Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[TheDemonLord]

As you're well aware though, autism goes well beyond just quirky mannerisms.

Well, yes - consider this - There has been much speculation that the Character of Sherlock Holmes (who was based on several real people) has enough traits that one could diagnose him with Autism or Aspergers (hyper attention to detail, extreme obsessive interests, disdain for social norms) - Again, all these character traits were based on real people.

But, in the highly rigid Victorian society where the rules of social etiquette were clearly defined, someone such as he could live and interact socially.

And without a diagnosis of Autism, descriptions such as odd, quirky etc. etc.

Another example would be Alan Turing.

The prevelance of more severe neurological disorders has been on the increase as well.

Is that due to better understanding of the Brain? Better Equipment? Most disorders weren't fully known before the 1950s - so...

[TheDemonLord]

Any/all your "Points" ... Those that take the moral high ground ... usually find it a difficult climb up. Some do make it up there ... but few stay there long.

So you got nothing then? I mean - I asked you to pick one, and you respond with this 'any/all' but decline to actually go any further...

No possibility of law helping if it's perfectly legal. Wait for a law change (For how long was slavery allowed before the laws were changed ... ??)

The law (and it's interpretation) is based upon principles and how they are applied - did you miss the part where I pointed to the Majority of US case law deeming that withholding a vaccine from a child is tantamount to Child Abuse (and before you quibble - yes, US case law HAS relevancy in NZ as both NZ and the US legal system is based on English Common Law)

If the issue is so important ... why has there NOT been a test case .. ?? Are you the only one that cares ... ??

Probably because we've yet to have a major outbreak that has resulted in multiple fatalities. If you read my responses properly, you'll note I care a great deal for the Libertarian PoV.

Well ... if he hasn't coerced anybody into adopting HIS views ... his opinions are only his opinion. Accusations of wrongdoing require proof. And you have none.

Except, Coercian isn't required. Incitement to violence doesn't involve Coercion, afterall it's just someone spreading their Opinion...

You aren't even close to knowing what I'm doing. Guess again ...

Is that because you don't know yourself? I mean you ask for evidence, then dismiss it when given, you critique a chain of logic, but fail to state what you disagree with.

So far ... you admit all Katman has done is held and stated his opinion. And now you're comparing it to the Nuremberg trial ... get real fella ...

No, I've said he's promoted his opinion. Bit of a difference. Does the Imam who preaches hatred and destruction of the west bear any responsibility when someone goes out and kills based on the Imam's opinion? Does the KKK Leader who says to "Lynch all the Niggers" bear any responsibility when someone goes out and does that? You know the answer. And whilst you'll duck and point out Katman isn't a major leader - I'll retort that by actively promoting this viewpoint, it's giving legitimacy to something that is both illegitimate and dangerous.

The Nuremberg trial was about the complicity of an individual and their small actions as part of something larger and more grotesque - so it's completely relevant.

I never said you did.

Glad you agree - so if you can just retract all the BS that's predicated on that false equivalence, we can get passed that point.

Opinions and attitudes change. And they cause change. But until those opinions change ... nothing will.

What causes opinions to change in the first place?

"it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged."

In the years of smoking in public buildings and transport ... how many (in NZ) contracted or died of cancer .. ??? But it was legal at the time. Do you smoke .. ???

No. And have never smoked Tobacco. Ironically - a Law that was passed to restrict the Liberties of the Individual, in order to protect innocent third parties from harm...

It's almost like there's a principle in there that I referenced....

You accuse ME of dishonesty ... ??? Why don't you actually stop talking/arguing and do something positive (and constructive) to help with your perceived issue ... ???

So, that struck a nerve - prove me wrong then, try and make the argument about the seriousness or lackthereof of Measles without excluding the protection granted by a Vaccinated population.

I can pull up the Angolan stats for you - 1 in 1,000 Children who caught Measles died. Is that dangerous enough to be worth your attention?

My positive input is that every time I see or hear Anti-vax BS to respond, with the relevant facts, to show that the arguments put forward by the likes of Katman are objectively wrong and to put the risk of Measles into the proper perspective.

