And He's a DOCTOR FFS! No excuse...

[Enoch the Red]

You realize that non-vaccination does not only concern the child of a right-to-choose parent, but also the child that sits next to this non-vaccinated child who happens to be in the group of children with whom the vaccine didn't catch and who may potentially die as the result of the non-vaccination choices of some other kids partents?

What exactly makes you think it is right you make dead-or-live decisions for the children of someone else, but it is totally wrong for government to make such momentous choices? Are we supposed to trust your judgement more than that of the government while we put the lives of children that are not your's on the line?

Are you asking if I realize that freedom inherently carries with it potential danger, and that people might do things with it that I wouldn't like or agree with? It might come as a surprise, but I do. That doesn't change the fact that I still prefer it to the alternative. The fact of the matter is the vast majority of parents want to do what is best for their children, (even if there is disagreement on what that is) and were there ever to be an epidemic I have little doubt that the overwhelming remainder of parents who hadn't already inoculated their children would.

[Steely Glint]

This is getting into potentially dangerous territory. I do believe it is moonbat not to vaccinate your children, but I also see a very real danger in giving government the right to determine what ideas and parenting strategies are moonbat and what aren't. All it takes is a shift in the directions of the political winds and the ideals that you want to raise your children to uphold and respect are suddenly verboten. Far better to not involve government.

This is a common libertarian argument and it has never made any kind of sense to me. You suggest that we should take a libertarian approach to most policy areas as a kind of insurance policy against future despotism, i.e. the idea that the political winds may suddenly change and the government will use it's power to ends that we currently find undesirable. But the amount of power the government has at any given time is just as likely to change with a shift in political values as anything else. The insurance policy can be canceled at any time, and probably will be canceled as a prelude to an event where you actually need it.

[Loki]

Are you asking if I realize that freedom inherently carries with it potential danger, and that people might do things with it that I wouldn't like or agree with? It might come as a surprise, but I do. That doesn't change the fact that I still prefer it to the alternative. The fact of the matter is the vast majority of parents want to do what is best for their children, (even if there is disagreement on what that is) and were there ever to be an epidemic I have little doubt that the overwhelming remainder of parents who hadn't already inoculated their children would.

Who the hell cares whether the parents are delusional? Their motivations are entirely irrelevant. They infringe on the rights of others by causing needless harm. You have the right to your body; you don't have the right to the bodies of others.

[Khendraja'aro]

This is getting into potentially dangerous territory. I do believe it is moonbat not to vaccinate your children, but I also see a very real danger in giving government the right to determine what ideas and parenting strategies are moonbat and what aren't. All it takes is a shift in the directions of the political winds and the ideals that you want to raise your children to uphold and respect are suddenly verboten. Far better to not involve government.

Last time I looked, the government already had the right to determine which ideas and parenting strategies are moonbat.

Or why do you think Child Protective Services exist?

But I get it, it's the almighty Slippery Slope Boogeyman.

[Steely Glint]

The fact of the matter is the vast majority of parents want to do what is best for their children, (even if there is disagreement on what that is) and were there ever to be an epidemic I have little doubt that the overwhelming remainder of parents who hadn't already inoculated their children would.

Well, there is a mini-epidemic going on right now and while some have relented, plenty are sticking to their stupid guns. Meanwhile, the vaccine is only 95% effective and plenty of children out there are too young or medically compromised to receive the vaccine in the first place, so the damage has already been done. The disease is out and about.

[Enoch the Red]

This is a common libertarian argument and it has never made any kind of sense to me. You suggest that we should take a libertarian approach to most policy areas as a kind of insurance policy against future despotism, i.e. the idea that the political winds may suddenly change and the government will use it's power to ends that we currently find undesirable. But the amount of power the government has at any given time is just as likely to change with a shift in political values as anything else. The insurance policy can be canceled at any time, and probably will be canceled as a prelude to an event where you actually need it.

Then consider it a proactive defense. By challenging government overreach now, when it doesn't seem as important, value is placed on not only the specific policy, but the principle behind that policy. If you fight a policy that sets what you consider to be a dangerous precedent you are taking a stand for the principles, not just the policy.

