Anti-Vax Movement

Move this thread to Deep Thoughts

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 54.5%
  • No

    Votes: 5 45.5%

  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .

Hearing this bitch struck a nerve. I'm done. These people don't need to be laughed at - they need to be hurt, beaten, imprisoned, or worse, for ruining my country further with their stupidity. I advocate their removal from my country now more than ever. They don't deserve to vote or have any rights whatsoever, IMHO.

Overall, I've heard enough - mandatory vaccinations shouldn't be considered to be made law - they MUST be made law - by force. For the greater good. Cries of fascism be damned; this is for the good of everyone. EVERYONE.
 
Last edited:
I'd say only require the vaccine for deadly diseases. Then, it's an absolute priority that people get vaccinated, or otherwise the disease will continue to spread around killing people.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: ScrewTheRules
I'd say only require the vaccine for deadly diseases. Then, it's an absolute priority that people get vaccinated, or otherwise the disease will continue to spread around killing people.

Why not address treatable diseases when you can too? :|
 
Related tangent: I knew an older guy who insisted that his grandmother would open her windows and "air out" the house everyday, in all weather. And people back then never got allergies and we're always healthy, so he blamed air conditioning for all our illnesses today. Funny, I'm pretty sure his grandmother's generation DROPPED LIKE MOTHERFUCKING FLIES at measles, dyptheria, and the Spanish influenza. And it didn't matter if they opened their windows.

But that's the level of analysis we're having to contend with.
His grandma was full of shit, back in her day not only were they aware of allergies, they recommend people move to the southwest for their allergies. This is the same kind of logic other certain older people use with with teen pregnancies and homosexuality. For some reason they love to ignore that unmarried pregnant girls were shipped off to distant towns until they gave birth, upon which the babies would immediately be put up for adoption (hi Connor) and the girls would return home and pretend nothing happened. Or that gay people just pretended to be straight and either marry a woman and live a lie or never (openly) date and pretend to just never having found that special someone.
 
My friend's sister has been contending with these folks lately. She (the sister) had HPV that developed into cervical cancer, and to prevent the same happening to her 13 year old daughter, she had her vaccinated. Cue everyone freaking that this will encourage her daughter to become a huge slut.
 
My friend's sister has been contending with these folks lately. She (the sister) had HPV that developed into cervical cancer, and to prevent the same happening to her 13 year old daughter, she had her vaccinated. Cue everyone freaking that this will encourage her daughter to become a huge slut.
They're still using that argument against the HPV vaccine?

Edit: The filter's gone!

sigpic40050_1gif.png
 
And yes, there is indeed a line to be drawn between individual liberty versus the health of the public, but I feel that one must always be careful when dealing with cases like this, even when the opposing side (anti-vax) is clearly off its rocker.

I get what you're saying, but there is quite a big difference. The woman in the economist is 17, and what she's suffering from isn't contagious. You're right, she does have the right to ignore doctor's medical advice, even if it kills her, because ultimately she is not directly harming anybody but herself.

But I think it's a relatively non-controversial view to state that an adult's right to refuse medical treatment is more absolute than a parent's right to refuse medical treatment for their children. We limit the rights of parents to make decisions for their children in many other ways (example - somebody has a right to self-mutilate, but parents don't have a right to mutilate their children).

Of course that argument is coming from the view that vaccinations aren't harmful, which is why anti-vaxxers don't accept it even if they might accept the principle.
 
I never got a HPV vaccine because my family's insurance wouldn't pay for it. I ended up getting HPV and almost got cancer from it. I am safe now, but my reproductive organs are already FUBAR from endometriosis so cervical cancer was not something I needed.

My family got away with this because I had been pulled from school when Rick Perry did something right once and made HPV vaccines mandatory for school girls.
 
My friend's sister has been contending with these folks lately. She (the sister) had HPV that developed into cervical cancer, and to prevent the same happening to her 13 year old daughter, she had her vaccinated. Cue everyone freaking that this will encourage her daughter to become a huge slut.

I had an argument of a similar stripe with a family relative a few years ago. The HPV vaccine was in the news and one of my aunts was opining that giving young girls the vaccine was sex-negative behavior, because it was essentially telling them that if they had sex they would get cancer. My response was that you can get cervical cancer without ever having sex, which my aunt didn't know. I gather she'd gotten the information from one of those scaremongering emails that circulated a lot before Facebook got really big.

