It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP debate puts vaccinations back in the spotlight

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

originally posted by: BiffWellington
It's probably unwise to underestimate the lengths to which a hyperpowerful industry headed by greedy bastards will go in order to maintain and grow demand for its products.


Ask people being forced to inject their children against their will if they underestimate the power of the Pharma industry.

Commitment. It's calm resolve. It's knowing you are in a fight. Raw emotion is the sign of fear based programming and insecurity.


He says as he posts that picture...
Pot kettle much?




posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?


And a mandate isn't forcing someone to do something against their will is it?


A mandate, by definition, requires a particular act... if someone doesn't mind doing it, then no, it's not force... if someone does mind doing it then yes, it is force.

You can sugarcoat the truth, redefine words, make whatever excuses you choose. But I have done my due diligence, I know there is much that I do not know because I cannot know because that information is withheld under color of law, and I have come to an informed decision based on all the information available. Of course, that also means that I know that you don't know either.

We will have to agree to disagree.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Pardon?


And a mandate isn't forcing someone to do something against their will is it?


A mandate, by definition, requires a particular act... if someone doesn't mind doing it, then no, it's not force... if someone does mind doing it then yes, it is force.

You can sugarcoat the truth, redefine words, make whatever excuses you choose. But I have done my due diligence, I know there is much that I do not know because I cannot know because that information is withheld under color of law, and I have come to an informed decision based on all the information available. Of course, that also means that I know that you don't know either.

We will have to agree to disagree.



Nope.
It's not I who's redefinig the word mandatory to mean forced.
That would be you.
Mandatory means that if you wish to do something you're required to fulfil a certain criterion.
If you don't fulfil it then you won't be allowed to do it.

Nowhere does it say that you will be forced against your will to be vaccinated does it?
It's not splitting hairs.
It's pretty simple and unambiguous.

But you would rather call it being forced as it suits your agenda doesn't it?
Poor, poor you.

Oh, and you've come your own decision based upon a belief and misinterpretation of facts, not an informed one.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

You are mandated to hold a valid driving licence if you wish to drive on public roads. No one is forced to get a driving licence, though. Why? Because they mean completely different things.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?
a reply to: GetHyped

Bless your hearts for trying to show me the error of my ways... thank you from the bottom of my heart. But I'm not going to budge, nor will I play semantics with you. Putting someone in jail for not being vaccinated is in fact a form of force (at the point of a gun if necessary), as is any punitive action taken against that person. You may call it what you will.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 02:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Pardon?
a reply to: GetHyped

Bless your hearts for trying to show me the error of my ways... thank you from the bottom of my heart. But I'm not going to budge, nor will I play semantics with you. Putting someone in jail for not being vaccinated is in fact a form of force (at the point of a gun if necessary), as is any punitive action taken against that person. You may call it what you will.



What you do is omit specific and extremely important parts of your sentences in order to gain impact.
I'll help you.
What you should have written to make the correct point is "putting someone in jail who refuses to vaccinate whilst caring for other people's young children after being told they have to" is STILL not being forced to be vaccinated.
Not that they would go to jail. Unless they were a complete nimrod anyway.

I know you won't budge on here as that would be seen as you backing down and that would never happen would it?
I mean, you're never wrong are you?
Apart from in this thread where you're as wrong as the wrong that wrong was invented for.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 02:40 AM
link   
I heard Trump's little speech about a 2 year old kid coming down with Autism after getting vaccinated:



Trump went so far as to recite a supposedly recent story of a toddler who had been diagnosed as autistic just a week after getting a shot and coming down with a fever.

“Just the other day, two years old, 2½ years old, a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine, and came back, and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic,” he said.

Washington Post

While that may pull on our emotional heart strings, it's still....



It's OK Trump, you use so many logical fallacies that we're used to it.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?


I know you won't budge on here as that would be seen as you backing down and that would never happen would it?


Oh dear... I won't budge because regardless of the word you use or I use, the end result is the same, and it's wrong. It doesn't matter if it's "on here" in a discussion of the threat, or in the real world in the actual act, it's wrong.

I mean, you're never wrong are you?

