Should state mandate immunizations? N...

Should state mandate immunizations? New requirements effective in July

There are 9744 comments on the Chattanoogan.com story from May 4, 2011, titled Should state mandate immunizations? New requirements effective in July. In it, Chattanoogan.com reports that:

Immunizations are one of the most efficient and cost-effective ways to protect children against childhood diseases and Tennessee law requires documented immunizations.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chattanoogan.com.

Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7480 May 10, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
We're not talking about a different viewpoint. We're talking about an inconsistent combative position which harms the nation and the citizens.
Look at the recent lightbulb study.
Self described liberals and conservatives are given the same option between a $.50 old fashion lightbulb and a $1.50 energy efficient bulb. BOTH groups overwhelmingly pick the energy efficient model for it's long terms savings. Both pick what is best for their own FINANCIAL interests. REASONABLE.
However, stick a "environmentally friendly" sticker on the $1.50 bulb, and the Conservatives no longer want to buy it.
In other words, the Conservatives are making a decision which is NOT in their best financial interest _AND_ is also NOT in the best interest of the environment.
That isn't just unreasonable, that's INSANE. Literally. They are acting in a manner which harms both them and others and benefits NO ONE.
Could you find me a Liberal who talks about green energy but uses less expensive coal? Absolutely. He's making a decision with his wallet that benefits him and goes against his rhetoric. That's dickish but explainable.
What you CAN'T find me is a Liberal who will pay MORE for a product he doesn't want in order to harm his own self interest in another area.
As far as I can tell, you are consumed by your hatred which tends to make you irrational. I've tried to communicate with you rationally and intelligently.
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7481 May 10, 2013
2cents wrote:
<quoted text>
There are danger to immunization. If they require your children to have them they should be required to be responsible if the shots mess them up for life. Odd the paper work when you get shots tells you they will only pay medical bills if they mess up you or your child. Not funeral or money to live on if child is messed up for life. Some are made out of bovine white blood cells. Many times they help some times they kill and cripple.
Nuggin points out that there is a fund for vaccinations gone wrong, yet the government {that set up that fund} legally requires vaccinations for children whether the parents approve or not. If you have religious grounds you may opt out, but not so much on parental rights, and if you stand up for your rights you're as good {as Nuggin has shown toward me} as a Homegrown Terrorist.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7482 May 10, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as I can tell, you are consumed by your hatred which tends to make you irrational. I've tried to communicate with you rationally and intelligently.
The difference between our two posts is clear.

I give examples. You just use ad homs.

You think I'm irrational because I point out that making a choice that is both against your own self interest AND against the interest of others is sociopathic behavior.

How is that observation irrational? It's not.

However, since you can't offer up a counter argument you are content to pretend you have some lofty observational post.

I've got news for you, you're about two decades behind in your little history lessons. Yes, I'm well aware of how our primary school education differs from the historical record. I'm also aware that your over simplified view does not take into account larger trends in history, nor the limited capacity of children to grasp higher level concepts.

Should we teach 3rd graders that Thanksgiving is really a holiday in which people gather to celebrate genocide?

Or that Passover is really a holiday in which people gather to celebrate infanticide?

Or that Columbus day is really a holiday in which people gather to celebrate the greatest slave trader in history?

Or, perhaps, should we bring them up to speed in a ladder of knowledge allowing them to reach whatever level they can before attempting to climb to the next.

I was on your rung. I've move further up. Someday you might as well.

Now, let's stop with the "causes of the Vietnam war" and the "North didn't want to end slavery" garbage and get back to the issue at hand.

Conservative, as a whole, do not make rational decisions. This is because they don't understand WHY they hold the positions they hold because, for the most part, they are followers who accept the views of others without question.

