You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Vaccine Debate: VACCINES ARE SAFE AND PEOPLE ARE MORALLY OBLIGATED TO TAKE THEM.
So is there an argument that vaccines are completely safe and effective?
No. There never was. Also nobody says trains are totally safe. They are still several times safer then cars, so saying its safer to travel by train is true. Same with vaccines, just that the difference is even bigger.
So what you're saying seems to be, that we should make trains mandatory?
Strange how you alwas think that I say things that I never have said.
We should put more resources into bettering the train network instead of ever more roads and cars, if you mean that.
Since when do I ALWAYS think that you say things that you've never have said?
Since when do you have any idea what I think?
I was stretching the analogy to the same extent as the mandatory vaccine argument, to show how ridiculous it is. I could be accused of appeal to ridicule, but it is your analogy. Vaccines are dangerous and even deadly. I'm not going to permanently injure or kill myself, no matter who, or how many, it would help. The train analogy breaks down before it even leaves the station.
And then there's this...your answer to @stillwater above.
You are implying, though I don't expect you know it, that those who choose to refrain from endangering their health are less caring than those who blindly fall in line, and are injected with potentially lethal toxins.
Vaccination does not protect these people, this is one of the common pieces of propaganda. Even if it did, which it doesn't, should I set my child on fire to keep someone else's child warm? How many people is it okay to injure or kill to pretend that we are protecting a few sick people?
This is not a sound or valid argument.
A vaccination is not a toxin O.o
I never wrote I am for mandatory vaccination. That is your "stretching".
Well, it does.
Going shopping is dangerous and even deadly. Still people do it even when they don't have to. Can you believe that?
And smokers! Paying lots of money to kill themselfs and others!!
btw. sitting is lethal. I hope you are not sitting when writing or reading.
That is okay. Nobody requires you to be a police officer or a fire fighter.
No, I am wrong. Actually in most countries it is possible to force people to do fire fighter duties if there is nobody found in another way.
Way to go me, 'stretching' the conversation to address the ONLY currently relevant aspect of this subject. Mandating the use of dangerous, archaic medical technologies is violation of individual natural rights, and international convention, and is, in fact, a war crime.
Well, sorry, it doesn't. All one needs to do is look at the historical timeline. The decline of disease began well before the introduction of vaccination, but neatly correlated with the beginning of widespread use of sanitation, hygiene, and nutrition. The decline of disease even occurred in diseases for which there are no vaccines.
If you want, you can even look at outbreaks CAUSED by vaccination.
No one is trying to force me to shop, smoke, or sit. This is no argument. Also, this is three red herrings, and an appeal to fear.
This is another red herring, with no evidence that, what I suspect you are claiming is, governments, not 'countries' force people to fight fires.
Forcing people to do things against their will is called slavery.
The INITIATION of force is always violence, and if a government uses it against me, I will absolutely resist it with all force possible to defend myself against this violence.
You can repat this thousands of times, and it is still wrong to say that this alone caused the drop. Of course if people hav eless chance to get infected, they get infected less. That still not makes them immune like a vaccine.
And the rest of your post is just trying to get away from the point. As with shopping nobody is forcing you to get vaccinated. The topic of your post ist
"VACCINES ARE SAFE AND PEOPLE ARE MORALLY OBLIGATED TO TAKE THEM."
Where safe is true compared to being unvaccinated and morally obligated is also true, which is not the same as forced.
A country without government does not exist, so your artificial dichotomy is meaningless.
And the government does not force me. The government makes laws. But even if you show me a very heavy book of law and the text set in bold gothic types, that is not forcing.
The police may come to force me to obey the law, but police is not government, its executive, not legislative. And no, this does not hapen if you don't vaccinate yourself.
Funny to hear that coming from someone who uses tons of FUD and ignores every cientific result to shove his opinion down the throats of people.
It matters not how many times a fact is repeated, whether it is ever stated at all, a fact remains. The diseases, for which there never has been any vaccination, also saw the decline. Remain in denial if you will, the fact remains.
Far from trying to get away from the point, what part of the definition of the word 'obligated' is confusing here? Those living in Kalifornia might explain to you about how vaccines are becoming obligatory.
There is no 'artificial dichotomy', simply an understanding of words, of which, apparently, you may not have availed yourself.
Countries exist independent of governments. A country is a place. A nation is a people. A government is a human institution apart from these.
The guns of the state exist, and are used heavily every day. The guns of the state come in gauges and magnums, not in bold gothic types. If you are not aware of this, you may want to study that up.
Please learn the difference between the use of reason and logic, and the use of fear to scare everyone to be obligated to compromise their individual health for the demonstrable pretense at protecting a few, already sick people.
Also, if you are going to continue to repeat this propaganda, do learn how to spell. It's embarrassing. I know, that for some, this is an emotional subject, but torturing the orthography is somewhat unnecessary.
I see trying to use facts and logic with you does not work. Don't worry, I won't continue my "propaganda".
I see that there is - again in anti-vaccers cases - no sense in trying to use logic and science, it always ends in ad hominem attacks when the "believers" get beaten by science.
If seomone else is still reading this, you might want to have a look into this paragraph about Polio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis#Epidemiology
where you can see that vaccinations are more important (and only sure way) to prevent a desease.
The German WP addds the the only 3 outbreaks in the USA+ Europe in the last decades happened in religious groups that did no vaccinate - 2 times Amish in the US, the third time Calvinists in the Netherlands.
All this is garbage?
WRONG! More research needed by you dear man.
What, specifically, is factually inaccurate about the information presented herein?