It shouldn't be down to personal choice. There's not much point having vaccination programmes if a significant proportion of the population refuses to buy in.
Governments impose all sorts of things on people. Vaccination should without a doubt be one of those things.
Congratulations. You’re commitment to your cause is admirable.
You’re completely and utterly wrong. But good work champ.
Congratulations. You're commitment to your cause is admirable.
You're completely and utterly wrong. But good work champ.
Asserting something dosnt make you right you know that, dont you?
Completely Useless post, atleast provide a rebuttal next time. What a waste of space you are.
do you know you can prevent yourself from getting lung cancer. Abstinence from breathing.
I have had sex with more than one female.
I don’t have an STI
I may have upset Jesus though
I don't see what the issue is, vaccinate your kids, you're responsible for their health, how would any parent feel if their child contracted a completely avoidable disease because they read somewhere in a magazine that the vaccination may have side effects?
As for STD's the same parents need to educate their kids because you guessed it, they're responsible for their kids health and education, it's called parenting and it's not always easy, it's certainly not any easier when people think they know better than medical authorities and decide to gamble with their kids lives.
Get back to me when Hiv or Hep C are aerosol spread like Measles and Aaronjohns jnr or saladin jnr are at risk of catching it at kinder, at the shops etc. The two scenarios are not logically linked because the targets are not of the same type and the epidemiology is vastly different.How so? you are just asserting that. And it is not a moral code. It is a health code i am talking about. Abstinence and monogamy for a healthier society, by prevention which is better than Vaccination, rather than a hope for a cure or vaccination.
empirical, specifically targeted medical programs against highly contagious and unselective viruses and bacteria are in no way analogous to trying to enforce sexual choices on sentient beings for an entire lifespan. it is not in any way a "logical extension", either practically or 'morally'.
It would be immoral not to follow that health code if you believe children whos parent should be forced to have there child vaccinated for herd immunity.
What i am saying is perfectly logical, and i have given good argument as to why if you support the original proposition that all children should be vaccinated for herd immunization, 100% success rate, Zero side effects. (porn usage up by 400%..but it would all be monogamous porn)
And if you are pro vaccination and think that forcing children out of school because there parents refuse vaccinations is acceptable.
Then you ought also accept that forcing abstinence and monogamy on the larger population is also acceptable practice for herd immunity.
(sorry if i have repeated my self, i just dont think some of you understand the argument. It is very simple and is not complex.)
(btw, im not proposing it, im just trying to show some of the hypocrisy of the pro vaccination camp, that when a proposed set of rules start to effect there lifestyle ie: monogamy.. that they suddenly dont like the idea of herd immunity any more, or are not willing to go that far... which is no different than the beatnix who thinks the injection is giving them autism.)
Why are churchies so obsessed with everyone else's sex lives?
Religions like to control basic human needs and desires. For example, before you eat you make it all about god. They control these things they control you.
Religions control nothing, people try to control people and use various vehicles to do so, whether that be a religious organisation, government, courts, school, households, etc. Laying the blame of control on religion in general is shoddy work and rather disingenuous.
Sure. Religion is one of the vehicles people use. And use it very effectively they have.
Mmmm? Mmmm.
Mmmm? mmmm Machivelli? Control the Chruch then you control the people. Machevelli helped control the church and controlled the people.
Some say they Media is the new church and machivellis rules still apply, control the media control the people.
It was a joke about syntax, but given how committed you are to your argument I can see how you missed it.
It‘s a huge imposition for governments to make vaccinations compulsory, and I wouldn‘t support it even though I'm pro-vaccination. That sort of stuff is the domain of the hard right and left. Continuing to educate regarding the benefits of vaccination is a better method. Most people know better. Even Jenny McCarthy![/size]
As for tackling the scourge of STDs through forced monogamy, how would the government go about that? I suppose shaming and scare-mongering could work.[/size]
There is no doubt it would work if it could be implemented. But there is no way it could exist in a democratically free state.
Homosexuality was much the same in the past.
(although i think i read an article where one of the african countrys made homosexuality illegal, because the spread of STD's like aids is massively higher in that group)
So yeh, even if you could get past civil rights activists to implement such a law, there would be the problem of enforcing it.
But enforcing vaccinations is much the same, you cant force someone to have something they dont want. people would run away and still not have it. (put it in the water supply?)
Unfortunately that is the price of freedom sometimes, you cant force your rules on others.
Ultimately you still have the choice, take a polio vaccine and not get polio. Be abstinent and monogamous and not get STD's. the others will live and die by there choices, freedom works.
