|
|
I'm not a homeschooler (all my kids are in public), but I've known a few. One of my best friends is a family practice doc. His family homeschools because they believe they can give a better education than the local schools in his small town, but he's adamantly in favor of vaccination.
Homeschooling absolutely doesn't imply anti-vax (although the Venn diagram does overlap a fair bit).
Did you miss the lower bad outcomes risk than the vaccine?
I did, but the math (and severity of outcomes) were off so I ignored it.
That's a pretty legit-sounding reason not to trust that particular doctor. I wouldn't hesitate to look for another doctor and get a second opinion.
And you would most assuredly be wrong. Certainly not recently. We are quite careful about what we eat, tending only to eat those things God fashioned and directed us to eat.
God provided me with a cheeseburger yesterday, and it was aluminumally delicious.
Yes, I'm making fun of you. All opinions aren't equal, and yours is incredibly naive and dangerous. You're endangering your kids for no legitimate reason, you're a bad parent, and I have no desire to be tactful about this idiocy anymore.
I skipped the second M of the MMR (mumps), as my sons exposure risk was minimal and it's very treatable with lower bad outcomes than the vaccine.
Have you ever seen the mumps? What kind of sadistic bastard would rather see his kid suffer through that than a 5-second injection?
Punishing the victims.
You misspelled "willful accomplices". Everyone's heard that vaccines are good and safe. Rallying against that is exactly like arguing that cigarette smoke is harmless when it's well documented and universally understood to be the opposite.
Anti-vaxxer here. Convince me that I and my entire family should vaccinate.
That's not our collective job. Convince me that you should have the right to spread diseases that could otherwise easily be eradicated.
I don't want all the toxins
Full stop here. "Toxin" is something that a bacteria squirts out, like botulinum toxin. That's the only thing it means. The only people who use "toxin" in any other context are the ones who want to sell you treatments to remove them from your body. No doctor or scientist refers to toxins as meaning anything else.
and animal byproducts used in creating these vaccines injected into me or my children. Nor the aluminum components.
Why aluminum, specifically? I just drank a can of highly flammable hydrogen in compound with ridiculously dangerous oxygen, containing among other things a hell's blend of reactive sodium and deadly chlorine. And it tasted good. You've probably had many a pickle brined in vinegar (acetic acid! corrosive!) and alum (aluminum, potassium, sulfur, and oxygen again!), so why is aluminum as one chemical in a compound of many a particular concern in this context?
You probably wouldn't want to sit down and eat half a pound of aluminum powder by itself, but you and your kids have almost certainly ingested some as food ingredient recently.
Nor many others. Why do any vaccines need monkey kidneys in it?
Because that's a more convenient incubator for poliovirus than a human kidney.
Unconstitutional
Not remotely. Public health has long been accepted as a legitimate concern of the government.
Stupidity, ignorance, religious preference (which I know a lot of people 'round these parts will lump in with stupidity), lack of access, distrust of the government, distrust of doctors, etc.
Of these, lack of access is the only legitimate excuse and it's self limiting and easy to address. Many places offer mobile free vaccination clinics.
Look, bud, if you don't like living in a country that promotes and supports individual liberty, you're free to either try and amend the Constitution or expatriate.
I can just about guarantee I'd win a "more Libertarian than thou" contest, but your idea of individual liberty is severely flawed. That old saying about your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins? Well, your right to carry around dangerous pathogens for the hell of it ends where my immune system begins. You don't have the right to willfully take steps to make people around you ill.
Neither of those are at all true. Plenty of pediatricians (like ours) refuse to treat willfully unvaccinated kids because of the high risk they present to other patients. If you're taking a two week old baby into the doctor's office for a well baby checkup, the last thing you want to see is some moron's measles vector sitting in the same waiting room. "First, do no harm" nicely dovetails with "by condoning and tolerating anti-science Luddites spreading disease through your office."
This isn't uncommon and most doctors who feel this way make no attempt to hide it. If nothing else, if a patient doesn't trust their doctor when recommending safe, prudent vaccinations, will they trust that same doctor to recommend emergency surgery or other invasive treatments? If there's not a trust relationship, why even bother with it?
Anti-vaxxers should come to expect that their rejection of science leaves them to see only homeopaths and other witch doctors because science-based ones won't touch them with a 10 foot pole. If they want to practice voodoo, why should they want or expect to receive all the other benefits of legitimate medicine?
It would seem to me that you underestimate how complex weather systems are.
A farmer who says "when this happened last, the weather did this next" is more likely to be right than the guy who tries to model atmospheric pressure changes in a chaotic system.
Sure, some people rely entirely on models, but good weather forecasting often involves both. How do we know what a strong north-west pressure system will do? The best answer is "what did it do last time" not "lets model it to death."
PS, this is also how medicine works, which has a lot more science in it than weather forcasting -- historical comparison is an incredibly valuable insight in chaotic complex systems.
No, "assault rifles" are not perfectly legal...
Bzzzzzt. Wrong.... The only rifles that are restricted to own are automatic rifles. ie: machine guns.
Bzzzzzt. Wrong. An actual "assault rifle" is a select-file (i.e., can be set for auto or semi-automatic operation) rifle of intermediate power. They are automatic weapons, and as such heavily restricted.
"Assault rifle" is not to be confused with "assault weapon", which is the sort of "ugly gun" you're speaking of. The term "assault weapon" seems to have been a deliberate coinage by a prohibitionist to confuse scary-looking semi-automatic rifles with actual military select-file assault rifles.
"Assault rifle" is a meaningful term. "Assault weapon" is not.
This "article" reads more like an ad. $120/year for 1 TB is more than 9 times what I'd pay for 5 years of a 1 TB internal SATA.
You internal SATA is not an off-site backup. This seems like a decent option for a backup that will still exist if (fates forfend) your house burns down.
Unless we have the name of the person who owns that first telephone number it's still just a number.
"Hey, Sprint? Yeah, this is Agent Smith at the NSA. I see that the phone number 443-555-5555 is on your network. What's the billing address for that account? Uh-huh. Any other accounts at that address? I see. And is there a credit card on file? Can I get the name and card number? Ok. And what's the PIN on their voicemail? Right. And the MEID on the phone? Thanks."
Granted, matching a name to a phone number is trivially easy,
Especially when you're the frickin' NSA.
Have you ever tried to raise capital in a socialist system? Capitalism makes capital common and available.
Capitalism keeps capital in the hands of the capitalist class, that's it's whole reason for being. The idea behind socialism is to make capital -- not to be confused with money, but the actual "means of production", and so not something that has to be "raised" -- available to workers without having to get some parasitic aristocrats involved. Unfortunately, Marx was not an empiricist and his version of socialism lends itself to abuse by authoritarians; but even his fscked-up version took an agrarian nation barely out of feudalism (Russia still had legal serfdom until 1861!) and turned it into a space-faring nuclear superpower -- and that in spite of bearing the brunt of the cost of stopping the Nazis. Stalin sucked and Marxism has serious flaws, but the whole "OMG socialism failed!!1!" meme doesn't hold up to serious examination.
If a listener nods his head when you're explaining your program, wake him up.