andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 10-8-2013 1:28, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> On 9-8-2013 22:57, Warp wrote:
> >
> >>> By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
> >>> Which makes absolutely no sense.
> >
> >> Ah, it is good to see the great strawman-master at work again.
> >> Well done.
> >
> > Yes,

> Indeed so stop with that.

> And everything below is totally irrelevant to my remark.
> Learn how to debate and stick to the subject.

You are trying to convince me to "stop with that" by cutting the first
word of my reply and making a smartass remark about it, without even
trying to resond to what I actually said?

How about I don't?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:16:56 -0500, Shay wrote:
> > You'll need power to do that, near-absolute (total) power. Genie ...
> > Bottle ... Forced Vaccinations ... Eugenics ... Greater Good

Yes, because that's totally what happened in the 70's when smallpox
was eradicated. Forced vaccinations, eugenics...

Sure, rather than forced vaccinations, which inevitably leads to eugenics,
we should have let all those millions of people die horrible deaths.

> Bingo.

You are both sick in the head, and you are making me sick.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > Do you disagree with the notion that eradicating smallpox from the
> > world, saving millions of lives, was a good thing?
> > 
> > Or would you rather sacrifice those millions of lives to your altar of
> > political correctness?
> > 
> > If you agree that those millions of lives were worth the worldwide
> > smallpox vaccination program, then you have not business in criticizing
> > the worldwide polio vaccination program, or else you are just a
> > hypocrite.
> > 
> > If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the vaccination
> > program, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to
> > describe what you are, because it's nauseating to even think.

> Sorry, but if you're going to engage in this sort of personal attack 
> rather than debating on the merits, then you're not worth my time.

You didn't answer my question. Instead you resort to the "you are making a
personal attack" card.

I repeat: Do you think it was a bad a thing that smallpox was completely
eradicated, saving millions of lives?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 10-8-2013 1:40, Warp wrote:

> > When it has been scientifically and empirically proven with absolute
> > certainty

> There is no such thing at all, at all. If you were a scientist you would 
> know that.

Well, if you happen to find smallpox on the wild, inform me. Or better
yet, the proper authorities. I think they would be interested.

I think it's pretty safe to say that we know with absolutely certainty
that there is no smallpox out there. Thus the efficacy of the program is
likewise proven.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10-8-2013 19:26, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 10-8-2013 1:28, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> On 9-8-2013 22:57, Warp wrote:
>>>
>>>>> By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
>>>>> Which makes absolutely no sense.
>>>
>>>> Ah, it is good to see the great strawman-master at work again.
>>>> Well done.
>>>
>>> Yes,
>
>> Indeed so stop with that.
>
>> And everything below is totally irrelevant to my remark.
>> Learn how to debate and stick to the subject.
>
> You are trying to convince me to "stop with that" by cutting the first
> word of my reply and making a smartass remark about it, without even
> trying to resond to what I actually said?
>
> How about I don't?
>

"Yes" was sufficient the rest was irrelevant, because it had nothing to 
do with what I said. It was nothing more than a childish 'he did it too 
;( ' and that was not true either.

For me there was and is no point in going into a debate with you on what 
totalitarian means or not, because, again, it is irrelevant for the 
discussion. I have said elsewhere why vaccination 'by force' won't work. 
If you have anything useful to add to that, be my guest.

-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 13:31:34 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > Do you disagree with the notion that eradicating smallpox from the
>> > world, saving millions of lives, was a good thing?
>> > 
>> > Or would you rather sacrifice those millions of lives to your altar
>> > of political correctness?
>> > 
>> > If you agree that those millions of lives were worth the worldwide
>> > smallpox vaccination program, then you have not business in
>> > criticizing the worldwide polio vaccination program, or else you are
>> > just a hypocrite.
>> > 
>> > If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the
>> > vaccination program, then I don't even want to write the words that
>> > come to mind to describe what you are, because it's nauseating to
>> > even think.
> 
>> Sorry, but if you're going to engage in this sort of personal attack
>> rather than debating on the merits, then you're not worth my time.
> 
> You didn't answer my question. Instead you resort to the "you are making
> a personal attack" card.
> 
> I repeat: Do you think it was a bad a thing that smallpox was completely
> eradicated, saving millions of lives?

Of course that was a good thing.

Now you answer *my* questions.

And instead of saying "you make me sick", try actually debating on the 
merits rather than engaging in personal attacks.

Otherwise, I'll just add you to my 'asshole' filter and move on.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:5206786d@news.povray.org...
>
> Sure, rather than forced vaccinations, which inevitably leads to eugenics,
> we should have let all those millions of people die horrible deaths.
>

Again, you're examining one totalitarian (or, if you prefer, 
"by-overwhelming-force") act in isolation. This is the problem with "if I 
were king for a day" thinking.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I have said elsewhere why vaccination 'by force' won't work. 

Does that mean there is still smallpox on the wild out there?

Quite clearly smallpox contradicts your statement.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> If, however, you're going to continue to engage in ad hominem attacks 
> against those you disagree with, then we're done here.

You don't even know what "ad hominem" means.

"Argumentum ad hominem" is a claim that tries to say that someone's
argument is invalid or suspicious because of something objectionable
about that person. In other words "you shouldn't listen to him because
he is (something objectionable)".

A couple of examples:

"He doesn't accept the theory of evolution, therefore he's an idiot"
is *not* an ad hominem.

"He is in jail for tax fraud, and thus you shouldn't be listening to
what he has to say about the theory of evolution" *is* an ad hominem.
(He might be wrong about evolution, but he being in jail for tax fraud
is completely irrelevant to the issue.)

Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong because of what kind of
person you are, or what you have done, or anything of the sorts.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 15:02:02 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> If, however, you're going to continue to engage in ad hominem attacks
>> against those you disagree with, then we're done here.
> 
> You don't even know what "ad hominem" means.

Again with the "defining my native language to me".

> "Argumentum ad hominem" is a claim that tries to say that someone's
> argument is invalid or suspicious because of something objectionable
> about that person. In other words "you shouldn't listen to him because
> he is (something objectionable)".
> 
> A couple of examples:
> 
> "He doesn't accept the theory of evolution, therefore he's an idiot" is
> *not* an ad hominem.
> 
> "He is in jail for tax fraud, and thus you shouldn't be listening to
> what he has to say about the theory of evolution" *is* an ad hominem.
> (He might be wrong about evolution, but he being in jail for tax fraud
> is completely irrelevant to the issue.)
> 
> Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong because of what kind of
> person you are, or what you have done, or anything of the sorts.

