Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure what the correlation is between these two points. One is about health and safety and the other is about the quality of the education children receive.
As for homeschooling children for fear of autism or whatever other voodoo curses you may think come with vaccination... All I can say is that it takes the truly daft to believe they are such an expert in every subject taught in high school that they could adequately prepare their special snowflake for a successful post-secondary education from Kindergarten through Grade 12. If you really were that brilliant, you'd be too busy managing a successful career to ever entertain such a foolish notion.
Please - logic (and facts!) flies not only out the window but to another planet with some of these people.
]You seem pretty anti-vax to me.[/b] You don't like this law. Anti-vaxers always pick, pick, pick at the information. "It doesn't say this, it doesn't say that, it doesn't give 100% assurance the vaccine is safe, it doesn't prove that this will happen IRL", etc, etc, etc.
Did you see tlvancouver's and my response to MissTerri? Who do you think is getting sick for the most part with vaccine PREVENTABLE diseases? Hint: Not the vaccinated. Not even with pertussis, before all the AVs jump on their keyboards. So an unvaxed kid starts a measles outbreak in a school, infecting an untold number of other unvaxed kids, and then and only then do the unvaxed have to stay home. Measles is so contagious that 90% of non-immune people who are exposed will get sick.
Dear God no!!! I said a few posts back that I am a retired medical laboratory scientist. I am about as pro-vax as they come. But I had an entire post earlier about the need to be more respectful and less sarcastic if we care more about truth and health than we care about one-upmanship. Perhaps my efforts to respectfully have a dialog with the anti-vaxxers and anti-mandaters were misinterpreted by you as me being on their side. I am just trying to better understand their thinking, find common ground, and learn what they propose as possible solutions. And I might even learn a fact or two from them. Neither side has a monopoly on all the truth.
No, no, a thousand times no, I am not anti-vax. I am not opposed to the Cali law.
I also said that in this instance (mandatory vac) I lean toward public health trumping individual liberties. In other words, although I highly value individual liberties, I would prefer laws such as Cali just passed over epidemics of these diseases that used to kill and harm thousands and thousands. I do however, have some "understanding" of parents wanting choice. I don't agree with them, but I can "understand" kinda where they're coming from.
Sheesh, I'm on your side, and I'm being attacked. It doesn't feel good to feel attacked, regardless of which side you're on.
Edited to add: This just proves that it's easy to get caught up in the arguing, and not even listen to what someone else is saying. The fact that you digested so little of my posts that you thought I was an anti-vaxxer is actually quite troubling.
Dear God no!!! I said a few posts back that I am a retired medical laboratory scientist. I am about as pro-vax as they come. But I had an entire post earlier about the need to be more respectful and less sarcastic if we care more about truth and health than we care about one-upmanship. Perhaps my efforts to respectfully have a dialog with the anti-vaxxers and anti-mandaters were misinterpreted by you as me being on their side. I am just trying to better understand their thinking, find common ground, and learn what they propose as possible solutions. And I might even learn a fact or two from them. Neither side has a monopoly on all the truth.
I appreciate the effort... but no. Have you read some of the posts? Some of the blatant lies and misinformation coming from the anti-side, or the "pro-choice" side (I feel like I'm suddenly talking about abortion with all this "choice" talk)? How are we supposed to react? "Oh I respect your total BS post but here's why you're wrong and perhaps I can concede a simple point or two just for the sake of trying to not argue..." when people have already rehashed the same stuff over and over again and others still ignore it or insist they are right when their information is undoubtedly false or misunderstood?
If you can remain totally neutral and 100% respectful and un-frustrated, more power to you.
In my province (BC) health care workers are required to get flu shots.
Then health care workers should only need to get vaccinated, not require school children to be vaccinated to enter public schools(I'm trying pro-vaccine forum logic here).
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
That just goes to show how allowing people to voluntarily vaccinate their children without school mandates does not work, doesn't it?
What if stores started putting up signs during flu season telling people not to enter if they have not been vaccinated?
Right, sounds crazy, doesn't it? Makes as much sense as not allowing kids to attend public schools because they aren't vaccinated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Your "national flu vaccine law" will never exist unless the majority of the voters want it.
Certainly wouldn't be something I would want. Just making a point that if public health is the true issue here, and if we are truly following the science on vaccines, I would think we should have at least had many states enforcing laws to get everyone to vaccinate against the flu to protect those who are vulnerable in our society, as tlvancouver implied.
