NationStates

Chernoslavia wrote:

Kowani wrote:What?

You're going get many people refusing to get vaccinated along with armed patriot groups who aren't just going to stand idly by as you drag their friends and neighbors out of their homes.

FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO INFECT OTHERS
FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO GET MEASLES AND WORSE
ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAHHH

Thermodolia wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Is supporting civil war against the rules here?

No not at all. It just gives me full power to start arresting and quarantining those who might be a threat

And their "right" to infect people before you catch up to them.

Andsed wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:I have zero responsibility to society, as do you. My country just happens to be wear I am living at the time.

Well when innocent men women and children start dying of the preventable illnesses because people like you refuse to get vaccinated for some god forsaken reason we know who to blame.

And my conscience shall remain clear.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Andsed wrote:Well when innocent men women and children start dying of the preventable illnesses because people like you refuse to get vaccinated for some god forsaken reason we know who to blame.

And my conscience shall remain clear.

So your perfectly fine with endangering innocent people? That’s fucked up.

Andsed wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:And my conscience shall remain clear.

So your perfectly fine with endangering innocent people? That’s fucked up.

I don't have a problem with vaccinating your children, I'm not an anti-vaxer, I believe it's a choice though and I don't have any plans to get any jabs myself in the near future.

You know, I'd love it if antivax parents were brought into a Siberian forest and they are forced to fight one another. That could be a source of entertainment.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Andsed wrote:So your perfectly fine with endangering innocent people? That’s fucked up.

I don't have a problem with vaccinating your children, I'm not an anti-vaxer, I believe it's a choice though and I don't have any plans to get any jabs myself in the near future.

"Choice" lmfao
"MUH CHILDREN ARE SIMULATIONS OF HUMAN IMMUNE SYSTEM AND IT'S MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE" adult male cow defecation?

Tetradimensional Overworld wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:I don't have a problem with vaccinating your children, I'm not an anti-vaxer, I believe it's a choice though and I don't have any plans to get any jabs myself in the near future.

"Choice" lmfao
"MUH CHILDREN ARE SIMULATIONS OF HUMAN IMMUNE SYSTEM AND IT'S MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE" adult male cow defecation?

Parents are responsible for medical decisions fr children in most cases.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Tetradimensional Overworld wrote:"Choice" lmfao
"MUH CHILDREN ARE SIMULATIONS OF HUMAN IMMUNE SYSTEM AND IT'S MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE" adult male cow defecation?

Parents are responsible for medical decisions fr children in most cases.

Yeah, but that doesn't excuse "MUH CHILDREN ARE LAB RA-I MEAN LAB HUMANS AND IT'S MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE" crap. I hope the UN would reach an agreement to send anti vax parents to Siberia to fight one another for food supply before the winter comes. It would be an entertainment.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Tetradimensional Overworld wrote:"Choice" lmfao
"MUH CHILDREN ARE SIMULATIONS OF HUMAN IMMUNE SYSTEM AND IT'S MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE" adult male cow defecation?

Parents are responsible for medical decisions fr children in most cases.

Not when those choices harm their children.

If a parent believes that their child getting a blood transfusion will cut them off from the grace of God, and that child gets desperately ill and needs a transfusion, that parent can be overruled in court and their child be given a transfusion.

If a parent believes they can pray their child's illness away and their child dies, their parent will be prosecuted (possibly for murder).

Parents do not have unlimited rights over their child's body, to their child's detriment.

Parents should not have the right to let their children get potentially fatal diseases.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Parents are responsible for medical decisions fr children in most cases.

Not when those choices harm their children.

If a parent believes that their child getting a blood transfusion will cut them off from the grace of God, and that child gets desperately ill and needs a transfusion, that parent can be overruled in court and their child be given a transfusion.

If a parent believes they can pray their child's illness away and their child dies, their parent will be prosecuted (possibly for murder).

Parents do not have unlimited rights over their child's body, to their child's detriment.

Parents should not have the right to let their children get potentially fatal diseases.

I fully agree.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Parents are responsible for medical decisions fr children in most cases.

Not when those choices harm their children.

If a parent believes that their child getting a blood transfusion will cut them off from the grace of God, and that child gets desperately ill and needs a transfusion, that parent can be overruled in court and their child be given a transfusion.

