doesn't mean they can't write a correct document about the inalienable rights of people

We believe it's correct because it's what we've grown up to believe, and because it suits us. Plenty of people believed the monarchy was correct, because it was what they grew up with, just like the bulk of a billion Chinese believe that an authoritarian government is correct because it's what they grew up with and are comfortable with. Rights are what we define for ourselves, and give ourselves. There is no magical universal concept of "rights".

In fact it is important to understand that the principle of individual rights to be able to do with ones body as one sees fit, rather than having this 'society' impose its will upon the individual, that this principle does not prevent individuals from getting their vaccinations.

So you want the benefits of being part of a society without the responsibilities. Got it.

However whether the individuals get their vaccines or not, does not in any way give them the right to spread disease and others can definitely argue that people without vaccines shouldn't be entering some private property.

I'm more concerned with public spaces. You want to start your own private leper colony and have a party with a bunch of infection-ridden corpses-to-be, have at it. You want to sit next to me on the bus while you're incubating a nice case of otherwise avoidable mumps though, thanks for that.

If one gets a disease and spreads it, he can be held accountable (and people often are) criminally and in civil court. The right to ones own body does not imply a right to do harm to others, which you are implying.

Bullshit. It'd be virtually impossible to find the person responsible for spreading something like Pertussis, and completely impossible to prove that that particular person was responsible for fatally infecting an infant when they coughed 15 feet away at the grocery store.

Again: people's bodies belong to them and nobody else, and if you want to impose this kind of gov't upon others, I believe there will be violence directed against your attempts, fully justified violence

Again, if you want to benefit from being part of society, you should live up to the responsibility of being part of that society. What you describe though makes you a parasite, not a citizen. If you think you can "go it alone" and be completely self-sufficient, go off and live in the mountains away from the rest of us. As for the "justified violence", good luck with that. Either you'll end up in prison where your "inalienable rights" will be somewhat curtailed, or you'll be successful and build a new society where the rights you have are whatever rights you can demand from behind the barrel of a gun. Grow up.
 

- not what the declaration says

Read what you just wrote. Where did the declaration come from? The founders wrote it. It didn't fall out of the sky, it's not magically engraved into every molecule in existence, a group of men, when deciding what our society and government would be, told everyone. Further, the irony is thick enough to cut with a knife, some of these men owned slaves, and yet still penned the phrase about the inalienable nature of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In fact I never said that people have a RIGHT to spread disease to others.

You certainly did. Refusing to take basic steps, like vaccination, to reduce the possibility that you will become a carrier for an infectious disease is tantamount to claiming you have the right to spread disease. It's no different than claiming you have a right to fire a weapon randomly because it's not your fault if someone happens to be standing in the path of your bullet, after all, you weren't aiming for them.

Firstly, this is impossible for all the reasons specified by my posts sibling.

Secondly, if, somehow this actually were possible, it'd be obvious that the tumors were HPV related. Cancer caused by HPV carries traces of HPV that can be identified. This is why they know that HPV causes mouth and throat cancer as well as cervical, they find traces of the virus in the cancer. The biopsies of the tumors would have pointed directly to HPV as the likely cause, but, among other things, I don't think HPV can actually survive long enough in the abdominal cavity to cause cancer (I could of course be wrong there).

This is most likely a case of something unbelievably horrible happening to a child, and the family looking for a reason to make sense of it. I know first hand, when something like this happens, it's better to have someone or something to blame, to focus on, to hate for doing this to your loved one. The sad fact is though, sometimes that "something" just isn't there. Sometimes the answer is "We don't know how or why it happened", and those that are left are robbed of even the small satisfaction of having somewhere to direct their anger.

No, the rights cannot be taken away. Rights are NOT granted to you by anybody, your gov't or anybody around you. Your rights are inalienable and that's that.

