analysis, but it seems hypocritical or extreme to accuse them of being selfish or stupid.
At 2/11/15 06:54 PM, Devsonx wrote: Bottom line is this: I take a more sympathetic view of "anti-vaxxers" than their rabid opponents. Every parent wants what's best for his child, anti- and pro-vaxxers alike. Not every parent who hesitates to vaccinate his child is necessarily motivated by some sort of irrational impulse. You can, if you like, accuse such hesitant parents of engaging in a faulty cost-benefit analysis, but it seems hypocritical or extreme to accuse them of being selfish or stupid.
Now, you completely miss the crux of the issue. The pro-vaccination movement would be almost impotent if vaccinations were truly a personal issue. It just isn't. Choosing not to vaccinate your children diminishes herd immunity hurting those who are too young to get vaccinated, those who are too ill to get vaccinated, those who got vaccinated but didn't develop immunity, and also those with suppressed immune systems.
I was in the ER today and I told my wife to not even think about brining our baby, even though I would have loved to see him. I just didn't want some righteous fuckstick Whole Foods person who didn't vaccinate their kid to truck him in with measles and all and put my baby in danger. On top of that, when I get my kidney I will be on immuno-suppressants in order to slow down rejection. It is likely that even though I was vaccinated, that my immune system will not be strong enough to fight off a case of the measle I come in contact with.
So, the anti-vaccination luddites have made the overt and outward decision that thier ignorance and tust issues are far more important than the health of me and my child (and millions of others as well). I haven't struggled through over three years of dialysis just so these fuck faces could reward my new kidney by exposing me to diseases that have been all but extreminated in this country for well over a decade.
Anto-vaccination is HORRENDOUSLY SELFISH. That is why this issue is so important to me.
At 2/12/15 09:31 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: If you let people have the freedom of choice, they will more than likely surprise you with the best choices.
Problem is that here, it only takes those left over after "more than likely" to cause problems for innocent bystanders.
Zornuzkull,
Your point about the tension between individualism and collectivism is well taken, but I think many anti-vaxxers would argue that their position is just as concerned with their fellow citizens as is the position of the pro-vaxxers. For example, I have heard anti-vaxxers argue that all parents should approach vaccines with caution. The reason that the pro-vaxxer argument appears to be more immediately concerned with the public good has to with the striking negative image of a mass epidemic; whereas the argument advocating caution toward vaccines appears "selfish" because it leaves the decision whether or not to vaccinate to each individual set of parents -- even though the liberty-based benefits deriving from the anti-vaxxer argument are intended to apply to society as a whole. That is to say, every parent and future parent in the country ought to have the freedom to determine whether or not to vaccinate his child.
Now, I suppose you could counter that point by arguing that the collective body addressed by the pro-vaxxer argument (i.e., everybody) is more comprehensive than the one addressed by the anti-vaxxer argument (i.e., all parents). But I think the anti-vaxxers could reply in a couple of ways. First, although the pro-vaxxer argument appears to address a more comprehensive collective body (i.e., society as a whole), both simple non-contraction rates and the herd immunity mentioned by Camarohusky ensure that "society as a whole" will not, in fact, be at risk. Second, they might argue that, even if the collective body addressed by the pro-vaxxer argument is truly more comprehensive than the one addressed by the anti-vaxxer argument, it doesn't necessarily follow that the potential good to society outweighs the potential good to their children. Medical research has documented cases in which some children who were not suffering from a diagnosed immunodeficiency disorder nonetheless suffered serious side-effects from live vaccine injections.
In such instances, regardless of how rare they are, what ought to be our message to the parents whose immunocompetent child is now afflicted by a permanent disorder brought about by a vaccination? Do we simply tell them that their loss washes out in our statistical models? Do we "compensate" them by giving them some money and saying, "Sorry about that. Better luck next time"?
Camarohusky,
Regarding the common good, see my reply to Zornuzkull above.