This is why there are an OVERWHELMING imbalance of hypocrisy on the Conservative side of the debate on ANY issue.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7483 May 10, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
<quoted text>
Nuggin points out that there is a fund for vaccinations gone wrong, yet the government {that set up that fund} legally requires vaccinations for children whether the parents approve or not. If you have religious grounds you may opt out, but not so much on parental rights, and if you stand up for your rights you're as good {as Nuggin has shown toward me} as a Homegrown Terrorist.
You want absolute freedom without consequence.

Vaccinating 10% of a population is useless. Vaccinating 50% of a population is useless. Vaccinating 80% of a population is useless.

Vaccination only succeeds at preventing disease by giving the disease no foothold in the society.

So, we have two options.

Require vaccination and everyone benefits.
Don't require vaccinations and the 20% of people who are irresponsible endanger the 80% who are responsible.

That SAME dynamic applies to EVERYTHING in our society.

If you were given the option to pay for your water bill or opt to not pay, you MIGHT choose to pay. However, enough people would elect to NOT pay thus the water utility would fail and everyone would lose water.

Ditto roads, fire departments, electricity, air travel, supermarkets, literally EVERYTHING in our society would fall to pieces.

If fact, if you gave the public the option to not pay taxes at all, I would guess that 50% or more would take it.

Yet if you asked those same people whether or not we should completely cut the entire military, all of social security, medicaid and medicare - virtually none of them would agree to that.

Left to their own devices people make poor decisions which negatively effect others.

Collective decision making is the BASIS of society.

You want anarchy.

Let me guess, you are a big fan of Atlas Shrugged.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7484 May 10, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
not so much on parental rights
There is no such thing as "parental rights". You do not OWN children. You don't get to endanger their lives.

Google "parents allow child to die needlessly" and see exactly how many times the courts have found in favor of their "parental rights".
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7485 May 10, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as "parental rights". You do not OWN children. You don't get to endanger their lives.
Google "parents allow child to die needlessly" and see exactly how many times the courts have found in favor of their "parental rights".
I'm not "painting" you as irrational, you are. However, you may find that parents have a somewhat different point of view on "parental rights", and rightly so.
Hey

Crossville, TN

#7486 May 10, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
We're not talking about a different viewpoint. We're talking about an inconsistent combative position which harms the nation and the citizens.
Look at the recent lightbulb study.
Self described liberals and conservatives are given the same option between a $.50 old fashion lightbulb and a $1.50 energy efficient bulb. BOTH groups overwhelmingly pick the energy efficient model for it's long terms savings. Both pick what is best for their own FINANCIAL interests. REASONABLE.
However, stick a "environmentally friendly" sticker on the $1.50 bulb, and the Conservatives no longer want to buy it.
In other words, the Conservatives are making a decision which is NOT in their best financial interest _AND_ is also NOT in the best interest of the environment.
That isn't just unreasonable, that's INSANE. Literally. They are acting in a manner which harms both them and others and benefits NO ONE.
Could you find me a Liberal who talks about green energy but uses less expensive coal? Absolutely. He's making a decision with his wallet that benefits him and goes against his rhetoric. That's dickish but explainable.
What you CAN'T find me is a Liberal who will pay MORE for a product he doesn't want in order to harm his own self interest in another area.

And how do you dispose of your great energy efficient bulbs?
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7487 May 10, 2013
Hey wrote:
<quoted text>
And how do you dispose of your great energy efficient bulbs?
Not properly, that's for sure. LOL

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7488 May 10, 2013
Hey wrote:
<quoted text>
And how do you dispose of your great energy efficient bulbs?
I'm sooooo bored with you.

Let me derail you right at the start.

We get a lot of our electricity from coal.
Apart from the health and environmental impacts of harvesting coal, there's the down the line impacts from burning it which include high levels of mercury, radioactive waste and carbon emissions. All of which are detrimental.

ANY technology that reduces our overall energy usage reduces our coal usage. Any reduction on coal usage far outpaces even the most wild ass speculation about potential dangers from the ONE kind of energy efficient bulb that contains minute traces of mercury.

