Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Socialist

16 (32%)

Green

8 (16%)

Peace and Freedom

2 (4%)

Democratic

1 (2%)

Transhumanist

11 (22%)

Libertarian

8 (16%)

Republican

2 (4%)

Constitution

2 (4%)

Total Members Voted: 49

[MorleyDev]

See, in the UK the introduction of mandatory would be easy because the systems are basically already there. Exception would just be attached to your medical records and provided to your school by your registered GP. Hard for a school to lose that since they need the info for your GP and your medical info from your GP for emergencies regardless. So it'd all be pretty streamlined.

Their are multiple large public schools within easy public travel distance from each other (in addition to being split into four separate schools entirely for diferent ages), so the parents and school system can easily ensure that few-to-none non-vaccinated children share schools/class groups.

You should see about 95% of the population vaccinated, so spreading the unvaccinated children out is something schools should do anyway, reducing risks. Any legal case would get laughed out of court unless you could demonstrate gross negligence from the school and that'd be national news and found by review by Ofsted or similar long before the courts even got involved.

As do SGs topic of abuses, I'm hessitant to give much credit to the slippery slope argument. The issue there is just a same need for oversight you always need with any organisation. So long as you have the required involvement of the national licensing board of doctors that have the required independence from the state itself and the open public forum you manage that risk and keep the precedence of it being for independently verified medically neccesary reasons. As is often the case, the dangers of any organisation (state or business) are a lack of integrated checks and balances built around open oversight. When they want to do things behind close doors is when you should start getting nervous.

[wierd]

All that hinges upon having a (more or less) actually functional national healthcare system, with standardized communication forms, and processes.


Because that would get in the way of EPIC PROFITS on the part of medical insurance companies, and would eliminate arbitrary pricing for materials and procedures at hospitals (which is used to help ameliorate the impact of providing care to people who cannot pay), that simply does not exist in the USA.


It's all lawyers and bureaucrats all the way down.  (and where its not compliance bureaucrats, it's the accounting kind, which are just as bad, if not worse.)

[SalmonGod]

Checks, balances, and oversight are good things, but impossible to make foolproof.  The same agenda gets control of multiple sides of your checks & balances, then what do they matter?  A corrupt politician nominates a conflict of interest to that oversight position, and what good is it?  That gets shut down by popular pressure and democratic processes, after the media does its job of informing the populace of these alarming developments, you say?  Must be nice to live in a country with a media that functions as such.  Although with the UK's ongoing role in the Assange case, I wouldn't be so trusting.  And if your population is informed and wise enough to prevent such things from happening via their engagement in the process, then they're probably also informed and wise enough to get vaccinated without needing to be forced.  If you have a population of anti-vaxxers, then your democratic processes aren't likely to fix up any corruption issues going on.

And this isn't slippery slope alarmism.  It's reality in the USA.  What I described is exactly what happens to our checks and balances and oversights.  Plus, times when forcing medical horrors on minorities was considered good science in the public interest are still in living memory, such as sterilization or lobotomy of LGBT people.  Horrors which wouldn't have happened so readily if institutions and people of the time had greater respect for bodily autonomy than they did for what was considered expert wisdom in science and public interest.  Protecting core principles should always override solving immediate problems.

[MorleyDev]

The case with minorities/LGBT wasn't to do with respect for body autonomy, it was due to not viewing them as counting as 'people' in the first place. Even if they believed in complete bodily automation, I don't think it would have been applied there since they probably wouldn't have viewed that right as counting in the first place.

There's a clear line of difference that can be drawn between 'vaccinations' and 'forced sterilisation' so I don't think equating them as one-opening-the-door-to-the other is in itself a useful concern. Though there are definitely certain powers I think should be excluded from the state on principle, being able to execute your own citizens for example, but 'complete bodily autonomy' isn't one I count as a current core principle any more than 'complete financial autonomy' (since taxes exist, the state has a right to some of your money). The state already has a claim to your body, the argument is just in how much.

Heck, if given a referendum on the subject I'd vote to remove the ability for people to opt-out of organ donation so that may indicate where on that line I fall anyway. But I'd also decriminalise the taking of illegal drugs, but that's less "The state has no right to tell you what you can and can't put in your body" and more "Criminlising addicts doesn't really help the addicts" and "Some illegal drugs just aren't illegal for a good reason anyway".

The USA system of checks/balances is also one I find a bit weird to be honest, being based more around pitting 3 branches of government in direct opposition to each other and hoping that none of them ever 'win' the resulting conflict rather than setting up actually independent bodies of oversight. It's closer to the Holy Roman Empire Pope/Emporer structure, where Pope could crown Emporer could install Bishops could select Pope, and that didn't work very well then either.

There are a few USA systems that at a glance almost seem like they were based on a misunderstanding of older systems, like how the USA president has legal powers comparable to those of the British monarch but without the centuries of tradition/president that made them never actually get used even back when the presidency was founded. In practice the British monarch can't actually use their power of veto, whilst the US precident can and does.

[Bumber]

See for instance, the following "nightmare scenario"--

Student who cannot be vaccinated against measles, catches measles, and ends up spreading it at school.  Angry mothers DEMAND to know why the school permitted an unvaccinated student there. School has to defend the decision to permit a student who cannot medically be vaccinated to receive an education, in the face of angry mothers who had their kids get sick, and more importantly, their bloodsucking lawyers.

