We begin to see a breach in herd immunity and kids pay for it.
Ah, the eternal question of individual freedom and the greater good of the collective.
I side with the collective good on this one. The woman who is interviewed in this case demonstrates the reason for doing so; there’s essentially no reason for her to do so except for a form of self-righteousness. She says she knows she’s putting others at risk by not immunizing her kids but…but what? She doesn’t have an answer; except that she isn’t sacrificing her kid for the greater good.
Come now, I don’t know a lick about vaccines really besides common knowledge but I know that it’s isn’t akin to sacrificing a kid.
I saw medical studies, not given to use by the mainstream media, connecting them with neurological disorders, asthma and immunology.
I really wonder where these so-called studies are coming from. The article mentions “natural health”, which is kind of a surprise for me because I was expecting it to be religion-based.
By far the best quote of the article:
Most of these parents have never seen measles, and don’t realize it could be a bad disease so they turn their concerns to unfounded risks. They do not perceive risk of the disease but perceive risk of the vaccine.
I get the willies just thinking about the horrible diseases that used to be rampant in everyday life - and still are in some parts of the world. I can’t imagine how these parents can sleep at night knowing their kids might suffer in the same way billions of people worldwide throughout history have suffered.
who cares. this isn’t a facist state (yet), you can do with your children what you want. if they get sick, your own stupid fault. you protect them from autism and other stuff caused by vaccines, good lookin out. i dont care about “public health”, thats no concern of mine as a citizen… i look out for me and mine.
That approach is a tad destructive don’t you think? In that scenario, both the public citizen and the collective people as a whole suffer because of the possibility of the disease being transmitted. I don’t understand what anyone gains or why anyone would defend what appears to be a rather nonsensical approach.
The problem doesn’t really concern individual rights - it’s also your right, if you wanted to, to stab your eyes out while driving on the highway while also smoking with a pile of leaky batteries next to you; the problem is that people are too retarded to see the massive outweighing of benefit vs. risk behind getting a measles vaccine.
…and they are allowed to the right to choose between either recognizing that threat are doing whatever they want. Thus, it is an issue of individual rights. We are given the right to choose the wrong choice. We can choose to be ignorant about the choice or not, but it’s still a choice as long as the government allows it to be.
I swear, I’m a Republican and I know that means being exactly against this kind of infringment against choices but honestly, giving people this kind of choice which can destroy the lives of hundreds is idiotic.
People have done and will accept all kinds of things be done in the nature of public health and national security but they only care when they don’t have to do anything about it. You can be imprisoned for refusing treatment to tuberculosis, for example, or transmitting HIV. Historically, people used to be quarantined when coming into the US and sometimes, they still are.
So I can fondle their reproductive bits and play The Secret Game with them if I want?
[Bit of an extreme analogy, but, in both cases, we’ve got a parent presuming they have the right to do harm to their child. WRONG-O.]
Your Rights End where The Next Person’s Rights Begin. And children may not be allowed to vote or enter into binding contracts (with good reason) but they are still citizens and have certain presumed rights.
Also, I have the right to expect your little brat to be up to date with his vaccines so he won’t be catching and carrying any of these diseases and giving them to ME when he coughs and sneezes and wipes his hands all over my shit.
(Ask anyone who’s ever worked in an elementary school; little kids are germ bombs.)
No, it is a question of the greater good vs the brainwashing of an individualistic society. Individual freedom should never come at odds with the greater good. If it does there is something wrong with both, the problem lies in that people who believe what you just said are too stupid to recognize this and work towards change because “it’s for the greater good /whine /bitch”.
If that is honestly how you react, then you have no right to partake in any other benefits the society offers such as public water, electricity and justice. Therefore, you can be hunted down and killed. I can’t believe people like you still exist who still believe the ‘big’ lies told in elementary and high school. Your ‘being stupid and getting sick’ is directly affecting anyone you interact with. Not even on some made up moral or ethical level. You, not being vaccinated, is putting others in harms way. You want to go live in the mountains and leave society? Fine. Then you can continue your stupid notion of individuality.
It is people like you two that should have died off in some evolutionary dead-end while the group survived.
Remember, kids, your rights end where the next person’s rights begin! And your right to refuse a modern medical convenience ends where my right not to get freaking measles begins. And “I heard somewhere that there was a study that said something’s wrong” won’t work on Wikipedia, and it won’t work on me.
Not quite related, entirely, but I recall a case I read about in Criminal Justice class, about how several parents of a more “eco friendly” nature, had a young child that they only fed thigns like specific fruits and nuts and tea… and faield to give it things like milk or formula it might need. I forget if the baby actually died, or was seriously ill, but they were arrested, and charged with child endangerment. In my mind, refusing to give kids vaccines falls under the same.
This is the quote that grabbed me:
“I cannot deny that my child can put someone else at risk,” she said.
It would be one thing if it affected only the well being of her child, but it affects other children as well. These people are just being ridiculously selfish.
That being said, if it only killed off the offspring of these morons, I could care less. The herd needs to be thinned.
who cares. this isn’t a facist state
You’re a tool.