Given that Tenn still has a number of coal plants spewing mercury and radioactive waste all over the state, it's in your best interest to upgrade your lights. Side benefit, it costs you less.

So, of course, you aren't going to do it.

Better for you? Yes.
Better for everyone else also? Yes.
Easy to accomplish? Yes.
Conservative willing to do it? FUCK NO.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7489 May 10, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not "painting" you as irrational, you are. However, you may find that parents have a somewhat different point of view on "parental rights", and rightly so.
Not rightly so.

Do you have the right to deny your child food? Healthcare? An education? Do you have the right to beat your child? Nope.

You know why? Because your child is a citizen with rights of their own.

Your rights do not supersede the rights of the child, nor do they supersede the rights of the society as a whole.

We give you WIDE LATITUDE for f up your child for life with your religious beliefs and rampant ignorance, however when you fail it falls upon US to pay for your mistakes. Therefore, you do not have full authority to fail.

Don't like it? Move to Iran.
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7490 May 10, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Not rightly so.
Do you have the right to deny your child food? Healthcare? An education? Do you have the right to beat your child? Nope.
You know why? Because your child is a citizen with rights of their own.
Your rights do not supersede the rights of the child, nor do they supersede the rights of the society as a whole.
We give you WIDE LATITUDE for f up your child for life with your religious beliefs and rampant ignorance, however when you fail it falls upon US to pay for your mistakes. Therefore, you do not have full authority to fail.
Don't like it? Move to Iran.
Why should I move? I stand for the Constitution, I think the Founding Fathers of these United States got it right, and I am not trying to manipulate and control others to comply with a tyrannical system of laws. What entitles you to remain here? Oh yeah, now I remember, I fought for your Right to remain here. I fought for your right to be a foul-mouthed, obnoxious, jerk if that's what you should choose to be. It is unfortunate that if your parents taught you any manners at all, you've chosen not to use what you were taught, but absence of one definitely indicates absence of the other.
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7491 May 10, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sooooo bored with you.
Let me derail you right at the start.
We get a lot of our electricity from coal.
Apart from the health and environmental impacts of harvesting coal, there's the down the line impacts from burning it which include high levels of mercury, radioactive waste and carbon emissions. All of which are detrimental.
ANY technology that reduces our overall energy usage reduces our coal usage. Any reduction on coal usage far outpaces even the most wild ass speculation about potential dangers from the ONE kind of energy efficient bulb that contains minute traces of mercury.
Given that Tenn still has a number of coal plants spewing mercury and radioactive waste all over the state, it's in your best interest to upgrade your lights. Side benefit, it costs you less.
So, of course, you aren't going to do it.
Better for you? Yes.
Better for everyone else also? Yes.
Easy to accomplish? Yes.
Conservative willing to do it? FUCK NO.
LOL See? Exactly what I said, but golly he sure took a while to say it, didn't he? LOL
Hey

Crossville, TN

#7492 May 10, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sooooo bored with you.
Let me derail you right at the start.
We get a lot of our electricity from coal.
Apart from the health and environmental impacts of harvesting coal, there's the down the line impacts from burning it which include high levels of mercury, radioactive waste and carbon emissions. All of which are detrimental.
ANY technology that reduces our overall energy usage reduces our coal usage. Any reduction on coal usage far outpaces even the most wild ass speculation about potential dangers from the ONE kind of energy efficient bulb that contains minute traces of mercury.
Given that Tenn still has a number of coal plants spewing mercury and radioactive waste all over the state, it's in your best interest to upgrade your lights. Side benefit, it costs you less.
So, of course, you aren't going to do it.
Better for you? Yes.
Better for everyone else also? Yes.
Easy to accomplish? Yes.
Conservative willing to do it? FUCK NO.
I say old chap the United kingdom has a bit of a problem with those bloody bulbs.
The Daily Mail "We will not pick up toxic new bulbs,Councils say energy-saving lights are to dangerous for binmen"
Hey

Crossville, TN

#7493 May 10, 2013
Alliance for Natural Health
"Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs:A New Cancer Risk in Your Home"
http://www.anh-usa.org/compact-fluorescent-li...
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7495 May 10, 2013
General off topic question here.

http://news.yahoo.com/did-imam-really-arabic-...

