Anti-vaxers and libertarianism

What lie?

That would be the Wakefield report, I imagine. It was all a fabrication, based on a man wanting to make a profit on his own line of immunizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

Yes. Even though I'm against abortion, the state has no legitimate authority to put stumbling blocks between you and activity that is your lawful right.

That has *ZERO* to do with what I'm arguing about. As I said well upthread, I'm vaccinated and would have my children vaccinated.

I'm not anti-vaccine. I'm anti-mandatory-vaccine.

Life is full of risks.

If you take your child out for a drive today, what risk is the larger: that they will contract a dangerous disease for which they have no immunity or that they will die in an automobile accident?

And you've been immunized, so you have the luxury of pretending this is some sort of academic exercise.

Eh, I can't get behind that.
I do wish somehow that the parents would die, so the kids could be adopted by real human beings with whole brains.

They're free to get vaccinated, too. Or, if for some reason they cannot, they can take whatever precautions are necessary and prudent to prevent reception of a disease.

Which is intellectually disingenuous. Vaccine works best when herd immunity is in effect. What you're seeing right now is someone claiming their freedom to not vaccinate overrides other people's health and well-being.

I'm quite, uh, genuous.

It's a facile political ploy to say that because you don't accept a proposed solution that you must be FOR the problem. If you can't discuss my argument without resorting to personal attacks, then maybe you should re-think your position.

Streets are safer when there's a 10pm curfew.

The one does not automatically imply the other. Just because X is not vaccinated does not mean that Y will become infected by X. And, again, Y is perfectly free to get vaccinated himself. If Y for some reason cannot be vaccinated, then the burden of Y's position should fall on Y, not on X unless X consents to it.

meh...libertarian fundies.

Twitter magic:

Ftfy, although yes, in this case, it's the libertarian strain.

This. Your freedom to do what you want ends when it starts to endanger the lives of people around you.

You are not allowed to drive your car.

After all, tens of thousands of people die in accidents every year.

Or is this just an endangerment of others that you're conditioned to accept?

Does your car cause all other cars around it to lose their braking systems just by being in the vicinity? If so, get your car fixed or stay off the fucking road.

Paladin has a point. In this, as in all things, there are degrees, and there usually isn't a bright-line test. Safety isn't a trump card, and figuring out where to draw the freedom/safety line isn't always easy.

Not when inaction means the lives of tens of thousands of people. If you live in a society, there are rules that have to be followed in order to protect the herd. If you don't want to abide by those rules, be a mountain man.

In essence, you cannot be free to infect other people with your disease solely on the basis of "I don't wanna".

I wonder what would happen if someone with pulmonary tuberculosis moved in right next door to Paladin? Freedom freedom, or get away from me? I wonder if the TB germs will respect Paladin's constitutional rights?

Do you mean people killed in cars?

Or do you mean people killed by measles?

Because the latter hasn't happened. The former happens year in and year out.

You make the assumption that the "herd" would be threatened if vaccination were purely voluntary. But I submit that's far from being a safe assumption.

But if it DID turn out that society was full of Jenny MacCarthys, and everyone came down with the measles, then so be it. They'd soon learn to get vaccinated.

Your way or the highway?

If you actually have a disease, then you're responsible for seeing to it that you don't infect others. But not having been vaccinated and having a disease are not the same thing.

If someone actually has a contagious disease, government is rightly empowered to see that they don't infect others.

And, no, it's not at all the same thing.

Dammit, you're supposed to pick from the available dichotomy.

Perhaps we should just jail everyone who hasn't been vaccinated against dengue fever, malaria, or AIDS?

So you agree that MMR shots should be mandatory, and enforced by the government.

No, because not being vaccinated is not the same as having the disease.

Was it just me or did you completely ignore O2C's post?

You're a smart man, so quit playing stupid. "It's your responsibility" means fuck all for the people who are infected through no fault of their own. That said, before the MMR vaccine, death by measles was very common: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles

Think, man. Think.

My estimation of your intelligence has taken a severe downturn as of late.

Didn't ignore it, just didn't see it. I've read it, it's well-argued, but I have a different opinion and I've stated it.

Now say something bad about my mother, and you will have completely descended into infantilism.