As for your comment here: " I haven't struggled through over three years of dialysis just so these fuck faces could reward my new kidney by exposing me to diseases that have been all but extreminated in this country for well over a decade." It's not clear to me how impartial observers are supposed to balance your self-interest with the self-interest of parents who prefer not to vaccinate their children.
At 2/12/15 10:34 AM, Devsonx wrote: Zornuzkull,
Your point about the tension between individualism and collectivism is well taken, but I think many anti-vaxxers would argue that their position is just as concerned with their fellow citizens as is the position of the pro-vaxxers. For example, I have heard anti-vaxxers argue that all parents should approach vaccines with caution.
That may be true, but it does not make the decision any more of a personal one. Sure, they may want all people to do what is safe for their children. However, unlike the pro vaccination crowd, the anti-vaccination crowd choose what is safe for their children in such a manner as to openly, overtly, and knowingly place other people at risk. The pro-vaccination group is not seeking to place people at risk. In fact, it is actually seeking to lower risk for the entire group, not just for their own children.
Mind you, this whole statemnt completely ignores how one argument's base claim has evidence to back it up and the other does not.
In such instances, regardless of how rare they are, what ought to be our message to the parents whose immunocompetent child is now afflicted by a permanent disorder brought about by a vaccination? Do we simply tell them that their loss washes out in our statistical models? Do we "compensate" them by giving them some money and saying, "Sorry about that. Better luck next time"?
No. We don't give them money, and tell them sorry. The reason is because of those who are afraid of the vaccine (a dead and weak form of the disease) problems, the actual disease (strong, virulent, and worst yet, mutateble) has been allowed to come back. If those children could ot stand th vaccine, how re they to stand the actual disease? On top of that, a child who dies from the vaccine does not transmit it to others. A child who was never vaccinated and then catches the disease their parents brought back by not vaccinating will expose others to the illness.
As for your comment here: " I haven't struggled through over three years of dialysis just so these fuck faces could reward my new kidney by exposing me to diseases that have been all but extreminated in this country for well over a decade." It's not clear to me how impartial observers are supposed to balance your self-interest with the self-interest of parents who prefer not to vaccinate their children.
Big difference. My self interest does not harm others (and if it does it presents a risk so small it is negligble). The self interst of anti-vaccinators presents significant harm to people who cannot adequately defend themselves.
Think of it like school zone speed limits. The pro-vaccinators want it to be 20 because kids could get hurt by a mass of cars going faster. The anti-vaccinators believe that schools are all surrounded by a horde of super rapists. Therefore the school speed should be a mandatory minimum of 70 to ensure quick getaways. They are saving their kids from a risk (a total bullshit risk) by placing every other child at risk (a real risk).
Now, if the risks of vaccine were real, this would be a very different conversation.
At 2/12/15 11:20 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Do you feel the same about flu vaccinations?
No. The lower effective rate and the fact that herd immunity really hasn't work with the flu (odd that it's called THE flu, as I'm pretty sure there are hundreds of different types). This means that the upsides for taking the flu shot are truly personal, unlike the TDaP and MMR.
Now, I would like a mandatory flu vaccine order for all occupations that come into contact with at risk populations on a regular basis (medical workers, old folks homes, day care, and so on)
Important enough to support mandatory, publicly funded initiatives aimed at total and complete worldwide inoculations?
Yes. We have worked so hard to eradicate certain diseases for a reason. Miniscule amounts of bad reaction deaths, handful of idiots believing their kids got autism from the vaccine, and a ton of ruffled feathers is a hell of a lot better option than the thousands of annual deaths Measles causes.
At 2/12/15 11:48 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Are you saying a woman doesn't have a say in what goes on with her body?
To answer your actual question: No, forced vaccines does not conflict with my view on abortion.