Is this for real or not? I can't seem to find this on any of the major news networks at all, only on Yahoo News and the Blaze sites.

Apologies for the off .... well, we've kinda been off topic for some time, haven't we? Well, apologies anyway.:-)

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7496 May 10, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should I move? I stand for the Constitution, I think the Founding Fathers of these United States got it right, and I am not trying to manipulate and control others to comply with a tyrannical system of laws. What entitles you to remain here? Oh yeah, now I remember, I fought for your Right to remain here. I fought for your right to be a foul-mouthed, obnoxious, jerk if that's what you should choose to be. It is unfortunate that if your parents taught you any manners at all, you've chosen not to use what you were taught, but absence of one definitely indicates absence of the other.
You may think you are old, but you were no in the war of 1812. You never fought for my right to do anything.

As I said before, if you want to be a part of a society where the individual has no responsibility whatsoever, you need to move someplace else. Here your citizenship comes with responsibilities to your fellow citizens.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7497 May 10, 2013
Hey wrote:
Alliance for Natural Health
"Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs:A New Cancer Risk in Your Home"
http://www.anh-usa.org/compact-fluorescent-li...
Actually, if you read the study the thinking goes like this:

"These bulbs produce UV radiation at dose X"
"UV radiation at dose Z is dangerous"

Therefore the bulbs are dangerous.

If you have a window allowing light in the room, you are getting more UV radiation from the Sun than you would from the lightbulb.
Give it Up

Dandridge, TN

#7498 May 10, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You may think you are old, but you were no in the war of 1812. You never fought for my right to do anything.
As I said before, if you want to be a part of a society where the individual has no responsibility whatsoever, you need to move someplace else. Here your citizenship comes with responsibilities to your fellow citizens.
You should probably stop wasting your time on this one - she obviously just likes to hear herself blather because her "homework" surely stopped at about 3rd grade, and the only thing she "fought" for was the last doughnut. Her husband (if she has one) probably just wishes she would take enough "responsibility" to get off topix long enough to take a shower and brush her tooth.
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7499 May 10, 2013
Give it Up wrote:
<quoted text>
You should probably stop wasting your time on this one - she obviously just likes to hear herself blather because her "homework" surely stopped at about 3rd grade, and the only thing she "fought" for was the last doughnut. Her husband (if she has one) probably just wishes she would take enough "responsibility" to get off topix long enough to take a shower and brush her tooth.
Amusing distractions give others a chance to maybe catch me distracted in the other discussions I'm in. Oddly enough, I hadn't given any thought to Nuggin's gender.

You know, if Nuggin is a female, then that could make quite a bit make a lot of sense. Well, as I am so fond of observing, Time does tell all tales.
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7500 May 10, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You may think you are old, but you were no in the war of 1812. You never fought for my right to do anything.
As I said before, if you want to be a part of a society where the individual has no responsibility whatsoever, you need to move someplace else. Here your citizenship comes with responsibilities to your fellow citizens.
If you reside in the US legally, and/or if you are a US citizen, yes I did, and so have a lot of other people. If you are neither then you are right, and you need to return to where you legally belong.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christiana Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Luttrell exploring police options (Jan '09) Sep 23 Have Mercy 3
YOU can stop the Mosque by desecrating the site... (Mar '11) Sep 23 Wow 113
mccormick trucking cmpany (Feb '10) Sep 19 Xemployee 91
Murfreesboro housing Sep 19 American 2
News Jail Administrator Charged With Having Sex With... (Apr '11) Sep 18 Tex 54
Robert Krajci is a narcissistic abuser women be... Sep 18 Concernedperson16 1
family law attorney (Nov '14) Sep 15 Faylinn 9

Christiana Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Christiana Mortgages