|
|
#21
11-21-2007, 01:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Vaccination tyranny continued.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I find that slippery slope arguments don't work for many people. [/ QUOTE ] They shouldnt work for anyone. They are the ultimate strawman, forcing a debate about arguments that were never made and have uncertain and unmeasurable likelihood of ever being an issue. [/ QUOTE ] To deny the validity of the slippery slope when it comes to the actions of government requires blinders. Chamberlin's supporters found that out the hard way. The slippery slope is not only not a fallacy, it is practically a law of government behaviour. Whenever government does *anything* you can be damn sure they'll be taking the next step soon. Hint: turns out the tobacco lawyers were right, just ask McDonald's corporation. natedogg 
|
|
#22
11-21-2007, 02:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vaccination tyranny continued.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I find that slippery slope arguments don't work for many people. [/ QUOTE ] They shouldnt work for anyone. They are the ultimate strawman, forcing a debate about arguments that were never made and have uncertain and unmeasurable likelihood of ever being an issue. [/ QUOTE ] To deny the validity of the slippery slope when it comes to the actions of government requires blinders. Chamberlin's supporters found that out the hard way. The slippery slope is not only not a fallacy, it is practically a law of government behaviour. Whenever government does *anything* you can be damn sure they'll be taking the next step soon. Hint: turns out the tobacco lawyers were right, just ask McDonald's corporation. natedogg [/ QUOTE ] I agree that the government's line is ALOT more elastic than most people think. But at the policy space we are at right now, the costs of a little coercion are pretty small and the benefits quite large. I want to emphasize that "policy space we are at right now" part. The slippery slope line is alot more elastic in governments without a tradition for relatively good civil institutions. So even though I personally might prefer a better line in the US, I know that through democratic means we can remedy the problem if the line becomes too elastic for "our" general comfort. On the other hand in a banana republic, in the space that they are sitting on, the government's power could scale to full blown eugenics on the bad side, because their line isn't "taut" enough.
|
|
#23
11-21-2007, 02:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vaccination tyranny continued.
I should have known that the status-quo's knight in shining armor would show up in this thread to defend everything.
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Ok kids, try not to degenerate into insults so that my thread doesn't get locked. Sheesh. Many of you tried to point out that vaccinations were *important* dammit! And how can I be opposed to vaccinations? Of course I'm not opposed to vaccinations. I don't vaccinate for stupid crap like the flue <font color="red">perhaps you never heard of the flu epidemic that killed over 675,000 Amerians. Stupid crap indeed. </font><font color="blue">when the next flu epidemic begins i'll get those vaccinations. typical flu season viruses are not cause for concern, nor should they be justification for forced vaccinations. </font> and chicken pox but I vaccinated my kids for everything serious Now, many of you missed the point of my critique of the totally unfit Judge Nichols. First and foremost, your government should not have the power to force any medical treatments upon you. <font color="red"> of course they should, when avoidance of that treatment endangers the public health </font> The danger inherent in that power is borderline self-evident. (hint: have any accepted medical treatments ever turned out to be detrimental? Or deemed immoral by later generations?) <font color="red">there is a big difference between epidemic control and other medical treatments. What vaccines have turned out to be immoral or detrimental? How many did they effect compared to the lives or morbidity saved? </font> The slippery slope involved in that power is also self-evident. <font color="red"> slippery slope arguments are stupid </font> <font color="blue">tell that to the victims of Social Security's 2% max rate... tell that to chamberlin's supporters</font> It's bad enough that they can throw you in jail for seeking certain medical treatments they have banned, but letting them impose the ones they like on you.. (hint: think of lobbyists and what they do for a living). Anyway, to put not to fine a point on it, you are a complete fool if you think this is a power the govt should have. I'm sorry, there's no other way to put it. <font color="red"> no, you are the fool for thinking otherwise </font> <font color="blue">You really do believe that the government should have the power to force medical treatments upon its citizens? You realize that is actually going farther than what the govt currently does? Are you saying the govt should be able to go further than merely using systematic pressures to pressure those with few choices (i.e the poor)?</font> I had expected vehement defense of the public schools requiring vaccinations and even perhaps misguided defense of the entire system that makes a criminal out of a poor parent who can't aford private school, but I hadn't expected such a vehement support of pure tyranny. Back to the situation at hand. Assuming you are opposed to giving your child a chicken pox vaccination (and I myself am one of those parents), and you live in Maryland, this is your situation: 1. Government mandates that my child attend the local public school. <font color="red">no they dont </font> <font color="blue">sorry, i forgot to include that this only applies to the poor. good catch</font> 2. School mandates that my child get a chicken pox vaccine, or be expelled. <font color="red"> and they should </font> <font color="blue">chicken pox? really? what's next? oh wait, that question implies there's a slippery slope but we know that never happens</font> 3. I'm too poor to move out of state or to pay private school tuition. <font color="red">so get them immunized </font><font color="blue">umm... this is called missing the point</font> 4. School expels my child. <font color="red">and they should </font> 5. Government jails me on truancy charges. <font color="red"> no they dont, you have other alternatives </font> <font color="blue">if I have the money yes. According to your tone, I'm assuming you don't even approve of the waiver option that is not even publicized to the parents who were subpeonaed to the courthouse on a saturday...</font> That my friends is a systematic, subtle, yet undeniable tyranny over the poor. natedogg PS: Iron for the love of god learn how to do your job. If someone is ruining a thread by acting like an ass you should give them a temporary ban and let the rest of us grownups continue to discuss the issue. I'm assuming the previous thread was not locked due to the topic or the OP content. If so, then my mind if truly boggled. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#24
11-21-2007, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vaccination tyranny continued.