At 2/12/15 12:46 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Also, has anyone noticed that this vaccination debate just sprung out of nowhere earlier this month? It seems all everybody was talking about was deflate gate still, and then
Actually, this has been a very big topic among many communities for a long time. I have been supporting the removal of "idiot" based exemptions for years.
It just took a measles outbreak for the lay-public to notice.
"This thread is now about Vaccination!" What's with the timing of yet another faux scandal?
Deflategate = faux scandal. Vaccines questions = Genuine Health Issue. Just because you scoff at an issue doesn't mean the issue is fake.
At 2/12/15 08:48 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: This is the cause below. This is what we should discuss, not sticking objects in women's bodies without their consent, which is your solution.
No it's not. Mexico has higher immunization rates than America as do most of the Central American countries, those which don't are not far behind. Even then, any straglers like children too young to have been vaccinated are immediately vaccinated. The disease itself is traced to Americans travelling abroad and bringing it back from places like Ireland or Indonesia.
If anything, the US is the one that needs to update its healthcare system to catch up with such industrialized nations like Mexico or the Phillipines.......
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
Zornuzkull,
Fair enough, I suppose. Though I wonder whether we've agreed to make the right omelet.
Camarohusky,
When you say that one side's argument has no evidence, what is it you're referring to? If it's the argument from caution, there actually is evidence to support the claim that vaccines can have serious negative effects, not only on people suffering from an immunodeficiency disorder but also on those who are deemed immunocompetent. It seems to me that the best argument against the anti-vaxxers' fears is that their caution overestimates the probability that their children will become one of those rare victims.
As for your claims that the unvaccinated pose a catastrophic danger to others, and therefore their freedom not to be vaccinated is subordinate to the demands of those who want them to be vaccinated, they seem to depend on a number of conditions being met. An unvaccinated child is not ipso facto a harm to others but only a potential harm to the extent that he 1) contracts a highly communicable disease and 2) comes into contact with others who are unvaccinated or with those who suffer from an immunodeficiency disorder.
I don't dispute your claim that an epidemic is possible; I merely dampen the emphasis. This derives from the disposition I mentioned in my O.P., namely, that I'm just not passionately attached to one side of this debate or the other. My view is that pro-vaxxers are a bit too aggressive and hardline about this issue, particularly when they dismiss the concerns of anti-vaxxers as stupid or irrational. Insofar as most pro-vaxxers appear to be concerned with themselves, their families, and their friends (as opposed to the abstract notion of society as a whole), it seems that both sides are self-interested. I acknowledge that the consequences of each argument differ, but the root motivation appears to be the same in most cases.
At 2/13/15 10:30 AM, Devsonx wrote: My view is that pro-vaxxers are a bit too aggressive and hardline about this issue, particularly when they dismiss the concerns of anti-vaxxers as stupid or irrational. Insofar as most pro-vaxxers appear to be concerned with themselves, their families, and their friends (as opposed to the abstract notion of society as a whole), it seems that both sides are self-interested. I acknowledge that the consequences of each argument differ, but the root motivation appears to be the same in most cases.
You can't make the argument that the truth lies somewhere in the middle when we're dealing with an objective reality. Somebody who doesn't get vaccinated/doesn't get their children vaccinated due to an actual health risk like an immunodeficiency disorder isn't what's considered an "anti-vaxxer" in the social lexicon; an "anti-vaxxer" is someone who is ipso facto scientifically ignorant of how vaccines interact with the human body, and (typically) think they directly cause autism or greatly increase the risk of such. Saying both sides are self-interested isn't saying anything meaningful and doesn't address the root of the issue -- one side is concerned out of self interest and is scientifically literate, while the other is concerned out of self interest and objectively wrong. This is a binary issue with immense consequences if people aren't getting a proper education.
At 2/13/15 10:30 AM, Devsonx wrote: I don't dispute your claim that an epidemic is possible; I merely dampen the emphasis. This derives from the disposition I mentioned in my O.P., namely, that I'm just not passionately attached to one side of this debate or the other. My view is that pro-vaxxers are a bit too aggressive and hardline about this issue, particularly when they dismiss the concerns of anti-vaxxers as stupid or irrational. Insofar as most pro-vaxxers appear to be concerned with themselves, their families, and their friends (as opposed to the abstract notion of society as a whole), it seems that both sides are self-interested. I acknowledge that the consequences of each argument differ, but the root motivation appears to be the same in most cases.
What you're missing out here is similar to what Feoric pointed out You're acting as if all things are equal. They are not.
When you take blanket statements that are both true you tend to get stuck, as you are now. Here are two true statements: Vaccinations have caused serious side effects; Unvaccinated children can create an epidemic, even among population that has vaccinated properly.
Those two sentences sound like they counteract eachother, right? However when you actually look into them and reveal the WHOLE truth, not just the basic truth they become quite uneven.
"Vaccinations can cause serious side effects" becomes "in about 1 in 1,000,000 doses, a person can be suffer from a fatal side effect of a vaccine."
"Unvaccinated children can create an epidemic, even among population that has vaccinated properly" becomes "unvaccinated people can spread extremely contagious diseases among approximately 1 in every 500 people of a vaccinated population that for one reason or another are unable (not unwilling) to recieved a successful vaccination."
MATH TIME (cue fireworks and dancing teddy bears)
a 1/500 chance is how many time greater than a 1/1,000,000 chance?
2000. TWO THOUSAND.
As we have seen in Disneyland, it oly takes ONE location of measles to cause an outbreak that involves hundred of people across numerous state borders. Imagine if an entire bus load of hispters who haven't been vaccinated comes back and disperes among the us population? Tens of thousands (sadly, almost entirely among the most vulnable populations) could be infected within a matter of weeks.
Some kid gets vaccinated and has a reaction, worst case is the child dies whilst no one else even comes closes to getting anything remotely resembling the disease.
See the lack of balance here?
It may be because people are simply ignorant about how they work. I imagine there's some really complicated science that goes into making vaccines that people just don't understand. I heard that vaccines contain a little bit of the actual disease in it for you to build an immunity, but I'm no doctor, so don't say that's a fact.
You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock
At 2/15/15 10:33 AM, Ericho wrote: I heard that vaccines contain a little bit of the actual disease in it for you to build an immunity, but I'm no doctor, so don't say that's a fact.
That's true. Usually they contain dead diseases. It gives your body the same alarm response causing it to build anti-bodies, but does not have much ability (anything can happen, especially with an organism like a virus which acts as if it is alive but only fulfuils two or three f the qualifications of a life form) to spread. On top of that they tend to contain the smallest dose possible to cause the immune system to react.
Vaccines are made to not make you sick. Science has spent countless hours ensuring this is the case.
Frankly, those who don't trust vaccines don't trust science.
At 2/15/15 12:51 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Either/or fallacy
But it's true. So, I guess it's a true fallacy. (or perhaps your attempt at defeating a claim by calling it a fallacy is in itself a fallacy)
I am not against vaccines. If I judge a vaccination to be a good use of my time and money, then I will get it. But when other people, those with power over me, decide for me what is best for me, I will not comply. I don't distrust science, I distrust those in authority. A position that is not too unreasonable.
Yeah, but no one is forcing people to take vaccines right now. Therefore that lack of trust in authority thing is irrelevant, and those who don't like vaccines just plain don't trust science.
At 2/15/15 12:51 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I am not against vaccines. If I judge a vaccination to be a good use of my time and money, then I will get it. But when other people, those with power over me, decide for me what is best for me, I will not comply. I don't distrust science, I distrust those in authority. A position that is not too unreasonable.
That position is only reasonable as long as you can justify your mistrust. Mistrusting the scientific community and trained doctors on topics like inoculations and pathology is inherently unreasonable if the only thing you have going for you is your apparent "fuck-you-dad" style distrust of authority.
At 2/15/15 03:06 PM, Korriken wrote: Some people actually WILL take their dying children to church, rather than a doctor, on the other hand, some of them have simply been misled by propaganda.
It must be said that in both of those instances the people in question do not trust science, so this doesn't detract from Camaro's point.
At 2/15/15 11:49 PM, Korriken wrote: Not necessarily. There's a lot of science I don't trust, doesn't mean I refuse to get vaccinations... except for Flu vaccine. Then again, I've never had the flu before, so I see little point in vaccinating myself against something I've never had to begin with. If I ever end up with children, they'll be vaccinated.
Sure, some science isn't to be trusted. However vaccination science has pretty linear for a century and is extremely settled. It's not the type of science that anyone can logically harbor a lack of trust.
Science isn't exactly something you either have full faith in or none at all. Like I said, propaganda is a powerful tool for leading people astray and blinding them.
You can't pick and choose ased on emotion and anecdote. If these are enough to shake your belief in a settled science, then you don't trust science in general.
I actually wholeheartedly disagree that science is not an all or nothing. Sure, you can wait until a science is widely enough accepted in order to believe it has passed the rigors enough to be actual science. That's it though.
I openly place anti-vaccinators (not the flu vaccine cost benefit folks) at the same level of mental troglodyte as those who deny evolution, those who hate GMOs, those who don't believe the most basic of climate change ideas, those who don't want fluoridated water, and those who think organic food is per se better.
At 2/16/15 01:42 AM, Korriken wrote: The Big Bang was "settled science" too. A year ago if I said the big bang was bullshit I would have been ridiculed. Turns out scientists are now saying it didn't happen that the universe has always been there.
Annnnnd shit like this is why you shouldn't bring politics into science because the kind of logic people bring into politics is retarded. By "Scientists" you mean a duo who did some research into Quantum Mechanics and used math to prove their hypothesis. Granted I don't know much about Quantum Mechanics, but I do know it has next to no actual experimentation behind it. There's no experimentation, just analysis of data, just like political science. The Big Bang however has some evidence behind it, like the fact that we've picked up sound waves which were predicted to appear by the Theory and were later found, hence why it became the leading theory. Notice how I said leading. There have always been alternative theories to the Big Bang Theory. So this is nothing new. Anyway this is more sensationalism, there's always a new theory out there which shatters our previous idea's all the time it seems.
But the issue is this; vaccination is a practice with experimentation behind it, years of use of the scientific method in its purest form. It really can't be compared with Quantum Mechanics.
The problem with calling people mental troglodytes for disagreeing with putting their faith into what a lab coat says it that sometimes the lab coats are wrong. Very wrong. Vaccination though, HAS been proven to be more beneficial than harmful. Websites like this don't help though.
This is true. people have been treating science like magic and scientists like shamans. This had lead to many problems.....
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
At 2/15/15 11:49 PM, Korriken wrote: Not necessarily. There's a lot of science I don't trust, doesn't mean I refuse to get vaccinations...
That's all irrelevant. Science is a process in which we gain knowledge by means of experimentation and observation based on prediction and hypotheses. The foundation on which modern medicine lies on, especially vaccinations, is 100% the scientific method. If you don't trust vaccines then you don't trust science and the entire system behind it.
At 2/16/15 01:42 AM, Korriken wrote: The Big Bang was "settled science" too. A year ago if I said the big bang was bullshit I would have been ridiculed. Turns out scientists are now saying it didn't happen that the universe has always been there.
I'm not sure why you're bringing the Big Bang into this. We've been observing people not dying of curable diseases for centuries now with the advent of innoculations and modern medicine. We know it works because we can test it. We can't recreate the beginnings of the universe, so of course there will always be ambiguity on that end.
