I came here excited about some interesting discussion. Sorely disappointed.
Why is this issue being discussed. Vaccination has eliminated so many diseases in this country. Go back 60 years and every eight child had polio. Now thanks to Sabin it is non existent in this country. Rubella, whooping cough, tB... the list goes on.
I am firmly of the belief that if you do not have your children vaccinated, you forfeit your children's right to attend school or have contact with other children.
I don't care what your religion is; I don't care what books you read. For your children to have a right to an education, you, as a parent have an obligation to have your children immunised.
I do not feel it necessary explain why. It is self explanatory.
I'm not sure what he's getting at to be honest.
I can't think of a single thing I am forced to consume, can you Windy?
Mandatory food? Is that like lamb on Australia Day?
food.
Like?There are many situations in which you are banned from consuming or would be forced to consume things. You are only allowed bodily autonomy within certain behavioural guidelines which are for the most part based around avoiding harm to yourself or others. While I would prefer mandatory intellectual development, mandatory innoculation is less of a stretch.
Maybe he means like when his Mum used to make him eat his pumpkin.
publicly refuse to eat and see how much body autonomy you have. Malnourish your child and see how much control of their body autonomy you have. Not to even go into various mental and medical conditions you'll not have body autonomy on. Contract a highly contagious disease that treatment can stop the spread of and check your body autonomy. And that's not even looking at whether you're allowed to decide to consume anything you want.
I'd find inoculating your child against your ignorant wishes a farkload less intrusive then your child's bodily autonomy having a serious preventable disease forced upon your child and I'd prefer your spawn if ignorance wasn't risking the bodily autonomy of children who weren't able to take measures to protect themselves.
That's pretty much the reason we have so many limitations already in what individuals, families can do to themselves and others. Because don't only effect you and no-one gives a fark how much you'd prefer the freedom to be selfish and ignorant.
Keep those straw men a comin...
Keep those straw men a comin...
Which ones?
He doesn’t care. He’s a troll. The only effort he puts into arguing is trying to convince people to take him seriously. Once he starts losing the “take my opinion seriously” argument he’ll throw a tanty and ■■■■ off for a another year or two.
I'm not sure what he's getting at to be honest.
I can't think of a single thing I am forced to consume, can you Windy?
Mandatory food? Is that like lamb on Australia Day?
food.
Like?There are many situations in which you are banned from consuming or would be forced to consume things. You are only allowed bodily autonomy within certain behavioural guidelines which are for the most part based around avoiding harm to yourself or others. While I would prefer mandatory intellectual development, mandatory innoculation is less of a stretch.
Maybe he means like when his Mum used to make him eat his pumpkin.publicly refuse to eat and see how much body autonomy you have. Malnourish your child and see how much control of their body autonomy you have. Not to even go into various mental and medical conditions you'll not have body autonomy on. Contract a highly contagious disease that treatment can stop the spread of and check your body autonomy. And that's not even looking at whether you're allowed to decide to consume anything you want.
I'd find inoculating your child against your ignorant wishes a farkload less intrusive then your child's bodily autonomy having a serious preventable disease forced upon your child and I'd prefer your spawn if ignorance wasn't risking the bodily autonomy of children who weren't able to take measures to protect themselves.
That's pretty much the reason we have so many limitations already in what individuals, families can do to themselves and others. Because don't only effect you and no-one gives a fark how much you'd prefer the freedom to be selfish and ignorant.
Again, rambling and muddled (especially the 2nd paragraph).The point of articulation is so that others understand what is in your mind. That is the KEY to expression - being understood. If you perfect that we will get along better I assure you.Didn't your minders at college teach you that?
But from what was clear the logical fallacy came through. If a person publicly refuses to eat, the system will most likely get hold of that person and force feed them against their will. That does not prove they do not have bodily autonomy. It just proves that the system is able to overpower them and force their will upon them. I would argue that an individual has the right to not eat. I think it is a silly thing to do but nevertheless I defend their right to do it if what they do does not harm another. In the example of a malnourished child, again, it does not prove the child does not have bodily autonomy. The parent has power over the hungry child and the child cannot overcome the will of the parent. But then the system, which has power to stop one individual imposing their will on another has power to impose its will on the parent to protect the child's right to eat.