You have, and if you don't knock it off, then I'm done talking with you.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 15:02:02 -0400, Warp wrote:

> "Argumentum ad hominem" is a claim that tries to say that someone's
> argument is invalid or suspicious because of something objectionable
> about that person. In other words "you shouldn't listen to him because
> he is (something objectionable)".

I didn't say "argumentum ad hominem", I said "ad hominem attack", which 
is different.

You are intentionally and deliberately calling my character into question 
because I am disagreeing with you.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by 
an answer to the contentions made

You are /not/ discussing the issue, you're saying things in response to 
disagreements with your assertions that the ends justify the means by 
saying things like "you make me sick".

And it's time you STFU.  Seriously, if that's your debating technique, 
then you need to learn how to debate properly rather than resorting to 
character attacks in a deliberate appeal to people's emotions to make 
your point.

"If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the vaccination
program, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to
describe what you are, because it's nauseating to even think."

Yeah, because that's not appealing to people's emotions and is debating 
based on the facts/merits of the argument you're trying to make.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/08/2013 8:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 15:02:02 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> >Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom>  wrote:
>>> >>If, however, you're going to continue to engage in ad hominem attacks
>>> >>against those you disagree with, then we're done here.
>> >
>> >You don't even know what "ad hominem" means.
> Again with the "defining my native language to me".
>

Bloody Aida! Jim. I didn't know that you were old enough to speak Latin 
as your native language.
My how time flies. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 10.08.2013 01:37, schrieb Warp:

> If you agree that those millions of lives were worth the worldwide smallpox
> vaccination program, then you have not business in criticizing the
> worldwide polio vaccination program, or else you are just a hypocrite.
>
> If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the vaccination
> program, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to
> describe what you are, because it's nauseating to even think.

I tell you something sick:

Here in Germany, some decades ago there was a huge campaign pro Iodine: 
To fight hypothyreosis, people were encouraged to use salt with added 
Iodine, companies were encouraged to add Iodine to their food products, 
and farmers were encouraged to add Iodine to the food of their 
livestock. All for the good of the people, especially (but not limited 
to) those suffering from undiagnosed hypothyreosis.

Today, in effect it's nigh impossible to buy any food products that have 
natural levels of Iodine.

This is good for people who have an undiagnosed disposition to 
hypothyreosis.

It's devastating though for people who have an undiagnosed 
/hyperthyreosis/ - the excess Iodine can literally /kill/ them! And even 
if those people are lucky enough to find a doctor who comes up with the 
correct diagnosis, the most obvious and least invasive treatment - a 
low-Iodine diet - is in practice nearly impossible; instead, the typical 
treatment is to remove or destroy the thyroid gland, making the patient 
dependent on artificial thyroid hormones for the rest of his life (not 
to mention that a portion of the patients lose their voice or even their 
life due to the surgery).

Without the artificial addition of Iodine to literally each and every 
food product - which in effect boils down to forced medication of each 
and every person - it would be the people with hypothyreosis who would 
need treatment, but that would be as easy as changing their diet to food 
with a high natural Iodine concentration, or in the worst case 
artificially adding Iodine to /their/ food - instead of adding it to 
/everyone's/ food.

I have someone among my relatives who suffers from this very problem. 
That is something that makes /me/ sick.

/Forced/ medication? No, sir.

If people /want/ to get vaccinated, or at least allow themselves to be 
/talked/ into being vaccinated, to protect /them/ from Polio or 
whatever, let them. But do /not/ force medication - of any kind - onto 
anyone against their will.

Sacrificing people's freedom to reject some medical procedure, in order 
to try achieving some greater medical benefit for all, opens up a can of 
particularly ugly worms we've seen crawling across Europe before.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 21:26:44 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 10/08/2013 8:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 15:02:02 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> >Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom>  wrote:
>>>> >>If, however, you're going to continue to engage in ad hominem
>>>> >>attacks against those you disagree with, then we're done here.
>>> >
>>> >You don't even know what "ad hominem" means.
>> Again with the "defining my native language to me".
>>
>>
> Bloody Aida! Jim. I didn't know that you were old enough to speak Latin
> as your native language.
> My how time flies. ;-)

;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong because of what kind of
> > person you are, or what you have done, or anything of the sorts.

> You have

And now you are also a liar. If you want to take that as an "ad hominem"
then be my guest.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> And it's time you STFU.

No, I won't shut the fuck up, and here's why:

Many people participated in the worldwide smallpox vaccination campaign,
and their efforts helped eradicate the disease from the face of Earth,
saving millions of people. Did they sometimes half-force people to be
vaccinated? Yes. However, those actions have saved millions of lives.

You, and others here, however, are calling their actions "totalitarian"
and comparing it to eugenics. That, my friend, makes you an asshole in
my books, and it makes me sick.

I would really like to see you explain to a mother whose child has been
crippled for life because of polio the reason why there is still polio
in the world. "Yeah, sorry, we could have eradicated this disease years
ago, but we didn't because, you see, our moral sensibilities take
precedence." I'm sure that mother will find solace in the notion that
her child has been a worthy sacrifice for your higher moral sensibilities,
to make you feel like you are not imposing a "totalitarian regime" and
"eugenics" onto other people. What is the life of a child in comparison
to the purity of your mind?

If avoiding "totalitarianism", as you call it, means sacrificing the life
of millions of people, then you can shove your morals where the sun doesn't
shine. You are sick in the mind.

If you want to call this an "ad hominem", then go right ahead. It won't
make any difference.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:48:16 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong because of what kind
>> > of person you are, or what you have done, or anything of the sorts.
> 
>> You have
> 
> And now you are also a liar. If you want to take that as an "ad hominem"
> then be my guest.

Stop being a jerk, Warp.

You have persistently engaged in personal attacks and character attacks 
in trying to make your point.

You have said that holding an opposing view makes you sick.  You have 
continually tried to twist what's being said so you can denigrate people 
who disagree with you.

I'm calling you out on that.

If calling you out on saying the things that you have said makes me a 
liar, then I guess that means you think I'm a liar.

Here are things that you have *specifically* said:

"You are both sick in the head, and you are making me sick."

"Do you disagree with the notion that eradicating smallpox from the world,
saving millions of lives, was a good thing?

Or would you rather sacrifice those millions of lives to your altar of
political correctness?

If you agree that those millions of lives were worth the worldwide
smallpox vaccination program, then you have not business in criticizing
the worldwide polio vaccination program, or else you are just a hypocrite.

If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the vaccination
program, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to
describe what you are, because it's nauseating to even think."

(Yes, the implication is there - "if you don't agree with what I'm 
saying, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to 
describe what you are" - you set up a strawman and knock it down by 
implying that those who don't agree with you are sick.)