That's just silly. I'm human. I make mistakes. So does everyone, including you, vaccine manufacturers, politicians, and doctors. The difference is that I'm not trying to force my will on anyone else. I won't try to stop you or anyone from taking any and all vaccinations you so choose.
edit on 19-9-2015 by Boadicea because: formatting



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Boadicea

You are mandated to hold a valid driving licence if you wish to drive on public roads. No one is forced to get a driving licence, though. Why? Because they mean completely different things.



It's ridiculous to say that in this economy -- born from a corrupt government that spends without oversight -- which requires two parents to work to make ends meet, people would somehow have a choice to decline vaccinations and homeschool or afford alternative schooling for their children instead.

If you want your children to be educated, it will be mandatory for them to be vaccinated.

If you don't want to call it mandatory, then we can call it coercion (the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats).



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

It occurs to me that we may be seeing a preview of what's to come: "Force" isn't really force. We can still say "no," but we better expect to be condemned and punished mercilessly if we do. We still have free will, but if our will doesn't match their will then they'll make our lives a living hell -- but it's our choice of course!

Sheesh. SMH...



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 03:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Pardon?


I know you won't budge on here as that would be seen as you backing down and that would never happen would it?


Oh dear... I won't budge because regardless of the word you use or I use, the end result is the same, and it's wrong. It doesn't matter if it's "on here" in a discussion of the threat, or in the real world in the actual act, it's wrong.

I mean, you're never wrong are you?

That's just silly. I'm human. I make mistakes. So does everyone, including you, vaccine manufacturers, politicians, and doctors. The difference is that I'm not trying to force my will on anyone else. I won't try to stop you or anyone from taking any and all vaccinations you so choose.

Which bit don't you get?
The fact that vaccines aren't being forced or the fact that mandating them still leaves a choice?

As I said earlier, it's unambiguous.

Here's an example of what will happen.
Person goes for a job in day care and is asked to show evidence that they are up to date with their required vaccines.
Person says no.
They are then asked whether they will get them.
Person say no.
They don't get the job.

Person already in day care job gets asked to show proof of vaccination status.
Person doesn't.
Person get asked to get them.
Person refuses.
Person gets sacked.

No jail. No guns. No forcing.

But it doesn't sound as sinister that way does it?



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No matter how much you wish it to be so, mandatory =/= forced. You are free to home school your children or pack them off to a anti-vax friendly private school. What you are not free to do is put other people's children in danger because of your willful ignorance.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?


Which bit don't you get?


Hmmmm.... I guess it's the bit where you keep pretending that people are not trying to force vaccinations on others, even including the force of a gun to throw people in jail... and of course why you keep beating a dead horse.

Any law which imposes punitive action against a person for not accepting vaccinations is wrong. Period. From telling someone they cannot attend a public school they help pay for to putting someone in jail. You can rationalize it, minimalize it, excuse it... it will still violate our natural, inalienable, and Constitutional right to be secure in our persons. It will also still violate the Nuremberg Code, used to prosecute Nazi war criminals who also thought it okay to perform medical procedures on people without their consent and against their will. And I will still oppose any such efforts.

If someone wants to open a private daycare and require vaccinations for all employees, children, and parents -- I totally and completely support their right to do so. I totally respect and support any person's right to accept any and all vaccinations they so choose.

I have made my position clear. You have made your position clear.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No matter how much you wish it to be so, mandatory =/= forced. You are free to home school your children or pack them off to a anti-vax friendly private school.


Yeah. I think we established this is not feasible in an economy that requires two parents to work to make ends meet.


originally posted by: GetHyped
What you are not free to do is put other people's children in danger because of your willful ignorance.


Fearmonger much? And Mandatory vaxxers claim that anti-vaxxers operate on fearmongering. Get a grip.

P.S. I vaccinate my kids -- because I listen to my pediatrician's advice, take it into consideration, then I make the final decision. So stuff your "willful ignorance."
edit on 20-9-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No matter how much you wish it to be so, mandatory =/= forced. You are free to home school your children or pack them off to a anti-vax friendly private school.


Yeah. I think we established this is not feasible in an economy that requires two parents to work to make ends meet.