If a parent believes they can pray their child's illness away and their child dies, their parent will be prosecuted (possibly for murder).

Parents do not have unlimited rights over their child's body, to their child's detriment.

Parents should not have the right to let their children get potentially fatal diseases.

I, however, am perfectly free to not get vaccinated, just as I am to refuse blood, or to refuse medical treatment. The rights sadly do not extend to children, however I hope that when society advances to an extent where we view children as more than simply things to be protected, but as thinking and rational creatures complete with free will, this law will change.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Not when those choices harm their children.

If a parent believes that their child getting a blood transfusion will cut them off from the grace of God, and that child gets desperately ill and needs a transfusion, that parent can be overruled in court and their child be given a transfusion.

If a parent believes they can pray their child's illness away and their child dies, their parent will be prosecuted (possibly for murder).

Parents do not have unlimited rights over their child's body, to their child's detriment.

Parents should not have the right to let their children get potentially fatal diseases.

I, however, am perfectly free to not get vaccinated, just as I am to refuse blood, or to refuse medical treatment. The rights sadly do not extend to children, however I hope that when society advances to an extent where we view children as more than simply things to be protected, but as thinking and rational creatures complete with free will, this law will change.

Well, you shouldn’t be. And no, children aren’t cabable of making their own decisions, their prefrontal cortex (decision making part of the brain) isn’t fully developed until you’re 25.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Not when those choices harm their children.

If a parent believes that their child getting a blood transfusion will cut them off from the grace of God, and that child gets desperately ill and needs a transfusion, that parent can be overruled in court and their child be given a transfusion.

If a parent believes they can pray their child's illness away and their child dies, their parent will be prosecuted (possibly for murder).

Parents do not have unlimited rights over their child's body, to their child's detriment.

Parents should not have the right to let their children get potentially fatal diseases.

I, however, am perfectly free to not get vaccinated, just as I am to refuse blood, or to refuse medical treatment. The rights sadly do not extend to children, however I hope that when society advances to an extent where we view children as more than simply things to be protected, but as thinking and rational creatures complete with free will, this law will change.

The law would make the age of majority to be... *clap clap* 0.

Anti-Vaxxers are a threat to society and must be eliminated through logic, science, and mandatory Vaccines.

Icelandic Military Junta wrote:Anti-Vaxxers are a threat to society and must be eliminated through logic, science, and mandatory Vaccines.

and gulags

*sigh* People really should get vaccinated, although making it mandatory and jailing people who refuse to get vaccinated sounds rather dystopian to me.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Not when those choices harm their children.

If a parent believes that their child getting a blood transfusion will cut them off from the grace of God, and that child gets desperately ill and needs a transfusion, that parent can be overruled in court and their child be given a transfusion.

If a parent believes they can pray their child's illness away and their child dies, their parent will be prosecuted (possibly for murder).

Parents do not have unlimited rights over their child's body, to their child's detriment.

Parents should not have the right to let their children get potentially fatal diseases.

I, however, am perfectly free to not get vaccinated, just as I am to refuse blood, or to refuse medical treatment. The rights sadly do not extend to children, however I hope that when society advances to an extent where we view children as more than simply things to be protected, but as thinking and rational creatures complete with free will, this law will change.

Children are impulsive (the adolescent brain does not finish maturing until 25)

Neuroscientists believe that the age of criminal responsibility is too low (bringing rationality into doubt).

Bandura's Bobo doll study showed how parents influence the behaviour of children, especially young ones -- bringing into doubt how "free" the will would be of any child living with anti-vaxxer parents.

We do not allow children to choose to do other things that have been shown to have a potentially harmful effect -- like smoking.

I'd guesstimate that, the more we know of neurological development, the stronger the case for protecting children against making harmful medical decisions -- and protecting them from dangerous pathogens -- will become.

Nordengrund wrote:*sigh* People really should get vaccinated, although making it mandatory and jailing people who refuse to get vaccinated sounds rather dystopian to me.

Not nearly as dystopian as the world will be after a global pandemic during the digital age.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Nordengrund wrote:*sigh* People really should get vaccinated, although making it mandatory and jailing people who refuse to get vaccinated sounds rather dystopian to me.

