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. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. All
Contrary to what a lot of the Catholic-bashers would have you believe the Spanish Inquisition didn't just torture and kill heretics because they hated them: they actually loved those heretics with a fierce and burning passion. A little too fierce and burning some may argue. But they really did have the best of best intentions: life is short and eternity is not. A hot poker up the bum is a painful, humiliating, cruel and highly effective method of forcing a conversion out of an unwilling heretic. But it is nothing compared to the pain, humiliation and cruelty of eternity in Hell. And that was what the Inquisitors believed was the fate of the souls of those who died without converting: so by inflicting a relatively small amount of pain in this life the Inquisitors hoped to save people a tremendous amount of pain in the next. They had no selfish intentions and were just trying to save people from spiritual harm. They may have killed and tortured but it was compassionate killing and torturing. Nice people when you think about it.

Or maybe not. Having good intentions isn’t enough to make an immoral act a moral one. All that murder and torture the Spanish Inquisition did was just plain wrong even though they had the best of intentions. Intentionally inflicting – or wilfully failing to prevent – physical harm to another person is always wrong. It doesn’t matter how noble or selfless your intentions are because good intentions don’t make wrong right: they make up the paving stones on the road to Hell.

>>Thinking requires a brain and the confusion arises from associating choice with thinking.<<

I agree to up to a point: creatures with simple nervous systems cannot really be said to ‘think’ but in a sense still make choices: choices based on instinct rather than thought. But that’s creatures with simple nervous systems: spermatozoa and oocytes do not have any sort of nervous system. They are simply not equipped to make choices.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Wednesday, 6 June 2012 11:53:51 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
FreeSpirit:

>> The parent may see that the physical body is only temporary but the spirit is eternal, so make a difficult choice to save the spirit at the cost of the body.<<

So: exactly like the Spanish Inquistion. Where do you people learn ethics?

>>I disagree. I believe physical illness and dis-ease can be the manifestation of spiritual illness or impurity in anyone, be they religious or atheist.<<

Apparently at the same place you learn medicine. Name two physical illnesses that are caused by spiritual impurity.

>>I believe that as everything is energy and energy vibrates, we can raise our personal vibration by embracing a life style that aids us in realising our full potential and expands our awareness, thereby leaving illusion behind until we know, and are nothing but our divine Self. Density is related to the rate of vibration and can be transcended in many ways;<<

And the same place you learn physics XD. Not everything is energy: some stuff is matter. Matter and energy can be converted to one another under the right conditions but they aren’t the same thing. Vibration is a mechanical phenomenon whereby oscillations occur about an equilibrium point. I’m not sure what the behaviour of mechanical systems has to do with religion and I don’t think you are either. Density is a given material’s mass per unit volume and is unrelated to vibration. Get thee to a physics lecture!

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Wednesday, 6 June 2012 11:55:42 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 Tony,

According to the Mental-Health Act, "A person does not have a mental illness merely because of any 1 or more of the following:
(a) ...
(b) the person expresses or refuses or fails to express, or has expressed or refused or failed to express, a particular religious opinion or belief.
(c) the person (...same...), a particular philosophy."
(13 exceptions altogether)

I wouldn't be surprised if your humanist friends in government will change this law to drop those sections (however, they may find it difficult to face the Greens because items (d) and (g) deal with sexual orientation), but if that happens, if they join their Chinese counterparts, then I'll have at least a few days notice to flee the country (but don't worry, I'll still stay in touch here, online).

---

The first and foremost spiritual principle is non-violence. Even the Vatican admits that the infamous acts of the Spanish Inquisition were in error. Sadly they were not aware of this first principle (although Jesus was).

Not every erroneous action is necessarily also immoral, but I find it difficult to believe that the inquisition (also the Thuggee cult) was pure and had no ulterior motives besides the stated ones. If any inquisitor also did what he did, even partially, because of: Sadism; Greed; Fear of superiors; Desire for promotion; Personal revenge, etc. then he was selfish, immoral and unjustified.

<<So strangling strangers is OK as long as you do it for the right reasons?>>

That's a tautology, but I wonder whether right-reasons to strangle strangers present themselves even once in a 1000 years.

I do wonder however whether you consider the following a right reason:

Suppose Nazis are around, torturing and killing everyone they find and those strangers make noises that would alert the Nazis to torture and kill both them and yourself. Those strangers would die soon anyway, but if you strangle them, then at least you would be saving them from torture.

Without the spiritual guidance of scripture I would be quite unsure and lost about this one - what about you?

(continued...)
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 6 June 2012 9:17:28 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
(...continued)

<<what's better than to die for a spiritual cause!...Dying for a spiritual cause at age 99 from an incurable illness like cancer instead of being killed for your parent's spiritual cause at age 9 from an easily curable or preventable affliction>>

Runner will be very pleased to see you join his anti-abortion campaign!
I too am pleased to see that you are not one of those who claim that it's good to die for one's country (perhaps you would wish to lock those up as well, together with me, FreeSpirit and the abortionists...).

Personally, I rather die in the service of God than of old age.

<<By not realizing our divine true nature, by believing that we are humans instead, we do it all the time!>>

Like actors that die on stage, in our capacity as humans we always eventually die. We don't really die, nor does the actor, however, If an actor is sincerely convinced that s/he is the character s/he represents, then s/he experiences death every evening.

<<The original text is written in Hebrew>>

The Hebrew text is "Lo tirtzach": the root R-Tz-Ch stands for murder whereas the root H-R-G stands for killing. Some translations do get it right: http://studybible.info/compare/Exodus%2020:13
If you are interested, I can show you the difference by leading you through the occurrences of both roots throughout the bible (old testament, since the new was written in Greek).

<<spermatozoa and oocytes do not have any sort of nervous system. They are simply not equipped to make choices.>>

Bodies do not make choices, be they spermatozoa or humans - you and I do, including the choice whether to use our brains or not.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 6 June 2012 9:17:34 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
"Bodies do not make choices, be they spermatozoa or humans - you and I do, including the choice whether to use our brains or not."

I don't think you could have said it better Yuyutsu.

Now I choose to use my brain by asking for evidence before I accept something as likely correct and basing my decisions on evidence. Hence, the evidence shows that vaccination is a good thing for societies who don't want to lose their children to diseases. Evidence also shows the herd immunity provided by vaccination in societies only works if there are high levels of vaccination. This herd immunity helps protect those who, for a variety of medical reasons, cannot receive vaccination.

Having used my brain to think through all that, I have come to the conclusion that people using spurious religious reasons to deny vaccination and then promoting that denial to others are just selfish.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 7 June 2012 12:02:23 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 Agronomist,

<<vaccination is a good thing for societies who don't want to lose their children to diseases>>

True.

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.

I wonder, however, why would one aspire to help an inanimate, non-sentient object such as society to achieve its goals, instead of to help fulfilling the goals of actual living people.

<<Evidence also shows the herd immunity provided by vaccination in societies only works if there are high levels of vaccination. This herd immunity helps protect those who, for a variety of medical reasons, cannot receive vaccination.>>

We fully agree on this point. I am not arguing with scientific facts.

<<I have come to the conclusion that people using spurious religious reasons to deny vaccination and then promoting that denial to others are just selfish.>>

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:

Now why would a selfish person wish to promote the denial of vaccination to others? If I were selfish and wanted to benefit from herd immunity, then I'd try to be the ONLY unimmunized person!

OTOH, isn't asking others to vaccinate for you an act of selfishness?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 7 June 2012 7:10:33 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. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. All

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