I said it before, and I'll say it again:  If you want to debate *on the 
merits*, fine, let's debate on the merits.  If you're going to resort to 
calling people who disagree with you "sick" and worse, then you don't 
really have a very coherent argument to make.

Now, shall we try this again - and you can stop calling me names and 
describing what kind of a person I am because I disagree with your 
fundamental premise of forcibly vaccinating people against their will?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:59:44 -0400, Warp wrote:

> If avoiding "totalitarianism", as you call it, means sacrificing the
> life of millions of people, then you can shove your morals where the sun
> doesn't shine. You are sick in the mind.

Yeah, audit you.  I'm done.  You don't want to debate, you want to just 
engage in name calling and proclaim your moral superiority.  I'm done 
with you.  You don't know me, and you are in no position to judge me.  I 
don't really give a shit what you think, because you think that forcing 
people to do things against their will "in the name of the greater good" 
is perfectly fine.  Your authoritarian views make me sick, and your 
method of debating is reprehensible.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I tell you something sick:

> Here in Germany, some decades ago there was a huge campaign pro Iodine: 
> To fight hypothyreosis, people were encouraged to use salt with added 
> Iodine, companies were encouraged to add Iodine to their food products, 
> and farmers were encouraged to add Iodine to the food of their 
> livestock. All for the good of the people, especially (but not limited 
> to) those suffering from undiagnosed hypothyreosis.

Surely you can now point out how the polio vaccine is likewise dangerous,
and should therefore not be administered worldwide?

Do you see your "thing X is dangerous, therefore thing Y probably is too"
fallacy here?

> Sacrificing people's freedom to reject some medical procedure, in order 
> to try achieving some greater medical benefit for all, opens up a can of 
> particularly ugly worms we've seen crawling across Europe before.

There's a big difference between your iodine example and things like
smallpox and polio: These latter things are contagious, and by not
taking a vaccine, you are potentially spreading the disease to others.
You are, thus, not responsible only for your own wellbeing, but of other
people as well.

There's another difference: Smallpox and polio can be completely
eradicated. Once they are gone, they will are gone for good, and nobody
ever will have to suffer from them or need any further vaccinations for
them.

By not removing those diseases from the Earth when we have the means to,
we are responsible for all the lives that are lost or ruined. Many of
them will be people who would most certainly have wanted to live and be
healthy. The blood is in our hands if we allow people to suffer and die
when we are sitting on the cure because of our moral sensibilities.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:5206b7cf@news.povray.org...
>
> I would really like to see you explain to a mother whose child has been
> crippled for life because of polio the reason why there is still polio
> in the world. "Yeah, sorry, we could have eradicated this disease years
> ago, but we didn't because, you see, our moral sensibilities take
> precedence."

I would like to see you explain to a mother whose child has been blown in 
half by a terminator drone the reason why wealth and power are so 
concentrated in the world that the powerless majority are herded and 
slaughtered like livestock. "Yeah, sorry, we keep those guys around in case 
we have to forcibly vaccinate someone."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> > Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong because of what kind
> >> > of person you are, or what you have done, or anything of the sorts.

> Here are things that you have *specifically* said:

> "You are both sick in the head, and you are making me sick."

> "Do you disagree with the notion that eradicating smallpox from the world,
> saving millions of lives, was a good thing?

> Or would you rather sacrifice those millions of lives to your altar of
> political correctness?

> If you agree that those millions of lives were worth the worldwide
> smallpox vaccination program, then you have not business in criticizing
> the worldwide polio vaccination program, or else you are just a hypocrite.

> If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the vaccination
> program, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to
> describe what you are, because it's nauseating to even think."

Yes. None of that says that your argument is wrong because of what kind
of person you are or what you have done.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:12:11 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Yes. None of that says that your argument is wrong because of what kind
> of person you are or what you have done.

Thank you for intentionally missing my point.  That tells me what kind of 
person you are.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> and proclaim your moral superiority.

That made me laugh out loud. Look who's talking.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:12:11 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > Yes. None of that says that your argument is wrong because of what kind
> > of person you are or what you have done.

> Thank you for intentionally missing my point.  That tells me what kind of 
> person you are.

I said, and I quote: "Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong
because of what kind of person you are, or what you have done, or
anything of the sorts."

You said, and I quote: "You have"

Then you quoted my previous posts trying to argue why I have done that,
and none of it was that kind of argument.

Now you are saying that I'm "missing your point." I take that as an
acknowledgement.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:19:20 -0400, Warp wrote:

> I said, and I quote: "Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong
> because of what kind of person you are, or what you have done, or
> anything of the sorts."

You tried to imply that if I disagree with you, I'm a horrible, horrible, 
immoral person.

As I said, I AM DONE.  GO AWAY.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Shay <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
> news:5206b7cf@news.povray.org...
> >
> > I would really like to see you explain to a mother whose child has been
> > crippled for life because of polio the reason why there is still polio
> > in the world. "Yeah, sorry, we could have eradicated this disease years
> > ago, but we didn't because, you see, our moral sensibilities take
> > precedence."

> I would like to see you explain to a mother whose child has been blown in 
> half by a terminator drone the reason why wealth and power are so 
> concentrated in the world that the powerless majority are herded and 
> slaughtered like livestock. "Yeah, sorry, we keep those guys around in case 
> we have to forcibly vaccinate someone." 

You seem to be saying that we shouldn't vaccinate people because of
drones. And then you wonder why I find it sickening?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:19:20 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > I said, and I quote: "Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong
> > because of what kind of person you are, or what you have done, or
> > anything of the sorts."

> You tried to imply that if I disagree with you, I'm a horrible, horrible, 
> immoral person.

Yes, and I'm still saying it.

However, you accused me of making ad hominems (ie. claiming that you are
wrong *because* you are a horrible person), and I didn't, as demonstrated.

> As I said, I AM DONE.  GO AWAY.

Why?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:5206bcb8@news.povray.org...
>
> You seem to be saying that we shouldn't vaccinate people because of
> drones. And then you wonder why I find it sickening?
>

I'm saying we shouldn't concentrate authority to the extent that we have the 
ability to force people into vaccinations.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:22:35 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:19:20 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > I said, and I quote: "Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong
>> > because of what kind of person you are, or what you have done, or
>> > anything of the sorts."
> 
>> You tried to imply that if I disagree with you, I'm a horrible,
>> horrible,
>> immoral person.
> 
> Yes, and I'm still saying it.
> 
> However, you accused me of making ad hominems (ie. claiming that you are
> wrong *because* you are a horrible person), and I didn't, as
> demonstrated.

*sigh*

You seem to be thinking that "ad hominem" only is used in the context of 
"argumentum ad hominum".