[Katman]

If only I'd made exceptions for cases with a pre-existing condition (and a family history of severe adverse reactions would certainly qualify)

If only....

Well that almost sounds like you'd be prepared to treat those people with some sort of empathy and compassion......



.......right up till the time they dare to open their mouths and start bleating about their vaccine injured children.

Then they're just fear-mongering fraudsters, right?

[FJRider]

So you got nothing then?

No need (in my opinion) to respond to individual claims about an entirely legal practice. Your argument and abuse of those that don't hold your opinion doesn't impress me.

The law (and it's interpretation) is based upon principles and how they are applied

So ... if the law is correctly "interpreted" in these places ... justice will be done ... right .. ?? If not WHY NOT .. ??

Probably because we've yet to have a major outbreak that has resulted in multiple fatalities.

So low risk then .. and higher numbers recorded could be just an anomaly ... it does happen with statistics.

Except, Coercian isn't required. Incitement to violence doesn't involve Coercion ...

Coercion (spelled correctly) is serious ... and incitement to cause violence is pretty serious too. But incitement to hold an opinion not so. I must have missed the post he (I assume Katman) incited violence ... got a link/quote ... ??? Who did he incite violence to ... you ... ?? (I haven't reached that point in the argument yet). But from him ... he has been known to incite homosexuality (invitations to suck his cock) ... although it has been a while since the last invitation. Perhaps you should argue about that (on moral grounds).

Is that because you don't know yourself?

I know myself pretty well. Known myself for 61 years now ... probably my entire life ... But you will figure out what I'm doing .. eventually. If you're smart.

Probably ... NOT then ...

No, I've said he's promoted his opinion. Bit of a difference.

Where did incitement of violence feature then ... ??

The Nuremberg trial was about the complicity of an individual and their small actions as part of something larger and more grotesque - so it's completely relevant.

Your opinion.

Glad you agree - so if you can just retract all the BS that's predicated on that false equivalence, we can get passed that point.

If you agree ... no need to retract anything.

What causes opinions to change in the first place?

Enough people wanting the same thing for the same reasons. It would seem that number has not been reached yet.

No. And have never smoked Tobacco. Ironically - a Law that was passed to restrict the Liberties of the Individual, in order to protect innocent third parties from harm...

Individuals that caused known harm to others around them ... are now restricted in their activity for the greater good (and better health) of society.

It's almost like there's a principle in there that I referenced....

Almost.

prove me wrong then, try and make the argument about the seriousness or lackthereof of Measles without excluding the protection granted by a Vaccinated population.

I have no intention of changing the world ... or anybody's opinions.

I can pull up the Angolan stats for you - 1 in 1,000 Children who caught Measles died. Is that dangerous enough to be worth your attention?

Read the stat's of children in New Zealand that die at the hands of their family members ... and not get charged. That might get your attention.

My positive input is that every time I see or hear Anti-vax BS to respond, with the relevant facts, to show that the arguments put forward by the likes of Katman are objectively wrong and to put the risk of Measles into the proper perspective.

In this regard ... how many opinions have you managed to change ... ???

[TheDemonLord]

Well that almost sounds like you'd be prepared to treat those people with some sort of empathy and compassion......

.......right up till the time they dare to open their mouths and start bleating about their vaccine injured children.

Then they're just fear-mongering fraudsters, right?

Is it an injury that's actually caused by the Vaccine as in a known side effect? Or is it something they only noticed around the time of the Vaccine that's been repeatedly shown to have no causal link?

Because those 2 things happen to be vastly different.

You see how easy it is to make the Libertarian argument when you don't go down the conspiracy route?

[husaberg]

Well that almost sounds like you'd be prepared to treat those people with some sort of empathy and compassion......



.......right up till the time they dare to open their mouths and start bleating about their vaccine injured children.

Then they're just fear-mongering fraudsters, right?

---

While some people would be embarrassed to be shown as being such a blatant hypocrite i doubt it would raise an eyebrow for anyone who has seen your posts for more than a week.

