• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A Nanny state question on vaccinations.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
bfdd said:
Who runs the public school system? The government. Who is responsible for the safety of children in public school? The government. I do not think it's outrageous to require children to be vaccinated to go to public school. Now if you want to talk about government ran education etc, that's different story, but as long as they are running the public school system I don't see this as anything ridiculous to request.
Click to expand...

I think some schools already require this. I'm pretty sure I heard on the news this morning that any children in my city not current on their vaccinations by August 1 will not be allowed to attend public school.

Edit: I just looked it up, and there are immunization requirements in Missouri for daycare and preschool and also for regular public schools. i.e. if your child doesn't get any immunizations, he won't be going to daycare, preschool, or public school in Missouri.

I agree with this. The government isn't forcing anyone to give their kids immunizations, but it's also keeping those un-immunized kids out of the main breeding ground for childhood diseases.

Here's the source in case anyone's curious: http://www.dhss.mo.gov/immunizations/Requirements.html
 
Last edited:
Daverino said:
That doesn't counter my point at all. You posted to an article about (maybe) some people making a buck off of vaccination stockpile. It says nothing about the efficacy of vaccines.
Click to expand...

What is the big problem with getting a shot that protects you and helps protect the others around you?
 
Daverino said:
That doesn't counter my point at all. You posted to an article about (maybe) some people making a buck off of vaccination stockpile. It says nothing about the efficacy of vaccines.
Click to expand...

It does say something about the people who we entrust with developing and deploying vaccines.
 
I can't believe there's so many anti-vaccination people here holy shit, I guess you don't believe in breast feeding either?
 
Amused said:
Vaccines should not be mandated by law.

However, social pressure can and should include: Daycares not accepting unvaccinated children. Hospitals refusing to treat unvaccinated children. School refusing to educate unvaccinated children. Parents refusing to allow their children to associate with unvaccinated children. And so on.

Also, REAL education campaigns on vaccinations and a REAL response to the anti-vaccination crowds/hysteria.

You CAN change things wthout mandating them by law. Just as with drug addiction, your BEST and first choice should be education, NOT force of law.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, except for the part about hospitals refusing to treat unvaccinated children.

If you mandate vaccinations in the interest of public health, you slide further down the rabbit hole. What next? Mandate everybody consume no more than 2000 calories per day, 365/year? The nanny state knows no bounds.
 
tk149 said:
I agree with this, except for the part about hospitals refusing to treat unvaccinated children.

If you mandate vaccinations in the interest of public health, you slide further down the rabbit hole. What next? Mandate everybody consume no more than 2000 calories per day, 365/year? The nanny state knows no bounds.
Click to expand...

AKA the slippery slope fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

We can require vaccinations without also implanting control chips into the brains of all citizens to ensure only Goodthink 🙂 .
 
cubby1223 said:
No
An non-vaccinated child is not an immediate risk to others, not any more than say a driver of another vehicle could be drunk at any time. I pass by hundreds of cars on the road every day, every one of the drivers has the potential to kill me. How is it possible I do not live in fear 24/7?
Click to expand...

A non-vaccinated child is an immediate risk to others when they become infected with a dangerous contagious diseases. And we have laws against driving drunk, punishable by criminal penalties, so your analogy just reinforces the argument that there should be laws making it illegal to refuse to vaccinate one's children.
 
They should be banned from any publicly funded schools and hospitals. They don't want to help humanity survive, then they and their stupid kids can die.
 
shira said:
A non-vaccinated child is an immediate risk to others when they become infected with a dangerous contagious diseases. And we have laws against driving drunk, punishable by criminal penalties, so your analogy just reinforces the argument that there should be laws making it illegal to refuse to vaccinate one's children.
Click to expand...

You are still stuck in your one-dimensional view of this issue. As well as a few others in this thread. There is no point to arguing with you any further.