Your example of eating is completely irrelevant to the discussion of vaccination.
He doesn't care. He's a troll. The only effort he puts into arguing is trying to convince people to take him seriously. Once he starts losing the "take my opinion seriously" argument he'll throw a tanty and fark off for a another year or two.
II am not a troll at all. I just have a different point of view on many things. I'm sure you don't realise it but you actually display the troll like characteristics.
Having said that I have already broken one of my golden rules: Don't waste precious time on free spirit.
it wasn't about vaccination. It was in response to whether bodily autonomy was allowed. I'll find you are ■■■■ video no one wants to watch if that's more in keeping with point of articulation.Again, rambling and muddled (especially the 2nd paragraph).The point of articulation is so that others understand what is in your mind. That is the KEY to expression - being understood. If you perfect that we will get along better I assure you.Didn't your minders at college teach you that?
publicly refuse to eat and see how much body autonomy you have. Malnourish your child and see how much control of their body autonomy you have. Not to even go into various mental and medical conditions you'll not have body autonomy on. Contract a highly contagious disease that treatment can stop the spread of and check your body autonomy. And that's not even looking at whether you're allowed to decide to consume anything you want.I'm not sure what he's getting at to be honest.I can't think of a single thing I am forced to consume, can you Windy?Mandatory food? Is that like lamb on Australia Day?food.Like?There are many situations in which you are banned from consuming or would be forced to consume things. You are only allowed bodily autonomy within certain behavioural guidelines which are for the most part based around avoiding harm to yourself or others. While I would prefer mandatory intellectual development, mandatory innoculation is less of a stretch.
Maybe he means like when his Mum used to make him eat his pumpkin.
I'd find inoculating your child against your ignorant wishes a farkload less intrusive then your child's bodily autonomy having a serious preventable disease forced upon your child and I'd prefer your spawn if ignorance wasn't risking the bodily autonomy of children who weren't able to take measures to protect themselves.
That's pretty much the reason we have so many limitations already in what individuals, families can do to themselves and others. Because don't only effect you and no-one gives a fark how much you'd prefer the freedom to be selfish and ignorant.
But from what was clear the logical fallacy came through. If a person publicly refuses to eat, the system will most likely get hold of that person and force feed them against their will. That does not prove they do not have bodily autonomy. It just proves that the system is able to overpower them and force their will upon them. I would argue that an individual has the right to not eat. I think it is a silly thing to do but nevertheless I defend their right to do it if what they do does not harm another. In the example of a malnourished child, again, it does not prove the child does not have bodily autonomy. The parent has power over the hungry child and the child cannot overcome the will of the parent. But then the system, which has power to stop one individual imposing their will on another has power to impose its will on the parent to protect the child's right to eat.
Your example of eating is completely irrelevant to the discussion of vaccination.
Keep those straw men a comin...
Which ones?
If you can't readily identify them, old chap, I'm sorry but I don't have the time to educate you.
I'll find you are **** video no one wants to watch if that's more in keeping with point of articulation.
Again, rambling and muddled (especially the 2nd paragraph).The point of articulation is so that others understand what is in your mind. That is the KEY to expression - being understood. If you perfect that we will get along better I assure you.Didn't your minders at college teach you that?
publicly refuse to eat and see how much body autonomy you have. Malnourish your child and see how much control of their body autonomy you have. Not to even go into various mental and medical conditions you'll not have body autonomy on. Contract a highly contagious disease that treatment can stop the spread of and check your body autonomy. And that's not even looking at whether you're allowed to decide to consume anything you want.
I'm not sure what he's getting at to be honest.
I can't think of a single thing I am forced to consume, can you Windy?
Mandatory food? Is that like lamb on Australia Day?
food.