So, here's a very simple explanation.  If you don't understand it, well, 
I guess then you're just stupid.

"Ad hominem" is latin:  "ad" meaning "to", and "hominem", which is the 
accusative form of "homo", which means "person".

Clear?

By definition, this means "Relating to or directed at a particular 
person; (also) directed against the individual concerned rather than the 
relevant issue; personal.¨  (Citation, Oxford English Dictionary, Online 
edition)

An "ad hominem attack" is therefore an "attack directed at a particular 
person".

Clear?

Now, you said that I make you sick because I don't agree with you that 
forced vaccination is appropriate, because the goal of eliminating deadly 
diseases trumps everything.  You favor an authoritarian approach, whereby 
you force people to be vaccinated whether they want it or not.

You want to use the force of your authority to vaccinate people to make 
them not have a choice.  That's the definition of authoritarianism.  It 
has nothing to do with government, it has everything to do with your own 
self-perceived position of authority.  "I know better then them, so I'm 
going to force them to do what I think they should do."  That is, by 
definition, and authoritarian approach to solving a problem.

You say that anyone who has a problem with that (a) doesn't really want 
to rid the world of disease, (b) makes you sick.

Now.

I have a problem with that approach.  NOT because I think deadly diseases 
are wonderful things and should be allowed to flourish.  I have a problem 
with that approach because it dehumanizes the people you would force to 
be vaccinated.  It treats them as less than people, and it imposes your 
will and your sense of "I know better" on them, regardless of the actual 
consequences.

The approach that I favor (which - surprise - doesn't include NOT 
VACCINATING PEOPLE AGAINST DEADLY DISEASES) is educating the people you 
want to vaccinate, and give them the choice after they've been educated.

I DO NOT advocate doing so by force.  I advocate vaccinating them by 
educating them and giving them a choice.  I would advocate encouraging 
them to make the "right" choice, but in the end, THEY GET TO MAKE THE 
CHOICE BECAUSE THEY ARE PEOPLE AND NOT CATTLE.

Now, if you have a problem with that, you are a sick, twisted individual 
who doesn't understand the value of individual freedoms, and because 
people with less education than you are nothing more more than cattle to 
be "managed".  That makes me want to vomit.  If you think that, then you 
are an asshole and I don't want you anywhere near having the authority or 
the power to actually put your plan into action.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/10/2013 4:33 AM, Shay wrote:
>
>
> "Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:5205a3f5$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>> And, I think you are being naive, like most people that suscribe to
>> their "vision", that you can kill the beast, instead of just breeding
>> a new one. At the core, you will always get the same result, if you
>> don't have someone making sure that megacorps don't form, or that the
>> smaller ones band together, to control the government too, etc. The
>> beast can get smaller, or bigger, but you don't kill it by someone
>> deregulating everything, shutting down the government, getting rid of
>> a military, and replacing it with 500 groups of thugs, instead of one,
>> etc.
>
> And I thing you are being naïve, like most people who subscribe to the
> centralized-power "vision" that you can control a larger share of the
> government than you do the economy. And worse, you *!*want*!*
> price-fixing, selective taxation, and a massive military. Doesn't work.
> Hasn't worked. Won't work.
Oh, I do huh? So glad you know what is going on in my mind. No, I don't 
want a massive military. That is just wasteful and stupid. I want 
government that works, unfortunately, time after time, we see that 
"works" generally means that there are lots of small fish, fighting over 
things, such that they are forced to compromise with the people that 
elected them to get a nibble at things they want themselves. What we 
have now, instead, is a two party mess, where the only thing that 
changes is which species of fish is in charge, and maybe, once in a 
while, the ecosystem shifts enough that the smaller ones among that 
species rise up, and replace the bigger ones, hence the right wing, 
ultra-religious, government so small it will fit in your back pocket, or 
a woman's uterus, "republicans", we are seeing right now.

There is such a thing as both too big, and too small. But, that isn't 
the only problem. Libertarians can, and do, play the game the same way, 
and are already turning into another big fish. That is what won't work.

As for price fixing and selective taxation.. This one really gets me... 
How many technologies, short of a damn war, have grown, only because 
someone, other than the public sector, decided they where worth 
pursuing, and "funded" research? How would any of them have ended up 
being created, without some sort of incentive, from "non-public" 
sources, who, I don't give a frak what kind of economist you are, your 
company, mega-corp or otherwise, will want to, unless they can 
monopolize the new technology in some way, maintain the status quo 
instead. Don't you dare tell me libertarians don't think that way, I see 
it all the time from them. If it can't benefit them, more than someone 
else, then its a "bad investment". Not, in fact, actually true, and if 
they really did give a damn about helping other people, they would have 
been building, for example, light rail, in recognition of the necessity, 
and improvement to everyone's well being, including their workers, and 
thus, their odds of having workers, 30 years ago. Oddly, the only people 
bothering has been "government", and they have been so two faced about 
it, that all that has ever been done is to waste tens of millions of 
dollar, "studying" the problem, like.. at least once every 5 years, like 
clockwork, and increasing costs, every single time.

And taxation.. I have heard all about the whole "tax everyone the same". 
It has *exactly* one thing, and only one thing, going for it - if you 
could manage to keep people from having loopholes (Whoops, there goes 
incentives for charity, running needed, but poor profitability 
businesses at a loss, or dozens of other legit reasons to allow 
loopholes, along with the 50 times as many illegitimate ones), you might 
get "some" of them to actually pay taxes. Of course, all the extra money 
they make would, instead of flowing back into our economy, would instead 
flow into a offshore Caiman Island account, just like it does now, 
because, surprisingly, they a) don't have enough to spend their money 
on, that offsets the slow, inevitable, bankruptcy of the entire rest of 
the economy, as money disappears, never to be seen again, and b) there 
is no way, under such a so called "fair" tax system to recover any of it.

I really do not comprehend why this basic math is so hard. Its like a 
hydraulic leak, or an air leak, or heck, a bloody memory leak. 
Eventually, it **must** crash the system. Do we, every few thousand 
years, have another French revolution, to fix this, or actually admit 
that its total bullshit that being rich, making a lot of money, and then 
railing about people taking it, is "acceptable", because someone you 
"earned it" by being better than all the people for which the 
combination of, yes, government spending, but also, your own damned 
unnecessary greed, inflates costs by 600% in fewer decades than I need 
the fingers on one hand to count them?

