Should not vaccinating your child be a criminal offence?

[Coveny]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not talking about any level of abstraction, my island example, for instance, doesn't mean you're free to live without food and water.

That is a level of abstraction. Think about the word "apple". At a high level of abstraction the apple is just a concept and can't be physically affected. At this level of abstraction 1 apple = 1 apple. At a lower level of abstraction when I pick up 1 apple and you pick up a different apple then 1 apple does NOT = 1 apple. Your apple will have differences from my apple. To take that back to freedom at a high level no one can be free because the laws of physics (can't fly) apply to us. But when I pick this human in a society, the case becomes less abstract because we've accepted that you will have human limitations, that you will have societal limitations.

Now part of this debate hinges on if vaccines infringing on others freedom and are therefore a requirement of the society. I don't feel like that argument was proven personally, but your milage my vary. My position is that vaccines are not a requirement of society as there are many examples of where individual freedom is given priority over the greater good of the society. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Coveny said:

That is a level of abstraction.

 

Nope.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/abstraction

10 minutes ago, Coveny said:

 Your apple will have differences from my apple.  

 

Why? 

[John Cuthber]

12 hours ago, Coveny said:

But you can still walk on the road if you want. 

Which is relevant to exactly the same extent that walking on roads kills other people.

 

17 hours ago, Strange said:

I'm against making everyone drive on the same side of the road because it impinges on peoples freedom.

I know what you mean.

And that pesky law about murder impinges on my freedom to kill people in much the same way that those commies have enacted laws that stop me stealing the stuff I want.

 

We would clearly be better off if we didn't have these laws.

[Coveny]

59 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Nope.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/abstraction

Why? 

Here is an in depth definition of what the levels of abstraction - http://www.socphilinfo.org/node/150

However you can find an easier to guide here - http://changingminds.org/disciplines/communication/comms_theory/level_abstraction.htm

It should explain why it is levels of abstraction, and how it applies to this conversation about the concept of freedom versus how freedom is applied to an individual.

51 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Which is relevant to exactly the same extent that walking on roads kills other people.

I know what you mean.

And that pesky law about murder impinges on my freedom to kill people in much the same way that those commies have enacted laws that stop me stealing the stuff I want.

We would clearly be better off if we didn't have these laws.

Yes when you skip a vaccine people will die, you have proven this to be true, and a very good analogy to murder. /sarcasm off

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, Coveny said:

Yes when you skip a vaccine people will die, you have proven this to be true, and a very good analogy to murder. /sarcasm off

You seem to have missed the point; it was a reply to this, where you seem to to realise that any freedom to do something removes other people's freedom that it not be done.

On 04/12/2017 at 7:53 PM, Coveny said:

The seatbelt is a good analogy. I'm personally against seatbelt laws because I believe it infringes on freedom. 

If you are going to post about "freedom" you need to recognise that it isn't going to be absolute.

 

Incidentally, it is true. I didn't need to prove it; we did the experiment before there were vaccine.

Lots of people did, in fact, die.

Edited December 5, 2017 by John Cuthber

[Coveny]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

You seem to have missed the point; it was a reply to this, where you seem to to realise that any freedom to do something removes other people's freedom that it not be done.

If you are going to post about "freedom" you need to recognise that it isn't going to be absolute.

Incidentally, it is true. I didn't need to prove it; we did the experiment before there were vaccine.

Lots of people did, in fact, die.

Any freedom to do something does not always remove other people's freedoms. You have not proven that, and that sure seems impossible to prove.

Strawman, never claimed freedom was absolute. (as can be seen by the discussion of the levels of abstraction in this very thread)

We have been doing the anti-vaxxer experiment for years, you are correct, it has been proven to be safe to not vax.

No one, in fact, died. pfft stop trying to use cheater moves...

[koti]

9 minutes ago, Coveny said:

We have been doing the anti-vaxxer experiment for years, you are correct, it has been proven to be safe to not vax.

No one, in fact, died. pfft stop trying to use cheater moves...

The above can qualify for top 10 nonsense posts on this site in both „not understanding the previous post” category and the „biggest miconception” category. 

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, Coveny said:

We have been doing the anti-vaxxer experiment for years, you are correct, it has been proven to be safe to not vax.

Nonsense. When vacation levels drop, there are large increases in disease.

Here is just the first search result of many: http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2016/03/study-relates-vaccine-refusal-rise-measles-pertussis

Is this whole thread a dishonest anti-vaccination thing?