|
|
#25
11-22-2007, 12:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vaccination tyranny continued.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I find that slippery slope arguments don't work for many people. [/ QUOTE ] They shouldnt work for anyone. They are the ultimate strawman, forcing a debate about arguments that were never made and have uncertain and unmeasurable likelihood of ever being an issue. [/ QUOTE ] To deny the validity of the slippery slope when it comes to the actions of government requires blinders. Chamberlin's supporters found that out the hard way. The slippery slope is not only not a fallacy, it is practically a law of government behaviour. Whenever government does *anything* you can be damn sure they'll be taking the next step soon. Hint: turns out the tobacco lawyers were right, just ask McDonald's corporation. natedogg [/ QUOTE ] I agree that the government's line is ALOT more elastic than most people think. But at the policy space we are at right now, the costs of a little coercion are pretty small and the benefits quite large. I want to emphasize that "policy space we are at right now" part. The slippery slope line is alot more elastic in governments without a tradition for relatively good civil institutions. So even though I personally might prefer a better line in the US, I know that through democratic means we can remedy the problem if the line becomes too elastic for "our" general comfort. On the other hand in a banana republic, in the space that they are sitting on, the government's power could scale to full blown eugenics on the bad side, because their line isn't "taut" enough. [/ QUOTE ] I'd prefer to live under a govt where the people don't even have the option to vote for moving the line too far. All you're saying is that instead of placing a hard limit in the govt's powers, you're willing to trust the judgment of your neighbors. Basically, you're willing to submit to forced medical procedures if your neighbors decide you 'need' it. Why even advocate putting yourself in that position? natedogg
|
|
#27
11-23-2007, 02:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vaccination tyranny continued.
[ QUOTE ]
Why the hell are you opposed to getting your kids a flu/chicken pox shot? What reason could you POSSIBLY have? [/ QUOTE ] What business is it of yours?
|
|
#28
11-23-2007, 02:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vaccination tyranny continued.
OP- do you believe that you should be required to feed, clothe and not abuse your child?
We, as a society, have set a level of care for our children. Immunizations are part of this standard. If you are foolish enough to not immunize your kid, your child doesn't deserve to suffer because of your ignorance.
|
|
#29
11-23-2007, 03:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vaccination tyranny continued.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I find that slippery slope arguments don't work for many people. [/ QUOTE ] They shouldnt work for anyone. They are the ultimate strawman, forcing a debate about arguments that were never made and have uncertain and unmeasurable likelihood of ever being an issue. [/ QUOTE ] Uncertain and unmeasurable != meaningless or inappropriate. You know we are posting on a gambling website right?
|
|
#30
11-23-2007, 03:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Vaccination tyranny continued.
[ QUOTE ]
OP- do you believe that you should be required to feed, clothe and not abuse your child? We, as a society, have set a level of care for our children. Immunizations are part of this standard. If you are foolish enough to not immunize your kid, your child doesn't deserve to suffer because of your ignorance. [/ QUOTE ] Some percentage of kids are going to get extremely ill and possibly suffer lifelong impairments or disabilities, and some even smaller percentage will die, because of these vaccinations that you think should be mandatory. Keep that in mind. Dont get me wrong. Vaccines are +EV in most situations, very +EV. But that doesnt mean there arent risks. And some people irrationally assign huge negative values to extremely rare side effects. More than just that, they would rather accept higher likelihood risks THAT THEY CAN ASSERT CONTROL OVER than a much smaller risk that is out of their hands. If I dont get a flu shot, I have the ability to control my exposure. But if I go in and get a flu shot, I am essentially at the mercy of chance as to whether I'm going to get some adverse effect. This is unacceptable to some people. EDIT: I think I should modify my point about vaccines a little. More recent vaccines are much safer than they used to be and most of the adverse effects are fairly mild. But, for example, the polio vaccine gave a whole bunch of people, some of which would otherwise have been fine, polio.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