Aaronjohns1 I'm keen to hear your rebuttal to my post on the last page. I spent two hours browsing through reaction gifs to find the perfect one so I'd appreciate it if you put similar effort into your response.
Bombers forum encourages injections on children - the age.
Why are churchies so obsessed with everyone else's sex lives?
Religions like to control basic human needs and desires. For example, before you eat you make it all about god. They control these things they control you.
Religions control nothing, people try to control people and use various vehicles to do so, whether that be a religious organisation, government, courts, school, households, etc. Laying the blame of control on religion in general is shoddy work and rather disingenuous.
Sure. Religion is one of the vehicles people use. And use it very effectively they have.
They have used Governments far more effectively though. Now they use the media.
It shouldn't be down to personal choice. There's not much point having vaccination programmes if a significant proportion of the population refuses to buy in.
Governments impose all sorts of things on people. Vaccination should without a doubt be one of those things.
agree. can force people follow speed limits, don't drink and drive, pay taxes, vote, force people to stay alive even if they don't want to. Should absolutely force people to take a few minutes out of their life to become immune to dangerous contagious diseases.
I've decided that I think Aaronjohns1 is an absolute ■■■■, on just about every subject I can think of.
Yeah once I realised it was he who started this ■■■■ of a thread, his opinion become irrelevant to me on this matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0&feature=kp
As I further through my medical career and am exposed to more and more things in the hospital your ability to tolerate people who talk absolute **** about medical stuff, particularly vaccines when you see people in absolute worlds of pain from a preventable illness, dwindles.
Thye are not unrelated, it logically follows. You seem to have trouble understanding...so ill try again.
If you support the kind of thing that was in the ORIGNAL POST NEWS STORY (which this thread is about)
That it is OK to stop children going to school because they dont get vaccinations, and that herd immunity and social health are paramount in your view (so much so you can leave children out of school because of it), by that logic it would follow that you would support other forms of prevention like abstinence and monogamy, and enforce that on soceity as well.
And considering if such as thing was put in place that all STD's would disappear it would be very compelling for anyone who believes in either coerced or forced vaccination to logically follow down that path.
Point is, which you chose to ignore, that when others have to lose certain liberty's (like sending there children to school) it is OK by you, but when it effects your libertys, suddenly it is stupid and unrelated.
I don't normally quote my own posts, but i will make an exception just this once because it is apparent you did not read it first time round.
It is provably false via vast amounts of historical evidence that purely societal measures (monogamy, abstinence, education, and the enforcement thereof by law or custom) are effective in eliminating STDs.
empirical, specifically targeted medical programs against highly contagious and unselective viruses and bacteria are in no way analogous to trying to enforce sexual choices on sentient beings for an entire lifespan. it is not in any way a "logical extension", either practically or 'morally'.
More to the point, a purely societal approach to preventing STDs has been tried multiple times in the past and is a multiple times proven failure.
Go back to the middle ages or the Puritan era or similar, and adultery and prostitution are both illegal (with heavy penalties like in some cases branding, flogging, ostracism, etc) and carry massive societal stigma. Virginity at the time of wedding is not just expected, it's a massive scandal and a life- and reputation-destroying event should it not be the case. Homosexuality is generally punishable with death. It doesn't help. Syphilis and gonorhorrea still spread like wildfire.
More recently, you can look at the AIDS epidemic, especially in the well-educated, wealthy West. Everyone knows that to protect yourself from AIDS you can abstain, use a condom, be careful of your sexual partners, don't share needles (the blood transfusion method of infection has largely been eliminated, thank goodness). The information is out there. The means are out there. Societally we're open enough about sexual issues that it can be talked about and the info be disseminated rather than being smothered under a blanket of taboo and embarrassment like it is in Iran or China. If any society ever was in a position to successfully control an STD through societal means, it's the modern West. We failed. People still get AIDS.
Societal controls (legal or moral) can mitigate to some degree, but that's all. It's been tried, again and again, and it's failed, again and again. So when you're talking about abstinence/chastity/sexual repression/regulation/whaever being a 100% effective prevention measure against STDs, you're provably wrong.
Because that would be retarded.
/ thread
Ffs, STd’s are given that name for a REASON! If kids are banned from school re vaccines it’s because of the fear of airborne or casual-contact spread contagions. People, certainly not young children, cannot protect themselves from these diseases. It doesn’t extrapolate through to sexual choice spread issues. You can choose monogamy, that’s fine. It won’t stop your offspring dying of measles at age 2. But a frigging vaccine will. So for their protection, society rightly goes as close to enforcing it as possible.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think I would have preferred if he bumped the Subway's thread.
don't you wanna talk about vaccine's and s' tds?I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think I would have preferred if he bumped the Subway's thread.