As for what the voters want, you bring up a great point. Why wasn't this CA vaccine law put up to the voters to decide?
I appreciate the effort... but no. Have you read some of the posts? Some of the blatant lies and misinformation coming from the anti-side, or the "pro-choice" side (I feel like I'm suddenly talking about abortion with all this "choice" talk)? How are we supposed to react? "Oh I respect your total BS post but here's why you're wrong and perhaps I can concede a simple point or two just for the sake of trying to not argue..." when people have already rehashed the same stuff over and over again and others still ignore it or insist they are right when their information is undoubtedly false or misunderstood?
If you can remain totally neutral and 100% respectful and un-frustrated, more power to you.
If I can't respectfully discuss a topic, there is no point in discussing it at all. I think it is safe to say that no one ever had his mind changed due to sarcasm, attacks, or condescension.
If someone is participating here because they enjoy tossing out clever zingers and insults, fine, but that's not me.
I actually think this is a very important topic, worthy of respectful dialogue. Some here have been very respectful and fact oriented. Others seem to be here for the sport of it.
Last edited by kayanne; 07-13-2015 at 10:55 PM..
Reason: Spelling
If I can't respectfully discuss a topic, there is no point in discussing it at all. I think it is safe to say that no one ever had his mind changed due to sarcasm, attacks, or condescension.
If someone is participating here because they enjoy tossing out clever zingers and insults, fine, but that's not me.
I actually think this is a very important topic, worthy of respectful dialogue. Some here have been very respectful and fact oriented. Others seem to be here for the sport of it.
There are people who either troll (beginning to think it's the case for some) or will not change their minds when exposed to facts, either, and keep repeating their same disproven arguments or useless studies. What's your solution for them? Keep kindly repeating the same stuff over and over, from your presumably educated background since you said you were a research scientist in a lab, correct?, knowing they will never listen? Sometimes, no one wins. Here, no one wins. Not even the ones with the correct info who you would think would win, because the other side just keeps pounding their opinions and misinformation in, which itself is quite disrespectful to actual science and posters who share that actual science.
If I can't respectfully discuss a topic, there is no point in discussing it at all. I think it is safe to say that no one ever had his mind changed due to sarcasm, attacks, or condescension.
If someone is participating here because they enjoy tossing out clever zingers and insults, fine, but that's not me.
I actually think this is a very important topic, worthy of respectful dialogue. Some here have been very respectful and fact oriented. Others seem to be here for the sport of it.
I think you can probably see that the anti-vaxers would rather face small pox (stated specifically by them) than vaccinate. I appreciate your intent, but with the utmost of respect, it's clear you haven't read the fist 50 pages. There is NOTHING new being said by the anti-vax side in the last 30 pages.
This thread is not a discussion it's an attempt by anti-vaxers to poke, distract and drop irrelevant topics to deal with the fact that not one single, reputable, peer reviewed study supports not vaccinating. As you've seen in the last few posts this has very little to do with vaccinations it's all "you're not the boss of me" posturing.
Speaking for myself, unless there is a significant scientific study demonstrating that measles, polio etc are no longer a deadly and contagious threat to public health OR that vaccines don't work, my mind is made up based on settled science. Opinions are NOT going to change my mind, and frankly they are irresponsibly posited as equal to science.
As for what the voters want, you bring up a great point. Why wasn't this CA vaccine law put up to the voters to decide?
Because in every state I'm aware of the primary place that laws are enacted is in the state legislature. This is because our system is a republic and not a democracy.
I did live in California quite a while though and I can tell you that they a great initiative and referendum process. If any anti-vax people desire, they have every right to collect signatures and try to get the voters to vote on repealing the law. The signature requirements aren't overwhelming and, in any given election year, its not surprising for voters to have to sift through ten or more initiatives. The problem you have though is about eighty percent of people are in favor of compulsory vaccination laws. So, my word to the wise is don't waste a lot of effort trying to get the law repealed this way.
If you lost there, I don't doubt anti-vaxers would keep whining. Than the argument would be: "You can't legislate away our rights!"
The problem there is the courts don't recognize a constitutional right to avoid vaccination.
You can talk in circles for the next ten years, your position is a loser and its really up to the states whether we have these laws or not.
