Megachurch's Anti-Vaccine Stance Results In God's Measles-y Wrath
from the or-maybe-it's-just-nature dept
Here's a fun question: what if there is a God and he/she/it has a sense of irony? I'm not sure whether that thought is comforting or terrifying. For instance, let's say you're a Christian down in Texas and you belong to a megachurch.You're a good Christian, part of a good Christian community, and you go to church every Sunday to celebrate your faith. All good, right? Now, let's say this megachurch then tells its parishoners that they shouldn't immunize their children against the measles because the pastor has been spending too much time listening to Jenny McCarthy and a horribly flawed/fraudelant study done by a quack doctor years ago. Pretty dumb, yeah? Again, what happens next if God, or even just the universe, has a sense of irony?
Well, I'd say that the result would be religion doing what religion does best: performing a resurrection. Only this time, the resurrected is an officially obliterated disease that hasn't been seen for years due to vaccinations. You know this disease better by the name measles.
The latest measles outbreak is in Texas, where the virus has sickened 25 people, most of whom are members or visitors of a church led by the daughter of televangelist Kenneth Copeland. Fifteen of the measles cases are centered around Eagle Mountain International Church in Newark, Texas, whose senior pastor, Terri Pearsons, has previously been critical of measles vaccinations.Previously critical means that Copeland told her parishoners not to get the vaccines over concerns that they cause autism in children. Make no mistake, no matter what your views on her religion, this is easily the most falsifiable thing Copeland has ever said from the pulpit. I'd suggest that people in positions of authority and power, including religious leaders, have a responsibility to not advocate endangering children. Could this be a form of child abuse? I'm not sure, but it's a discussion worth having, because when someone uses their religious platform to advocate the kind of nonsense that can directly kill people, that's a problem.
Now, to her credit, Copeland has since done an about-face and urged her community to go get the vaccine.
"Our children and even adults of all ages need to be immunized now to stop the spread of measles and prevent those potential complications," Pearsons said. "The disease is only shut down when all are immunized."It's nice to see such strong, difinitive statements from Copeland that are actually true. People, immunize your children. Doctors know more than quack researchers and plastic-boobed playmates.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: autism, kenneth copeland, measles, pseudo-science, vaccinations
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh, wait..."by Timothy Geigner", the guy who likes to stir up crap by posting stuff like this. That explains that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Is this what passes as an insult to you? You're using "gay" as an insult? How come?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh wait..."Anonymous", a random commentator that has nothing better to do then attack the writer in what can only be a pathetic attempt to discredit him. That explains that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And maybe this study can explain why there are a lot of religious adults despite the fact that we rarely ever hear of autistic adults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here: http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2011/04/9719/inability-detect-sarcasm-lies-may-be-early-sign-dementia-ucsf- study-shows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is the kicker though, I also believe that people should be free to try anything they like, dangerous or otherwise, if their pastor says God will protect them and they chose to believe in him that is their business, who knows he may be right once and save lifes or more likely he be wrong and many many people will suffer the consequences of blind obedience that exclude thinking or questioning.
But it is their choice, not others, and the responsibility for said choices lye square on the people making those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?
Timmy has an obvious anti-religious bias, while he blindly believes whatever the gov't tells him.
Now. Google just "vaccine death": About 57,500,000 results
At the very least, that one number shows are HUGE concerns in this area.
Here's one on first page, recent and well-attested:
"Feds sued for secrets on HPV vaccine deaths
Other reported injuries include seizures, paralysis, blindness, memory loss"
http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/feds-sued-for-secrets-on-hpv-vaccine-deaths/
Here's one more "scientifical", but you'll have to actually read deep for context to evaluate risks:
Background Mortality Rates Key to Accurate Reporting of Vaccine Safety Risks
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130611102032.htm
"Among 13,033,274 vaccinated people, 15,455 deaths occurred within 60 days following vaccination. The rates were highest in people of age 85 years and older, and increased over the period following vaccination. Eleven of the 15 leading causes of death in the VSD and NCHS overlap in both systems, and the top four causes of death were the same in both systems."
Is 15,455 deaths a LOT compared to normal? Oh, math is too difficult for Timmy! He can only rant in ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?
Dear god! You've really opened my eyes. Plus, your ingenious new approach to epidemiology has exposed all kinds of hiterhto unknown risks -- just check out these results!
iphone death - 556,000,000 hits
chess seizure - 65,000,000 hits
youtube cancer - 420,000,000 hits
lawn darts priapism - 2,020,000 hits
gored by unicorn - 2,540,000 hits
spontaneously turned into a bowl of daisies - 11,800,000 hits
eaten by sentient tree - 16,400,000 hits
out of the blue induced brain failure - 7,810,000 hits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?
