1PeaceMaker
New member
Because we have California! http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/...-to-get-hpv-vaccine-without-parental-consent/
Forced Vaccination is Wrong
- Thread starter 1PeaceMaker
- Start date
Because we have California! http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/...-to-get-hpv-vaccine-without-parental-consent/
1PeaceMaker
New member
zoo22
Well-known member
Well, sincerely sorry to have bothered here.
Yeah, imagine that. Destruction of property is a crime.
The student does not have a right to throw tantrums, make threats, destroy property, etc.
That won't happen ... because it's not pushy to expect a child to not have a violent reaction because they might not get their own way.
There is a no tolerance policy in public schools now for good reason. This kids reaction should be a red flag to the school staff, students and parents.
I responded to an article that YOU posted. Are you now stating the article was posted is false. The kid didn't freak out and have a violent reaction?
The judge appears to be looking at the FACTS of what the child did. That's his/her job.
1PeaceMaker
New member
Hey, at least you didn't make the same mistake Rusha did. She quoted me speaking of a threat of medical assault as though I had said he was physically *assaulted* .....
That's something I glossed over when I first responded to her post #489.
zoo22
Well-known member
Are you seriously so blinded by your vaccination paranoia that you completely overlook that a kid was making threats in front of the other students at a public school? The "criminal code" in that quote is referring to students making threats of violence or damage, not about vaccinations. If they were making an example of the kid it was for making threats.
What is it with this place lately? It's unreal.
Last edited:
1PeaceMaker
New member
Way to distort the conversation. He didn't destroy property, he used words to try to get them away from his arm with a needle of stuff he didn't want or need.
No such thing as mitigating circumstances in Rushafornia? Too bad.
\
Medical refusal is not violence, and neither is using one's words about it; panicked, hyperbolous comments, notwithstanding.
Yes, because he thinks for himself. Only school staff are allowed think, to medically violate or push themselves onto kids.
I'm not saying the article is false. The article only quotes school staff and police. They didn't get the other side of the story.
Police and school staff have been caught lying about students plenty of times, enough to set a precedent.
Oh, right, judges always make just judgments. Right. Sorry!
Tyrathca
New member
1PM even if you mad conspiracy theory about this story about the kid is correct (and even your own sources don't suggest that) what is your point anyway? Are you trying to extrapolate this incident to be indicative a wider.... what? All part of the super conspiracy that want... what? Beyond your white hot rage whenever vaccines get mentioned your thought bubbles don't seem to go anywhere.
Also try to be honest here, would you have a similar reaction to this story if it were not involving vaccines? I seriously doubt it.
Also try to be honest here, would you have a similar reaction to this story if it were not involving vaccines? I seriously doubt it.
Considering your lack of objectivity and honesty on this topic, your accusation of distortion has no merit.
Oh that's cute. The person who wishes to dictate the policy of the WHOLE school board projects an accusation of being a control freak. Classic P1M. Also the type of rebuttal and name calling I would expect from the 12 year old you are defending. :chuckle:
As long as the kid or person who is behaving little a brat is agreeing with your view on the issue in question. Got it.
Reaallllly? How far would you take this? Sooo ... if your children said "hey mom, I want to receive all the customary vaccinations like all the other kids", you would allow it? Right? If they told you they were taking your vehicle and would be back tomorrow, do we get to refer to you as a control freak who doesn't allow children to think for themselves.
There is a reason children are held to less accountability and have certain activities they are not allowed to participate in. Does that mean they are not allowed to think for themselves?
Uh huh. No doubt that this being about your pet control issue of vaccinations has nothing to do with your distrust, huh? :chuckle:
Oh. You seem to think you would have more knowledge than judges ... at least those who disagree with you.
How does that work, exactly? Are you also privy to any witnesses, all the documentation, police reports, etc.?
Outside of a gut-instinct hysterical reaction that has to do with any of those *dreaded, evil* vaccinations, why do you believe your word and that of a child prone to hysterics is more credible than that of those who were actually present?
Tyrathca
New member
OK....... It's not an absolute exclusion because it's not an absolute in many places and for medical issues in general. None of what I said about medical consent and minors was specific to vaccines in the slightest. Technically a child could potentially consent to major invasive surgery provided it was thought they were competent enough, although such a circumstance would be exceedingly rare (given the nature of the intervention).
That a state has specified a vaccine that is allowed implies that they consider the risks very low and that if a child is informed sufficiently to actively ask for a vaccine then it is likely that they might be competent to consent for it.
1PeaceMaker
New member
How objective are you? My objectivity is not in question; the wrongness of forced vaccination IS.
Says the woman who supports a suddenly forced and complex vaccination schedule for any kind of school in CA, including homeschool. No shots, no school, right?
You are calling using your chosen nickname for California-your-way
as name calling?
Ducking much?
I was asking if mitigating circumstances matter to you, or would if you ruled over such a scenario your way.
My opinion of the procedure in question has no bearing. A healthy child refusing an adult entry into their bodies for supposedly medical reasons should not be met without undue pressure if they are getting upset about it and seriously are saying no.