You've established no such thing. All you're doing is contorting logic to try and make 'mandatory' = 'forced'.



originally posted by: GetHyped
What you are not free to do is put other people's children in danger because of your willful ignorance.


Fearmonger much? And Mandatory vaxxers claim that anti-vaxxers operate on fearmongering. Get a grip.

P.S. I vaccinate my kids -- because I listen to my pediatrician's advice, take it into consideration, then I make the final decision. So stuff your "willful ignorance."


You have a simple choice: either vaccinate your children, or school them in an anti-vax friendly establishment. Don't like it? Tough luck. I don't get to drive around without a licence and endanger people, you don't get to screw with herd immunity and harm people because of your willful ignorance.
edit on 20-9-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
You've established no such thing. All you're doing is contorting logic to try and make 'mandatory' = 'forced'.


Mandatory is not MY WORD, it is the word used by everyone describe the policy issue. I call it COERCION and I did so already in this thread.


originally posted by: GetHyped
You have a simple choice: either vaccinate your children, or school them in an anti-vax friendly establishment. Don't like it? Tough luck. I don't get to drive around without a licence and endanger people, you don't get to screw with herd immunity and harm people because of your willful ignorance.



AGAIN. I vaccinate my kids. So shove your "willful ignorance" up your fearmongering patootie.

There are not enough deaths due to non-vaccinated people to warrant such a government overreach -- which is much the same way I feel about the choice of whether or not to vaccinate. There aren't enough deaths due to vaccinations to warrant me not vaccinating my kids.

I don't subscribe to your fear-based logic.

I support choice and less government intrusion.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 02:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Pardon?


Which bit don't you get?


Hmmmm.... I guess it's the bit where you keep pretending that people are not trying to force vaccinations on others, even including the force of a gun to throw people in jail... and of course why you keep beating a dead horse.

Any law which imposes punitive action against a person for not accepting vaccinations is wrong. Period. From telling someone they cannot attend a public school they help pay for to putting someone in jail. You can rationalize it, minimalize it, excuse it... it will still violate our natural, inalienable, and Constitutional right to be secure in our persons. It will also still violate the Nuremberg Code, used to prosecute Nazi war criminals who also thought it okay to perform medical procedures on people without their consent and against their will. And I will still oppose any such efforts.

If someone wants to open a private daycare and require vaccinations for all employees, children, and parents -- I totally and completely support their right to do so. I totally respect and support any person's right to accept any and all vaccinations they so choose.

I have made my position clear. You have made your position clear.


Nope/ You don't get it at all.
And with a victim-like attitude like you have you sadly never will.

And you invoked the Godwin.
That says it all.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 02:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: GetHyped
You've established no such thing. All you're doing is contorting logic to try and make 'mandatory' = 'forced'.


Mandatory is not MY WORD, it is the word used by everyone describe the policy issue. I call it COERCION and I did so already in this thread.


originally posted by: GetHyped
You have a simple choice: either vaccinate your children, or school them in an anti-vax friendly establishment. Don't like it? Tough luck. I don't get to drive around without a licence and endanger people, you don't get to screw with herd immunity and harm people because of your willful ignorance.



AGAIN. I vaccinate my kids. So shove your "willful ignorance" up your fearmongering patootie.

There are not enough deaths due to non-vaccinated people to warrant such a government overreach -- which is much the same way I feel about the choice of whether or not to vaccinate. There aren't enough deaths due to vaccinations to warrant me not vaccinating my kids.

I don't subscribe to your fear-based logic.

I support choice and less government intrusion.


How many deaths would change your mind?
100? 1000?
How about 24,000?
As that's the number of deaths per year attributed to the flu in the US.

Personally, in my eyes though, one death is too many.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

And you invoked the Godwin.
That says it all.


I invoked the Nuremberg Code, which does in fact MANDATE informed consent for medical procedures.

And, yes, that says it all.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

Personally, in my eyes though, one death is too many.



Which is exactly the argument anti-vaxxers make about vaccines.

I once looked up the rate of death caused by vaccinations at the CDC. I believe they attributed something like 121 in 2012, if I recall correctly.

121 deaths CAUSED by the vaccinations themselves.

*drops the mic*



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join