'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?

[TruXta]

What if they make you gay?

Isn't that kind of an upside in some ways?

 

[andysays]

I've already answered that question. Do you have a position? You seem to.

Your answer to that question doesn't seem very clear, but maybe I'm being a bit slow today.

My answer is this, we do have a right to know if parents choose not to have their kids immunised, we do have a right to persuade them that they should have them immunised, for their kids benefit and for the wider social benefit (see FBL's post for an example of that), we even have the right to take the piss out of them (but not their kids) unmercilessly for being conspiraloons and selfish cunts.

We don't have the right to insist or compel them to have their kids immunised, or to impose or call for the imposition of any sanction on them or their kids if they chose not to (also see FBL's post for an example of that, unfortunately).

I hope that's clear; maybe you'd like to outline your position, just to help me understand it.

 

[andysays]

Game theory. Best individual choice, risk-wise, is to be un-immunised and live in a population with herd immunity, thus avoiding the risks involved with both the disease and the immunisation.

If you're trying to come up with an argument against selfish, anti-social individualism, game theory is perhaps not the best place to start...

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

We don't have the right to insist or compel them to have their kids immunised, or to impose or call for the imposition of any sanction on them or their kids if they chose not to (also see FBL's post for an example of that, unfortunately)

Um.... yes we do, or at least we should. For the same reason we sanction people for driving dangerously. As a social species we totally have a right to decide what sorts of behaviour are sociably acceptable and not. That's called law.

What happens to adults who choose not to educate their children?

 

[8ball]

If you're trying to come up with an argument against selfish, anti-social individualism, game theory is perhaps not the best place to start...

I wasn't.

Not that the anti-vaccine sorts are thinking along these lines - if you were an adherent to the 'game theory - fuck everyone else' school then you'd be best off keeping your mouth shut and singing the praises of vaccination.

 

[butchersapron]

Isn't that kind of an upside in some ways?

Note what political party he was previously involved with as well.

 

[andysays]

Um.... yes we do, or at least we should. For the same reason we sanction people for driving dangerously. As a social species we totally have a right to decide what sorts of behaviour are sociably acceptable and not. That's called law. What happens to adults who choose not to educate their children?

That statement, in the context of vaccinations for kids, appears to be an argument for the removal of any right to the benefits of society for anyone who engages in any behaviour which the state has decided is not socially acceptable. Are you sure that's where you want to go?

 

[Random]

I hope that's clear; maybe you'd like to outline your position, just to help me understand it.

Thanks. I can't see what it was in my earllier comments that started you off, though tbh.

My longer statement of position is that we need to take action to prevent harm, on a sliding scale based on the level of harm, and our ability to act. If we see someone beating a child it's clearly justifiable to step in and physically restrain them. But if we merely think that something may possibly be harmful, it's probably better to discuss it first before even developing a position.

 

[andysays]

Thanks. I can't see what it was in my earllier comments that started you off, though tbh.

My longer statement of position is that we need to take action to prevent harm, on a sliding scale based on the level of harm, and our ability to act. If we see someone beating a child it's clearly justifiable to step in and physically restrain them. But if we merely think that something may possibly be harmful, it's probably better to discuss it first before even developing a position.

OK, we seem to have got our wires crossed. Apologies for whatever part of that was me.

 

[Random]

OK, we seem to have got our wires crossed. Apologies for whatever part of that was me.

As far as I'm concerned it's about whether or not what parents do to their children can ever be anyone else's "business."

 

[Blagsta]

Exactly. If someone wants to selfishly harm their own children, or neglect them, that's up to them. It makes them a cunt, but it's up to the.

You think this doesn't also have social consequences?

 

[TruXta]

Note what political party he was previously involved with as well.

I did notice that.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

That statement, in the context of vaccinations for kids, appears to be an argument for the removal of any right to the benefits of society for anyone who engages in any behaviour which the state has decided is not socially acceptable. Are you sure that's where you want to go?

In Poland. It's illegal not to vaccinate your dog against rabies.

Why do you think that is?

 

[Blagsta]

Um.... yes we do, or at least we should. For the same reason we sanction people for driving dangerously. As a social species we totally have a right to decide what sorts of behaviour are sociably acceptable and not. That's called law.

What happens to adults who choose not to educate their children?

Although child abuse and neglect is just an individual decision?

 

[andysays]

As far as I'm concerned it's about whether or not what parents do to their children can ever be anyone else's "business."

It's obviously other people's business. The suggestion that it wasn't was some bollocks offhand comment above, and to an extent we've (maybe mainly me) probably allowed ourselves to be diverted in addressing it.

I do think there is a valid discussion to be had about where the limits of other people's business are around how parents bring up their children, though maybe this isn't the place for it.

 

[butchersapron]

In Poland. It's illegal not to vaccinate your dog against rabies.

Why do you think that is?

You confusing the state and society here.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

Although child abuse and neglect is just an individual decision?

No. Not at all. But neglect is a sliding scale. What I consider neglect may not be what you consider neglect or vice versa. I'd say not vaccinating your child is neglect, but then, not everyone would agree with me.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

You confusing the state and society here.

