"I have gathered that today's culture is slowly trying to push out the personality types that were common 20 years ago."

I didn't realize "competent" was a personality type but sure, makes sense.

Well thank you for asserting your opinions as if they were facts or even a logical argument for your position. Too bad they're neither.

As for what other countries require of visitors - that is certainly they're right. It seems to me the discussion was what countries/society can demand of its own citizens. So even that comment is irrelevant.

As for your reference to Ayn Rand, I'll refrain from implying you are a known authoritarian demagogue, because see that kind of comment really doesn't add anything at all. Well, wait, I guess it does show the person making it lacks the ability to conduct a proper argument. .

It has nothing to do with the number of people choosing not to be vaccinated. It addresses the logical claim of the increased risk, relative to other people otherwise why even both talking about the compromised immune system, resting with the non-vaccinated person rather than with the one who has no immune system. Read first, think, then respond.

I shall assume that you have no actual response to what I said and being unable to tolerate that you instead are just asserting your opinion as fact.

Look at it this way, there is the child with the damaged immune system, and another child without a damaged immune system. Both are in the presence of the child who hasn't been vaccinated. The risk to the child with the damaged immune system is higher than the risk to the other child - clearly the escalation in risk (which was what was brought up) is due to the damaged immune system.

While I feel sorry for the child with the damaged immune system I'm not convinced that that is sufficient reason to demand that other children undergo a medical procedure, any medical procedure no matter how benign it might seem.

This reminds me of all the schools that send kids home if they bring peanut butter in their lunch... because some kids are allergic to peanut butter. So the kids don't get to eat what they want and the parents have to use more expensive sandwich contents (it's pretty hard to beat peanut butter on price). This has "just happened" with no public debate about it.

I'm sorry you misunderstood what I said. I thought it was clear to what I was referring in your post but obviously it wasn't to you. Do as you please, of course, but if you are genuinely interested in two-way communication I'd suggest a little more consideration of what someone is saying to you before you hit that reply button.

I was commenting on your claim that "It actually amazes people from outside the US that children unvaccinated for things like whooping cough would be allowed into a public school."

Either your claim was irrelevant to your prior claim or it was intended to bolster it. The latter seemed to be its purpose. Thus my comment about popularity not equalling correctness. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear to you.

So basically any time "we" observe that parents behavior may result in developing a child (=> adult) who may endanger others (one day, perhaps) then "we" are entitled to interevene and dictate the way that child is raised?

Wow. OK then... I think kids being raised to believe that "society"/"the state"/"the mob" has a right to tell you what beliefs your children must have (or at least be taught to behave as if they have them) poses a significant danger to humanity and believe that all people who believe in that right should be sequestered. That's ok too, right?

Ahhhh... so then correctness is determined by the number of people supporting your position?

Absolutely. And it is an even more slippery slope than that. The general case is: does "society" have a right to medicate you against your will because it is good for "society". And you could substitute "government" for "society"... not sure which is scarier though.

From there it is: Does society have the right to alter your biology to suit society's purposes?

Without taking a side inn the pro/anti-vaccination debate I still find your claim unreasonable. It is not the un-vaccinated person putting your son at risk, it is the result of him needing a kidney transplant as an infant that is putting him at (significantly higher) risk.

"Social norms, Ehrlinger says, are the reason that we are averse to giving negative feedback. Her research recreated everyday social situations in which we hold back from giving our own negative views."

Somebody introduce her to the internet so she can test her hypothesis... perhaps on /. LOL

Not much to disagree with in your posting. However I would add this - it seems to be increasingly common to find that people treat thinking as actively painful. I'm not often left speechless but I'll give you an example of a time when that was my reaction.

I was a member of the governing board of an organization which held about $2 million in assets. All the board positions were unpaid but had legal liability attached. I had the following conversation with the treasurer:

......
Her: I don't like talking with you [about the affairs of the organization].
Me: Why is that?
Her: Because you keep challenging my beliefs.
Me: Well is it possible that at least some of the time I am right?
Her: Oh you usually are.

It's not just England. IIRC the schools in my province do not assign letter grades for the first several years of school. The teachers also actively resist standardized testing. How nice - a job where it isn't possible to tell whether or not you are doing it.

Perhaps coincidentally this attitude seems to have grown alongside the "let's not point fingers" attitude that refuses to assign responsibility for failure - at all ages. After all it's disruptive to "the team" and teamwork and all pulling together to harness our efforts blah blah blah retch...

Yeah a few years back there was a "letter to the editor" in the local daily that was from a professor at one of the local U's. Basically he said the world would be better off if people spent more time studying "the arts" and developed an appreciation for "beauty" and that there was no beauty in mathematics. Pretty much proof positive that he had never learned any mathematics.