1PeaceMaker
New member
HisServant;4297827I said:
In your ignorance, do you take your sniffles around town? It doesn't matter if there is a vaccine for it. Viruses can kill, regardless.
Forced Vaccination is Wrong
- Thread starter 1PeaceMaker
- Start date
In your ignorance, do you take your sniffles around town? It doesn't matter if there is a vaccine for it. Viruses can kill, regardless.
1PeaceMaker
New member
Doesn't matter what type of sniffles you have, then, you are liable if you take any contagion anywhere. Congratulations on the noose you made for your own soul.
He didn't have a smoking gun, he had an agenda.
:chuckle: Nice try, but no cookie. Should a vaccine ever become available for the common cold, and I post a gazillion excuses as to why I shoul exempt AND allowed to spread my germs and expose others, you might have a point.
1PeaceMaker
New member
So if they have a vaccine program with over a million attenuated viral infections, you have to risk your health, huh? And what a price tag that would be. Plus, many times the "protection" is just a claimed fraction of assurance against disease. Sometimes coverage is -15% - so if you pass on something you've been vaccinated against, you should also be liable.
And what happens when you are infectious and ignorantly spread your infectious diseases that don't have a vaccine?
To be fair and consistent, anyone who believes that unvaccinated people who avoid vaccines are liable for the spread of disease must believe that about everyone because you can stop the spread of diseases with disease prevention protocols.
PS if "cookie" = being right, I'm gorging on cookies. :banana:
Are excuses needed when seeking to be free from Tyranny?
1PeaceMaker
New member
You all act like he would have had a smoking gun if he wasn't discredited. That must mean you have very bad logic.
And that also means that this (unpublished) study is just a bigger strawman.
No ... they are needed to explain the type of *hysteria* that proclaims "forced vaccinations".
Follow the thread. There is no force.
That all depends upon how one defines force.
You have no rebuttal. A sample size of 12 is statistically irrelevant. He also set out to prove a predetermined result. When his own results did not support his conclusion, he faked data. He was discredited because he had nothing.
Since you are asserting that the new study is a straw man, lay out our case. Why is it a straw man? To help you logically formulate your response, here is the definition of the straw man fallacy: A straw man is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
What is being falsely represented by the new study. WHO is being falsely represented by the new study?
No, it depends on the DEFINITION of the word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/force
The unruly child did not receive the vaccination against his will. The use of *force* would have meant he DID receive the vaccination against his will.
PureX
Well-known member
I'm coming WAY late to the party, here, but my thought on this is that for the sake of public safety, the government should have the right to make people comply with public safety requirements, of which some vaccinations against epidemic diseases would be included. This is, after all, one of the main reasons we create governments (to implement those social programs that are necessary for the health and well-being of society as a whole).
The problem we are having in this country, at this time and as it relates to vaccinations, is that we do not trust our own government to be acting in the interest of the well-being of society as a whole. And for very good reason. This, as an issue and problem, is far greater than the individual problem of "forced" vaccinations. In fact, the vaccination issue is just a symptom. If we would address the corruption in government, and minimize it so that we could trust in the decisions of our own government, again, the vaccination issue would go away on it's own.
The problem we are having in this country, at this time and as it relates to vaccinations, is that we do not trust our own government to be acting in the interest of the well-being of society as a whole. And for very good reason. This, as an issue and problem, is far greater than the individual problem of "forced" vaccinations. In fact, the vaccination issue is just a symptom. If we would address the corruption in government, and minimize it so that we could trust in the decisions of our own government, again, the vaccination issue would go away on it's own.
Children have no responsibility in many areas of life. Vaccination is one of those areas. This is a decision for the parent to make. It is the parent who is being forced to vaccinate their child contrary to that parents will.
What I find worse than spreading germs is spreading bad ideas. How do we inoculate ourselves to prevent yours from infecting others? Maybe we should sue Knight in the event it happens.
Insurance and medical care
Insurance and medical care
A somewhat more interesting question to me is if insurance should be required to cover your medical costs if your refuse a preventative treatment.
Insurance is a private contract, unless its Medicare or Medicaid, between you and a privately held insurer. If you refuse to vaccinate and your child gets sick, there is a potential for a significant and expensive hospital stay. Since this stay could have been avoided, most likely, by being vaccinated, is it reasonable for a private insurer to refuse to pay for those medical expenses? How about they put a rider on your policy so that you have to pay more to insure these potential extra costs?
In my opinion, they can and would be justified in doing so.
Insurance and medical care
A somewhat more interesting question to me is if insurance should be required to cover your medical costs if your refuse a preventative treatment.
Insurance is a private contract, unless its Medicare or Medicaid, between you and a privately held insurer. If you refuse to vaccinate and your child gets sick, there is a potential for a significant and expensive hospital stay. Since this stay could have been avoided, most likely, by being vaccinated, is it reasonable for a private insurer to refuse to pay for those medical expenses? How about they put a rider on your policy so that you have to pay more to insure these potential extra costs?
In my opinion, they can and would be justified in doing so.
Oh. Because a CHILD posted the title of this OP which clearly makes a claim that a vaccination was being forced?
Was the vaccine administered AGAINST the child and parent's will? IF not, there was no force. I am sorry that you do not understand the word force or the fact that it is being used in a way to intentionally mislead.
A child posted the topic of the OP?
There was no force. The thread title is not honest. There was no force. The fact that the thread title is intentionally misleading has nothing whatsoever to do with the unruly child.
Does the OP writer think the title is misleading? Have you told her why you believed her title is misleading? What was her rebuttal?
My answer to those questions are in the thread.