Who the hell cares whether the parents are delusional? Their motivations are entirely irrelevant. They infringe on the rights of others by causing needless harm. You have the right to your body; you don't have the right to the bodies of others.

Using that logic you could justify most anything. If all it takes is the potential for harm to cause government intervention you are already half way down the slope. Oh, you have genes that have been shown to cause a predisposition towards violence? You don't have a right to potentially threaten those around you. You have risk factors for impulsive and dangerous sexual behaviors? You don't just pose a risk to yourself, but to others as well.

You are essentially advocating punishment of pre-crime.

Well, there is a mini-epidemic going on right now and while some have relented, plenty are sticking to their stupid guns. Meanwhile, the vaccine is only 95% effective and plenty of children out there are too young or medically compromised to receive the vaccine in the first place, so the damage has already been done. The disease is out and about.

An epidemic? I'd say it's an outbreak at best, of a disease that isn't particularly deadly. Serious - certainly - but this seems more like predictable overreaction to a widely publicized media event than a real threat to our nation.

[Khendraja'aro]

Oh, yes, precious principles. Meanwhile, the dead would like to have a word with you about your principles.

[Enoch the Red]

Oh, yes, precious principles. Meanwhile, the dead would like to have a word with you about your principles.

How many have died in this measles outbreak?

[Loki]

How many have died in this measles outbreak?

How many would die if more parents were this stupid?

[Enoch the Red]

How many would die if more parents were this stupid?

Considering measles isn't a terribly deadly disease, (risk of death ~0.2%) probably not that many. Since 1995 the US averages around 1 death from measles per year. FUD generally works better when you aren't dealing with numbers.

[Khendraja'aro]

How many would die if more parents were this stupid?

Time will tell. Complications can arise as late as ten(10) years afterwards, usually in the form of extreme brain damage. The ones suffering from that might as well be dead.

Also, more than 150,000 deaths worldwide per year.

Lastly, your country already was measles-free back in 2000. This stupidity could have been prevented. That also means that your precious average is meaningless as we're talking about a period where morons allowed this disease to spread again.

I also note that your cry for parental freedom ignores that CPS exists and the reasons why it exists.

[Loki]

Considering measles isn't a terribly deadly disease, (risk of death ~0.2%) probably not that many. Since 1995 the US averages around 1 death from measles per year. FUD generally works better when you aren't dealing with numbers.

We have so few deaths because most parents aren't deranged. And I guess it's ok as long as other people's kids get brain damage. Freedom! For myself and myself alone!

[Khendraja'aro]

We have so few deaths because most parents aren't deranged. And I guess it's ok as long as other people's kids get brain damage. Freedom! For myself and myself alone!

Also, take a look at the date of his source. It's from 2012. This is a recent figure...

[Enoch the Red]

Time will tell. Complications can arise as late as ten(10) years afterwards, usually in the form of extreme brain damage. The ones suffering from that might as well be dead.

Also, more than 400,000 deaths worldwide per year.

Lastly, your country already was measles-free back in 2000. This stupidity could have been prevented. That also means that your precious average is meaningless as we're talking about a period where morons allowed this disease to spread again.

I also note that your cry for parental freedom ignores that CPS exists and the reasons why it exists.

You understand, of course, that as long as measles exists in the rest of the world, and the United States allows for emigration and international travel the US won't be measles-free, right?

If by my precious average, you mean the average published by the CDC, then sure, feel free to discount it because it disagrees with you.

More to the point, if there ever was a serious epidemic, there is nothing stopping parents who haven't yet vaccinated their children from doing so.

We have so few deaths because most parents aren't deranged.

Exactly. Which is why it is perfectly fine to for it to be voluntary. Most parents aren't deranged. Most parents want what is best for their children. That's why parents get their children vaccinated in the first place. Not because the government says to do so.

Also, take a look at the date of his source. It's from 2012. This is a recent figure...

Great, and how many deaths were there in 2014? Just by way of comparison, influenza causes several orders of magnitude more deaths each year.

[Khendraja'aro]

Great, and how many deaths were there in 2014?