You've lost me. Even if it weren't illegal we should all be vaccinating our dogs against rabies for society.

 

[Blagsta]

No. Not at all. But neglect is a sliding scale. What I consider neglect may not be what you consider neglect or vice versa. I'd say not vaccinating your child is neglect, but then, not everyone would agree with me.

You said abuse and neglect were purely individual decisions and contrasted them with not vaccinating which you said has a social consequence.

 

[laptop]

In Poland. It's illegal not to vaccinate your dog against rabies.

Why do you think that is?

Is it an evil plot to interfere in people's God-given right to deal with their pets as they please? Is it an attack on their God-given "dominion over the earth and the creatures in it?

 

[Pickman's model]

You've lost me. Even if it weren't illegal we should all be vaccinating our dogs against rabies for society.

the state = institutions eg parliament, police, army, courts
society = the people

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

You said abuse and neglect were purely individual decisions and contrasted them with not vaccinating which you said has a social consequence.

Ok, well I clearly hadn't thought that one through. Call it the anti-vax rage.....

 

[butchersapron]

You've lost me.

Your posts are predicated on the assumption that the state is the accurate reflection of the collective social interests and needs of civil society rather than being a contested body and site of competing social interests. Something being law does not mean it then automatically is in the wider social interest - i'm sure that you can think of many examples of 'bad law'.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

the state = institutions eg parliament, police, army, courts
society = the people

Yeah I know that. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

 

[frogwoman]

Exactly. If someone wants to selfishly harm their own children, or neglect them, that's up to them. It makes them a cunt, but it's up to them. If you don't vaccinate your kids, it makes you a super super extreme cunt who has no right to any form of freedom or decision making IMO.

if jimmy savile wants to nonce somebody, it makes him a cunt but it's up to him

 

[Pickman's model]

Yeah I know that. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

you were confused by a post of butchers telling you you were confusing society and the state and i thought i would shed some light on your conundrum.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

Your posts are predicated on the assumption that the state is the accurate reflection of the collective social interests and needs of civil society rather than being a contested body and site of competing social interests. Something being law does not mean it then automatically is in the wider social interest - i'm sure that you can think of many examples of 'bad law'.

So Anarchism vs State law. No, I know that. Unfortunately not everyone reaches post conventional morality or understand what a social contract is. It's a conundrum.

That said, anti-vaxxers are cunts.

 

[butchersapron]

So Anarchism vs State law. No, I know that. Unfortunately not everyone reaches post conventional morality. It's a conundrum.

That said, anti-vaxxers are cunts.

No, not anarchism vs state law A point about the assumptions behind your posts and why they are wrong.

 

[andysays]

In Poland. It's illegal not to vaccinate your dog against rabies. Why do you think that is?

OK, I've just been back and re-read all the stuff on this thread about vaccination, and discovered that it was you who originally brought the subject up (no problem with that).

I suggest you continue to attempt to persuade your friend to get her kids vaccinated, but if she can't be persuaded, I really don't think you have the right to demand that she does. If your child is one of those who can't be vaccinated, you're probably better off not letting your kids play together, but if the mum is as gullible/selfish as you're suggesting (you haven't mentioned any reason why she doesn't want her kids vaccinated, although it's conceivable that a reason may exist), there might be other reasons why you wouldn't want them playing together.

I started to watch the video you linked to, but the whiny/sneery voice put me right off, so I didn't get very far (which is not to say that the content isn't correct); far enough to read this though:

"nothing in this video supports government forcibly injecting a substance into anyone's body"

I obviously didn't get to the part where it discusses Polish dogs and rabies, so I'm unable to answer that question...

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

No, not anarchism vs state law A point about the assumptions behind your posts and why they are wrong.

In you'll need to explain slowly and carefully becuase I still don't know exactly what your point was. What were my assumptions? I'm genuinely trying to work out what you're saying to me but we seem to be on different pages.

I suggest you continue to attempt to persuade your friend to get her kids vaccinated, but if she can't be persuaded, I really don't think you have the right to demand that she does. If your child is one of those who can't be vaccinated, you're probably better off not letting your kids play together, but if the mum is as gullible/selfish as you're suggesting (you haven't mentioned any reason why she doesn't want her kids vaccinated, although it's conceivable that a reason may exist), there might be other reasons why you wouldn't want them playing together.

I started to watch the video you linked to, but the whiny/sneery voice put me right off, so I didn't get very far (which is not to say that the content isn't correct); far enough to read this though:

Fair enough. I don't have kids, but I worry for the little tyke, and of course the other kids who he plays with. Like I said, she's really gullible, always posting stuff about anti-vax sheeple truther theory blah blah. There's no way I can talk to her. Talking doesn't compute and the moment you disagree with her she goes on the attack, shouts at you, starts doing the "herp-a-derp" thing (I don't know what that means). She's seriously irrational.

You're right about the whiney sneery voice too. Here's the "classroom version". Same guy, less sneers. I'm afraid his voice is just as whiny (he can't help it, that's his voice)