Not nearly as dystopian as the world will be after a global pandemic during the digital age.

Let's see, your choices are: A. Mandatory Vaccines/Arresting Anti-Vaxxers, which is authoritarian

Or B. Potentially killing thousands of Children.

Remember the ebola scare. Don't let the media do the thinking for you.
I'm not going to debate an issue with emotionally charged people.

I only feel it fair to point out this though, it is up to you to come to your own conclusions.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/politics ... index.html
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... and-germs/

A US navy ship is probably the highest rate (~100%) of vaccinations. These guys are subjected to the full cocktail of boosters, etc. How come they are starting to get sick?
This is food for thought, I do not, and will not, debate over whether we should persecute people for refusing a corporate product.

New Udonia wrote:Remember the ebola scare. Don't let the media do the thinking for you.
I'm not going to debate an issue with emotionally charged people.

I only feel it fair to point out this though, it is up to you to come to your own conclusions.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/politics ... index.html
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... and-germs/

A US navy ship is probably the highest rate (~100%) of vaccinations. These guys are subjected to the full cocktail of boosters, etc. How come they are starting to get sick?
This is food for thought, I do not, and will not, debate over whether we should persecute people for refusing a corporate product.

Ah yes the classic “vaccinated pepole get sick to!!!!” bullshit you anti vaxxers always try to use to hide the blatant fact your position is built on bullshit. Vaccines while very effective do not 100% prevent you from getting sick. That is why herd immunity is so important.

Also this is not some Ebola scare. Anti vaxxers are endangering others and this is pretty obvious to anyone with basic knowledge of vaccines.

New Udonia wrote:Remember the ebola scare. Don't let the media do the thinking for you.
I'm not going to debate an issue with emotionally charged people.

I only feel it fair to point out this though, it is up to you to come to your own conclusions.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/politics ... index.html
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... and-germs/

A US navy ship is probably the highest rate (~100%) of vaccinations. These guys are subjected to the full cocktail of boosters, etc. How come they are starting to get sick?
This is food for thought, I do not, and will not, debate over whether we should persecute people for refusing a corporate product.

Ah yes, the ebola scare. HIV killed more people than Ebola in 2014.
Yet, in history, before vaccines existed, people had 5+ children for this one reason: only 1 or 2 would survive into adulthood.
Don't bring up overpopulation or else I'm going to kick ya balls.

New Udonia wrote:Remember the ebola scare. Don't let the media do the thinking for you.
I'm not going to debate an issue with emotionally charged people.

I only feel it fair to point out this though, it is up to you to come to your own conclusions.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/politics ... index.html
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... and-germs/

A US navy ship is probably the highest rate (~100%) of vaccinations. These guys are subjected to the full cocktail of boosters, etc. How come they are starting to get sick?
This is food for thought, I do not, and will not, debate over whether we should persecute people for refusing a corporate product.

The ‘emotionally charged people’ are the Anti-vaxxers, not sane rational people.

Smallpox has been eradicated globally due to vaccines and Polio could be next. Just look at any statistics on disease cases before and after implementation of vaccination programs, and you’ll see how small they are compared to what they were.

And Vaccines aren’t a corporate product like Pepsi, they’re a medicinal miracle and the single greatest advancement in human history.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:I, however, am perfectly free to not get vaccinated, just as I am to refuse blood, or to refuse medical treatment. The rights sadly do not extend to children, however I hope that when society advances to an extent where we view children as more than simply things to be protected, but as thinking and rational creatures complete with free will, this law will change.

Children are impulsive (the adolescent brain does not finish maturing until 25)

Neuroscientists believe that the age of criminal responsibility is too low (bringing rationality into doubt).

Bandura's Bobo doll study showed how parents influence the behaviour of children, especially young ones -- bringing into doubt how "free" the will would be of any child living with anti-vaxxer parents.

We do not allow children to choose to do other things that have been shown to have a potentially harmful effect -- like smoking.

I'd guesstimate that, the more we know of neurological development, the stronger the case for protecting children against making harmful medical decisions -- and protecting them from dangerous pathogens -- will become.

I'm not in favour of a smoking age either though.