How and when the government can force you to get vaccinated is a tricky question. As mentioned above, making a law that says you must let Uncle Sam put something in your body (hur hur) sets worrisome precedents; on the other hand, fire in a crowded theater, etcetera. Here's food for thought, though: where do you guys stand on vaccines for diseases that can't be transmitted from person to person, like tetanus? If an adult lets that vaccine lapse, they're doing harm to no one but themselves.

(Note: not trolling, not trying to start a fight. Just curious.)
 
I had an argument of a similar stripe with a family relative a few years ago. The HPV vaccine was in the news and one of my aunts was opining that giving young girls the vaccine was sex-negative behavior, because it was essentially telling them that if they had sex they would get cancer. My response was that you can get cervical cancer without ever having sex, which my aunt didn't know. I gather she'd gotten the information from one of those scaremongering emails that circulated a lot before Facebook got really big.

How and when the government can force you to get vaccinated is a tricky question. As mentioned above, making a law that says you must let Uncle Sam put something in your body (hur hur) sets worrisome precedents; on the other hand, fire in a crowded theater, etcetera. Here's food for thought, though: where do you guys stand on vaccines for diseases that can't be transmitted from person to person, like tetanus? If an adult lets that vaccine lapse, they're doing harm to no one but themselves.

(Note: not trolling, not trying to start a fight. Just curious.)

If it's an adult and the disease can't spread to others than it's their choice. I see it as no different than someone choosing to smoke. They know the risks, but it's their right to do things that harm themselves. That is the main point. It harms no one but themselves. Spreading measels or polio harms other people who probaby are not consenting to the risk.

As for "freedom" and "individual rights", when people like anti-vaxers say that what they really mean is they wish to be allowed to harm others either out of spite or selfishness.
 
This anti-vaccination bullshit is a frequent topic on lolcow public access show The Eli King Show, largely thank to frequent anti-vaccine guest and human Grimace impersonator Sally O. Elkordy:


latest

The racebaiting is disgusting, as well as the wild-eyed conspiracism and the scientific illiteracy. Also, I love how tinny the audio quality is.
 
If there is one argument that absolutely drives me bonkers...it's when the SJW/right wing crazies/left side crazies throw out that 'Because mainstream media doesn't want you to know'. That one sentence drives me up a freaking wall.

Me too. That and the whole 'Big Pharma' hysteria. Yes, pharmaceutical companies sometimes have questionable ethics. No, they did not come up with an AIDS cure/vaccine 15 years ago and refuse to release it because they make too much money from ARVs.
 
Me too. That and the whole 'Big Pharma' hysteria. Yes, pharmaceutical companies sometimes have questionable ethics. No, they did not come up with an AIDS cure/vaccine 15 years ago and refuse to release it because they make too much money from ARVs.

To the anti-vaxxers corporations are inherently bad and out to hurt us. Sometimes to make money, but usually just because they're evil for evil's sake. The idea that a corporation is made up of many people, good, bad, and in-between, is simply too complex a thought for them.

They have critical thinking skills and ability to separate fantasy from reality on par with Chris. So sound arguments and logic are useless against them. The only way to stop anti-vaxxers from harming others is simple, brute force like losing custody of their children and serving time in prison.
 
Even though it does set questionable precedents I do believe the good of forced vaccinations until you're 18 outweighs the bad. I think we had to have vaccinations by law when I was in school, and you could either have them done at school or privately at a doctor as long as you brought proof.

What really pisses me off is that by choosing to not vaccinate their kids, anti-vaxxers are choosing for everyone else, too. Herd immunity only goes so far. It can't always protect those too old, young or vulnerable for vaccinations.

There was a Law and Order SVU episode about this. An anti-vaxxer's kid caught measles and was fine, but she took him to the park before he was symptomatic and a toddler who was too young for the vaccine caught the measles from him and died. In the end the anti-vaxxer wasn't held responsible by the courts. I know it was based on real life shit but I don't remember the case. That episode was also based on Casey Anthony, but the anti-vax thing was kind of the core of it since it turned out the child died of measles.

I think that in that example the anti-vaxxer is 100% responsible, even if they didn't know their child was infected at the time. The child only has the disease because their parents didn't vaccinate. If they had, there wouldn't have been a death. It's black and white as far as I'm concerned. Americans are too selfish when it comes to 'muh rights' sometimes, and in this case making vaccinations mandatory for kids seems a very small price to pay in the interests of public health. We'd almost eliminated these diseases and the anti-vaxxers have single-handedly brought them back.

We'd still have smallpox if parents back then had said 'nah, we don't want to vaccinate'.
 
Back