Reason Magazine supports forced vaccinations; "no libertarian case for vaccine refusal"

[PRB]

Well, the fact that they decided they needed to rebrand it climate change should give you a clue.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

The CC in IPCC stands for "climate change", the term has been used since 1988. The claim that "first they called it global warming, now it's climate change" is just not true, at least not from scientists.

The article you linked says neither which prediction failed, nor actual evidence of the claim "Earth temperature hasn't risen for the past 15 years", for this claim to be true, it has to mean the temperature is the same or lower year after year for 15 years, which just isn't the case. Try again if you actually know what you're talking about.

 

[Anti Federalist]

While ignoring the fact that you're arguing as the liberals do - that is, with no facts to back up your position. We wouldn't believe in free market solutions if there wasn't a track record to prove our point. Ditto with government dependency - we can disprove that fallacy all day long.

The anti-vaxxers don't have shit to prove their point, so they just lie and make up stuff.

Vaccines can be dangerous and can cause severe side effects, including death.

Do you deny that?

 

[PRB]

While ignoring the fact that you're arguing as the liberals do - that is, with no facts to back up your position. We wouldn't believe in free market solutions if there wasn't a track record to prove our point. Ditto with government dependency - we can disprove that fallacy all day long.

The anti-vaxxers don't have shit to prove their point, so they just lie and make up stuff.

they have Wakefield, unless you believe Wakefield is a liar like the establishment wants you to believe.

 

[PRB]

Vaccines can be dangerous and can cause severe side effects, including death.

Do you deny that?

Name one thing that can't.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Name one thing that can't.

Can't.

Not my point.

 

[angelatc]

The CC in IPCC stands for "climate change", the term has been used since 1988. The claim that "first they called it global warming, now it's climate change" is just not true, at least not from scientists.

The article you linked says neither which prediction failed, nor actual evidence of the claim "Earth temperature hasn't risen for the past 15 years", for this claim to be true, it has to mean the temperature is the same or lower year after year for 15 years, which just isn't the case. Try again if you actually know what you're talking about.

Take it to a global warming thread. I am not as young asn I used to be, and just don't have the energy to take on the vaccine deniers and the global warming apologists simultaneously.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I will NEVER ask that you be administered medicine for your own good - but I will demand that you be vaccinated for MY own good. It's what Grandma Rand used to call " rational selfishness".

You 'member.

.

Oh, and if I refuse to comply with your "demand"?

Who shows up with a gun to stick in my face?

You?

Or will you send a proxy in a goofy government costume?

 

[PRB]

Can't.

Not my point.

You have no point, the fact vaccines CAN do just anything EVERYTHING ELSE CAN do, makes the claim pointless. Unless you have something specific to add.

 

[Mini-Me]

And using that logic has got us the tyranny we have now.

Yipee...Wait until you see what I come up with, that YOU will have to comply with, for MY own good.

This is hopeless...we're fucked.

Don't be sad. As long as you don't count the military, it's not like people are already back to sacrificing their children to Moloch yet.

 

[angelatc]

they have Wakefield, unless you believe Wakefield is a liar like the establishment wants you to believe.

Ah, the establishment. Never mind that all of Wakefield's co-authors jumped ship, he was convicted of fraud, and stripped of his medical license.

Or that the "establishment" even went after Wakefield using the same dishonest arguments that the anti-vaxxers use - pointing out that he was publishing this study in an attempt to discredit the popular vaccine in order to sell a vaccine that he himself had invented.

Or the "establishment" that didn't actually see the conclusion of his now-retracted 1998 paper that actually very clearly stated that there was NO CAUSAL LINK FOUND between vaccines and autism.

Yes, tell me again how "the establishment" sabotaged poor innocent Dr Wakefield. While of course ignoring how the anti-vaxers lie about practically everything.

 

[Contumacious]

: You and the author are quite literally arguing in favor of the Bush Doctrine's view on preemptive force against potential violent/forceful threats. There's a huge difference between "shooting first" in legitimate last-resort self-defense against an imminent and credible threat, and using arbitrary preemptive force against anything you think *might* threaten you in the future. Very careful you must be about conflating the two, or to the dark side it will lead.
.

What Is Preemption? A Libertarian Perpective

To decide whether you can subscribe to the doctrine of preemptive war, put yourself in this scenario. You are a peaceful person who might have acquired some enemies. But your enemies are self-selected -- you did not choose them, they chose you. And they chose you not because of what you did to them but because they resent you in some way. Perhaps they simply don't like you because you are not one of them; perhaps you are wealthier or more accomplished than they; perhaps they view your strength as a threat to their goals and wish, somehow, to weaken you; perhaps you are too religious for their taste (even though you don't insist on forcing your religion on them); perhaps you are not religious enough for their taste (and so you are some sort of "infidel"); perhaps you simply wandered into their neighborhood and violated their "pride" by doing so. Whatever the reason for their enmity, it is irrational by your standards, and you are not about to adopt their standards because if you did you would then lower your standards to meet theirs."

.

 

[angelatc]

Vaccines can be dangerous and can cause severe side effects, including death.

Do you deny that?

For christs sakes - this again? This is what I mean by intellectual dishonesty. Nobody ever said there were not potential side effects to vaccines.