[koti]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Is this whole thread a dishonest anti-vaccination thing?

As per thread title...as I previously stated I think that criminal prosecution for not vaccinating your child is far too harsh of a penelty - fines and kindergarden/school exclusion would be in my opinion good enough. Deliberately spreading misconceptions however, especially on a large scale should be a criminal offence. Just like Nazzi organizations are illegal in most countries, make the anti vaxxers illegal.

[Coveny]

2 hours ago, koti said:

The above can qualify for top 10 nonsense posts on this site in both „not understanding the previous post” category and the „biggest miconception” category. 

Or the above could be sarcasm about the previous poster who tried to state opinions as facts without backing it up.

 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Nonsense. When vacation levels drop, there are large increases in disease.

Here is just the first search result of many: http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2016/03/study-relates-vaccine-refusal-rise-measles-pertussis

Is this whole thread a dishonest anti-vaccination thing?

That study isn't about coverage it's about whether vaccines are effective or not, which isn't the debate. I agree vaccines are effective, that's not in question to my knowledge.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Coveny said:

That study isn't about coverage it's about whether vaccines are effective or not

Nonsense. 

There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of studies showing that lower vaccination rates cause higher rates of disease. 

7 minutes ago, Coveny said:

I agree vaccines are effective, that's not in question to my knowledge.

You appear to be questioning the validity of herd immunity. 

[Coveny]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Nonsense. 

There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of studies showing that lower vaccination rates cause higher rates of disease. 

You appear to be questioning the validity of herd immunity. 

Agreed but that's not what you linked.

I'm also not questioning the validity of herd immunity, just the morals of forced vaccination, and also questioning the difference between 91% and 92% coverage as causing "large increases" in disease.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Coveny said:

Agreed but that's not what you linked.

I'm also not questioning the validity of herd immunity, just the morals of forced vaccination, and also questioning the difference between 91% and 92% coverage as causing "large increases" in disease.

Every extra eligible person that is not immunized is another potential vector route to the immuno-vulnerable.

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Coveny said:

Here is an in depth definition of what the levels of abstraction - http://www.socphilinfo.org/node/150

However you can find an easier to guide here - http://changingminds.org/disciplines/communication/comms_theory/level_abstraction.htm

It should explain why it is levels of abstraction, and how it applies to this conversation about the concept of freedom versus how freedom is applied to an individual.

1

As I've explained, it doesn't apply to this conversation.

 

9 hours ago, Coveny said:

I'm also not questioning the validity of herd immunity, just the morals of forced vaccination, and also questioning the difference between 91% and 92% coverage as causing "large increases" in disease.

 

That's the second time you've mentioned morals in this thread, you didn't answer my first reply, so I'll ask again, are you suggesting vaccination is immoral?

If not why bring it up? You seem to have (at least in part) accepted my speeding analogy, so I'm confused, how is the potential harm caused by speeding morally different to the potential harm caused by not vaccinating? It seems to me the only possible explanation is, you just don't want another law which strikes me as a little selfish.

[Coveny]

8 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Every extra eligible person that is not immunized is another potential vector route to the immuno-vulnerable.

Immunized people are potential vector routes to the immuno-vulnerable as well so the word "another" implies something that isn't true. 

Most of what I've read indicates that herd immunity doesn't require 100% coverage, and that in some cases it is achieved at 85% or lower. Of the population I believe less than 1% are in the situation where they can't get vaccines. So the point is if 85% is the requirement, and we are sitting at 92%, how can we morally justify forcing the other 7% to get vaccines. All the talk about herd immunity and the effectiveness of vaccines don't matter at that point, it's acheive, and each percentage point represents 3.2 million people. If it matters, personally I would like to see everyone who can be vaccinated, vaccinated but that's not what I'm attempting to discuss here. We have the societal requirement, we have the vaccines, the effect of more vaccines is negligible on herd immunity. You can see this by the lack of "spread" in the cases that have happened in America, as it's generally contained to the areas that have antivaxxers in them. 

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

As I've explained, it doesn't apply to this conversation.

I don't feel like you have, nor have you addressed my reasoning why it does apply. But hey we'll agree to disagree.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Coveny said:

Immunized people are potential vector routes to the immuno-vulnerable as well so the word "another" implies something that isn't true. 

