Tough Political Questions

[ChiComCat]

I've always wondered, if your kid is vaccinated, then why do you care if someone else's kid isn't?  Your kid is safe, right?

If your kid isn't aborted, why do you care if someone else's is?  Your kid is safe

[Kat Kid]

I've always wondered, if your kid is vaccinated, then why do you care if someone else's kid isn't?  Your kid is safe, right?

apparently you haven't wondered enough to have an informed opinion about it.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I've always wondered, if your kid is vaccinated, then why do you care if someone else's kid isn't?  Your kid is safe, right?

There's a window between when children are born and when they get fully vaccinated.

[8manpick]

I've always wondered, if your kid is vaccinated, then why do you care if someone else's kid isn't?  Your kid is safe, right?

If your kid isn't aborted, why do you care if someone else's is?  Your kid is safe

Good point. 

[CHONGS]

I've always wondered, if your kid is vaccinated, then why do you care if someone else's kid isn't?  Your kid is safe, right?

http://www.vaccines.gov/basics/protection/

[CHONGS]

Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist. 

[Mrs. Gooch]

I've always wondered, if your kid is vaccinated, then why do you care if someone else's kid isn't?  Your kid is safe, right?

I heard a portion of an interview on this a month or two ago.  There is some sort of tipping point(% of pop) that they try to keep the vac diseases under.  Evidently, if we cross that tipping point, we lose control over spreading to ppl without vac.  Evidently, Whooping Cough and measles are past that tipping point in CA as of last summer.

Some people can't be vaccinated (other medical conditions, babies that are too young) so having all the other population vaccinated to keep the diseases in check protects those people.

[Emo EMAW]

I've always wondered, if your kid is vaccinated, then why do you care if someone else's kid isn't?  Your kid is safe, right?

I heard a portion of an interview on this a month or two ago.  There is some sort of tipping point(% of pop) that they try to keep the vac diseases under.  Evidently, if we cross that tipping point, we lose control over spreading to ppl without vac.  Evidently, Whooping Cough and measles are past that tipping point in CA as of last summer.

Some people can't be vaccinated (other medical conditions, babies that are too young) so having all the other population vaccinated to keep the diseases in check protects those people.

Who decides who is exempt? 

[CNS]

I've always wondered, if your kid is vaccinated, then why do you care if someone else's kid isn't?  Your kid is safe, right?

I heard a portion of an interview on this a month or two ago.  There is some sort of tipping point(% of pop) that they try to keep the vac diseases under.  Evidently, if we cross that tipping point, we lose control over spreading to ppl without vac.  Evidently, Whooping Cough and measles are past that tipping point in CA as of last summer.

Some people can't be vaccinated (other medical conditions, babies that are too young) so having all the other population vaccinated to keep the diseases in check protects those people.

Who decides who is exempt?

Doctors are the ones deciding if the meds of the vac will f up the other meds someone is taking, or if it will cause issue with other conditions, just like any other sitch where the doc needs to compare what they are giving you with what your current sitch is.

[Emo EMAW]

Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.

What makes you think this is my POV?

[catastrophe]

If you wear a seatbelt, what do you care if anyone else does? We've got tons of laws for the sake of general welfare already. Most anti-vaxxers are simply uninformed. The rest probably have some kind of religious objection to most/all medication which I think is fine. They make up a small enough # for it to be insignificant.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Anti-vaccine is the perfect topic for this low rent thread.

Maybe you can take up equal gender pay or anti fracking next

[CHONGS]

Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.

What makes you think this is my POV?

Because you wrote it?

[Emo EMAW]

Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.

What makes you think this is my POV?

Because you wrote it?

Must I believe everything I write?  Could I possibly be adding evidence to my argument that issues are inherently complicated? 

[CHONGS]

Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.

What makes you think this is my POV?

Because you wrote it?

Must I believe everything I write?  Could I possibly be adding evidence to my argument that issues are inherently complicated? 

I think I conceded that one can make any issue complicated if they wanted to. I didn't realize you were still arguing that point.

[Emo EMAW]

Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.

What makes you think this is my POV?

Because you wrote it?

Must I believe everything I write?  Could I possibly be adding evidence to my argument that issues are inherently complicated? 

I think I conceded that one can make any issue complicated if they wanted to. I didn't realize you were still arguing that point.