I will be honest, I am a "social" libertarian. A lot of liberals would 
likely admit the same. Its the whole, "My neighbor believing differently 
than I do, neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my bones." The problem 
is, that is only half right. Belief can be challenged by fact, 
knowledge, especially of ourselves, undermines differences. Ideals, and 
beliefs, can become tolerable, when "understood", or must be through 
out, when they prove to be intolerant of change, reality, or the well 
being of a people. Economics.. doesn't work like this. When that has to 
change, real people get hurt, in real ways, and sometimes killed, 
because, some bastard out there, right now, is figuring out that they 
can pick my wallet, even while finding a way to convince someone else, 
to pay a fourth party, to break my legs, all so they can shove what ever 
they got out of my wallet, into their shoe box.

There is no ideology in that, other than, "I deserve", no argument you 
can make in its disfavor, which doesn't demand that the perpetrator 
admit they don't deserve it, no solution that can be proposed, which 
will not inconvenient the one planning it, and yet no way that it can be 
allowed to continue, without all of the problems such thinking causes, 
getting worse. Introduce the concept of "I own", to any object you 
cannot physically carry on your person, and pretty soon some idiot is 
applying it to intangible ideas, patches of land, which they don't want 
other people on, food and other basic needs, and finally, to *people*, 
who after all, are just one more commodity, which, if they are not 
"earning" enough, must simply not be "trying hard enough".

Economic libertarianism in inhumane, it ignores "why" we don't have 
freer markets (or, rather, it ignores the sound reasons some laws where 
passed, and simply asserts that only the corrupt ones count), and then, 
kind of like someone who says, "There have never ever been true 
communists", they proclaim, as you just did, "No one has tried a true 
libertarian economy!" From where I am standing, and given the things 
that the moment have flat out, boldly stated, about some things.. I have 
no problem understanding why, and being terrified at the prospect 
someone might actually attempt it. Because, all I can see, given its 
leaders, is Dystopia.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/9/2013 8:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:09 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> On 8/8/2013 1:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 22:05:56 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Uhmm, you did get the sarcasm, did you?
>>>
>>> It seems not - sorry, it's been a rough couple of days for me. :/
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>> Yeah, missed it too, but, in my case, because this is *actually* one of
>> the bullshit arguments I hear from a lot of people (interestingly, quite
>> a few of which are libertarians).
>
> That's the sign of a good poe, though.
>
> Jim
>
Actually, one of the sites one which that concept was coined now bans 
its use. The reason being that bad, stupid, pointlessly mad, arguments 
are so common, from certain sorts of people, there, that its impossible 
to tell when someone is, in fact, joking, and when they are serious, and 
therefor address the serious ones. It is a victim, in effect, of its own 
success, since, you can't combat stupid, by labeling every single such 
thing that gets posted as, 'There is no way this guy is serious." lol

Post a reply to this message

On 8/10/2013 12:02 PM, Warp wrote:
> "He doesn't accept the theory of evolution, therefore he's an idiot"
> is *not* an ad hominem.
>
> "He is in jail for tax fraud, and thus you shouldn't be listening to
> what he has to say about the theory of evolution" *is* an ad hominem.
> (He might be wrong about evolution, but he being in jail for tax fraud
> is completely irrelevant to the issue.)
>
Hmm... Does that mean, "He is an engineer, so listening to him about 
evolution is pointless.", ad hominem then? Because, from my experience, 
sometimes these things are more like maxims. lol

Post a reply to this message

On 8/10/2013 3:00 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> If you agree that those millions of lives were worth the worldwide
> smallpox vaccination program, then you have not business in criticizing
> the worldwide polio vaccination program, or else you are just a hypocrite.
>
> If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the vaccination
> program, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to
> describe what you are, because it's nauseating to even think."
>
> (Yes, the implication is there - "if you don't agree with what I'm
> saying, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to
> describe what you are" - you set up a strawman and knock it down by
> implying that those who don't agree with you are sick.)
>
Hmm. I am not going to defend Warp's spiral into poor defense of an 
argument, but, I will toss in my two cents. "Mandatory Public 
Education". Every argument you can make against forced vaccines can be 
made against public education, and often is. But, we can also see the 
immediate consequence of "good" education, and the decline of thinking, 
skills, etc., from "not" having it. And, very nearly the exact same 
argument is made, by those attempting to get rid of, undermine, or 
replace is, "We should be allowed to choose." They even went so far as, 
during the Reagan administration, actually passing laws that "prevented" 
some states from extending that education, as a free service, into 
colleges. All because people who can't tell their ass from their elbows, 
or the East India company in Pirate of the Caribbean, from the same 
entity, in the real history books, don't want to be "dictated to" by 
"totalitarians, bent on making their kids think the wrong way."

Its hardly a surprise that the "method" these people want to employ 
amounts to, one other subjects, including "prayer in schools", is also 
"totalitarian", and aimed at simply replacing the current perceived 
dictators with there own. As bad as it may sound, sometimes, you do need 
the Havelock Vetinari's in charge of some things, even if its just to 
keep the Winders and and Snapcases out (for those that don't get this - 
Vetinari is the dictator of Ank-Morpork, in the disc world series, and 
no longer on the assissin's list, due to everyone deciding that, for the 
first time, the city was actually working. Winder was a total nutcase... 
think.. a dark ages version of Nixon, and Snapcase, while not seeing 
sedition, and murders under every rock, was, otherwise.. worse.)

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 8/10/2013 12:02 PM, Warp wrote:
> > "He doesn't accept the theory of evolution, therefore he's an idiot"
> > is *not* an ad hominem.
> >
> > "He is in jail for tax fraud, and thus you shouldn't be listening to
> > what he has to say about the theory of evolution" *is* an ad hominem.
> > (He might be wrong about evolution, but he being in jail for tax fraud
> > is completely irrelevant to the issue.)
> >
> Hmm... Does that mean, "He is an engineer, so listening to him about 
> evolution is pointless.", ad hominem then? Because, from my experience, 
> sometimes these things are more like maxims. lol

I suppose that, technically speaking, it is. While there's nothing wrong
in being an engineer, that status is still being used as some kind of
reason to discredit their argument, in a completely non-sequitur manner.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.08.2013 00:08, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> I tell you something sick:
>
>> Here in Germany, some decades ago there was a huge campaign pro Iodine:
>> To fight hypothyreosis, people were encouraged to use salt with added
>> Iodine, companies were encouraged to add Iodine to their food products,
>> and farmers were encouraged to add Iodine to the food of their
>> livestock. All for the good of the people, especially (but not limited
>> to) those suffering from undiagnosed hypothyreosis.
>
> Surely you can now point out how the polio vaccine is likewise dangerous,
> and should therefore not be administered worldwide?