My point is perfectly illustrated in the post about the chicken pox vaccine.

 

[Mini-Me]

[/B]
What Is Preemption? A Libertarian Perpective

To decide whether you can subscribe to the doctrine of preemptive war, put yourself in this scenario. You are a peaceful person who might have acquired some enemies. But your enemies are self-selected -- you did not choose them, they chose you. And they chose you not because of what you did to them but because they resent you in some way. Perhaps they simply don't like you because you are not one of them; perhaps you are wealthier or more accomplished than they; perhaps they view your strength as a threat to their goals and wish, somehow, to weaken you; perhaps you are too religious for their taste (even though you don't insist on forcing your religion on them); perhaps you are not religious enough for their taste (and so you are some sort of "infidel"); perhaps you simply wandered into their neighborhood and violated their "pride" by doing so. Whatever the reason for their enmity, it is irrational by your standards, and you are not about to adopt their standards because if you did you would then lower your standards to meet theirs."

.

So, just to be clear: You're not contesting my point that your view is the Bush Doctrine applied to a new issue. Instead, you're arguing in favor of the Bush Doctrine across the board, including on matters of foreign policy...and you claim this is a libertarian viewpoint. Am I misinterpreting your comments in any way here?

 

[juleswin]

Ah, the establishment. Never mind that all of Wakefield's co-authors jumped ship, he was convicted of fraud, and stripped of his medical license.

Or that the "establishment" even went after Wakefield using the same dishonest arguments that the anti-vaxxers use - pointing out that he was publishing this study in an attempt to discredit the popular vaccine in order to sell a vaccine that he himself had invented.

Or the "establishment" that didn't actually see the conclusion of his now-retracted 1998 paper that actually very clearly stated that there was NO CAUSAL LINK FOUND between vaccines and autism.

Yes, tell me again how "the establishment" sabotaged poor innocent Dr Wakefield. While of course ignoring how the anti-vaxers lie about practically everything.

Do you blame them? when the only game in town is the govt funding, a researcher better tow the line or risk having to move to the third world or change professions. They have made a scape goat off Dr Andrew Wakefield and sorry angeltac, its really no surprising that his co-writers ran for the hill. The surprising part is that 2 of the 12 remained for a while even after the heat came down on him.

When the truth is finally revealed, I hope people still remember him for the stance he took.

For anyone who is interested in the case, please listen to Wakefield in his own words

 

[PRB]

For christs sakes - this again? This is what I mean by intellectual dishonesty. Nobody ever said there were not potential side effects to vaccines.

My point is perfectly illustrated in the post about the chicken pox vaccine.

he admitted he can't give ONE example of something that DOESN'T do the same.

 

[PRB]

Do you blame them? when the only game in town is the govt funding, a researcher better tow the line or risk having to move to the third world or change professions. They have made a scape goat off Dr Andrew Wakefield and sorry angeltac, its really no surprising that his co-writers ran for the hill. The surprising part is that 2 of the 12 remained for a while even after the heat came down on him.

while researchers do depend on funding (often non-profit) for their work, it's not true that they're always walking on thin ice and are at risk of moving to a third world country because their profession is otherwise useless. somehow the alleged profit motive of establishment researchers is never applied to fraudsters like Wakefield.

 

[bolil]

Nobody legitimately ever denies that side effects exist, but that doesn't ever stop the strawman from appearing.


So my point still stands - there is no legitimate debate.

Because blood infections are not a side effect. Those fucker be primary.

 

[Contumacious]

Are the people maimed, paralyzed, and killed by vaccines any less important than babies who die from whooping cough?

You already acknowledged that the side effects exist, yet you still want "the rest of the population" subjected to risky one-size-fits all solution.

What then is your solution?

Pre-trial detainees are deprived of their liberty pending trial. It is sad but true.

Compare the period before Louis Pasteur with the one after his discoveries were implemented.

.

 

[juleswin]

while researchers do depend on funding (often non-profit) for their work, it's not true that they're always walking on thin ice and are at risk of moving to a third world country because their profession is otherwise useless. somehow the alleged profit motive of establishment researchers is never applied to fraudsters like Wakefield.

The way I look at it, I do not think a man as smart as Dr. Andrew Wakefield would try to run a scam over a very powerful industry as big pharma. If anything I see a threat to big pharma in form of lawsuits, lost profit as a bigger cause to react and my god they showed some epic reaction, not just refuting his research but getting the man banned from medicine.

 

[bolil]

No side effects? What about the trauma incurred by being held down while some stranger sticks a hypodermic in your arm? Pfffft.
Angel, I got heated last night and I apologize for that. Still, though, you are aware you are advocating government tyranny in one of its most cliche forms, right? Forcing people to consume. If you are vaccinated, whats the issue? If you want to bruit about something bruit about the over-prescription/consumption of antibiotics. You thinks AIDS is bad, just you wait. Since I cannot be sure you are not taking antibiotics reasonably, I think I should be able to send armed men into your home to make sure. Oh, and they WILL take your blood, with a needle or lead. Your choice. It is for your protection.

That is what this comes down to, its not about science since not everything in this world is empirical. You might say a good raping keeps people nonviolent, you might build an intellectual apparatus to affirm this fact, don't make that shit right. (see, use vulgarity to accent, not overpower )