Mandatory Vaccines: Should They Truly Be Compulsory?

Post Reply New Topic

You are disgusting.


Pick up a biology textbook someday. Your social Darwinist nonsense isn't accepted by any serious scientists. And give me one single example of violence being used against anti-vax nut jobs.


You say you disagree with some "principle of violence" (when the medical profession is not using violence to enforce vaccination) and in the same breath you give such a threat?

Self defense is not initiating violence. You initiate violence you'll get it back.
You want to force people to take vaccines, that is topic of this thread, you are the violent one.
Anyone who doesn't trust what you trust you call him paranoid.
And you are a liar about Smallpox, it did not disappear just because of vaccination, it had to do more with the isolation of the infected.

Do you have any actual evidence to back up this claim, or are you just spouting BS as usual?

Use Google, you'll find it.

Cop-out. Give me one link to one reputable source.

My prejudice about anti-vaccine people is that they are selfish to the level of risking public health just so that they feel original or non-mainstream. I always avoid to be prejudicial about things but you are making it way too easy.


I do appreciate however how you instantly changed from caring about these people ("they should be allowed not to get vaccinated because they can't!") to throwing them to the trash can ("They are weak they deserve to die") within few posts just because they were no longer useful to your argument. I appreciate it because it makes the flaws and total crazyness of anti-vaccine people quite noticeably. So after your posts at least people will notice how wrong those people can be.

Species survive on a species basis. Maybe your pragmatic way that we must go and let weak people die is how nature is supposed to work, however, that is in no way an excuse to kill herd immunity. As the small chance a vaccine won't work on an individual is not really about being stronger or weak but about chance, then I think it is best to have herd immunity.

It is as a species that we were able to actually prevent viruses, this makes us the stronger species, and we actually help other species like dogs avoid dangerous viruses, all thanks to vaccines. Vaccines make our species stronger.


Edit:
I'd like to point out that :
a) You are not entitled to determine who is weak or not. Natural selection is.
b) If they were truly weak , it is unlikely their genes would survive more than 3 generations anyway. Then there is no need to artificially enforce natural selection by spreading viruses on them. So I guess your argument is more about "they'll die anyway, why care about preventing diseases from hitting them?' . Well, I am sorry, but avoiding unnecessary deaths or 'too soon' deaths is the humane thing to do. We cannot go and kill people that we think are weak or won't live through just for the heck of it.




BS. Nobody is violently forcing people to get vaccinated. You may choose to become virus food if you want, just don't work at a hospital and don't go to public schools, ok? That's merely how it is being forced.



Oh no! CHEMICALS! Just because you are scared of "chemicals" does not mean you are entitled to scare people of things like vaccines that are the most effective way to deal with some diseases. I do think that if in your desire for originality you allowed a virus to go rampant, you ARE at least indirectly responsible for any death specially if you go to forums pushing your anti.vaccine smears or spreading pseudoscience.



Who cares? THE smallpox virus was defeated, and millions of deaths prevented. Most likely you wouldn't be in this world if one of your ancestors after the vaccination campaign would not take the vaccine. If another virus like it comes, too bad, let's just hope another vaccine can be made-


If you really believe that vaccination did not save mankind's collective ass in the case of smallpox then you seriously need to practice critical thinking because the crackpots have completely brainwashed you.


You can fill the internet with as much BS as you wish, it would not make it true. The internet is full of crap, if you haven't figured out already, then your health and possibly the health of everyone close to you is at risk.

---

If you think earth is overpopulated and nature wants to exterminate a couple of humans, put your life where your mouth is and help nature in its mission, you first.

The chemicals which this person speaks of are chemicals that the FDA and many others have deemed toxic and that have been shown to kill or maim people. The FDA will not put these chemicals in our food/water supply, or anything else, but when they are put in vaccines, then they are OK? For example, they will not put Sodium Borate in the national food supply because it is "A commonly known poison.", but yet they approved it in Merck's Gardasil HPV vaccine. These substances are not safe, that is a proven fact. It doesn't matter what you put them in, nor the amount, they are still dangerous and you should be cautious of them.

Last edited by LiberalJustice on 15 Dec 2009, 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There's a difference between trace amounts and spilling stuff into the ocean...

Anyway, they talk about Borate in here: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=98

Claiming that the amount or what you put in them does not matter is at least pseudo-scientific (typical of conspiracy theorist/fear mongers though so good job) Try ingesting a can of sodium chloride, it will kill you. Also, ingesting it even in small amounts may cause goiter and mental retardation!

I guess we all agree sodium chloride should be banned! Except... you just banned SALT! you ruined food forever! darn you! WTF? what happened?

Ok, so the amount of salt you ingest makes the difference between a poison and something that makes food more awesome. Also, the fact that we put potassium iodide in it prevents the goiter! ...So, not only is salt a chemical with a scary chemical name, it is can also be dangerous in large quantities. It effectively turns sea water into poison. It has side effects if you don't include some iode, etc.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 13 Dec 2009, 8:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Even if the vaccines were safe, which I'm not saying a few of them are actually safe, the point of this thread was whether vaccination should be compulsory or not and I admit I made a mistake by voicing my opinion about vaccines&humans and not just about the main topic which was to be coercive or to not be coercive when it comes to vaccination.

We could argue for days, we just don't see the world the same way, but we can at least agree on something that I never expressed the feeling to initiate force on anyone unlike others who believe the State should force people to take it for the good of the "public"(I think "public" means the millions of slaves that have to pay taxes to maintain the State functioning).

Uh huh. So if your country is at war and under imminent threat of invasion by a hostile power, does the government have the right to "forcibly" collect taxes to fund defense operations? Might they even have the right in such an emergency to implement conscription?

If you're going to be consistent in your views here, you basically have to be an anarchist and, well, relatively few sane people are willing to go that far.

Your right! I subtly misrepresented your view.

You're not saying that people with weak immune systems should be left to die, per se. But rather that…

-they are a drain on our species
- we shouldn’t go out of the way to help them,
- their death would actually improve our species
- their death by preventable illness is morally justifiable because occurs in nature

All these premises seem – if not outright social Darwinism – at least possessing undertones that are socially Darwinist.

Let’s just remind you once again of the quote.



Herbert Spencer would be proud.

And how would the invader invade me if it's not through extorting money from people...
You first need to get the funds then lead a war.
Without taxes there is no massive war. Just conflicts that a private firm can deal with.

After all, if the invader would invade my region, not only would the people we trade with be on our side and economically isolate the tyrant but the tyrant would not have a political body to take a hold of.

(The last invasions we've had were Afghanistan and Iraq, these were ideologically supported by a few people, the power of the State made this possible. This is anti-social behavior. The state of Iraq and Afghanistan still could do nothing. Nothing happened to the invader because they have a monopoly on economic regulation. A free market does not allow for things of this degree because the consumer has the last word, they decide whether a company increases profits(grows) or loses profits(shrinks))

Are you including de facto monopolies in your definition - of that ever ambigiously used buzz word - "free market"?

I'm not trying to say a free market environment is utopic, I'm just saying that it's more efficient making people happy than institutionalized coercion is.

The State definition of "free market" is a less regulated market and/or corporatism.
Also, their definition of "free trade" is an economic pact between central governments, not people.
The definition of its advocates is just that, a market that is free, completely free, of regulation except for the quasi-natural regulation that happens due to supply and demand.

Asper, read less Ayn Rand.

So, you're telling me that if a toxic chemical is in trace amounts, we should not be cautious of them? God forbid we ever ask questions about what is being put into our bodies. (sarcasm)