Unfortunately the disease isn't an issue anymore, so until it becomes one, you shouldn't give a dang about whether people are vaccinated or not. I don't care WHY these diseases were eliminated, all that matters is that they WERE eliminated and thus no longer pose a threat vaccines are necessary to protect us against. You've provided no logical reason for your argument, resorting to the Fallacy of the Irrelevant Thesis. Please, please, PLEASE, learn some debate skills before you publicly embarrass your position...
@9CJ6CB65mos5MO
Please please PLEASE stop slapping logical fallacy complaints on my face whenever you use them yourself. People still vaccinate against supposedly dead disease because they aren’t truly DEAD as much as severely weakened and rare, but we are left more open and vulnerable to them coming back if we don’t vaccinate against them. There’s also the reason of travel, we’re required to vaccinate to travel to certain places to lower the risk of bringing them back by accident, because the risk if they come back is ENORMOUS to the cost of life. It’s much more than just “it’s gone now so forget about it”.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution5mos5MO
If you'd like me to stop complaining about logical fallacies, one quick fix would be to stop using them, instantly eliminating the problem. But if you'd like to continue using them, unfortunately I'm going to have to debunk them so others are not misled – fallacies are very persuasive, though they are dangerous. If I'm using logical fallacies, please point out what fallacies I used, unless, of course, you're unfamiliar with the subject of logical fallacies, in which case it would probably be best for you to stop commenting on this website until you acquaint your… Read more
@9CJ6CB65mos5MO
I did not say government mandates across the board, I said that in order to enter certain things, like most businesses with contracts, you should adhere to certain standards. To travel, or work as a government employee, you follow the rules of the area. If a business chooses yes or no, I don’t have a problem with it, though I’d incentivize a requirement to prevent possible deaths. The murder of the unborn is done with every living person today being unable to survive to the age of 35 due to expensive healthcare and an early case of cancer. If a person on the individual level doesn’t want to vaccinate, that’s their problem, but in order to do certain things, certain requirements are needed.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution5mos5MO
Businesses with contracts are still composed of individuals, traveling people, and government employees, etc, are still individual people, so my argument still holds true for all these cases. For people who are genuinely scared of getting disease, they can get these d–n vaccines and instantly be protected. But why force others to get a vaccine against their will when the people who are genuinely unwilling to run the risk of catching one of these ancient diseases have already vaccinated themselves? It does nothing for the protection of those people while destroying liberty for the latter group. Sounds pretty tyrannical to me.
And you never explained why you're "Pro-Choice" for the indiustrialized butchery of 6 million children per year yet remain anti-choice on so many medical, tax, and regulatory issues....
@9CJ6CB65mos5MO
Because in order to prevent enough deaths to not let it continue spreading, one must achieve a percentage of people protected against the disease to protect those who vehemently refuse. When they sign the contract, they need to follow the rules of that organization. Isn’t that your whole thought process with student loans? Heck, the student loans will have a more dramatic effect than vaccines.
Abortion really isn’t anything most understand. Getting angry about abortions is honestly ridiculous. 9/10 of them happen before twelve weeks, and the reasoning for them happening afterwards… Read more