It should /not/ be administered to people who are unwilling to accept 
that procedure; first of all I doubt that /any/ vaccination is without 
risk - if only because in the course of production of the vaccine 
something might go wrong, causing people to be infected with polio 
rather than vaccinated against it. How many polio victims are you 
willing to risk in order to protect others?

And second, here's the opening of that can of ugly worms I was refering 
to in my previous post: How many people will you be willing to sacrifice 
in the next, possibly more dangerous world-wide vaccination? And how 
about a scheme to eradicate some hereditary disease?

You can answer those questions with mathematical formulae, but those 
formulae are cold and cruel, as they completely ignore the individuals 
they sacrifice.

> Do you see your "thing X is dangerous, therefore thing Y probably is too"
> fallacy here?

No, because that's absolutely not my point. My point is "thing X is 
dangerous, and thing Y flattens an important moral barrier to X, thus Y 
/is/ dangerous".

And yes, it has been /proven/ in practice that the sort of moral that 
calls for polio to be eliminated by a /forced/ programme, if taken too 
far, will deliberately /kill/ for that higher good.

What you're totally ignoring is that diseases can also be effectively 
pushed back by /voluntary/ vaccination programmes. No, of course those 
don't eradicate the virus entirely; but don't tell me that smallpox is 
entirely dead - you will surely still find it in some secret labs.

>> Sacrificing people's freedom to reject some medical procedure, in order
>> to try achieving some greater medical benefit for all, opens up a can of
>> particularly ugly worms we've seen crawling across Europe before.
>
> There's a big difference between your iodine example and things like
> smallpox and polio: These latter things are contagious, and by not
> taking a vaccine, you are potentially spreading the disease to others.
> You are, thus, not responsible only for your own wellbeing, but of other
> people as well.

Obviously an unvaccinated person can only spread the disease to other 
unvaccinated people. An unvaccinated person is thus responsible for 
getting the disease in the first place, but he/she is /not/ responsible 
for other people getting the disease, because it would have been the 
responsibility of those others to get vaccinated in order to protect 
themselves.

> There's another difference: Smallpox and polio can be completely
> eradicated. Once they are gone, they will are gone for good, and nobody
> ever will have to suffer from them or need any further vaccinations for
> them.

While that may sound all good and nice, it totally ignores the moral 
fallout of a forced vaccination scheme, and also totally neglects the 
possibility of a longer-lasting, more expensive but entirely voluntary 
programme, which will come without that fallout.

What would you have prefered to end WW2 in the Pacific - a conventional 
bombardment of Japan that might have led to more immediate casualties on 
both sides, or the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs that ended the war in a 
single flash, but (besides causing unimaginable suffering among those 
people who survived) caused moral fallout that the world is still 
chewing on today?

Your answer to this question might be different from the one I would 
give, but I'm sure you will acknowledge that it is difficult to answer, 
and that each person should be entitled the right to their own answer, 
no matter what facts and numbers are presented.

While you may not see the moral implications of a forced polio 
vaccination scheme, they are there, and they are - I think - of similar 
severity as in the Hiroshima/Nakasaki boms question, so each observer 
(and consequently each person on this forum) should be entitled to their 
own opinion on this matter, without polemic attempts to invalidate their 
opinion, like the following:

> By not removing those diseases from the Earth when we have the means to,
> we are responsible for all the lives that are lost or ruined. Many of
> them will be people who would most certainly have wanted to live and be
> healthy. The blood is in our hands if we allow people to suffer and die
> when we are sitting on the cure because of our moral sensibilities.

I'll ignore this last paragraph of yours, and especially that "blood is 
[on] our hands" part, because I don't think that you have the right to 
invoke this kind of polemics in this discussion.

Post a reply to this message

On 11-8-2013 0:08, Warp wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> I tell you something sick:
>
>> Here in Germany, some decades ago there was a huge campaign pro Iodine:
>> To fight hypothyreosis, people were encouraged to use salt with added
>> Iodine, companies were encouraged to add Iodine to their food products,
>> and farmers were encouraged to add Iodine to the food of their
>> livestock. All for the good of the people, especially (but not limited
>> to) those suffering from undiagnosed hypothyreosis.
>
> Surely you can now point out how the polio vaccine is likewise dangerous,
> and should therefore not be administered worldwide?
>
> Do you see your "thing X is dangerous, therefore thing Y probably is too"
> fallacy here?

Clipka is mainly telling a story. Just to explain his position. Which 
is about forced medication/vaccination. There is no claim anywhere that 
polio vaccines are dangerous or even 'probably' dangerous.

Which means that what you did put in quotes was not in his text, just in 
your mind. Do I need to remind you what it is called if you attack not 
what someone said but your own exaggeration of that?



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> It should /not/ be administered to people who are unwilling to accept 
> that procedure; first of all I doubt that /any/ vaccination is without 
> risk - if only because in the course of production of the vaccine 
> something might go wrong, causing people to be infected with polio 
> rather than vaccinated against it. How many polio victims are you 
> willing to risk in order to protect others?

And once again we come back to the question: Do you think the smallpox
vaccination program (which was sometimes administered via borderline
force), which has saved millions of lives, was a bad thing?

If the same western culture zeitgeist had been in place in the 60's and
70's as today, smallpox would very probably still exist, killing countless
innocent people who wouldn't have to die from that disease.

If you could go back in time, and had the power, would you have stopped
those semi-forced vaccinations from taking place, risking smallpox not
being completely eradicated, with the subsequent deaths up to this day?

I'm not going to fall into namecalling anymore, but I am going to say
with absolute sincerity that I would not do that even if I could. I see
the lives of all those people as more important than our western moral
sensibilities. If you really want to call it "totalitarianism" then you
can go ahead. It won't change my mind.

People here are comparing forced vaccination programs to totalitarianism
and eugenics. However, a better comparison would be mandatory elementary
education.

Most western countries have mandatory elementary education. The opinion
of the "victims" isn't asked. Parents who would refuse to allow their
children to go to school will be met with ever-increasing sanctions, up
to their children being taken into custody by force.

This would be an even better argument for this kind of state to be
classified as "totalitarian", because it is literally a form of government
where said government imposes its power on its own citizens, disregarding
individual opinions. Yet nobody in their right mind would call this
totalitarianism.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:52070dd3@news.povray.org...

This is going in circles.

You say, "Government is evil and a tool for the rich."

I say, "Then we need less government."

You say, "No, we need more government, with more authority, because 
government is evil and a tool for the rich."

Post a reply to this message

"Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:52071360$1@news.povray.org...
> Hmm. I am not going to defend Warp's spiral into poor defense of an 
> argument, but, I will toss in my two cents. "Mandatory Public Education".