 

That's a non-sequitur, viruses exist, that's a given, and the human body has mechanisms to fight them. The immuno-vulnerable lacks that mechanism and that lack is not due to exposure to vaccines, sometimes it's due to exposure to certain viruses, which without a vaccine would be free to proceed.

13 minutes ago, Coveny said:

I don't feel like you have, nor have you addressed my reasoning why it does apply. But hey we'll agree to disagree.

 

Oh no, you don't. A disease is a real, not abstract, threat; that should both explain and address why your reasoning is wrong.

[Coveny]

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's a non-sequitur, viruses exist, that's a given, and the human body has mechanisms to fight them. The immuno-vulnerable lacks that mechanism and that lack is not due to exposure to vaccines, sometimes it's due to exposure to certain viruses, which without a vaccine would be free to proceed.

Oh no, you don't. A disease is a real, not abstract, threat; that should both explain and address why your reasoning is wrong.

How is the fact that vaccinated people can be vectors not follow that implying that they can't be isn't true?

The levels of abstraction aren't about the word "disease" they are about the word "freedom", that should both explain and address why your reasoning is wrong.

Also just because I'm OCD and it bugs me, because something is real doesn't preclude that there are levels of abstraction to it. You seem to keep ignore the "levels of" part and just focusing on the abstraction part, but the whole phrase which don't seem to be grasping because you understand abstraction you seem to believe you understand levels of abstraction which I don't think you do. Polio is real, and there are levels of abstraction to Polio for instance. That is not to say it's an abstract threat, just that the concept (high level of abstraction) of Polio is different depending on the case (low level of abstraction). At a high level you must talk about averages, and common symptoms, at a low level you know exactly what has effected the victim, and what those symptoms are without the ambiguity that a high level of abstract requires.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Coveny said:

How is the fact that vaccinated people can be vectors not follow that implying that they can't be isn't true?

 

Evidence...

[Coveny]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Evidence...

What evidence do you have that implying a falsehood makes it true?

Or are you saying you have evidence that vaccinated people can not contract the illness they have been vaccinated against?

In either case present your evidence, I would be very interested to review it.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Coveny said:

The levels of abstraction aren't about the word "disease" they are about the word "freedom", that should both explain and address why your reasoning is wrong.

 

They are about the word "real" as your links explain:

Quote

 

There are three levels at which we may communicate about things: object, experience and concept. As we go up the levels of abstraction, ideas increase and reality recedes.

 

[CharonY]

15 hours ago, koti said:

Deliberately spreading misconceptions however, especially on a large scale should be a criminal offence. Just like Nazzi organizations are illegal in most countries, make the anti vaxxers illegal.

Things like that make me unreasonably angry. We have a tool to limit human suffering, improve public health and it is the only likely way to actually eradicate diseases. And then idiots come and exploit the fear of parents and disease on the brink of extinction now come back. I really wonder about the motivation of these activists. Unless they are getting funded by the iron lung association, I am at a loss why anyone would be an anti-vaccine activist. It is pretty much like a campaign against seat belts.

[dimreepr]

24 minutes ago, Coveny said:

What evidence do you have that implying a falsehood makes it true?

Or are you saying you have evidence that vaccinated people can not contract the illness they have been vaccinated against?

 

Strawman, just answer my twice asked question.

21 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Things like that make me unreasonably angry. We have a tool to limit human suffering, improve public health and it is the only likely way to actually eradicate diseases. And then idiots come and exploit the fear of parents and disease on the brink of extinction now come back. I really wonder about the motivation of these activists. Unless they are getting funded by the iron lung association, I am at a loss why anyone would be an anti-vaccine activist. It is pretty much like a campaign against seat belts.

It does make you wonder what (abstract) level of bullshit they have to digest before they're (paid) free to walk.

Edited December 6, 2017 by dimreepr

[Coveny]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Strawman, just answer my twice asked question.

I don't see how a question could ever be a strawman. False dichotomy maybe because I only listed two options, but a strawman fallacy as a question? That's a stretch, if not a logical impossibility.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Coveny said:

I don't see how a question could ever be a strawman.

You don't understand what a question is?

(Posed purely as an example of a straw man question. I am reasonably confident you know what a question is.)

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, Coveny said:

I don't see how a question could ever be a strawman. False dichotomy maybe because I only listed two options, but a strawman fallacy as a question? That's a stretch, if not a logical impossibility.

I look forward to your explanation...

Edited December 6, 2017 by dimreepr