Not what you said. the reality is there is no proof. So show us how all the stuff is not proof, all the witness accounts documents etc are not proof.
I note your own source you have quoted agrees \

Fuck off with your 'witness accounts'.
They do nothing to prove any absolute figure.

.............................

[Katman]

Is it an injury that's actually caused by the Vaccine as in a known side effect? Or is it something they only noticed around the time of the Vaccine that's been repeatedly shown to have no causal link?

Because those 2 things happen to be vastly different.

You see how easy it is to make the Libertarian argument when you don't go down the conspiracy route?

There have been about 2000 vaccine injury payouts in the US and about 1000 in the UK.

Do those people have the right to have their stories told?

It would certainly make for a lengthy documentary.

[TheDemonLord]

There have been about 2000 vaccine injury payouts in the US and about 1000 in the UK.

Do those people have the right to have their stories told?

It would certainly make for a lengthy documentary.

How many of those are for Autism?

I've never claimed that there aren't side effects from Vaccines. We know there are. We also know there are policies in place to mitigate said side-effects. We also know that the risk of injury from the vaccine is far smaller than the risk of DEATH from the actual disease.

That is the bit you refuse to account for - some people will have adverse reactions - if you were serious about the Libertarian PoV, you'd argue as to how to mitigate the chance of an adverse reaction - I'd be more than happy to see a pre-vaccination check to see if there were any undiscovered auto-immune disorders or any unknown allergies.

But that's never a point you've argued - cause you don't actually care or give a shit, you just bring up the same debunked Autism Hoax crap and the same 'Big Pharma' nonsense. And that gives away where your real intentions lie.

[husaberg]

There have been about 2000 vaccine injury payouts in the US and about 1000 in the UK.

Do those people have the right to have their stories told?

It would certainly make for a lengthy documentary.

---

Two for two you really are on fire tonight, such large amounts of hypocrisy from such a SMALL person

It was proven in court to be a forgery. Are you a bit slow on the uptake.
It is also been discredited by nearly 100% of the worlds historians, but shit Katman don't let that sway your conspiracy theory, it should only fuel it further.

No, a judge merely ruled it to be a forgery. (A judge with the surname Meyer, no less).
Are you saying that no judge has ever gotten a ruling wrong - or allowed their own bias to sway their judgement?

Three experts were asked to give evidence at the Berne Trial - one chosen by the judge, one by the Jewish plaintiffs and one by the defendents.
The experts chosen by the judge and plaintiffs claimed the Protocols were fake while the expert chosen by the defendents claimed they were authentic.
The fact that the judge chose to side with his own and the plaintiffs experts does not necessarily constitutes 'proof' - it might simply indicate a personal bias..

[Katman]

How many of those are for Autism?

I didn't specify autism - I said vaccine injured.

So do those people have the right to have their stories told or would you accuse them too of being wilfully responsible for the deaths of thousands of children?

[TheDemonLord]

No need (in my opinion) to respond to individual claims about an entirely legal practice. Your argument and abuse of those that don't hold your opinion doesn't impress me.

So Slavery was all okay when it was legal? Nothing Immoral about it? Cause that's the position you are arguing from...

So ... if the law is correctly "interpreted" in these places ... justice will be done ... right .. ?? If not WHY NOT .. ??

The law is a written codification of our deepest set of Principles. Principles we can't always articulate accurately. Principles which may not always translate perfectly from one situation to another.

So low risk then .. and higher numbers recorded could be just an anomaly ... it does happen with statistics.

Low risk? Well, that depends - are you factoring in the rate of Vaccination? You keep making arguments that deliberately divorce this causal factor.

Coercion (spelled correctly) is serious ... and incitement to cause violence is pretty serious too. But incitement to hold an opinion not so. I must have missed the post he (I assume Katman) incited violence ... got a link/quote ... ??? Who did he incite violence to ... you ... ?? (I haven't reached that point in the argument yet). But from him ... he has been known to incite homosexuality (invitations to suck his cock) ... although it has been a while since the last invitation. Perhaps you should argue about that (on moral grounds).

