The difference of opinion is in how minds work.
You believe that they receive information and process it with existing information and feelings to make decisions, possibly updating info and feelings as a result.
He (reads like a he) believes that you’re on the bad side, and therefore all your words are just Charlie Brown adult-voice.
A mind is indeed a terrible thing to waste. Great phrase, shame about the drug association. It should be used in the face of such proud and wilful ignorance.
Hahahahaha - I can see that you carefully weigh the scientific evidence for your decisions 
The disinformation patrol is on to us 
The thread died a while ago, because none of these interlopers is even listening to team reality.
Just remember the anti-vaxx motto:
Better a dead child than an autistic one!!
Is it shiny and chrome?
That’s different cause ‘those’ people are different from us!
Can’t go wrong with John Cleese
not even in this reality I think
This.
Because death and preventable disease is preferable to autism. (Not that vaccines cause autism mind you.)
Good for the reminder, I need to get my DPT updated soon, lest I catch a horrible illness from bygone days from one of these jackasses.
With how cheap genetic testing is getting, it might be possible to identify strains of viruses with very minimal differences economically. If so, if you are vaccinated, or have a legitimate medical reason not to be, and you get a preventable illness from someone who is not, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be civilly liable for that.
Wear corrective lenses, don’t wear corrective lenses. I don’t care, none of my business. No one’s but the driver and family really.
Bob Jones University Alumni REPRESENT!
Whoah, what’s with this fascist-groove thing?
The Iron Lung scene has sucked since Polio died.
If you develop active TB, you will be treated whether you want to be or not. Infectious disease is just one those things some things can’t be handled well by leaving it to the individual. This leads me to a further reflection: I rather suspect you’ve arrived at your views on heard immunity by working backward from an individualistic or strongly libertarian political perspective. It’s fine–good, in my view–to have a strong preference for individual liberty. What isn’t good is to allow what you want to cloud your understanding of important matters of fact, such as how diseases spread.
I found this simulation of how vaccination affects the spread of measles to give me a gut level understanding of how community immunity works. It takes into account the normal occasional failure of vaccines to confer immunity, too.
That is fine if you live in the middle of nowhere on top of a mountain.
If you live in a society with other people, you adhere to the rules that society creates. These can be unspoken rules, like opening the door for others, to “soft rules”, like a HOA making you keep your grass cut, to “hard rules” like don’t steal or murder.
I am all for personal freedoms, but I acknowledge there are limitations. This is what makes me a reasonable, rational libertarian, and not a bat shit insane Libertarian.
What I find insane is parents literally would have given their left arm for vaccines 100 years ago, and now we have people refusing to vaccinate their kids, or not even agree with the concept.
Herd immunity is not a political or moral idea, it is the way the biological world works. Please try to distinguish between the science and the choice of political positions.
That said, people can make choices about what to do with their bodies. They don’t owe society that. They do have a responsibility to bear the consequences of that decision. Those choices endanger society, so society equally has no obligation to them, and is free to exclude them. As such, I propose that anyone willfully endangering those around them be denied access to all public spaces, and denied use of any public infrastructure (hospitals, regulated drugs, licensed medical professionals, results of government funded research, 911) when they get the disease they choose to endanger others with.
Why is it wrong? No really, I want to know if you’ve thought about it, because you don’t seem to care about medically endangering others, or letting others endanger you. Why is coercion worse than killing?
You can thank the CIA when it does
It’s not about voting. It’s about the fundamental philosophical underpinnings of what rights are. At least in the Enlightenment tradition that Western liberal democracy grew out of, governments don’t, and cannot ever, grant rights.
People existed before there were governments. Thus, people already had rights, and near absolute freedom to exercise them, whether or not they had the means to enforce those rights. Because most don’t, and because working in groups is useful, people create governments: they choose to give up certain pre-existing rights in exchange for other benefits, like your neighbors not being allowed to kill you and steal all your stuff. Everything else is details built on that foundation - government is a social contract we agree to by participating in society. That is the timeless platonic ideal that democratic government aspires to.
This seems like it was put best at least as early as 1882: “Your right to swing your fists stops at my nose.”
I don’t think anyone’s debating that? It seems so settled. And it seems like common sense.
This, at least, I really do think it possible, unfortunately. It makes intransigence on a lot of issues much more comprehensible. Like abortion, where “Is X a person?” is really the lead in to “Whose rights take precedence?”
Do you work for the FDA?
/sarc