Wait, how does it spread if everyone else is supposedly vaccinated?

[MorleyDev]

Vaccination dramatically reduces the odds of catching the illness you have been vaccinated against but doesn't bring it to 0% as the body can fail to remember the virus correctly. But with so low a chance of transmission it can't spread through a population so the outbreak dies quickly (and thus the population has achieved herd immunity).

The success rate of MMR is 99% after two doses, meaning for a school with 300 children at attendence and a 95% vaccination rate an 'outbreak' could statistically be expected to infect at most the 15 non-vaccinated children and 2-3 vaccinated children. Not accounting for transmission rate of the virus itself and assuming 100% there, though for Measles that isn't far off (it's got a ridiculously high 90% transmission rate, highest of any known virus. That high rate is why you need at least 95% of the population to be vaccinated against it, any less than that and it becomes capable of spreading).

So in this scenario you have one unvaccinated child that gets infected, one very unlucky vaccinated child whose body didn't develop the correct immune response, one stupid mother, and one lawyer who gets to use the term "force majeure" severe illness

[wierd]

See for instance, the following "nightmare scenario"--

Student who cannot be vaccinated against measles, catches measles, and ends up spreading it at school.  Angry mothers DEMAND to know why the school permitted an unvaccinated student there. School has to defend the decision to permit a student who cannot medically be vaccinated to receive an education, in the face of angry mothers who had their kids get sick, and more importantly, their bloodsucking lawyers.

Wait, how does it spread if everyone else is supposedly vaccinated?

Vaccines do not confer 100% immunity yo.  They increase your body's ability to recognize a pathogen, and respond aggressively to it, but if you get deluged under viral particles, it's not 100%.  Measles is very contagious, and likes to cling to surfaces.  So, if you have active shared space with somebody that has it, immunization just puts you into the realm of "you might not catch it" instead of "Fuck bruh, you gonna get dem measles yo."

A person who is not vaccinated, with an open and active infection, is gonna be dropping virus like a rapper making it rain at a club.

[delphonso]

Also note that vaccines work by giving your body a boost to fighting off the infection - with enough "reinforcements" the virus can still win that fight.

Edit: I just said what wierd said - I'm useless here. Also I didn't get vaccinated until I was like 20.

[Loud Whispers]

Also I continue to find it utterly fucking horrifying that things like "Should teachers carry guns" is even a political topic in the USA. Like seriously, what the actual fuck guys?

Teachers should only be allowed to stand at arms with a 6 pounder cannon, 8 pounder at the most. How else will they be able to drill teamwork into their students if they carry only a sidearm

Regarding vaccines, just about everyone in my school was vaccinated against chicken pox except me. Whilst chicken pox vaccines aren't mandatory in UK schools they are given out to people in close contact with anyone who had chicken pox. Given that there had been a bout of chicken pox in my school which resulted in my sister and mother catching chicken pox, to this day I have no idea why I never got the vaccine. Glorious british bureaucracy works in wonderful ways

[Bralbaard]

94% Socialist
93% Green
92% Peace and Freedom
91% Democratic
90% Transhumanist
49% Libertarian
16% Republican
16% Constitution

Yeah, that... isn't a surprise, save maybe that it seems to be suggesting peace and freedom and transhumanist are actual political parties. If they are I hadn't noticed :V

I like how almost every forum member is a green socialist hipie. Until we boot up DF that is. There we rob the first elven caravan, proceed to burn the surface world with magma, and send any migrants we dislike to the atom smasher.

[A Thing]

The mandates of nobles made most of everyone here into anarchists, it's true.

[thompson]

94% Socialist
93% Green
92% Peace and Freedom
91% Democratic
90% Transhumanist
49% Libertarian
16% Republican
16% Constitution

Yeah, that... isn't a surprise, save maybe that it seems to be suggesting peace and freedom and transhumanist are actual political parties. If they are I hadn't noticed :V

I like how almost every forum member is a green socialist hipie. Until we boot up DF that is. There we rob the first elven caravan, proceed to burn the surface world with magma, and send any migrants we dislike to the atom smasher.

No contradiction at all. Hitler self-identified as a socialist, was big on environmental policy, was anti-war (before obtaining power, at least), and had his own vision of transhumanism. He also did the real-world equivalents of all those horrible DF activities you mentioned. Incidentally, he was pro big-state and didn’t have much respect for the constitution, so the profile is a dead match.

Moral of the story: politics is complex.

Fake edit: Please note I’m not seriously comparing anyone on this forum to Hitler, just musing about the apparent contradictions of political ideology.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If you think that I of all people am going to tolerate lying about the ideology of the Nazis in my own thread, you're sorely mistaken.

The Nazis were not socialist or antiwar by any description, and they were bankrolled by private capital interests which dictated their policies. That is fact, not opinion.

[Nordlicht]

Yep, they basically gave themselves a socialist image to cater to the masses, because socialism was quite popular during that time with common people.

Also most dictators are pro big-state.

[thompson]

If you think that I of all people am going to tolerate lying about the ideology of the Nazis in my own thread, you're sorely mistaken.

The Nazis were not socialist or antiwar by any description, and they were bankrolled by private capital interests which dictated their policies. That is fact, not opinion.

You should brush up your knowledge of Hitler’s public messaging. He most certainly claimed to be all those things, repeatedly, in a big way. It was all a ruse, of course, but that’s precisely the point. I did say “self-identifies”, did I not?