We've actually let our older children have a voice, because we are not tyrants. They thank us for the choices we made for them before they could read and think for themselves. They do read pro and anti- vax sites.
That's different than letting them choose vaccines or not.
Obviously not.
And you've never ever met a malicious doctor.
Since when do journalists post one-sided stories involving police and arrests and get away with it in the court of public opinion? Why not even try to find out more about what staff were reluctant to reveal? The other side?
Maybe his older sibling was vaccine damaged? Hmmm?
And you aren't biased. Doctors aren't malicious even though they are human. They must be all special people. Presumably, so are school staff and police.
The child WAS actually present. As were other children who were not interviewed. The parents also know what they did or did not instruct their child to do when pressured to vaccinate.
1PeaceMaker
New member
Even though the complications of such a choice, although rare, can be severe.
You don't get to allow children to choose vaccination on their own and then get to simultaneously deny vociferous refusal with arrest for the same-aged children.
Common sense.
1PeaceMaker
New member
My conspiracy theory? That they did what they declared they did? That the kid and his parents weren't sought for their side of the story?
The point is this is an abuse of power.
The point is, this is the thread about the wrongness of forced vaccination. In this case, a child was charged and jailed for trying to protect himself.
The point is that we are not playing softball anymore.
If kids want to resist, they have to get attention and claim abuse by the ones trying to vaccinate. "That man tried to dominate me and do things to my body against my will! Get him away from me! (Or her) Pervert! Bad touch! I feel unsafe near them!" Etc....
kids must find a way to protect their bodies from perverted power hungry tyrants that doesn't open them to criminal charges.
My thought bubbles have been proving that vaccines are forced and that it is wrong when it happens.
I wouldn't be posting about it on this thread, that's for sure.
No. Force. Was. Involved.
Again ... at least learn the meaning of the words you insist utilizing. No force.
I am calling you out for resorting to the type of behavior I would expect from the tamtrum-throwing 12 year old that you are blindly defending.
Not hardly ... I have no desire to follow you into your games of projection.
I am not interested in made up scenarios for the sole purpose of turning this into something it isn't.
You conveniently *forgot* the tantrum and threat to destroy property ...
:chuckle: You mean as long as they agree with you. Again, how far does that voice go? Either you allow them to do whatever they like OR you don't. Which is it?
Also, school districts have more than just ONE child to consider. Putting your child above all others regardless of the consequence isn't acceptable for public or Christian schools.
:chuckle: I am not buying that they read any sites other than the anti-vax sites. You are too invested in your conspiracy.
No, it's not. Also, when you demand the allowance for them to choose not to be vaccinated, you are choosing to make others susceptible due to THEIR choice. Why do you insist on controlling the choices of other children and their parents?
Obviously not.
And you've never ever met a malicious doctor.
Yeah, shame on me for valuing the advice of those who are actually educated and know more than the typical, emotional parent and caregiver.
There is no other side. The child should not have thrown a tantrum. IF the parents feel it's acceptable to act in such a manner, they should keep the child at home where tantrum throwing is expected and welcome.
Maybe that would have been in the article? Hmmm? Keep grasping.
Insofar as my gut reaction is always to stick up for my own children, family members and friends? Certainly.
However, I am not so selfish in my bias that I am willing to give a pass to those who couldn't care less about putting other children at risk just because one or two or a few parents allow their children to think they should get preferential treatment from the rest.
And has no credibility due to his unwarranted outburst ...
"Your Honor, there very well maybe good reason my client committed this act. Someone who was there may know about it. Why isn't that evidence sufficient enough to dismiss the charges against him?"
1PeaceMaker
New member
That sentence would be better written..
No, force was involved. :chuckle:
Since the google definition I gave you before was rejected, how about you offer your definition this time? :chuckle:
What you did/are doing is called poisoning the well, a logical fallacy.
What is made up on my part? And aren't you just giving the adults the benefit of the doubt because they are adults? Agism much?
Tantrum is the description of words they didn't like, construed against him as a threat to damage property if they forced him against his will.
So he essentially threatened to retaliate against a crime in progress.
Mitigating circumstances.
As far taking them into town and asking if they want to go get that shot offered in the store. They were adamant that it wasn't what they wanted either. They've read the CDC PR webpages and more.
In fact, my oldest thanked me for not vaccinating her and her siblings, knowing that she has vaccine damaged relatives on both sides of her family.
Silly either/or assertion. I have to let them drive because I let them read and think?
While you are saying that, you are selfishly and vainly trying to get "herd immunity" for your child, above the health risks to my child from your medical fanaticism.
And I can barely keep my oldest off TOL. Once, she made a secret account but chickened out of using it. Obviously she doesn't fear the repercussions of telling me after the fact. Eventually I will lose what little control I have over her use of the internet and then you will have to deal with her yourself. :chuckle:
You are making children susceptible to your choice to pressure mass vaccination. You seem unaware that families are witnessing adverse reactions as a result.
Check out the bigotry, people! :chuckle:
Holy cow, Rusha.
And again...