At 2/16/15 12:04 PM, Korriken wrote: There's a difference in trust and blind trust. What you're stating is if they don't believe in vaccines, then they don't blindly trust science. Problem is, you have people who read these propaganda sites, who tell them that the government/big pharma/the illuminati/the devil/whoever is putting chemicals into the vaccines to cause autism as a side effect.
So what? You're not describing a separate mechanism. There's no such thing as "blind trust" in science because actual scientists try to disprove their theories right off the bat. Science is inherently sceptical. That's the whole point of the scientific method. The main goal of science is to achieve true scientific objectivity in order for us to know the true nature of the world around us, and while complete objectivity is inherently impossible due to the fact that we're humans, the faith in our scientific understanding in certain fields asymptotically approaches 100%. Vaccinations is one of those things. If somebody honestly believes the shit you mentioned above in spite of the mountains of evidence such as peer reviewed research papers, statistics etc then guess what? You don't trust science. It's that simple. The "why" bears no relevancy to that fact, if there were any other reason the end result would still be the same.
Am I the only person who actually looks into the 'why' when it comes to things like this? Or am I simply the only one who doesn't run around screaming "troglodyte!" "flat earther!" when someone does something that doesn't make much sense?
Your quest to be the most rational middle-ground person here is causing you to make irrational arguments, ironically enough.
Seeing articles like this doesn't help either. Government agency covering up scientific misconduct on the very stuff we eat and take to get well? Yeah...
Correct, but this is an agency failure, not a science failure. If somebody pointed to this article to justify not innoculating their children against measles, that person would be dumb.
At 2/16/15 02:20 PM, Korriken wrote: It has nothing with trying to be a middle ground person. It has to do with understanding things from different angles.
Again, it simply does not matter within the context of how this discussion got brought about. This all started with Camaro (correctly) stating "Frankly, those who don't trust vaccines don't trust science." X-Gary-Gigax-X then claimed that was an either/or fallacy and you backed him up on it by saying "he's quite astute". However, you didn't even make a case for Gary, you went on to argue a completely separate issue: why people don't trust science, as opposed to what Camaro's (and my) original point was: regardless of the reason why people don't want to get vaccinated (permitting rare health issues which was previously discussed), they de facto do not trust science. These are two separate things. I don't care about the question of why in this discussion, the consequence is still the same regardless. What I'm talking about and what Camaro is talking about is very much a binary issue; what you're talking about is not and is irrelevant to our points. That's not to say it's not a question worth exploring, nor should you take that as me not caring in general. I do, but that's a completely different subject, one which I am not discussing right now.
You're right and you're wrong. This is an agency failure, but it's also a science failure since the ones doing the science are committing fraud the the agency is covering it up and allowing it to be passed as real science.
There wasn't actually any science being done if there was fraud, that's just simply fraud masked as science, so it can't be said that this is a failure of science. It's an agency failure. At any rate this has no bearing on the veracity of vaccines.
you seem to want to ignore the concept of people being swayed by propaganda to join the anti vaxxing group, and you want to ignore the 'why' portion of the problem, and simply passing judgment on people.
You'll understand what I'm saying once you stop talking past me.
At 2/16/15 03:08 PM, Korriken wrote: Bank owners are greedy Jews bent on taking over the world.
Asians eat bowls of rice and are bad drivers, but amazing at math.
Yeah, that's what you sound like right now. Ignorant as hell.
lmao
I know this doesn't relate to the topic that much, but I heard mushrooms are actually allowing our medicines to continue working because they lower the immunities of viruses & such. :-)
Hosting a survival minecraft server. The address is "astral-craft.ddns.net". The client is spigot 1.16.4. B-)
At 2/16/15 03:26 PM, Korriken wrote: Never said they didn't trust science. I'm said propaganda makes them believe something which is (most likely) not true, that there are chemicals in the vaccines that can cause autism
Holy shit dude. There are no chemicals in vaccines that cause autism. This is a factually incorrect belief. I don't give a shit how a person came to believe that, whether it be propaganda or schizophrenia, it is wrong. There has been a ton of research done to support this claim. An overwhelming majority of the scientific community are of the same opinion. The science says otherwise. Therefore, if you believe vaccines cause autism, it cannot be said that you trust the word of the scientific community. You will have an extremely hard time making the case that the individual in question has a lot of stock in science if that's the case. How thick are you that you cannot understand something so incredibly simple? I guess read the words slower if you're having such a hard time.
why people don't want to get vaccinated (permitting rare health issues which was previously discussed), they de facto do not trust science.