There are people who either troll (beginning to think it's the case for some) or will not change their minds when exposed to facts, either, and keep repeating their same disproven arguments or useless studies. What's your solution for them? Keep kindly repeating the same stuff over and over, from your presumably educated background since you said you were a research scientist in a lab, correct?, knowing they will never listen? Sometimes, no one wins. Here, no one wins. Not even the ones with the correct info who you would think would win, because the other side just keeps pounding their opinions and misinformation in, which itself is quite disrespectful to actual science and posters who share that actual science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlvancouver
I think you can probably see that the anti-vaxers would rather face small pox (stated specifically by them) than vaccinate. I appreciate your intent, but with the utmost of respect, it's clear you haven't read the fist 50 pages. There is NOTHING new being said by the anti-vax side in the last 30 pages.
This thread is not a discussion it's an attempt by anti-vaxers to poke, distract and drop irrelevant topics to deal with the fact that not one single, reputable, peer reviewed study supports not vaccinating. As you've seen in the last few posts this has very little to do with vaccinations it's all "you're not the boss of me" posturing.
Speaking for myself, unless there is a significant scientific study demonstrating that measles, polio etc are no longer a deadly and contagious threat to public health OR that vaccines don't work, my mind is made up based on settled science. Opinions are NOT going to change my mind, and frankly they are irresponsibly posited as equal to science.
I'll answer your bolded parts by copying my earlier post below. Then I may go back to being a reader and not a poster, for the reasons I stated in this copied post:
I've been following this thread since it began, but I have posted very little. That's not because I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, and not because I have no knowledge to contribute, but mostly because I don't like wasting my time jumping into fruitless arguments, which this thread seems to be.
Just this morning, I was googling "How to deal with unfair criticism," in regard to a completely different issue in my life. After reading this article, I found myself thinking how helpful these strategies would be in this vaccination thread. I truly do wish both sides would stay on topic, reply respectfully, find common ground (some usually exists), and demonstrate that you care more about truth and health than you care about witty zingers and one-up-manship.
I am definitely tired of the argument about "pox parties" (yes, parents did intentionally expose their children to chicken pox back before a vaccination existed, because complications in young children were less frequent than in older children and adults). I don't see the relevancy of pox parties to the topic at hand. I also don't see the relevance in whether or not any particular poster would personally get the small pox vaccination. Badgering posters with that question does nothing to facilitate useful dialogue. Sarcasm and put-downs do nothing to facilitate useful dialogue.
I understand that after hundreds of posts, some of you feel like banging your head against a wall. And I can't say I've never gotten frustrated to the point of getting a bit rude or sarcastic on CD, though I try to stay on the high road.
This is an extremely important topic, and I would prefer to see even a small amount of understanding reached, instead of the vicious circles I'm reading that lead nowhere.
I think you can probably see that the anti-vaxers would rather face small pox (stated specifically by them) than vaccinate. I appreciate your intent, but with the utmost of respect, it's clear you haven't read the fist 50 pages. There is NOTHING new being said by the anti-vax side in the last 30 pages.
This thread is not a discussion it's an attempt by anti-vaxers to poke, distract and drop irrelevant topics to deal with the fact that not one single, reputable, peer reviewed study supports not vaccinating. As you've seen in the last few posts this has very little to do with vaccinations it's all "you're not the boss of me" posturing.
Speaking for myself, unless there is a significant scientific study demonstrating that measles, polio etc are no longer a deadly and contagious threat to public health OR that vaccines don't work, my mind is made up based on settled science. Opinions are NOT going to change my mind, and frankly they are irresponsibly posited as equal to science.
Kayanne asked previously why we have asked anti-vaxers if they would vaccinate against smallpox if it somehow came back, given the intensity and fatality rate of the disease and how serious it is, and asked how it was relevant or contributed to the conversation, if I remember correctly. Well, it's a way to test their thinking, and maybe even trap them - and it worked. We had posters admit they would rather face the risks of smallpox than vaccinate, which is associated with risks so rare, especially when compared to the disease itself, that they're barely worth mentioning. The vaccination is so much safer than the disease will ever be yet we still have people who are literally saying "I'll take my chances, thanks," or "my kids eat healthy and aren't exposed to a lot of bleach so they'll be fine." It's mind-boggling, and is actually a good way to test their logic, thinking, and facts. So there's that. And guess what? The test worked. And we still have an abstention, in MissTerri, which shows a lot more than she probably thinks it does.
It is a very relevant question to ask when discussing vaccines, especially the "risks" of vaccines versus the risks of the very diseases they protect against. The vaccines always unquestionably come out way on top compared to the diseases, yet we still have people claiming the vaccines is somehow more dangerous or deadly.
Yeah, at this point, it is the "but I want to have a choice!" attitude. Grow up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