What is the principle behind Incitement to Violence? It's that by holding and espousing an opinion, you encourage other people to take actions that result in Harm to innocent people/the wider community.

I put it to you that promoting an Anti-Vax viewpoint, based on Fraudulent 'studies' meets every single one of those criteria.

See the above post to Katman to show the difference between arguing from an actual Libertarian position and arguing from the Anti-Vax position that masquerades as such.

I know myself pretty well. Known myself for 61 years now ... probably my entire life ... But you will figure out what I'm doing .. eventually. If you're smart.

Probably ... NOT then ...

Well shit - if that's the case why do we need Psychologists and Sociologists... Unless people may not know themselves as well as they think.

Where did incitement of violence feature then ... ??

See above.

If you agree ... no need to retract anything.

Your critique is comparing the actions of Katman to my actions and with a rather notable difference being you agree I've never engaged in promoting the idea that other people Speed - which means your attempt to draw an equivalency between what Katman does and what I do was entirely Fallacious.

Do you retract this?

Enough people wanting the same thing for the same reasons. It would seem that number has not been reached yet.

Sometimes, but not always:

Fiat justitia ruat caelum.

Individuals that caused known harm to others around them ... are now restricted in their activity for the greater good (and better health) of society.

What a brilliant articulation of the argument for Mandatory Vaccination - so you agree with my point then?

Read the stat's of children in New Zealand that die at the hands of their family members ... and not get charged. That might get your attention.

Is it 1 in 1,000?

But if it makes you happy - Domestic Violence in NZ is utterly Shocking - and where it as simple as giving a child 2 jabs to prevent it, you can bet your bike and your house that I'd be in favour of that.

But alas it isn't. It's a subject I've often thought long on - as to why NZ has this unique issue. I suspect there is a geographical component, a socio-cultural component, a substance abuse component, maybe a genetic component and probably a whole load others.

In this regard ... how many opinions have you managed to change ... ???

Of Zealots? None. Of people that have seen the half-truths presented by the Anti-vax crowd and been tempted without hearing the other side? Several.

And so long as it's greater than 1, I'll keep furiously typing rebuttals.

[husaberg]

There have been about 2000 vaccine injury payouts in the US and about 1000 in the UK.

Do those people have the right to have their stories told?

It would certainly make for a lengthy documentary.

Not really, 2885 were for flu vaccines.
Considering there were over 3,153,876,236 vaccinations carried out under te scope of the VICP what does that add up to............. 1 in a million?
That one in a million rings a bell. is 1 in a million less than 1 in 10,000 still.
I am pretty sure tens of thousands dis esch year of the flu in the USA alone
i am also pretty sure there is no real vaccination scheme as such for the Flu vaccine.
Its also hard to imagine that its mainly kids getting vaccinated for the flu either.

[TheDemonLord]

I didn't specify autism - I said vaccine injured.

Yet, when I challenged you on this:

But I also believe that we need to get to the bottom of what is causing the massive increase in the number of cases of autism.

You can't let it go.

I told you if you wanted to be taken seriously, to drop all the disproved Autism crap - argue on the known side effects.

So what is it going to be? Are you going to retract all the Anti-Vax MMR and Autism BS you've spouted in the 6 years this thread has been going or are you going to yet again pull a bait and switch?

So do those people have the right to have their stories told or would you accuse them too of being wilfully responsible for the deaths of thousands of children?

Are the stories being over-exaggerated and sensationalized to push an anti-vax, anti 'big pharma' narrative' or are the stories being objectively presented, with the accompanying testimony of qualified medical personal to put the stories into perspective?

How many of those payouts were from the MMR vaccine (which is what we are discussing specifically) and how many were for permanent serious injury? and then what is the risk of injury compared to the number of Doses?

[Katman]

How many of those payouts were from the MMR vaccine (which is what we are discussing specifically)

Well you might be discussing the MMR vaccine specifically but I'm discussing them in general.

[TheDemonLord]

Well you might be discussing the MMR vaccine specifically but I'm discussing them in general.

or are you going to yet again pull a bait and switch?

Proof, Pudding.