No, someone has to first define those rights, and to then declare them to be "inalienable", which is to say grant them. Throughout history rights have changed and evolved, rights that were once thought to be unarguable are now thought to be barbaric. Women were treated as property, as it was a husband's right to treat her as such. Slave-owners had the right to own other human beings, either by virtue of those slaves being on the losing side of a war, or being of the "wrong" ethnic type. Here whites once felt they had the right to restrict access to public facilities and deny their use to minorities, while now that sort of "right" is considered backwards and wrongheaded. Even now, there are places where it's considered a husband's right to kill his wife if she commits adultery. In all of those cases, someone lost what they felt was "their rights" when their behavior was deemed unacceptable.

The rights you hold as "inalienable" exist because we, collectively, agree they exist. The government is intended, among other things, to be an instrument to enforce the recognition of those rights. And yes, sometimes the "minority" is suppressed by the the majority; a minority of people believe they should be able to rob, rape or kill, and the majority suppresses them through the rule of law. And if a minority of people believe that they have the "right" to spread disease to others, they may find that the majority will attempt to restrict their ability to do so.

In the case of this shot, the down-side to the insurance company is that the person receiving the shot is young enough that when they finally DO get infected, they're likely young adults and have already moved on to another insurance company.

But the insurance companies are also aware for every subscriber they lose to "growing up", they'll gain another one who just grew-up. It's in their interest to do this kind of preventative treatment across the board because eventually most of these kids will become adult customers of *an* insurance company. These folks don't exist in a vacuum, insurance company execs from different companies meet to discuss "industry" concerns all the time, and these are the kinds of issues that come up.

But hey, it doesn't kill men.....I dunno if we should mandate it on men.

Yeah, just because men are the carriers that, in most cases, give it to women doesn't mean we should actually *do* anything about it. Fuck'em, why should we go through the terrible agony of a simple injection to help protect them from cervical cancer. Wait though....something is nagging at me here....

But hey, it doesn't kill men.....

Oh yeah, it's this. SHIT! IT KILLS MEN TOO! WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!

Then again, I don't think it should be mandated for women either, at least not without parental consent to opt in.

Yeah, that makes sense. "Sorry lady, but due to the fact that your parents had some kind of reservation about giving you this vaccine, you get to die of cancer now that otherwise was easily preventable. I know, I know, it's rough, but your parents were afraid you'd be a slut if you got the vaccine". Great.

Well, NaNoWriMo starts in 7 more days, sounds like you've got a basic concept ready to go. Now you just need to outline your characters and you're all set :)

What you have in congress right now are not politicians but pirates (the real ones).

Well, at least it'll slow global warming, RAmen.

Okay, so first you say that you can't use it because "not basing injectable substances on known poisons would be a good start.", and now you're saying that you don't want to use it because it's not a known poison. You change positions so rapidly that it's actually dizzying. More study is fine, more study is great, but so far there's no proven reason not to use it. We do know that the diseases that spread when vaccines are unavailable are actually dangerous though, provably so, so it seems that until it's found to actually be dangerous it's better not to let people die of preventable illness.

I look forward to your next sudden change in direction, reminds me of that old "shoot the bear" video game I so loved as a child.

I'd say not basing injectable substances on known poisons would be a good start.

Ah, then you've either just conceded that Thimerosal is fine since the mercury compound in it is not a "known poison" when used correctly, or you've just ruled out injecting saline solution because the chlorine in the compound sodium chloride is a "known poison" (and far deadlier than mercury). I look forward to your next rationalization.

Wrong. Things like wheat and peanuts are food items, so there's actually a reason to eat them, like any other food item. Same goes for milk: it's nutritious for part of the population, even though another part of the population can't handle it (those with lactose intolerance).

And Thimerosal is used as a preservative for vaccines, so there's actually a reason to use it. It's not like they just spray it on people walking down the street or jab you with it for amusement purposes.

Mercury isn't a food, it's a poison. Just like lead, there's no use for it in the body, unlike certain other trace elements like zinc. There's nothing good about mercury, from a biological point-of-view. The less of it in your body, the better. Injecting yourself with it is pure insanity, especially when alternatives exist.