That we don't know yet. Y'know, it takes a bit of time to create such statistics and publish them. Also takes a bit of time for the kids to actually die.
Plus, you forgot the "can basically induce brain death as much as 10 years later".

And you seem to not comprehend why I dismissed your average. See my graph? See the rapid increase at the end? That's due to this stupid notion that parents should be allowed to do anything.

And you still ignore the CPS. I wonder why that is - probably doesn't fit in the lolbertarian world view.

But hey, if you feel comfortable in a world where you basically should lock away your baby because you can't vaccinate it yet and where you need to screen your relatives and their kids if they were vaccinated, that's nice.

My parents went through this shit with me when I was 6 months old (another preventable disease) and I nearly died. So, I'm not particularly sympathetic when it comes to this particular brand of lolbertarian stupidity. Principles are nice and all, but only morons insist on following rules all the time and under all circumstances.

[Ominous Gamer]

Few people died of measles in the U.S. between 2004 and 2015 because measles was classified as eliminated in 2000. Relatively few people in the U.S. contracted the viral infection after that, so it stands to reason far fewer would go on to die of it. And while more than 100 reports of suspected adverse reaction or death may have been reported to VAERS in the years cited, that number references unconfirmed public reports, not verified vaccine-related fatalities. Finally, death is not the only reason a vaccine for measles was developed. Serious complications and permanent injury can result from contracting measles.

Pulled from Snopes. Thats how bloody stupid your argument is Enoch. Its on Snopes.

[Enoch the Red]

That we don't know yet. Y'know, it takes a bit of time to create such statistics and publish them. Also takes a bit of time for the kids to actually die.
Plus, you forgot the "can basically induce brain death as much as 10 years later".

And you seem to not comprehend why I dismissed your average. See my graph? See the rapid increase at the end? That's due to this stupid notion that parents should be allowed to do anything.

Sure, that's why they also include the rates of encephalitis, which is just about 0.1% in reported cases. So, let's be realistic here, in 2014 you had 600 people in a country of 316,000,000 contract measles. Of those who did contract measles, about 0.1% will present with encephalitis. And you are worried about this? Your irrational fear of this is worthy of dismissal, not the research of the CDC.

But hey, if you feel comfortable in a world where you basically should lock away your baby because you can't vaccinate it yet and where you need to screen your relatives and their kids if they were vaccinated, that's nice.

I don't know what world you are living in but I have chosen not to live in that kind of fear from a disease which has affected several hundred people in a country of almost 320 million people. Maybe your view of the associated risks are colored from your childhood experiences, but in my book you should be far more terrified to get in a car, or go outside than worry about measles.

And you still ignore the CPS. I wonder why that is - probably doesn't fit in the lolbertarian world view.

I ignore it because it has so little to do with the topic at hand. It's not a gotcha, it's an unrelated tangent.

Pulled from Snopes. Thats how bloody stupid your argument is Enoch. Its on Snopes.

What exactly is my argument, and how was it refuted by Snopes?

[Khendraja'aro]

I ignore it because it has so little to do with the topic at hand. It's not a gotcha, it's an unrelated tangent.

Nope, it's not.

Your own words:

but I also see a very real danger in giving government the right to determine what ideas and parenting strategies are moonbat and what aren't

By your own logic, you should also cry for the immediate dissolution of CPS. This idiotic bloody-minded "But think of the slippery slope" fallacy should be taken out and shot.

[LittleFuzzy]

Here's a question: would current US law permit insurance companies to discriminate against people who choose not to be vaccinated?

Before the ACA, absolutely. No clue what would be the case now.

[Aimless]

Each of those infected expose very many more and among the frail, ill or immunocompromised not only is the risk of getting infected much higher, the risk of significant harm--both direct and indirect--is also higher. Case fatality for measles was, even fairly recently in the US, 1-3 pet thousand. You're right, measles is generally not a fatal disease, but whose lives do you believe you're entitled to gamble with, as an individual with no recognised authority to mess with other people's lives?

[Enoch the Red]

Nope, it's not.