I got 2,959,834 hits, its people vaccinating against OOTB?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?
To get that many hits you must have had safe search off...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?
out of the blue induced brain failure - 7,810,001 hits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?
15455 / 13033274 = 0.1186% so... by getting a vaccine I'm 6.7 TIMES less likely to die for the next 60 days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?
Clearly my frame of reference needed adjusted because if all it took was getting a vaccine every 60 days to make Nana live longer they'd be flying off the shelves and we could just count on the anti-vaccine idiots dying off faster than they could troll techdirt.
The 0.7995% ANNUAL death rate needs to be adjusted to 60 days... so 0.7995*60/365 = 0.1314% so you're "only" 10% MORE likely to die if you DIDN'T get vaccinated w/in the last 60 days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?
I reckon the difference could be chalked up to many people near death would not be vaccinated when otherwise they would be. Of course, there are many other convoluting factors-- the elderly are more likely to get the flu vaccine and have higher mortality. Ditto very young children. The least likely to be vaccinated are healthy folks in 20s, 30s, 40s. Who also have among the lowest mortality rates.
But we agree on on thing, the OP's assertion is laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?
Pretty simple, even for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?
In fact everyone who is now alive will be 100% absolutely dead at some time in the future... Its an abomination and there must be laws to stop us eating potatoes and living.
You start first ok?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Troll! Troll in the comments! Thought you ought to know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "Road To Damascus" is too long
When will these people quit confusing their "self interests" with their "best interests"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The most salient point of Tim's post is
Vaccinations need to be considered on a case by case. Some are useful, others are less so and can be more harmful to the population at large than not having the vaccination. By more harmful, I include getting mildly sick from them than not getting sick at all.
I have observed that when the annual influenza vaccinations are available here, we end up seeing many more people sick than we would otherwise. Funnily enough, it appears to spread to those who don't get vaccinated (it is supposed to be dead and not transmissible).
I recall a conversation with a former colleague from many years ago, where he said he meticulously got his flu shot each year and promptly got sick. He eventually discussed this with his doctor and came up with the protocol of having the shot over three sessions, each a week apart. He didn't get sick after implementing this protocol.
Me personally, I don't bother. if I get sick I get sick, if I don't then I don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The most salient point of Tim's post is
The 2 worst flus I have ever had were the 2 times I got the vaccine.
So,
1. if you are going to get the vaccine, get it now in hot weather/late summer when you aren't likely to catch anything else.
2. don't get a flu vaccine. Just keep yourself warm and rested and fed and avoid touching other people's mouse/keyboard and wash your hands after your restroom breaks.
I have had only 1 cold in the last 5 years doing option #2.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The most salient point of Tim's post is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The most salient point of Tim's post is
Smallpox and Rinderpest say hi (latter wasn't a human disease, but still was eradicated)
Polio should be joining them in the not too distant future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The most salient point of Tim's post is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The most salient point of Tim's post is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The most salient point of Tim's post is
Which is exactly why vaccinations are necessary. I don't believe I've ever seen anyone my age suffering from polio or TB, but I do recall all of my peers at school having vaccinations against those diseases. Having said that, some disease do indeed get eradicated with effective vaccination (smallpox).
"I have observed that when the annual influenza vaccinations are available here, we end up seeing many more people sick than we would otherwise. Funnily enough, it appears to spread to those who don't get vaccinated (it is supposed to be dead and not transmissible)."
You're confused in at least 2 different ways about the reasons for and effect of flu vaccinations. You also need to read up on the concept of herd immunity and other reasons for vaccinations working (hint: what happens to you as an individual isn't the be all and end all).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's irony.
A far as having an anti-religious bias, That just qualifies the author as a bona-fide Homo-Sapiens, and True American... (a free man neither bends knee or calls anyone or anything "lord".)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
her name is Eris, and she thinks this shit is hilarious.
Ewige blumenkraft, and all hail discordia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the anti-vacccination cult
As for vaccines, the only real risk for most people is an allergic reaction. It's rare, but it happens. It's for this reason that hospital and clinic staff always tell you to stick around for 15 minutes after being vaccinated. Allergic reactions show up quickly, so if you keel over, they can give you a shot of epinephrine which will almost certainly halt the attack. Unfortunately, most people ignore the warning and leave the clinic immediately after being vaccinated. I admit, I'm guilty of that too, but I've never had a reaction to a vaccine, and I've been vaccinated against just about everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you read farther in your comment you may find a reason.
Except for the very young and elderly...
Add those with weakened immune systems for other reasons, too.
"In 2011, the WHO estimated that there were about 158,000 deaths caused by measles... Death occurs, in developed countries, in about 1 in 1,000 cases (.1%)."
Plenty reason to want to get rid of the disease.
"In populations with high levels of malnutrition and a lack of adequate healthcare, mortality can be as high as 10%. In cases with complications, the rate may rise to 20–30%. Increased immunization has led to a 78% drop in measles deaths which made up 25% of the decline in mortality in children under five."
That last part is striking to me. 25% of the decline in children under 5 dying is accounted for by the measles vaccine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean like... religion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
So they got measles, so what? Are they now dead? Seriously injured? No. They got sick and then they got better. When I was a kid everyone got measles and it wasn't an issue. Then again I guess the medical-industrial complex can't bring themselves to say no to a few extra billion dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
Maybe not Christian, but definitely stupid and/or seriously misinformed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really?
The plural of anecdote is not data, and public health should not be determined by random anecdote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
Hate to say it, but this is a case where "think of the children!" is actually appropriate. And "think of the chemo patients!" and "think of the already sick with xxx patients! (where xxx means another disease, not explicit entertainment).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really?
That is not how vaccination works. You vaccinate as many people as possible, or it's far less effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The author has let his anti-religious bias led him into reiterating some mainstream media account of "official" anti-vaccine cocktail heresy being punished by an outbreak of an "officially eradicated" disease.
This is actually a totally unconvincing "news story". Was it lifted verbatim from a mainstream source?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously, I know that some people are religious in their anti-vaccine stance, but would it kill you to actually provide a counter argument rather than 3 paragraphs of opinionated bullshit that we're meant to believe just because you say so? Paranoid bullshit is just that unless you actually provide a reason not the believe the evidence that supports the argument you're attempting to fight.
Some diseases have effectively been eradicated since the advent of vaccines (e.g. smallpox). Others have been drastically reduced (e.g. TB, polio). What's your explanation for this that doesn't link to vaccination programs? Cite your sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And, yeah, I give religion a hard time, just like I give a hard time to about everything else I write here. It would be biased if I DIDN'T go in on religion the same way as everything else. So cool your jets. Whichever God you believe in is doing just fine without me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Vaccinations are extremely dangerous. One can easily research this subject. Who knows what crap they're injecting into people? They've been known to put stuff like mercury and aluminum in their vaccinations. Just as with other industries, their primary motive is profit, but potentially something more sinister. A eugenics program promoted as something for your health, similar to how they lie about the "health benefits" of sodium flouride which they put in the water supply.
I wouldn't even put it past them to have intentionally infected those parishioners with the measels. Remember the Tuskegee Experiment, where they intentionally infected about 400 black men with syphilis?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HWIy4E2l64
Video description:
For fourty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for bad blood,1 their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all. The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. "As I see it," one of the doctors involved explained, "we have no further interest in these patients until they die."
Also, there was the St. Louis Experiment, where from 1953 to 1963 our military secrectly sprayed a fine powder made of zinc cadmium sulfide from planes and rooftops around poor neighborhoods.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOSKX2hgxPE
Look up Vaccination: The Hidden Truth on YouTube. Also, check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEBGG7KFQpU
Arm yourself with info.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All the research shows very clearly that vaccines are hugely beneficial and have saved literally millions of lives. Even research that is critical of vaccinations acknowledge this point.
Is there a risk with vaccines? Of course (although the actual risks are rarely what the anti-vaccine people claim). However, the risks are absolutely miniscule when you look at the horrors that vaccinations have eliminated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmm, this looks interesting.
http://www.amazon.com/Vaccine-Epidemic-Corporate-Coercive-Government/dp/1620872129/ref =sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378316874&sr=1-5&keywords=Vaccinations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But what you're saying here sounds an awful lot like "any research that disagrees with what I believe to be true must be biased and therefore ignored". That is irrational thinking.
I have yet to see even one single legitimate (by the definition I gave above) study that backs up the claims you're making here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neither of those things are "toxins". Well, I guess they are if you are using it in the completely meaningless way that trendy health-nuts use it to try to sound cool -- but since you're here claiming to have serious insight into a complicated medical subject, you should probably pick up a dictionary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aluminum has been linked to respiratory problems and neurological damage. It is unknown whether or not it can cause cancer.
http://www.usgs.gov/themes/factsheet/146-00/
"Mercury is a highly toxic element that is found both naturally and as an introduced contaminant in the environment. Although its potential for toxicity in highly contaminated areas such as Minamata Bay, Japan, in the 1950's and 1960's, is well documented, research has shown that mercury can be a threat to the health of people and wildlife in many environments that are not obviously polluted."
There you go, it is *highly toxic* and causes environmental damage, including polluting wildlife, especially fish which people eat.
And that's not even getting into the other stuff put in vaccines. Perhaps you should learn something before spewing.
http://www.healthsentinel.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i d=2598:study-clearly-demonstrates-that-aluminum-found-in-vaccines-can-cause-neurologic-damage&ca tid=5:original&Itemid=24
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
HINT: Toxic does not equal Toxin.
A toxin is an antigenic compound created inside an organic cell, like an animal or plant. It is not the same thing as a toxic metal.
But hey, by all means, keep trying to sound like you know what you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you're really concerned about these toxins, you're attacking the wrong thing. Why not go after the much more significant sources first? Are you even more passionate about eliminating the pollution from cars, manufacturing plants, and natural processes?
If you aren't then your fury is impotent. If you get vaccines at all, it would make very nearly no difference in the total toxin load in your body.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So... anyone with the knowledge and education that qualifies them to research these questions cannot be trusted? And, as such, we should trust people with no knowledge or education?
Hmm, this looks interesting.
No, it looks like a book full of nonsense from the publishers who brought us a book described as "a remarkable analysis linking the assassination of JFK and 9/11," a street-conning guide called Scam School, a compendium of paranormal crime stories entited Ghouls, Ghosts, and Ninja Rats, and the Jesse Ventura American Conspiracy Card Set.
I'd give a lot more credence to these insane theories if they didn't always all come from the same place at once. Funny how you never meet anyone who believes in Bigfoot but NOT alien abductions, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I find it interesting that you can dismiss the contents of a book you never read simply because you consider the publisher's other literature to be conspiracy nonsense. If it's such nonsense then how come the overwhelming majority of readers liked it?
For the record, I don't buy into either bigfoot nor alien abduction. I believe that the technology for so-called UFOs is government. I guess that makes me a conspiracy theorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You clearly have never met a real scientist in your life. The single greatest thing a research scientist could do for their career is disprove a commonly held theory or craft a novel one that surpasses it.
I find it interesting that you can dismiss the contents of a book you never read simply because you consider the publisher's other literature to be conspiracy nonsense.
I think the fact that all publications with a strong track record of publishing high-quality scientific literature -- most of which are independently funded and do not rely on money from the medical community you fear so much -- will not touch anti-vaxx material is very telling. I find the fact that the ONLY publishers that will touch it are those that specialize in conspiracy theories, ghosts and new-age topics even more telling.
The fact that you don't is just further proof that you don't have a scientific bone in your body.
If it's such nonsense then how come the overwhelming majority of readers liked it?
Because only people like you would read it, or even give it a second thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a reasonable metric. You're claiming the book is "interesting", but give no other reason to consider it to be factual. Leigh considered the source and found it lacking. Have you read the book? If so, why is Leigh wrong to consider that a book coming from a peddler of ridiculous conspiracy theories is different from the rest of their output? You're the one making the positive claim, why don't you do the work and validate your own assertion?
"If it's such nonsense then how come the overwhelming majority of readers liked it?"
Self-selecting audience bias. Few people will read such blatant crap without an interest in the subject to begin with, and most people paying for the books will probably err on the side of believing such things as most people won't pay good money for they believe is blatant crap. Twilight gets good reviews too, that doesn't mean it's quality literature.
Put it another way: Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard gets generally good reviews on Amazon. That doesn't mean the content is true, it just means a lot of the people buying it are Scientologists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think I see the problem... you've been expecting Google to do your critical thinking for you. It only finds links, dear -- you have to comprehend them all by yourself!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I can't speak for anyone else here, but I do not "get off on making fun of God/religion".
I do however enjoy mocking those who feel the need to thrust their personal belief systems at me like it is the ONLY answer to life's questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly, other than the fact that homosexuality exists in nature, in mammals, human and otherwise. Other than the fact that its natural and a certain percentage of a population having it is normal, it's neither natural or normal.
You know what's ABNORMAL in nature? Religion.
Idiot....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The overwhelming majority of people DO NOT BELIEVE that homosexuality is normal. There's a valid reason why every empire which embraced it fell in short order. There's nothing "progressive" about it, es NO benefit to humanity. You agree with it simply because it's a means of further demoralizing Americans and attacking religion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
These sources say otherwise*:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/04/us-gays-survey-idUSBRE95312L20130604
htt p://www.norc.org/NewsEventsPublications/PressReleases/Pages/american-acceptance-of-homosexuality-gss -report.aspx
http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/gay-marriage-key-data-points-from-pew-res earch/
Anyway, I could continue. Do you have a source for your claim?
* these surveys are about homosexuality in general, not specifically whether it's normal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I second nasch's citation request for this.
You agree with it simply because it's a means of further demoralizing Americans and attacking religion.
Care to explain what Tim's motive for "demoralizing Americans" might be? Also, can you back up your inference that "attacking religion" is somehow synonymous with "demoralizing Americans"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I called you a bigoted homphobe, which is backed up by every single post you've made on the subject. If you don't like the label, stop earning it.
"There is no legitimate argument that two guys or girls getting it on is natural, normal."
Educate yourself with something other than a book of stone age myths for a change, please:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bigoted? How? It's true that I don't like bigots like Michael up there, and will say as such. Are you really saying that I'm a bigot because I don't tolerate bigots? Are you that stupid?
Anti? Anti what? I'll admit that I'm anti-homophobe, anti-bigot and anti-ignorance but I don't see the problem with any of those things. Perhaps you'd like to explain why I should tolerate rights being stripped from people because someone else doesn't like them.
Abuse? What else would you call child rape and molestation? Certainly nothing comparable to consensual actions between two loving adults.
Do you want to explain any of these are are you just a conspiracy-minded bigot who doesn't like the fact that a free society allows me to call you out as such? Stop being an idiot - if you want a meaningful conversation, why don't you attempt to start one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't provide any such reasons - and then you call names and make accusations. You're the reason why you're not having a meaningful conversations. As I've said, bring any conversation you wish - but you have to be armed with facts and debatable ideas. Don't whine to me just because you've arrived unarmed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, you're really reaching. I wonder why you can't get a reasonable conversation on this issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really, that's emotional to you. I hope you don't
"parroting the government line"
Which government? I hope you're not stupid enough to assume I'm American and not to have clicked on my profile where my nationality and location are clearly stated. Assumptions from your own ass are not things honest people use as a basis for their arguments.
But then, you don't seem to be an honest person since you can't answer simple questions, only attack strawmen versions of the people you're addressing.
"blind illogical hatred"
Again, I ask, what is your basis for this claim. I'm merely asking for consenting adults to be treated equally regardless of race, creed or gender. This is "hatred" to you?
"Logic". Not a word you're familiar with, I wager.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dunno what happened, premature submission I guess...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I support exactly the same rights for paedophiles to do whatever they want with other consenting adults as any other human being, gay or straight. None of their rights should be restricted or removed for anything they do with a consenting human of majority age. I wish everybody to be treated exactly the same - the exact opposite of bigotry. That has nothing to do with the other things you're suggesting, but you know that.
I can certainly quantify and justify why I'm opposed to paedophiles doing what they want with children but happy for gay people to do what they wish with consenting adults, and I can back those up with logic arguments and facts. Can you suppoort your own hatred and bigotry in such a way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But then you have to let people marry ducks and chairs! RAAWWWR!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I support rights except in cases where the effect of having those rights upheld disproportionately affects or undermines the rights of others (e.g. you have the right to have sex with whomever you want unless that person does not or cannot consent to it). So, the right of a gay man to have sex with a consenting gay man (or marry him and have a completely sex-free lifestyle as some gay couple do ) is OK but sex with a child is not OK as the child cannot legally consent.
Only a moron or a bigot can fail to understand this simple point.
"It's a good thing you're not an anarchist 'cause you'd make a pee-poor one."
I'm also not a Hindu or a centurion in the Roman Empire. Nor have I claimed to be. So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's where a lot of people fail, in my experience. Conspiracy theorists will parrot a lot of rhetoric but often fail when asked to prove specifics. Religious people will justify a lot of their beliefs with "because Jesus" or "because the bible says" but fail to come up with anything to prove those sources correct or justify to those who don't believe in the sources like they do.
The problem with some of those people is they're so used to being mocked that they consider any criticism as mockery no matter how valid. Or, they're so used to everybody in their cult blindly agreeing with them that they feel that merely daring to question their beliefs is a form of persecution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If anything it's people like you who force your beliefs on others. Who the hell are you to tell anyone that they HAVE TO accept a vaccine, and then if they don't then they're *indirectly forcing their beliefs on others*? Screw that. You're nobody's boss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not just flawed reasoning
The fact that the "research" was mainly the work of one man with an agenda and a willingness to doctor the data to fit his pet theory, is well known ,now (though some people for various reasons prefer to deny the plain, documented facts).
When all is said and done, there never was any actual evidence that vaccination promotes autism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Careful, your intolerance is showing
But then again, why should anyone be tolerant? After all, we are just one big happy accident coming from the primordial ooze right? If so, then anything goes. They can preach whatever they want, you can be as intolerant as you want and may the strongest survive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
This preacher used her standing in her community to spread a lie. If she is ignorant she should have no power, and if she is not ignorant then she is evil and should have no power. This is not about survival of the fittest (which by the way is not the same a might makes right), this is about a wilfully ignorant person endangering others.
Please explain why this article should show tolerance toward obviously stupid people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
I would not know. All I know is that it works. Vaccinated children do not get sick, and non vaccinated children get it. In Canada, the only outbreaks happen in those communities that refuse vaccination.
When they can prove that vaccinations do more harm than good, I suggest we find a better way. Until then, ignorant people screaming about conspiracies are not a reliable source of information either way.
The only way to solve this is to do the study. If we just stop all the vaccinations what we will have is an increase in disease and child mortality, which were the things that universal vaccinations were intended to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
It appears the studies are already being done -- mostly using various religious/fundamentalist communities as the test subjects, and the rest of the population as a control group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
As ever, don't whine that people are being intolerant of your ignorance or unfounded assertions. Prove that the danger related to the ingredients in vaccines outweigh the danger of not taking vaccines.
No bare assertions and paranoid ramblings - facts. Anti-vaxxers do tend to be high on rhetoric and bare assertions but light on verifiable facts in the fact of unquestionable evidence (unvaccinated people get those diseases while the vaccinated do not; measles kills and causes blindness in some of the infected, etc., etc.)
There's a legitimate reason not to trust authority blindly. There's also a legitimate reason not to trust people who make bare assertions about unquantified supposed dangers without any evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
Can anyone prove without a shadow of a doubt A) what's actually being put these vaccinations, B) that it can successfully combat/prevent something, C) that these people aren't complicit in helping to spread more illness around so as to bolster their profits?
Paranoid rambling? No, more like cautious outlook. It would be foolish to put trust in anyone who's primary goal is to profit off your deteriorating health (or the fear of such). If everyone were healthy, they'd be put out of business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
Yes. You didn't provide any actual reason to believe that the ingredients in the measles vaccine was questionable, nor that the danger of those ingredients outweighed the dangers of measles itself. You just rambled for 3 paragraphs saying "yeah but what it if IS true?".
Do you have any facts on your side, or just some conspiracy bullshit that's 2 steps away from truther/birther crap?
"It would be foolish to put trust in anyone who's primary goal is to profit off your deteriorating health (or the fear of such)."
What about the people whose primary goal is to profit from uncertainty and fear about vaccines (certain religious groups, "alternative" health providers, etc.) and spend their time spreading such things? Do they get the same sceptical treatment from you? All things being equal, who do you trust more and why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
Mercury, Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate, Amino Acids, Dextrose, Formaldehyde, Aspartame, Mineral Salts, Potassium Aluminum Sulfate, Soy Peptone, Aborted Fetal Tissue (I kid you not), Human Albumin, Phenol, Rhesus Monkey Fetal Diploid Cells, and who knows what else. Sounds like they're just disposing of all this crap by using people like living trash disposals.
"What about the people whose primary goal is to profit from uncertainty and fear about vaccines (certain religious groups, 'alternative' health providers, etc.) and spend their time spreading such things? Do they get the same sceptical treatment from you? All things being equal, who do you trust more and why?"
I have yet to hear a sermon at my local parish exploring the dangers of vaccines, so this little game of 'us vs them' your waging is derailing from the hard subject matter. I can think for myself and I don't think that putting that crap listed in the human system is going to result in anything positive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
Sounds like someone's been swallowing the worst propaganda whole without considering context or actual facts.
Do you have citations for your scare stories? I hear a lot of bad things about dihydrogen monoxide too, maybe you should avoid it.
"I have yet to hear a sermon at my local parish exploring the dangers of vaccines, so this little game of 'us vs them' your waging is derailing from the hard subject matter."
Awww, is our poor little bigot feeling prosecuted? You might have noticed that I said "certain religious groups", so if your homophobic parish doesn't participate in anti-vaccine propaganda then that's not what I was talking about. Try addressing my actual words.
Do you have any opinions that aren't reactionary crap wrapped in religious persecution complexes, or can I just reject your warbling out of hand?
"I can think for myself"
So does the guy I've seen screaming at the maggots under his skin, and I'm not about to take his advice on public policy either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
Do you have citations for your scare stories? I hear a lot of bad things about dihydrogen monoxide too, maybe you should avoid it."
Nope. I refuse to play caretaker and pacify you just because you refuse to raise a finger to research anything yourself.
"Awww, is our poor little bigot feeling prosecuted? You might have noticed that I said 'certain religious groups,' so if your homophobic parish doesn't participate in anti-vaccine propaganda then that's not what I was talking about. Try addressing my actual words."
That's the sum total of your argument: throwing around empty labels and ridicule. It's all you've got.
"Do you have any opinions that aren't reactionary crap wrapped in religious persecution complexes, or can I just reject your warbling out of hand?"
You like to talk smack about religion, yet fail to see that you yourself subscribe to whatever happens to be PC at the moment. *Baaah!* One would think that 'political correctness' is little more than a semantic substitution for 'moral relativism.' It does seem rather strange to me how defensive you are about homosexual activity, how paranoid you are that someone might (gasp!) offend them by not giving affirmation and catering to their emotions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
Except all the facts about vaccines that I have researched. You're the one making bare assertions but refuse to back them up. Stop being a lazy git and provide your own citations - I'm not here to research your lies.
"That's the sum total of your argument: throwing around empty labels and ridicule. It's all you've got."
So, you don't want to address what I'm saying. Got it.
"You like to talk smack about religion, yet fail to see that you yourself subscribe to whatever happens to be PC at the moment."
What is it about "PC" that offend religious bigots? Are you finally coming to realise that your ignorance and myths are no longer accepted blindly by intelligent folks and you now have to justify your hatred of others with something other than "that books says I should"?
"It does seem rather strange to me how defensive you are about homosexual activity"
I don't like ignorant bigots. I'm sorry that this means that I don't particularly care for you, but the label fits. Sorry, your belief in stone age fiction does not mean that you get tho strip rights from others willy nilly, and yes I do defend those who are persecuted in this way.
Accept that, justify your prejudice or GTFO. While you're unable to do any of these things, your homophobia and your ignorance about the way vaccinations work put into question every opinion you state here. Cite your sources or accept that I will disagree - and I have facts on my side that don't consist of myth and lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
I've already provided more than enough evidence about what's included in vaccines. Ignore it all you want, it doesn't make it any less true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
No, you haven't. You've provided a couple of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and a few links that bear no greater truth than the anti-dihydrogen monoxide link I suggested (water, in case you're too stupid to understand)
"socialists"
I guessed you were one of those right wing Americans too stupid to undertan politican spectrums I'm just disappointed to be proven correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
"Prosecuted" instead of "persecuted"...undertan...wow, you're really on a roll showing us how smart you are, PaulT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
Yeah, that's right, attack my iPhone's autocorrect instead of the clear points I'm making.
Is that all you anti-vaccine morons have, or do you want to address actual facts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
Oh dear, I just had to address this one too....
You're not interested in attacking "sexual deviants", even if your particular cult thinks that's what you're attacking. You're just a moronic bigot. Why?
Well, you claim to be opposed to anal and oral sexual intercourse, but I don't see you trying to remove rights from heterosexual couples who do such things. I don't see you stripping freedom from people who take part in orgies, wife swapping or swinging. I don't see you attacking scat, furry or watersports enthusiasts, and I don't see you protesting S&M fans.
Nope, everything's fine for you unless the participants have the "wrong" kind of genitals. Not only are you stupid enough to thing that sexual intercourse is the most defining thing about homosexuals - meaning that you're protecting the rights of the local heterosexual slut over and above the rights of a homosexual couple who have been in a monogamous relationship for 40 years - but you're not even consistent in your claimed reason for opposition.
First, get your prejudice sorted out, then we can talk about a reason I should accept it that doesn't depend on believing your book of fiction. Citing that as a source is as poor as the anti-vaccine ignorance you've been pushing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
Paranoia -- you're doing it wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
My statement was not about whether they are right or wrong about vaccinations (though I believe the pastor is wrong in this case). My statement was about the not so subtle undertones of intolerance toward Christians. Calling someone out for putting someone in jeopardy is fine, calling them out on their Christianity is just plain bigotry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
Hmm....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
Please share with the class where I made any claim about Christianity at all, hinted at or otherwise....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
This implies that everything else she says is false but not quite as easy to disprove. This along with your past articles and comments here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
Not everyone is out to get you, my sweet Christian friend. Take a breath and relax....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
This is true. Why, then, do you openly support removing the rights of others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Careful, your intolerance is showing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being pro-vaccine won't protect you from actual effects.
http://www.naturalnews.com/041897_MMR_vaccines_autism_court_ruling.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Being pro-vaccine won't protect you from actual effects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Being pro-vaccine won't protect you from actual effects.
Figures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IMO, Spider robinson said it best...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most people are fine drinking sugar free drinks with Aspartame. For me they can cause severe migraines. The doctors couldn't tell me squat. Do enough research and you'll find the studies with increased complaints of headaches. I didn't go on a crusade against Aspartame, but ever since I am more likely to entertain the few outspoken "crackpots".
Like any science, vaccines do need some work particularly in the frequency of injections. I think far too many are given to kids in too short a time span. The number of vaccinations has more than doubled since I was a kid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's the conspiracy nutballs who aren't taken seriously. "I can't have the vaccine because I'm allergic to X" is a valid excuse (and a reason why herd immunity is such an important factor - you're still protected to some degree even if you can't have the vaccine). "I can't have a vaccine because the government is out to get me and therefore Jesus" is not a valid reason.
"The number of vaccinations has more than doubled since I was a kid."
...and this is a problem, why? Why has this increase taken place - is it due to that making vaccines more effective, that kids are being immunised against increased or what? Does the risk posed by the vaccines outweigh those of the diseases being vaccinated against?
Answer these questions and there can be an honest debate. Claiming there's danger and/or conspiracy just because of the number of injections won't get you that debate unless you provide evidence that support that claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The human immune response to a pathogen is to produce the symptoms of the sickness. In other words, when you have a fever, that is not the bacteria or virus doing it to you - its your immune system responding to those pathogens which is giving you the fever. The same is true for all the other symptoms - congestion, cough, etc.
The flu vaccine is a *dead* vaccine. You CANNOT be "sick" from it. Though far more complicated in its science, think of the vaccine as a bunch of chopped up fragments of the virus. When injected into your system, the immune system responds as if it was a real virus. Therefore, it is quite possible, perhaps even probable, to have some of the symptoms of the flu as a reaction to the virus because the immune system is responding to the vaccine.
Most patients experience no adverse reaction to the vaccine other than minor injection-site reaction (soreness, red patch, etc). Some have more full blown symptoms. But because the vaccine is a dead virus, you cannot transmit it to others. You are not contagious. All you need is some acetaminophen (tylenol) and some fluids. No need to panic, no need to avoid others, no need to wear a mask, no need to worry - you are NOT sick; you are just responding to the vaccine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If "sick" means "infected with a pathogen" then no, you're not sick. I would say it means that, at least in this context. After all, sneezing is "your body responding to something foreign that has invaded it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not God's sense of irony...
BTW, do you think the same thing is said about OOTB as is said about vaccinations; "It's only a little prick"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes it does, though you should not assume that anyone arguing against homosexual discrimination is arguing that anything animals do is OK for humans to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, these things happen in nature, but that's irrelevant. I'll assume this is meant to be a spin on my reply to Michael but you'll see I was referring to his claim that homosexual actions are "unnatural", something quickly disproven by the fact that it does happen in nature. So, the same argument doesn't apply.
However, of course, not everything "natural" is good. Cannibalism and rape also happen in nature but there's some very good reasons why these are unacceptable in a civilised society. Paedophilic actions are illegal for the same reasons as bestiality is illegal - both have at least one non-consenting party by definition. Not something that applies to consensual homosexual relationships, so your red herring is a stupid as it is irrelevant.
What's lacking here is a reason that homosexual human beings should be shunned and have less rights than others. Why don't you provide some reason if you're so afraid of gay people? If you can do so without referring to irrational fear or a book of fiction, that's a good start for a conversation - why don't you supply such a reason? Simply justify your own bigotry and maybe we can discuss it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]