The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The burden of proof > Comments

The burden of proof : Comments

By Martin Bouckaert, published 1/6/2012

Can you prove vaccines are safe?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. All
Yuyutsu,

"Actual living people" - "sentient beings" - comprise society.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 7 June 2012 8:12:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

<<"Actual living people" - "sentient beings" - comprise society.>>

This is a complicated by the fact that there are many societies, comprising different sets of people. Some societies are voluntary and others are not, with most people belonging to several societies at once. Also, different societies often having conflicting goals.

Take for example the society called the Roman Catholic Church, which in Middle-Ages Spain was a non-voluntary society. Clearly as we can see on this very thread, it has set for itself goals that were in stark conflict with the goodness of its members.

So the questions rests: are we going to support the goals of a society - and if so which - or the goals of its members.

In the case of a voluntary society, one may roughly assert that the good of the society (whoever decided what it is) is good for its individual members, for otherwise they would leave! - This is inaccurate, but at least has some credit. But in the case of an involuntary society, such as a state, no such claim can be made as if the good of that society implies the good of its members.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 7 June 2012 10:09:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

How about, for the sake of the vaccination question, we define society as a grouping of beings who congregate together in a physical dimension. It comprises "actual living people" who come into physical contact with each other, sharing space and transmitting and receiving physical properties to and from each other.

This physical paradigm has little to do with ideology or "possessing conflicting goals" in the physical dimesnsion as each organism is programmed to seek self-preservation and propagation of itself and its species.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 7 June 2012 11:04:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<If a society wants to lose its children to the devil (metaphorically speaking, obviously there's no such creature), to spiritual corruption rather than to diseases, then vaccination probably serves its goals.>>

Yuyutsu, disease is real. The devil is not. I am going to take my chances with the non-existent devil.

<<If by "spurious" you mean that one is not truly and honestly religious, but only uses a religious argument to achieve a different goal, then I agree. The same holds when one uses a spurious scientific claim - so lets proceed on the assumption that the reasons are not spurious:>>

No. Religious reasons for not vaccinating are all spurious. They may be deeply held, but still spurious.

<<OTOH, isn't asking others to vaccinate for you an act of selfishness?>>

Is asking cars to stop at a red light so they don't kill pedestrians an act of selfishness?

That is equivalent to what you are suggesting here. You are suggesting that those who are the most vulnerable in society for health reasons who ask the rest of us to vaccinate to protect them from potentially lethal disease are being selfish. And you blither on about 'spiritual damage'.

Have you looked in the mirror lately?
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 8 June 2012 10:29:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

<<we define society as a grouping of beings who congregate together in a physical dimension. It comprises "actual living people" who come into physical contact with each other, sharing space and transmitting and receiving physical properties to and from each other.>>

There are many such groupings, so you need to be more specific, the most important criteria being whether a grouping is voluntary or otherwise.

<<This physical paradigm has little to do with ideology or "possessing conflicting goals" in the physical dimesnsion as each organism is programmed to seek self-preservation and propagation of itself and its species.>>

This is an undisputed scientific fact: the question is why should we adopt the physical paradigm and prefer it over other paradigms. Science can offer no answer because science only deals with facts, science is silent about values.

Dear Agronomist,

<<I am going to take my chances with the non-existent devil.>>

Fine with me, do as you please, but I'm not going to take my chances with spiritual-corruption. For me and my children, if I must choose, then I even prefer physical-corruption.

<<Religious reasons for not vaccinating are all spurious>>

See my reply to McReal, Sunday, 3 June 2012 10:55:22 PM.

<<Is asking cars to stop at a red light so they don't kill pedestrians an act of selfishness?>>

It depends on many factors, such as who owns the road, whether you ask nicely or threateningly, whether you also have the other-driver's good in mind, etc.

This is not equivalent because:
1) I never heard of anyone having spiritual objections to stopping at red-lights;
2) Driving on a public road is an active action, not-vaccinating is a non-action.

Yes, demanding that others sacrifice what's dear to them so that you can have what's dear to you, is selfish!

Though it's a spiritual imperative to not injure you and your children, nobody is obliged to protect you. Ask nicely, maybe they will.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 8 June 2012 12:42:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<This is not equivalent because:
1) I never heard of anyone having spiritual objections to stopping at red-lights;
2) Driving on a public road is an active action, not-vaccinating is a non-action.>>

In your case, as you have told us, choosing not to vaccinate yourself or your children is an active action on your part. You have to go to trouble to avoid vaccination, whereas if you were passive, your children would get their vaccinations when they went for health checkups. You also, I imagine, had to get an exemption from vaccination for your children to attend school - depending on where they went to school.

<<Yes, demanding that others sacrifice what's dear to them so that you can have what's dear to you, is selfish!>>

Which is exactly what you are doing.

<<Though it's a spiritual imperative to not injure you and your children, nobody is obliged to protect you. Ask nicely, maybe they will.>>

Yuyutsu, I know I have not any chance of convincing you, no matter how much evidence I could put forward. Because you have already made up your mind and it is closed. This is evident in the mental gymnastics you are going through in trying to defend the position you have taken. Any asking you nicely will get exactly nowhere.

So while I am not going to try to convince you, that will not deter me from pointing out the moral bankruptcy of the position you have put forward.

So long for now. Perhaps we might meet again on the next vaccination thread.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 8 June 2012 1:29:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy