Should state mandate immunizations? N...

Should state mandate immunizations? New requirements effective in July

There are 9774 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.

Someone

Kingsport, TN

#8301 Jul 3, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize that the intrusion of reality is inconvenient for you.
You have confirmed my statement regarding your ill conceived approach to those who disagree with your point of view.
You homework needs to be resubmitted
Someone

Kingsport, TN

#8302 Jul 3, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize that the intrusion of reality is inconvenient for you.
Speaking of alternate realities (and yours is), what have you been smoking? Could I get some too?
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#8304 Jul 4, 2013
Someone wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of alternate realities (and yours is), what have you been smoking? Could I get some too?
You seem rather opinionated and certain for someone who has openly admitted you aren't educated enough to form an opinion.

FYI, the only mind alteration I participate in is expanding my knowledge base. I have a feeling that you lack the motivation and/or the mental acumen for such an endeavor, but to be fair I'll pose a small challenge for you. In 2008 a bill was defeated by the House of Representatives which was publicly termed "The Bail-Out Bill"; what was the actual title of this bill at that time, and what reason might there be for changing its title?

Let us see how you do with your Homework.
Someone

Kingsport, TN

#8305 Jul 4, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem rather opinionated and certain for someone who has openly admitted you aren't educated enough to form an opinion.
FYI, the only mind alteration I participate in is expanding my knowledge base. I have a feeling that you lack the motivation and/or the mental acumen for such an endeavor, but to be fair I'll pose a small challenge for you. In 2008 a bill was defeated by the House of Representatives which was publicly termed "The Bail-Out Bill"; what was the actual title of this bill at that time, and what reason might there be for changing its title?
Let us see how you do with your Homework.
As usual, you make unsubstantiated claims about my educational background. There is (at least here) little considered marks of education: that there are certain areas of knowledge that are not within my sphere of expertise. Unless you are medically trained by qualified people, and I see no evidence that your are, then your views on medical issues should carry little or no more weight than any other person on the street.

That being said, it remains highly implausible that all those people working in the medical establishment, and those in government service are a evil as you make them out to be, one is left to wonder which bothers you more: the political issues or the medical issues. Your comments about the government and the medical establishment suggest the former. Your so-called challenge about the "The Bail-Out Bill" provides further evidence.

Consider refraining from ad hominems and attempts at one upmanship directed to me in your posts. Resorting to such maneuvers is a sign of frustration on your part and adds no substance to the conversation.
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#8306 Jul 4, 2013
Someone wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual, you make unsubstantiated claims about my educational background.
Really? Let's see about that.
Someone wrote:
I understand enough to know that I am not qualified to interpret these studies.
From post #8175.

I submitted that there are doctors, scientists, and professionals of all kinds will sell their expertise to the highest bidder, and I doubt you can refute this. Furthermore I've stated that we are each as qualified to decide for ourselves as anyone else, and that submitting to some supposed authority, regardless of source, is submitting to tyranny and dictatorial rule; again not denied by you or anyone with an IQ in the double digit range or higher.

From the way you use your words it does appear that you base "qualification" on what a person has been "given" by some form of educational/government authority. You also perceive insult and slight where none exists which indicates much about your personality and motivations for your opinions.
Someone

Kingsport, TN

#8307 Jul 4, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Let's see about that.
<quoted text>
From post #8175.
I submitted that there are doctors, scientists, and professionals of all kinds will sell their expertise to the highest bidder, and I doubt you can refute this. Furthermore I've stated that we are each as qualified to decide for ourselves as anyone else, and that submitting to some supposed authority, regardless of source, is submitting to tyranny and dictatorial rule; again not denied by you or anyone with an IQ in the double digit range or higher.
From the way you use your words it does appear that you base "qualification" on what a person has been "given" by some form of educational/government authority. You also perceive insult and slight where none exists which indicates much about your personality and motivations for your opinions.
There is a difference between some doctors and scientists being corrupt and all being corrupt. Of course, I cannot refute the claim that some are (at least one is) corrupt. If you mean that most, if not all are corrupt, and your arguments depend on this fact, then that fact cannot be established without providing a good deal more Thant the anecdotal evidence that has been provided in this topic.

As for the last sentence, retread what you have wriitten earlier. You are many of your posts attack The bearer of any message you disagree with rather an the message.
Someone

Kingsport, TN

#8308 Jul 4, 2013
Someone wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a difference between some doctors and scientists being corrupt and all being corrupt. Of course, I cannot refute the claim that some are (at least one is) corrupt. If you mean that most, if not all are corrupt, and your arguments depend on this fact, then that fact cannot be established without providing a good deal more Thant the anecdotal evidence that has been provided in this topic.
As for the last sentence, retread what you have wriitten earlier. You are many of your posts attack The bearer of any message you disagree with rather an the message.
I admit that I am a lousy proofreader
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#8309 Jul 5, 2013
Someone wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a difference between some doctors and scientists being corrupt and all being corrupt. Of course, I cannot refute the claim that some are (at least one is) corrupt. If you mean that most, if not all are corrupt, and your arguments depend on this fact, then that fact cannot be established without providing a good deal more Thant the anecdotal evidence that has been provided in this topic.
As for the last sentence, retread what you have wriitten earlier. You are many of your posts attack The bearer of any message you disagree with rather an the message.
You have obviously mistaken me for someone else. My position is that each person has sovereignty over their own body, adults have sovereignty over their own families, and in a free country the government is subservient to the people, not the other way around. If you choose to disagree, so be it.

As for your feelings of persecution, I simply can't help you there.
Someone

Kingsport, TN

#8310 Jul 5, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
<quoted text>
You have obviously mistaken me for someone else. My position is that each person has sovereignty over their own body, adults have sovereignty over their own families, and in a free country the government is subservient to the people, not the other way around. If you choose to disagree, so be it.
As for your feelings of persecution, I simply can't help you there.
Done my homework wrote:
<quoted text>
You have obviously mistaken me for someone else. My position is that each person has sovereignty over their own body, adults have sovereignty over their own families, and in a free country the government is subservient to the people, not the other way around. If you choose to disagree, so be it.
As for your feelings of persecution, I simply can't help you there.
We cannot all be free to do whatever we please at all times.

I am not concerned about feelings of persecution: rather I have repeatedly pointed out that your reluctance to distinguish

between

1. the claims you have made

and

2. your statements against the persons who question your claims.

If indeed

... each person has sovereignty over their own body, adults have sovereignty over their own families, and in a free country the government is subservient to the people, not the other way around.

Who are the ``people'' here?

It is a given that the TN legislature passed the immunization laws. In theory at least, the legislature act as proxy for the people. If so, then by transitivity the people of TN passed the laws. Hence, in this case the government (the executive and judicial branches) are subservient to the people.

Accordingly, the government has not trampled on the rights of the "people".

It is a given that people may refuse for, religious or medical reasons, to be immunized. In other words, good reasons are required.

Likewise, those who support the claim that they should not have to submit to the immunization law would like to produce good reasons for not submitting. Statements about sovereignty of the individuals cannot alone be regarded as a good reason for refusing to submit. Otherwise, the claim to sovereignty alone would justify refusing to submit to any and all laws. In this case, our society would virtually be the the same as Hobbes' state of nature (no government, no property rights, no morality.)

If, on the other hand, it can be shown that the immunizations are are not medically beneficiary, even harmful, then one would have good reasons for that we should not have to submit.

So the question is, does the drive to remain sovereign fuel the search for evidence against the government, educational, and medical establishments?

Again, anecdotal evidence regarding the actions of some pharmaceutical companies, may motivate further research, but it does not count as evidence acceptable to science.
sam

United States

#8311 Jul 5, 2013
Q
Qqqa
Someone

Kingsport, TN

#8312 Jul 5, 2013
sam wrote:
Q
Qqqa
I want to thank you. Personally for such an enlightening post.
Big Dog

Jumilla, Spain

#8313 Jul 5, 2013
Someone wrote:
<quoted text>
I want to thank you. Personally for such an enlightening post.
Why?
Someone

Kingsport, TN

#8314 Jul 5, 2013
Big Dog wrote:
<quoted text>Why?
Why not.
Someone

Kingsport, TN

#8315 Jul 5, 2013
You imbeciles who persist in judging my posts as nuts, not a clue, etc. are idiots.

You know that there is a difference-- or do you?

Probably not.

Judging posts here is a sign of laziness or dishonesty.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#8317 Jul 12, 2013
"Hepatitis B Vaccine Has Been Ruled To Cause Chronic Fatigue Syndrome:(VIDEO)."

Click here:
http://www.examiner.com/article/hepatitis-b-v...

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#8318 Jul 12, 2013
SexySassySenior wrote:
"Hepatitis B Vaccine Has Been Ruled To Cause Chronic Fatigue Syndrome:(VIDEO)."
Click here:
http://www.examiner.com/article/hepatitis-b-v...
Wow, that's pretty amazing since they have no actual diagnosis for CFS and don't have ANY means of testing for it, verifying it, etc.

So I guess they've solved ALL these issues ....

Oh wait, no they didn't. It's bullshit

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#8319 Jul 12, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, that's pretty amazing since they have no actual diagnosis for CFS and don't have ANY means of testing for it, verifying it, etc.
So I guess they've solved ALL these issues ....
Oh wait, no they didn't. It's bullshit
That's very possible. I make no claims to believing it or not believing it. I just thought it was interesting and that it was worthy of posting, so that each Person could make up their own mind about what it says.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#8320 Jul 12, 2013
"New Limits On Arsenic In Apple Juice."

Click here:
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/limits-a...

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#8322 Jul 13, 2013
SexySassySenior wrote:
<quoted text>
That's very possible. I make no claims to believing it or not believing it. I just thought it was interesting and that it was worthy of posting, so that each Person could make up their own mind about what it says.
The problem is that that is not how science or human psychology work.

An "average" reader will read that title (not the article) and believe that it's true, then fail to get vaccinated against a _VERY_ real and _VERY_ deadly disease to protect themselves from a condition which people can not agree even exists.
zmxk

Tucker, GA

#8323 Jul 13, 2013
Kankakee

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.

Hepatitis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Rebuttal over Cochrane Review of DAAs-What is t... Jul 8 hcvnewdrugs 1
News Scientific Evidence and the EU Court Jul 6 VAERS NVICP 1
The Liver - Super Foods & Supplements Jun 30 hcvnewdrugs 1
News EU court: Vaccines can be blamed for illnesses ... Jun 21 RIGHT ON 2
News Burlington dental patients told to get tested f... Jun 21 Lenny 1
News The opioid epidemic is making the fight against... Jun '17 Ronald 2
News Finally! UK Government expected to make it easi... May '17 Gremlin 2
More from around the web