Not the same thing. /My/ state requires I feed and educate my child, at 
least, once he's born. The education requirements are actually quite modest. 
That the alternatives are not better accepted is society's problem, not the 
state's. It's even conceivable that my national government could require I 
vaccinate my child, though that would, if it were done legally (your lot 
have pushed us nearly into mob rule), require a Constitutional amendment.

This is much different than going to another country and locking up /their/ 
children between 5 and 18-years-old.

Post a reply to this message

Shay <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> This is much different than going to another country and locking up /their/ 
> children between 5 and 18-years-old. 

I would like you to tell if you think the smallpox vaccination program was
a good thing or a bad thing.

I ask this because I am finding a notional dissonance here. I get the
feeling that people here want to keep the cake and eat it too: They think
the smallpox vaccination program was indeed a good thing (because it has
saved countless lives), yet they still oppose the idea of such a vaccination
program (because it requires forcing those who refuse to take the vaccine
eg. because of superstitious beliefs, which is in fact the situation with
the polio vaccination program.)

One could argue that the smallpox vaccination program was good, but could
have been handled better (ie. respecting more people's choice). The problem
with that is that it would have taken much longer to eradicate smallpox
(which could well still exist today if it had been done like that), and
countless people would have subsequently died because of it.

Therefore, as ugly as it sounds, the "handling things better" (from a
western moral perspective) would have caused innocent people to die.

*That* is a notional dissonance, and one that I personally do not accept.
I put people's lives ahead of moral sensibilities. If I had to choose,
I would choose the former over the latter, especially in this case,
where no negative consequences were involved. (If there were any negative
consequences to the smallpox vaccination program, they were minor and
short-lasting.)

I do not accept the notion that a harmless vaccination program should be
deterred in order to appease our moral sensibilities, at the cost of
countless lives.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:52079769@news.povray.org...
>
> I would like you to tell if you think the smallpox vaccination program was
> a good thing or a bad thing.

I think the small pox vaccination was a beneficial thing, which is exactly 
as relevant as my thinking the holocaust was a horrific thing.

You don't see this, because people like you and Patrick don't fear power 
anywhere near as much as you covet it. *That's* the dissonance. That's why 
you embrace totalitarianism.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On 11/08/2013 2:53 PM, Warp wrote:
> I ask this because I am finding a notional dissonance here. I get the
> feeling that people here want to keep the cake and eat it too: They think
> the smallpox vaccination program was indeed a good thing (because it has
> saved countless lives), yet they still oppose the idea of such a vaccination
> program (because it requires forcing those who refuse to take the vaccine
> eg. because of superstitious beliefs, which is in fact the situation with
> the polio vaccination program.)

So what is strange about believing two contradictory things at the same 
time? That is what people do.

When you get those types of problems. Not only do you need to balance 
the "Good" of the solutions. You need to balance the "Evil", too.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11-8-2013 14:30, Warp wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> It should /not/ be administered to people who are unwilling to accept
>> that procedure; first of all I doubt that /any/ vaccination is without
>> risk - if only because in the course of production of the vaccine
>> something might go wrong, causing people to be infected with polio
>> rather than vaccinated against it. How many polio victims are you
>> willing to risk in order to protect others?
>
> And once again we come back to the question: Do you think the smallpox
> vaccination program (which was sometimes administered via borderline
> force), which has saved millions of lives, was a bad thing?

> If the same western culture zeitgeist had been in place in the 60's and
> 70's as today, smallpox would very probably still exist, killing countless
> innocent people who wouldn't have to die from that disease.
>

Many people are not going to believe you anymore when you wear a white 
coat and say you do it because it is good for them. You can not do that 
in any developed country (like for measles in the Netherlands) and also 
not in a developing country. In the latter you can be sure that someone 
will point out that it is just another form of imperialism (often to 
gain something himself, but that is not the point) and there will be 
people that will listen and act accordingly.

Or they have other (mixed) reasons:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255970/Seven-Pakistan-aid-workers-murdered-new-polio-revenge-attack-Killings-blamed-Taliban-avenging-Osama-bin-Laden.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/16/pakistan-militants-kill-health-workers

Another disease we want to get rid of is AIDS, yet there are people that 
claim that AIDS was invented by the west to oppress Africa. That does 
not help an treatment and prevention program. If you try to force such a 
program on them they will retaliate. There is always a US embassy in the 
neighbourhood and if not they can pick victims from the tourists, aid 
workers and ex-pats.

Two years ago we had the bird flu disaster. I.e. there was no disaster. 
Still a couple of companies made good money from it. One side effect is 
that the WHO is in trouble now. Both financially and morally. Does not 
help either.

Several other wide spread campaigns suffered from unforeseen side 
effects (see e.g. clipka's mail and the CAST study). Flu vaccinations 
tend to induce fever is some people. On average less people die when you 
vaccinate, but some die that would still be alive if they had not taken 
the vaccination. So if the flu does not come or in a different shape, 
was it worth it? There are also reports of people dying from polio 
vaccinations. Not many, but OTOH nobody is going to gain reporting them 
anyway.

Large scale vaccinations and medications are a sort of Russian roulette, 
that the results were very positive in one case is no guarantee for the 
future. And there is the real danger of political side effects.

In conclusion:
Getting rid of polio was a good thing. Yet, the method used then, could 
not be applied now. Both because we think different about human rights 
now *and* because the people you would want to vaccinate are thinking 
different.
It is really a pity that reality is sometimes more complicated then one 
would like. Just shouting that reality should behave better and that the 
world would be a better place if we all lived in your simplistic world 
is not going to help. Sorry.

[let's see if you get to this point before starting to shout]
Can we now please get back to the points that Shay made when starting 
this threat?



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 08:26:48 -0500, Shay wrote:

> "Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:52071360$1@news.povray.org...
>> Hmm. I am not going to defend Warp's spiral into poor defense of an
>> argument, but, I will toss in my two cents. "Mandatory Public
>> Education".
> 
> Not the same thing. /My/ state requires I feed and educate my child, at
> least, once he's born. The education requirements are actually quite
> modest.
> That the alternatives are not better accepted is society's problem, not
> the state's. It's even conceivable that my national government could
> require I vaccinate my child, though that would, if it were done legally
> (your lot have pushed us nearly into mob rule), require a Constitutional
> amendment.
> 
> This is much different than going to another country and locking up
> /their/ children between 5 and 18-years-old.

Yep, this. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Shay <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> You don't see this, because people like you and Patrick don't fear power 
> anywhere near as much as you covet it. *That's* the dissonance. That's why 
> you embrace totalitarianism.