Not hardly. They didn't report any attempt to contact the family for questions. They didn't even quote the reports filed of what the anonymous child actually said!
I'm not willing to selfishly sacrifice other people's kids just to have herd immunity.
Everyone should have the equal right to refuse, I agree. Our high risk medical history shouldn't make us get preferential protection that others should also have.
Says the adults with no corroborating evidence and no claim of violence.
This is the court of opinion, your Rushaness.
What does it take to decide that it is inappropriate for them to arrest the boy rather than assure him no undue pressure to vaccinate that day would occur?
Tyrathca
New member
Yes, your conspiracy theory where you assume a combined effort by the education, health and legal authorities involved to silence an incident and with the help of the mainstream media.
The point is you have assumed that this was an abuse of power because it is conveniently aligned with your point of view. Furthermore you act as if it is the only possible description of events that were not reported.
Again you assume, this time that the child was doing what they did for reasons which align with your point of view. You won't even consider the possibility that it was due to the far more banal reason of a dislike of needles, which seems far more likely. You won't even consider that the parents consented.
Sure they have :chuckle:
Nice dodge, but would your reaction have been otherwise SIMILAR?
You seem to have a very distorted way of interpreting things as soon as vaccinations are involved.
Indeed ... for a student of drama. :chuckle:
Nah, I shouldn't have to guide other *supposed* adults to the correct usage of simple terms. :chuckle:
I have no need to poison an already contaminated well.
It's called understanding the behavior of children and being able to figure out the most likely scenario as well as who has more credibility. As far as agism, until the day you give ALL children the same amount of responsibility and freedom, you, by your own description, are an age bigot.
Indeed. Imagine that. A tantrum-thrower and those who raised him not liking his tantrum being referred to ... as a tantrum. :shocked:
Be sure to let us know when an arrest of those you are accusing has been made.
One, I do not believe the bit about reading the CDC info that was relevant.
Two, well :duh: No child wishes to have a shot. This surprises you?
You were the one rambling on about how much you allow your children to have voices because you are not tyrants. So sorry if your own inconsistencies defeat your arguments (which never actually came together in the first place).
:chuckle: Now that's funny. How long did it take you to come up with this?
I wouldn't know. My children never had access to a computer as children with the exception of school. As far as *contending* with her myself, it's entirely up to you as to whether you allow your children to participate in TOL. As for the users, they would not know without notification that it was a child, and she/he might be treated in the same manner as other members are on TOL.
Personally, I would never have allowed my kids even as teens on this website because it's for adults. However, I have no doubt you will argue that your way is better. :chuckle:
Only my own ... years ago. And yes, I have read the material and the benefits far outweigh the minimal risks. Though again, as long as the non-vaccinated are segregated away from those vaccinated against the deadly diseases, not a problem.
Only in your world would trusting the competency of those EDUCATED in medicine and diseases over the everyday mom/dad/caregiver be considered *bigotry*.
The family wasn't present.
You are willing to selfishly sacrifice EVERYBODY'S kids by refusing vaccinations.
And stay home. I agree.
Oh, so you don't believe those who were exposed to the recent Ebola outbreaks should have been quarantined and thereby not given the same preferential treatment as those who were not exposed.
Got it.
Wouldn't that be convenient if that were actually the case? :chuckle:
So you say, Peacecrusher.
Not threatening to destroy school property during his tantrum ...
Collateral damage? Ah well, at least it wasn't your kid and, after all, it's for the greater good ...
http://vaccineimpact.com/2015/zero-...but-over-100-measles-vaccine-deaths-reported/
http://vaccineimpact.com/2015/zero-...but-over-100-measles-vaccine-deaths-reported/
Tyrathca
New member
You do realize that the train that the measles death rate would have been so low because of the vaccines? That's like saying parachute related accidents mean we should ban them for skydivers because so few are dying (because of the parachutes).
Edit: I've just been through how the data was sourced and the method was highly questionable to the point of intentionally misleading. That or the person doing the analysis was woefully ignorant of statistics and the concepts of relative risk or confidence intervals.
To be clear the deaths reported were not "due to measles vaccine" there was a correlation in timing where the doctors could not confidently cite a cause at the time (ie fevers, seizures and SIDS, rather than a car accident). It does not mean the vaccine caused them, on the contrary many, probably most and even potentially all were due to other causes. To suggest the vaccine was a cause your need to show that the rate was increased after vaccines compared to other times/those not vaccinated.
100 is a tiny number given the population size and time frame. Sadly kids still die of many different things so the method used to assess vaccines was guaranteed to show deaths even if they all for harmless placebos. The number of 100 is not on the face of it unexpected. Flawed study methodology = flawed results = flawed conclusions.
Last edited:
Yeah, like I said, as long as it isn't your kid 100 is a "tiny number".
Try reading the four threads currently running on this subject in their entirety and then get back to me. Jumping in late on this one and offering unsubstantiated assertions is presumptuous and speaks of a person who isn't so much interesting in listening or learning but being heard. I'm not going to rehash what has already been offered because you can't be bothered to look for yourself.