Which is not necessarily true.
the consequence is still the same regardless.
This much is true.
lmao you just both simultaneously agreed and disagreed with the same exact point I just made. I don't think you even understand what you're arguing at this point, let alone what I'm saying.
Binary issue? Sounds more to me like 2 people judging another group. If you're not willing to explore an issue, What is the point of even discussing it? Unless of course, you're just fishing for people who agree in order to validate your judgment of others.
What the fuck are you even talking about at this point? How the hell am I judging people?
I'm beginning to wonder if you pray to science before bed. You're starting to sound like some die hard theist right now. Science is all knowing! Science is infallible!
You sure are a sanctimonious asshole for someone who pretends to be so enlightened as to be above judging others. Since you're apparently so into asking "why," you should first instead ask yourself why you're incapable of having a decent conversation with others, and why you have such a hard time with reading comprehension.
At 2/16/15 04:35 PM, Korriken wrote: I know. I'm very well aware of this. I'm not saying there are. Problem is, people of the anti vaxxing group are being lied to, and sadly, they believe it.
Yeah, I know you know. You don't have to respond to each and every sentence individually.
You would have to assume that the people who are anti vaxxing have dug through the data and the studies. Problem is, they very well may not even be AWARE of the word of the scientific community.
Oh give us a break. You don't need to read a mountain of papers to know that doctors recommend getting inoculated against polio and that this is the overwhelming consensus.
Many propaganda sites are very, very convincing. It also doesn't help that most peoples' skill in researching is practically none. Saying anti vaxxers are anti science is just overgeneralizing.
Anti-vaxxers do not trust the word of the scientific community by definition. This is an inherent trait and cannot be argued against. The truth is not in the middle.
That's because I don't disagree with the entirety of your argument. You can disagree with certain points of someone argument, rather than trashing the whole thing. You should try it someday.
Except that's not what you did, which is what's funny. You both agreed and disagreed with the same exact point I made, not two different ones. You disagreed with "they de facto do not trust science" but agreed with "the consequence is still the same regardless," meaning the consequence of not trusting the consensus of the scientific community on getting vaccinated means you do not trust science, which you'll note are two different ways of saying the exact same thing.
All joking aside, I find I am capable of having a decent conversation with others and do so quite frequently.
Yes, as evidenced by your two fucking retarded strawmans out of nowhere a few posts up.
At 2/16/15 08:32 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: When you're talking to a paid government stooge, why would you expect anything different?
The checks stopped coming in right around the midterm elections, which is typical during the lame-duck cycle. I'm just trying to work my way out of my contract at this point, the Kochs pay way better than Soros right now. This isn't 2012 anymore. Your posting gimmick needs updating. Try to keep up!
At 2/16/15 09:08 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Withering condescension like this is probably why we have such a slow politics forum.
I know this is hard to believe, Gary, but this is the politics forum on Newgrounds. I think there's your answer.
At 2/16/15 09:08 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: edit: plus you had Saul at the top of thread basically call everyone who disagreed with him slow in the head.
No, I called everyone who disagrees with science for unscientific reasons slow in the head. Get it right. Anyway, I'm far less of a Saul and more of a Kobayashi.
At 2/16/15 10:59 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Anyway, I'm far less of a Saul and more of a Kobayashi.
I sincerely hope you're referring to the professional hotdog eater instead of The Usual Suspects.