I get the feeling that you are now deliberately trying to make me write
nasty things by trolling me.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> In conclusion:
> Getting rid of polio was a good thing. Yet, the method used then, could 
> not be applied now. Both because we think different about human rights 
> now *and* because the people you would want to vaccinate are thinking 
> different.

This is, in fact, pretty much what I said in my original post in response
to the post about Gates foundation polio vaccination campaign in this
thread. In other words, that it's a pitty that it won't work like the
smallpox campaign did because the cultural zeitgeist has changed.

Many people will suffer, get crippled and even die because of stupid
superstition as well as changed notions in political correctness. People
who wouldn't need to suffer. Humanity is stupid.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.08.2013 14:30, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> It should /not/ be administered to people who are unwilling to accept
>> that procedure; first of all I doubt that /any/ vaccination is without
>> risk - if only because in the course of production of the vaccine
>> something might go wrong, causing people to be infected with polio
>> rather than vaccinated against it. How many polio victims are you
>> willing to risk in order to protect others?
>
> And once again we come back to the question: Do you think the smallpox
> vaccination program (which was sometimes administered via borderline
> force), which has saved millions of lives, was a bad thing?

If it used borderline force, then it was a borderline thing.

> If the same western culture zeitgeist had been in place in the 60's and
> 70's as today, smallpox would very probably still exist, killing countless
> innocent people who wouldn't have to die from that disease.

That may or may not be the case. The smallpox vaccination programme 
might have been just (or at least almost) as successful without 
resorting to borderline force.

> If you could go back in time, and had the power, would you have stopped
> those semi-forced vaccinations from taking place, risking smallpox not
> being completely eradicated, with the subsequent deaths up to this day?

Yes, I might have done that. I might have taken that risk; note that a 
risk is something that may or may not happen.

> I'm not going to fall into namecalling anymore, but I am going to say
> with absolute sincerity that I would not do that even if I could. I see
> the lives of all those people as more important than our western moral
> sensibilities. If you really want to call it "totalitarianism" then you
> can go ahead. It won't change my mind.

You are free to hold this stance; I have no serious problem with that, 
especially since you are not the one to make the call. But please leave 
others the freedom to be of different opinion - at least those people wo 
aren't the ones to make the call either.

> People here are comparing forced vaccination programs to totalitarianism
> and eugenics. However, a better comparison would be mandatory elementary
> education.

No. Education doesn't normally put your health at any risk.

> Most western countries have mandatory elementary education. The opinion
> of the "victims" isn't asked. Parents who would refuse to allow their
> children to go to school will be met with ever-increasing sanctions, up
> to their children being taken into custody by force.

Yes, this might be debatable. But note that it is pretty clear that 
/every/ uneducated child /will/ suffer severe consequences, so it can be 
argued that the government needs to step in for the /individual/ child, 
to protect its right to a good education from being restricted by their 
parents. (And yes, I would argue that if the parents cater for the 
child's education by private means, it should /not/ be forced to attend 
a governmental school.)

In the case of vaccination, you can only invoke this very same argument 
when we're talking about vaccination of children - and even then it is 
/not/ clear whether you're averting factual and otherwise inevitable 
severe consequences for /this/ particular child you intend to vaccinate. 
As a matter of fact, the whole forced vaccination scheme is based on the 
idea of forcing something on /this/ person to prevent /others/ from 
severe consequences - which you /might/ actually be able to avert using 
different means.

The best comparison /is/ eugenics: There, as well, the idea is to impose 
some medical procedures on (most likely unwilling) people to improve the 
health of future generations - with the only major difference that it's 
not about genetic material transmitted within a generation (by a virus), 
but genetic material transmitted from one generation to the next.

Post a reply to this message

On 11-8-2013 21:31, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> In conclusion:
>> Getting rid of polio was a good thing. Yet, the method used then, could
>> not be applied now. Both because we think different about human rights
>> now *and* because the people you would want to vaccinate are thinking
>> different.
>
> This is, in fact, pretty much what I said in my original post in response
> to the post about Gates foundation polio vaccination campaign in this
> thread. In other words, that it's a pitty that it won't work like the
> smallpox campaign did because the cultural zeitgeist has changed.
>
> Many people will suffer, get crippled and even die because of stupid
> superstition as well as changed notions in political correctness. People
> who wouldn't need to suffer. Humanity is stupid.
>

Except that we (taking the liberty to speak also for your other 
'opponents') don't think humanity is stupid. You can't get back to that 
time without also loosing the benefits of our time. There was a small 
time-window in which the smallpox campaign could have worked and luckily 
it was a disease where the approach turned out to work. Humanity got 
double lucky, I don't count on it to work again next time. It might, or 
it might not. Even if it would work for polio, the downside of forcing 
it is too risky to try that approach.

In the long run it will probably be eradicated but mainly because 
education and standards of living improves. Force will probably only 
play in the hands of those who don't want the situation to improve 
because they benefit from the poverty and ignorance of others. Which 
means that force might actually be counterproductive and delay the 
eradication of polio.

Humanity has become wiser and the human interactions have become more 
complex. I am quite happy with that. Even if it means that polio will be 
longer with us. Which is obviously not my goal. On the contrary, by 
trying to increase the availability of appropriate biomedical technology 
in developing countries, we* hope to create an environment where the 
polio campaign has a bigger change of success. I hope you will also play 
your role in this campaign in a way that fits you.

*) the IFMBE together with our friends in the IOMP

-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 22:35:21 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Except that we (taking the liberty to speak also for your other
> 'opponents') don't think humanity is stupid.

Yep.  I think most of humanity understands that issues are not as black 
and white/simple as some would make them out to be.  It's naïve to 
oversimplify things without regard for their inherent complexity - and 
when people are involved, life is rarely simple.

That's one of the problems we have with extreme conservatives over here 
in the US, I think.  (And, truth be told, extreme liberals as well)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > If you could go back in time, and had the power, would you have stopped
> > those semi-forced vaccinations from taking place, risking smallpox not
> > being completely eradicated, with the subsequent deaths up to this day?

> Yes, I might have done that. I might have taken that risk; note that a 
> risk is something that may or may not happen.

So, how many lives would you consider an acceptable loss in the name of
respecting people's freedom of choice? How many deaths would be necessary
before you would change your opinion and accept forced vaccinations?
A hundred? A thousand? A million? How many would you sacrifice?

Do you understand why I find this whole conversation so nauseating?

> > People here are comparing forced vaccination programs to totalitarianism
> > and eugenics. However, a better comparison would be mandatory elementary
> > education.

> No. Education doesn't normally put your health at any risk.

I don't even understand how you can completely reverse the notion of
saving the lives of millions of people into the notion of putting lives
at risk. That's completely backwards.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message