But I'll leave you with this last sentiment:

Vaccinated children are always at risk of contracting dangerous diseases, as well as adults. Shall we elected a legislature who will declare it law we all must be tested for contagious diseases on a monthly basis? It would improve our chances for collective salvation, right?
 
LegendKiller said:
They don't want to help humanity survive, they and their stupid kids can die.
Click to expand...

That's the mentality! Be like us, or die!

Humanity survived for thousands of years before vaccinations were developed.

The problem in this thread is, no where have I ever said that people should not be vaccinated, or that I would not vaccinate any children of mine. You guys all have shit logic skills.
 
Last edited:
Brigandier said:
You a cold cat. Maybe with a few more millions of people like you we could offset global warming.
Click to expand...

I don't want to put my kids in jeopardy because they are illogical and dangerous. They want to put everybody at risk for their own selfish points. Fine, let them be at risk, they can deal with their own sicknesses, their own problems, and their own education, without putting others at risk. When they start to die off maybe they'll change their tune.

Too many people forget how horrible some of these things are. Polio isn't some silly little sickness. I would bet FDR would have loved to have still been able to play sports, like he did when he was a strong able man.
 
cubby1223 said:
That's the mentality! Be like us, or die!

Humanity survived for thousands of years before vaccinations were developed.

The problem in this thread is, no where have I ever said that people should not be vaccinated, or that I would not vaccinate any children of mine. You guys all have shit logic skills.
Click to expand...

Be like us, or die..because what we do is PREVENT OUR DEATH
 
cubby1223 said:
But I'll leave you with this last sentiment:

Vaccinated children are always at risk of contracting dangerous diseases, as well as adults. Shall we elected a legislature who will declare it law we all must be tested for contagious diseases on a monthly basis? It would improve our chances for collective salvation, right?
Click to expand...

So your "logical" argument is that if (A) government has the authority to require that people engage in particular healthful behaviors, then (B) government has the authority to require that people engage in ANY healthful behavior. Since that conclusion (B) is absurd, you conclude (via modus tolens) that (A) is false, and that (therefore) government does not have the authority to require that people engage in particular healthful behaviors.

But (A) is clearly true: Governments have the authority require all sorts of behaviors by individuals whose intent is to protect the health of those individuals and others. For example: Governments have the authority to require that people wear seat belts, that homeowners and others build high fences around swimming pools, that businesses set up workplace conditions that protect the health of their employees, and that people clear their walkways of ice. You can be cited by the police for driving too slowly. You can be sanctioned for not clearing brush a sufficient distance from your home, for allowing stagnant water to accumulate in your yard, and for not keeping your property clear of hazardous materials.

You make the absurd argument that if government can make REASONABLE health regulations that require actions by individuals, ipso facto government can make ANY - even unreasonable - regulations. Your argument is absurd because we all know that the courts are their to prevent government from unreasonably encroaching on individual liberties.

One dimensional thinking? You've got in in spades.
 
^^^
I'm not arguing the constitutionality.

It is of my opinion that our government enforcing vaccinations on all citizens would be a bad thing. That is not saying vaccines are bad for us, which is the one-dimensional thinking many in this thread cannot argue beyond.

Hasn't it been proven time and time again that it is damn near impossible to legislate behavior, and comes with a whole host of new problems in society because people naturally do not like others telling them how to live. You would not like someone telling you how to live your life, to raise your children. You would much prefer the choice be up to yourself. You may love the idea so long as "progressive" left leaders are in power, but what if the votes shift for a brief period and now the "moral" majority now is the dominant force in government? Don't know how you'd take it, but your general post patterns suggest that would piss you off immensely if they used their constitutionally granted authorities to legislate how you should raise your children.
 
Last edited:
cubby1223 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeKb710KikM

Is it wrong to accept that other people may have the right to disagree?
Click to expand...

Sure, they have the right to disagree. I also have the right to protect myself from them, including quarantine. I have no choice but to be around them, effectively exposing myself to their whims merely because they have the right to be there.

That's pretty close to conspiracy to commit murder or at least assault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top