You remark so callously to our opinions and denounce them strongly; but I don’t see you taking a position yourself. So, is your aim to bat away at the arguments made but then take the stance of a passer-by? More importantly, you don’t really try to answer anything.
I simply stated that I think it’s morally wrong for anyone to put the populace at risk when there’s a means to eliminate that risk which doesn’t pose an unreasonable risk to the individual. If you have a problem with that, give me a reason rationally why you do and what a viable option to my belief would be, otherwise, what’s the point of contributing to the argument at all? It would be nice if you could do so without, you know, without being rude and such.
Individual freedom comes at odds with the presumed greater good all the time. Thoreau didn’t want to pay taxes towards the Mexican-American War. It’s his individual right to keep his money because he made it - at least, that’s the argument that many still make about their own finances. People were against Social Security because, while it benefited society as a whole, it didn’t seem to benefit them in an immediate fashion. I don’t mean to go off on a tangent, but seeing as how democracy deals with balancing the rights of the individual and benefit of society all the time, your claim that individual freedoms and the greater good should never counter each other seems absurd.
By nature, they counter each other. Men (women, too, fine I’ll be PC) are vile, brutish, and their life is altogether short. I don’t believe in that philospher, but the point is that people are naturally going to try to take care of themselves more than the community. It’s human nature.
Mullenkamp: We are essentially selfish animals whose only admirable trait, empathy, derives from our own desires and fears. For example, the vegitarian might claim that he is not eating meat for the good of the animals or the good of the planet, but what he really means is that it is for his own good. He wishes to help the planet because he lives on that planet, not for the cause of others, and he thinks it is cruel to eat animals because he believes it would be cruel to eat him. Our morality all stems from this elevation of our own values.
That being said, I still believe in objective morality. Things such as killing, murder, and not vaccinating your child are wrong, but not for the reasons we think. That’s my two cents, anyway.
Actually, a great deal of thought went into condensing my thoughts into something which anyone would bother reading, but I appreciate that you believe I could blab such things on a whim!
but I don’t see you taking a position yourself.
What position should I take? It is more complicated than that and I’ll try to explain just keep reading!
More importantly, you don’t really try to answer anything.
If you are asking me for a bite-sized solution to all of the worlds problems, I think you’d best look else were, I don’t have that kind of power. However what I was, more importantly, trying to do was identify the problem- which I did.
So let me explain: You, I presume an American as you identify as a republican, do not live in a democracy. You live in an oligarchy, as do I and anyone in any other so-called democratic country.
democracy deals with balancing the rights of the individual and benefit of society all the time, your claim that individual freedoms and the greater good should never counter each other seems absurd.
An oligarchy is actually attempting to balance maintaining their established power base with placating the population they control (I suggest you read Aristotle for more information as he supported maintaining his power and privilege in the form of a oligarchy as well as an explanation of what real democracy looks like).
One of the way they have decided to do so in our western context is to proliferate the myth of individual freedoms being ‘inherent’ and ‘natural’ thus allowing for the exploitation of others (they had the freedom to not be exploited after all, just as the exploiter has the freedom to do so) which I use as an example because such exploitation would never happen in a real democracy. So this lie of individuality- one of the ‘big’ lies which most of us are raised on- allows for those in power- the elites in the oligarchy- to proliferate the myth of individuality being balanced by the greater good (
By nature, they counter each other. Men (women, too, fine I’ll be PC) are vile, brutish, and their life is altogether short. I don’t believe in that philospher[sic], but the point is that people are naturally going to try to take care of themselves more than the community. It’s human nature.
here is were you are repeating the lie I just described).
At this point your definition and my definition of the greater good separate. Your definition is the same one which those in power say is a kind of antithesis or balancing scale to the horrible human nature- the myth of individuality. So what you perceive as ‘the greater good’ is actually a power structure set up by the oligarchy to allow them to, among other things, maintain a legal monopoly on violence (police, military etcetera) to, in this example, balance the ‘natural’ violence of the individual human- which is a myth that those in power created to maintain their power; somewhat convoluted I know!
It was actually my fault for not better operatnioalizing the concepts which were being thrown around (individual freedom and the greater good) and my perceived rudeness was merely a result of frustrated I get when encountering the over simplified myths which are so readily consumed by the uncritical public.
I realize however, that my explanation is incomplete as you will probably require an accurate definition of real democracy and how it differs from our current system among other things, but something tells me you and many others will not be particularly receptive to the idea that everything they hold dear to them is a fabrication (
the problem lies in that people who believe what you just said are too stupid to recognize this and work towards change because “it’s for the greater good /whine /bitch”.
here is where I basically said the same thing in slightly more colourful language). So that is where I stand and I would be happy to further explain myself in a private message, but I believe I answered all of your thread-side concerns with tact.
I think Eden made his position obvious when he said that those who put others at risk by not getting vaccinated should be shot.
Sin you’re always so good at making what I take ages to say into one sentence. <3 That’s why I love you!
Eben explain the democracy thing here anyway!
I am interested in hearing how messed up society is so I can for a while become more impassioned and ultimately become an apathetic cog in the machine! But it’ll be fun while it lasts.