That's not the same as conceding that issues are inherently complicated.

[Mrs. Gooch]

If you wear a seatbelt, what do you care if anyone else does? We've got tons of laws for the sake of general welfare already. Most anti-vaxxers are simply uninformed. The rest probably have some kind of religious objection to most/all medication which I think is fine. They make up a small enough # for it to be insignificant.

Well someone has to clean up your dead body if it gets thrown out of your car, so maybe that is why we all have to wear seatbelts.
 

[ChiComCat]

Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.

What makes you think this is my POV?

Because you wrote it?

Must I believe everything I write?  Could I possibly be adding evidence to my argument that issues are inherently complicated? 

Someone could say the sky is blue and I could ask if that is just how they perceive it.  That doesn't make the issue complicated, the sky is still blue.

[8manpick]

If you wear a seatbelt, what do you care if anyone else does? We've got tons of laws for the sake of general welfare already. Most anti-vaxxers are simply uninformed. The rest probably have some kind of religious objection to most/all medication which I think is fine. They make up a small enough # for it to be insignificant.

Except they don't make up a small enough # to be insignificant.

[Mrs. Gooch]

Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.

What makes you think this is my POV?

Because you wrote it?

Must I believe everything I write?  Could I possibly be adding evidence to my argument that issues are inherently complicated? 

Someone could say the sky is blue and I could ask if that is just how they perceive it.  That doesn't make the issue complicated, the sky is still blue.

Well it's really the atmosphere causing it to appear to be blue....

[CHONGS]

Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.

What makes you think this is my POV?

Because you wrote it?

Must I believe everything I write?  Could I possibly be adding evidence to my argument that issues are inherently complicated? 

I think I conceded that one can make any issue complicated if they wanted to. I didn't realize you were still arguing that point.

That's not the same as conceding that issues are inherently complicated.

Very true!  I don't think I could agree with the statement that all issues are by definition complicated.  But we would have to agree on what is meany by an issue.  It could perhaps be that when you say "issue" you define it as a complicated disagreement.  I, for example, think of an issue as any matter that is in dispute between different parties. It could in fact be a simple matter (like I think 2+2 is 5 and someone else thinks it's 4).

[Emo EMAW]

Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.

What makes you think this is my POV?

Because you wrote it?

Must I believe everything I write?  Could I possibly be adding evidence to my argument that issues are inherently complicated? 

Someone could say the sky is blue and I could ask if that is just how they perceive it.  That doesn't make the issue complicated, the sky is still blue.

Ok, but this isn't a tough or even a political issue.  This is a non-issue.

[Emo EMAW]

Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.

What makes you think this is my POV?

Because you wrote it?

Must I believe everything I write?  Could I possibly be adding evidence to my argument that issues are inherently complicated? 

Someone could say the sky is blue and I could ask if that is just how they perceive it.  That doesn't make the issue complicated, the sky is still blue.

Additionally, blue can be objectively defined as some range of light who's wavelength is measurable in nanometers.  Of course there are some fringe areas (is it blue or is it purple?), but certainly we know that red is not blue and blue is not red just by measuring the wavelength of the light.  Someone couldn't point to the sky and say "that sky is not blue" nor could they say "that sky is red."  Both would be incorrect using objective data.

[Emo EMAW]

Here's something I found interesting regarding the whole Jumbo Valley ordeal.  Is it relevant to this thread?  Maybe?

The same environmentalists who believe in evolution and are essentially godless use, for their argument to protect the valley, the argument of the native people that this valley is special to them because it's where the bear spirits are born and die.  We know the environmentalists don't believe it, but they will use it to further their own cause. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.

What makes you think this is my POV?

Because you wrote it?

Must I believe everything I write?  Could I possibly be adding evidence to my argument that issues are inherently complicated? 

Someone could say the sky is blue and I could ask if that is just how they perceive it.  That doesn't make the issue complicated, the sky is still blue.

Additionally, blue can be objectively defined as some range of light who's wavelength is measurable in nanometers.  Of course there are some fringe areas (is it blue or is it purple?), but certainly we know that red is not blue and blue is not red just by measuring the wavelength of the light.  Someone couldn't point to the sky and say "that sky is not blue" nor could they say "that sky is red."  Both would be incorrect using objective data.

Yes, the dress was black and blue.