This is Exhibit A for the existence of the 2nd Amendment.

Your theory might hold water if vaccines were the same as natural immunity, they aren't.

I was semi-irritated with these kinds of stories popping up lately, but I've learned to enjoy the aftermath.

Confucius say undead multicat entangled with string theory risks quantum suicide by unexpected hanging.

No?

It is my understanding that herd immunity is something that occurs over time naturally through generational multiplication, a Darwinian-style removal of the organisms less suitable to survive and that evolving state provides an incubator for the adapted immune systems to become more potent. Using vaccines on immune systems that actually need them, then treating them or thinking of them as naturally immune in this whole stew sounds like a recipe for a weaker herd even if the vaccinated individual is better off in the short term, if even that. An "artificial herd immunity" comes about without the vital step of, you know, having actual immunity as a metaphorical whetstone for the whole to sharpen itself against. If I'm understanding this right, that's a disaster waiting to happen.

Touché. I still think its an unjust law based on shaky information/misinformation and mob stupidity. That's a heavy thing to force some families into.

If vaccines work so unfailingly that threat of violence needs to be leveled against those who want no part of them why would parents of vaccinated kids be afraid of them being infected by the unvaccinated kids?

N/m I misread. Um, so yeah, you're right.

I'm going to call BS on at least part of this statement. It is not illegal to build your own firearm, one of the primary weapons used in war. How could teaching how to build one be illegal?

This makes sense in a technical way, I concede. I guess it only brings me back to thinking how wrong (morally and technically) it is that something like polygraph test results are enshrined by law.

adjective: 1.not lawful; contrary to law; illegal.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://dictionary.reference.co...

I'm saying this before I RTFA so I'll revisit this statement if it makes me rethink but...why the fuck is it unlawful to teach people to "defeat" a method that doesn't even hold water within the very same legal system he is forced to plead guilt?

Copyrighted material, such as this teaching methodology, really is quite inflexible in it's implementation and the granting and withholding of federal funding will hinge on a rather stringent standard of baseline commonality.

Indeed, this is like a modern day Rockefeller/Dewey socialist indoctrination agenda to homogenize worker bees on the playground while only allowing just enough actual individual education as possible so as to arouse the notice of those who might question the motives. If anyone thinks this sounds too tinfoil hatty...look into the background and ideology of these two pathetic social tyrants, especially John Dewey.