Anti Vaxers, what the hecks wrong with these Parents

Do you think so? I have no doubt that there are conservatives who will think this way. But it's not my impression that everyone who has this attitude is also a conservative.

Perhaps it's a question of vocabulary. The word 'liberal' and also the word 'socialist' used to mean people who thought that the existing social order crystallized various sorts of unfairness, which they opposed. For example, discriminating against people because of their race or religion. They opposed this -- in various ways -- whereas conservatives, on the whole, did not. (I don't mean that all conservatives actively supported racial or religious discrimination, just that, on the whole, they weren't to the front in opposing it. And some actively supported it.)

Liberals and also socialists used to have an idea of 'progress' -- which was actually shared, if more passively, by many if not most conservatives -- which you could say was more or less how European society has been moving -- with some spectacular set-backs -- in the last few centuries: equal rights before the law for all, the state to intervene in pure market relations to give a helping hand to the less well-off, via universal education, a welfare-state safety net of sorts. Almost all liberals, socialists, and even most conservatives would agree that a society in which most people could not read or write, for example, was 'backward', 'primitive', and in need of advancement.

Liberals -- perhaps not socialists, so much -- believed in free speech. The -- possibly spurious -- quote from Voltaire, which I'm sure you know, summed it up. Conservatives, not so much. (I'm not saying 'not so much' ironically here -- it wasn't that conservatives were actively in favor of censorship, although some were, it was just that they were not to be found actively defending free speech. Thus the ACLU, who, after a wobbly start, became 'free speech fundamentalists', was made up mainly of liberals and people further Left, just as the people who 'went South' to register Blacks to vote in the 1960s were mainly from the Left. )

This all seems to have changed quite a lot, at least in the US. I know that people who used to be called 'liberals' now call themselves 'progressives', so perhaps it's these modern 'progressives' I'm talking about. The sort of people who try to get academics with unpopular (among progressives) ideas fired, who break up meetings of people they don't like, who fire people with ideas they don't like from their jobs.

The rationale for this behavior seems to be that nothing must offend various favored classes. So if you believe, on grounds you think are based in pure science, that male and female brains have fundamental differences, which may be reflected in behavior, then your job in academia will be at risk. And it will be at risk if you work for a big corporation. To me, this is deeply illiberal, in the original sense of the word. If you think that a tribal group which believes in witch-doctors, has near zero percent literacy, and lives in mud huts, is 'backward' ... you're guilty of Thoughtcrime.

It used to be that the Left in general believed in certain objective criteria for marking a society's progress up the ladder out of backwardness. Now it seems to be that it's 'Eurocentric' or even 'racist' to think that some societies -- the majority of which are run by white males -- are more advanced than others.

Now I'm willing to grant that 'genuine' liberals -- of the kind I was brought up to admire and sought to emulate -- wouldn't think or behave this way. But they seem to be thin on the ground nowadays.

And I believe that this attitude -- scorn towards objective reality, catering to the "don't offend me" crowd -- will be reflected in the issues I mentioned.

You might like to read this article, and tell me what you think.

And here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the 'Deaf Rights Movement':

"Cochlear implants
Within the Deaf community, there is strong opposition to the use of cochlear implants and sometimes also hearing aids and similar technologies. This is often justified in terms of a rejection of the view that deafness, as a condition, is something that needs to be fixed.

Others argue that this technology also threatens the continued existence of Deaf culture, but Kathryn Woodcock argues that it is a greater threat to Deaf culture to reject prospective members just because they used to hear, because their parents chose an implant for them, because they find environmental sound useful, etc. Cochlear implants may improve the perception of sound for suitable implantees, but they do not reverse deafness, or create a normal perception of sounds. The Deaf community still insists that a child not be fitted with a cochlear implant until old enough to decide for themselves because the affects are irreversible and could cause a lifetime of pain, regret, and hatred/isolation." [ Source ]

My attitude is: deafness IS something that needs to be 'fixed', just as blindness is, or a low iQ, or impulsive behavior, or illiteracy. And as science advances, we will discover/invent ways to 'fix' all of these conditions. And this is a good thing, which everyone, regardless of their political orientation on other issues, should support.

 

And how about this.
If you don't vax and your child gets sick, your tax rate automatically goes up 10% for the rest of your life. Make it 20% if any other child gets infected from yours.
If you don't vax and your child dies, your tax rate automatically goes up 30% for the rest of your life. 50% if a second child dies as a result of infection from yours.

 

Their democrats, thats whats wrong with them.....

 

Since the pharma's that create vaccines have immunity (pun not intended) to lawsuits regarding their vaccines, then perhaps every time a child who has received the vaccine that gets sick and dies, their tax rate should go to 50%....

Do you have any clue how foolish your post is?

 

They are liberals that think big Pharma is out to get their children sick...that's what's wrong with them

 

Mandate vaccines for adults. Not up to date with your vaccines? Can’t go to work.

You’d be amazed how many adults are behind on their vaccines. Worse than children.

Roll up or shut up.

 

I think that might be a tough law to pass. It might even be considered as a violation of the Constitution. However, I do think that they could require up-to-date immunization prior to issuing a Passport.

 

So banning children from school is a violation of their constitutional rights.

 

Antivaxers are the flat earthers of medicine

 

I never said that and that is not what you proposed. You mentioned adults and denying them the right to work if they are not current with immunizations. You did not even mention children and schools.

However, since you brought it up.....if public school is a requirement unless other private means of education are obtain, I think an attorney could make the argument, that requiring immunization before being allowed to enter public schooling, is a Constitutional violation. I'm not saying I would necessarily agree with this argument, just that i think it could be made.

 

It was in response to someone who suggested that kids who get sick after receiving vaccinations should get compensation. I was just pointing out the corollary - a financial penalty for those who don't vaccinate their kids.

 

Dumb people have children, their stupidity not only affects their children, but other people’s children as well.

 

So who gets the benefit of that penalty?

How can it be proven where the person contracted the disease from, since most have incubation periods that could allow multiple exposures to multiple people in multiple places? Walking by a stranger and once could be infected. Matter of fact, several disease outbreaks are purported to be caused by VISITORS to this country. How will you penalize them?

If the person has been vaccinated, and they contract the disease, why aren't the vaccination pharma companies held responsible?

Your suggestion is poorly directed.

 

Open the door to that, and you might as well put on that khaki green uniform and the workboots.

Welcome to America, where you are free to express your opinion.

 

Already you're panicking. You're already practicing that khaki green uniform and the workboots on children.

 

My suggestion was a way of pointing out to the poster that failing to vaccinate children should have consequences. My suggestion was just the corollary to his.

I don't really think it would be a good idea. What I do think would be a good idea would be for children who are not vaccinated (due to the wishes of their parents rather than a real medical reason), and who then go on to catch a disease for which they could have been vaccinated, should have the right to sue:
- their parents; and
- the people who are peddling false information about vaccinations on the internet.

I'd go farther and say that if someone catches that preventable disease as a minor, the local child services authorities should bring a lawsuit in the name of the child, against the parents (and potentially others).

And the parents should be charged with child endangerment.

 

I wonder how many of you bullshit artists are up to date with your vaccines?

Or do adults get a free pass to spread disease?

Hmm...