Your own words:



By your own logic, you should also cry for the immediate dissolution of CPS. This idiotic bloody-minded "But think of the slippery slope" fallacy should be taken out and shot.

Okay, let's examine my logic. I absolutely do think it's moonbat to not vaccinate your children. I don't think that being a moonbat, or holding moonbat ideas is comparable to abuse. I don't believe that by not vaccinating your children you are abusing them. You are comparing a parent who would actively and intentionally seek to harm their child with a parent who chooses to not vaccinate their children, often out of a misguided sense of concern and love, and you expect me to take you seriously? By that same token if there was a negative reaction to the vaccination, should the parent be held responsible for abusing the child and actually causing them harm? Of course not.

[Ominous Gamer]

often out of a misguided sense of concern and love

congrats, you just described a good number of cases the CPS already investigates. Thats one of the reasons they require parenting classes before reunions.

[Enoch the Red]

congrats, you just described a good number of cases the CPS already investigates. Thats one of the reasons they require parenting classes before reunions.

And I would hope that parenting classes aren't going to be required for people who hold views contrary to what is accepted in the mainstream. Because let me tell you, I fear not just for the health, but also the immortal souls of your children, and if you aren't teaching them the one and true gospel of our Lord and Savior, then you aren't fit to be a parent.

[Ominous Gamer]

looks like the government is currently being pushed for public awareness campaigns to fight the FUD and stupidity thats already affecting innocents

[Khendraja'aro]

Okay, let's examine my logic. I absolutely do think it's moonbat to not vaccinate your children. I don't think that being a moonbat, or holding moonbat ideas is comparable to abuse. I don't believe that by not vaccinating your children you are abusing them. You are comparing a parent who would actively and intentionally seek to harm their child with a parent who chooses to not vaccinate their children, often out of a misguided sense of concern and love, and you expect me to take you seriously? By that same token if there was a negative reaction to the vaccination, should the parent be held responsible for abusing the child and actually causing them harm? Of course not.

So, striking your child is abuse. Yet, letting your child succumb to measles, thus inflicting pain on them with potentially life-threatening results, that isn't abuse.

And don't try to tell me that people don't strike their children out of a misguided sense of concern and love.

[Enoch the Red]

So, striking your child is abuse. Yet, letting your child succumb to measles, thus inflicting pain on them with potentially life-threatening results, that isn't abuse.

And don't try to tell me that people don't strike their children out of a misguided sense of concern and love.

I don't believe that all corporal punishment is abuse, no, and I very much believe that both the intent and reasoning behind the punishment is important, as well as how the punishment is administered. More to the point, you are tilting at straw-men. We aren't talking about refusing to treat a child that has measles, we are talking about parents who have made the choice not to vaccinate their children.

[Khendraja'aro]

I don't believe that all corporal punishment is abuse, no, and I very much believe that both the intent and reasoning behind the punishment is important, as well as how the punishment is administered. More to the point, you are tilting at straw-men. We aren't talking about refusing to treat a child that has measles, we are talking about parents who have made the choice not to vaccinate their children.

Thus endangering their children. And what happens to parents who demonstrably endanger their children?

[Enoch the Red]

Thus endangering their children. And what happens to parents who demonstrably endanger their children?

It could conceivably endanger your children when you feed them dinner. It certainly endangers them when you take them on a car ride. Do you think not providing your children with anthrax vaccinations is also endangering them? Should we remove all the children from parents who have not vaccinated their children against the deadly anthrax bacterium? What about the parents who moved to California and settled near an active fault line? I love all this, "Won't someone please think of the children," hand wringing. Do you really believe what you are writing, or are you deliberately being obtuse?

[Aimless]

I wish I'd grown up in a society where children didn't have to be subjected to obstacle courses and track

[Aimless]

The reference to CPS interesting in that it makes us recognise that parental beliefs about what's good for their children doesn't trump everything else, but the standard used to classify neglecting to vaccinate your kid as abuse is a standard that could also easily be used to classify literally anything as abuse and all kids would become wards of the state and then the state would have to be arrested for child endangerment. If there is any element of abuse in this then it is if you give measles to someone else against their will.