Like?There are many situations in which you are banned from consuming or would be forced to consume things. You are only allowed bodily autonomy within certain behavioural guidelines which are for the most part based around avoiding harm to yourself or others. While I would prefer mandatory intellectual development, mandatory innoculation is less of a stretch.
Maybe he means like when his Mum used to make him eat his pumpkin.
I'd find inoculating your child against your ignorant wishes a farkload less intrusive then your child's bodily autonomy having a serious preventable disease forced upon your child and I'd prefer your spawn if ignorance wasn't risking the bodily autonomy of children who weren't able to take measures to protect themselves.
That's pretty much the reason we have so many limitations already in what individuals, families can do to themselves and others. Because don't only effect you and no-one gives a fark how much you'd prefer the freedom to be selfish and ignorant.
But from what was clear the logical fallacy came through. If a person publicly refuses to eat, the system will most likely get hold of that person and force feed them against their will. That does not prove they do not have bodily autonomy. It just proves that the system is able to overpower them and force their will upon them. I would argue that an individual has the right to not eat. I think it is a silly thing to do but nevertheless I defend their right to do it if what they do does not harm another. In the example of a malnourished child, again, it does not prove the child does not have bodily autonomy. The parent has power over the hungry child and the child cannot overcome the will of the parent. But then the system, which has power to stop one individual imposing their will on another has power to impose its will on the parent to protect the child's right to eat.
Your example of eating is completely irrelevant to the discussion of vaccination.
I'm wasting more time on this nuff nuff (slaps the back of his hand) but seriously.......... what!!!????
On a similar subject, don't bring your (inoculated) kid with the measles to ED.
They can't treat it and they have patients who are immunosuppressed.
Here's my final word, then I'm done on this topic. Knock yourselves out mocking it.
So you'll understand.
I don't just distrust the globalist elite running the world, I know they are a bunch of psychopaths.
OK? That being my opinion of them, do you think I am going to roll my sleeve up?
Even if there wasn't a published opposing scientific view, I wouldn't. So naturally when I examine the credentials and arguments of the opponents of vaccination and find credible reasons why I should resist....well, it's a no brainer what my position will be.
Furthermore, the pro vaccine people, in this thread, paint the anti vaccine people as not caring about children and people suffering from these horrible diseases. That isn't true at all of course, NOT AT ALL. It is because they DO care that they oppose. But people can't see that. Not only that, as a general rule I have found the anti vaccine people more likely to be consistent in their approach to the health and well being of the population. What do I mean? How many of the pro vaccination people in this thread care about chemtrails? How many of them care about the fluoride in the drinking water? How many care about the dangerous additives in commonly consumed food and beverages? How many care that their kids are figuratively bathing in a sea of harmful WiFi frequencies at school? How many care about the mobile phone towers near kindergartens, schools and homes? How many care about the people suffering from adverse effects since they have had smart meters installed? How many care about the dangers to the entire planet by genetically modifying foods? I could go on but you get the point. What about the suffering these things are causing? Or do they only care about diseases they are deluded into believing can be cured with a very dubious jab from a proven untrustworthy, pretend benefactor?
Over and out.
Wow so much non-scientific and non-evidence based thinking right there. It's truly incredible.
So successfully articulate though.
Dubious?
Wow so much non-scientific and non-evidence based thinking right there. It's truly incredible.
As apposed to the scientific and evidence based thinking that changes it's mind depending on the latest readings brought to you by your favourite corporation sponsored scientist.
Wow so much non-scientific and non-evidence based thinking right there. It's truly incredible.
As apposed to the scientific and evidence based thinking that changes it's mind depending on the latest readings brought to you by your favourite corporation sponsored scientist.
err no.
Er yeserr no.Wow so much non-scientific and non-evidence based thinking right there. It's truly incredible.
As apposed to the scientific and evidence based thinking that changes it's mind depending on the latest readings brought to you by your favourite corporation sponsored scientist.
Needs more tanks