Everything is a poison if given in sufficient quantities. Doubt me? Name anything you like, I can figure out an amount that will kill you. But, you do have a point, there's no use for Thimerosal in the body. That's actually very convenient, because the bioavailability of the mercury in Thimerosal is zero. Within a few days, it's gone, flushed away with the rest of the poop. As for alternatives, sure, as better preservatives are developed, they're used, which is why Thimerosal is rarely used at this point in western countries, and as those alternatives become more widely available in poorer nations it'll be used less there as well.

That's LA chupacabra, not El

I'd call you a pedantic jackass, but you're even worse, you're a pedantic jackass who appears to be wrong The name in Spanish can be preceded by singular masculine article (el chupacabras), or the plural masculine article (los chupacabras).

and I'm pretty sure it's already been found. Except it wasn't a big monster, it was some dog with mange or something like that.

So in other words, they didn't find it, because it didn't exist.

And there is indeed evidence for Nessie, and IIRC the people who made that photo admitted later that they fabricated it.

Legends are not evidence, and telling me that some photo was faked does not support the assertion that there "is indeed evidence".

Well of course you found nothing since your sample size was too small. If you only look at 100 kids, and the condition only occurs in 0.1% of the population, you're probably not going to see it. But 0.1% of the population is about 7 million people worldwide.

Your numbers stink, but that's probably because you just hauled them out of your ass. Where do you get the idea that only 100 kids were studied? So far hundreds of thousands of children have been part of population studies, and stil not a single one of them has had reactions worse than the diseases being vaccinated against, and not a single one of them have had a reaction that suggests that a vaccine containing Thimerosal caused autism. The simple fact is that Thimerosal contains no mercury that is bio-available. It does not stay in the body, it does not interact with the body in the way that mercury alone or in other compounds would. Granted, this does not mean that it is 100% for everyone who has ever lived, but short of testing every single person on Earth before approving any new substance, how do you propose to gain the level of certainty that you seem to require? You can't possibly be suggesting that no substance that isn't a naturally obtained food product can ever be used, can you?

Now, is there anything else you'd like to be wrong about, or are we done here?

I believe, are either building or just built a plant in Georgia as well.

It's up and running, my Sorrento was built there. Interesting trivia about the Georgia plant; it's one of the few auto factories built with wooden floors, which is more comfortable for the workers (easier on your legs standing for long periods than concrete). I believe it's the only auto factory in the U.S. built that way. Having a car from there makes for an interesting conversation with someone who wants to shout "Buy American" while leaning on his foreign-built Chevy.

Okay, so in the first half of your post, you've just effectively taken the position that nobody should ever ingest anything because it may not be perfectly safe 100% of the time, and that a lack of evidence that something is perfectly safe is really evidence that we just haven't found the vanishingly small minority of people in which an adverse reaction is possible. Oh, but you for some reason only want to apply this to Thimerosal for some reason. We know for a fact that diseases, which can be contained and in some cases eradicated through vaccination, kill and incapacitate people. There is no proof, or even strong evidence that Thimerosal at the levels it's found in some vaccines has adverse effects anywhere near as bad as the diseases that the vaccines protect against.

As for anecdotal reports of "children changed pretty suddenly after getting mercury-containing vaccines, going from normal to autistic", well, I can find loads of anecdotal evidence for Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and El Chupa Cabra. Doesn't mean they're real. If something is so widespread and easily identified as these stories suggest, there should be *some* scientific evidence for the phenomenon, but there's yet to be a single, credible study that shows a connection between vaccines and autism. Not one. Why is that? As for studying children, you don't need to "keep a million kids in sealed bubbles during their first 3 years to see if giving half of them mercury-containing vaccines causes a small handful of them to become autistic", you do long term studies following the health of a sampling of children and look for correlations. Been done, and guess what- found nothing.

ah, now I get your posts....you're a Ferengi. I always thought you were a troll, but you put so much energy into it all. Now though, I see that it's a cultural difference based on the fact that you're from another planet and you're not actually human. Huh, the things you meet on the internet nowadays.

You can gain a following quite easily if you learn how to promote yourself online. Wil Wheaton is a good example of this, I think.

Well, he did have the benefit of being a movie and television star before he got involved in social networking...