Clown Car 2016

[classical_hero]

Why is the liberal thread being destroyed by the anti-vaccers? Can't they destroy only one thread and leave this for liberal in America to jerk off to their fantasies about the potential GOP candidates?

 

[Commodore]

Why is the liberal thread being destroyed by the anti-vaccers? Can't they destroy only one thread and leave this for liberal in America to jerk off to their fantasies about the potential GOP candidates?

Because the anti-vaccers are the "cause of the moment" now just like Michael Brown was the "cause of the moment" last month. And when something is the cause of the moment, the idiotic supporters of that cause have to spread their trash everywhere until they burn themselves out and move on to the next ridiculous cause.

 

[JollyRoger]

Why is the liberal thread being destroyed by the anti-vaccers? Can't they destroy only one thread and leave this for liberal in America to jerk off to their fantasies about the potential GOP candidates?

Since I got my cooties shot, I generally am doing something more adventurous than self abuse when reading this thread. While you conservatives may be "pulling yourselves up by your bootstraps", I prefer something a bit more communal.

 

[gay_Aleks]

hahahah needle wielding gestapo what

He forgot mentioning the FEMA death camps where they were administering the vaccinations.

 

[Berzerker]

Outbreaks occur when vaccination rates are below a certain level. Above that, herd immunity is effective at preventing outbreaks. There's literally been maps posted in the other thread. At this point you're either not reading, being wilfully obtuse, or outright trolling. That fanciful "what about the superbugs" zinger makes me suspect the latter.

Vaccinations reduce herd immunity by allowing more people to survive diseases because of medical interventions rather than their own immune systems. You still didn't answer my question: how do vaccinations protect the herd? They weaken the herd.

 

[Arwon]

You are literally outright misusing the term (herd is a bloody metaphor describing the way in which outbreaks are quickly contained in populations with a high immunisation rate) and advocating some freakish social darwinism in the process. You're actually saying vaccines should stop for health reasons - applying your logic means we stop protecting against polio, smallpox, diptheria, and see who survives. Stop trolling.

 

[Berzerker]

You are literally outright misusing the term (herd is a bloody metaphor describing the way in which outbreaks are quickly contained in populations with a high immunisation rate) and advocating some freakish social darwinism in the process. You're actually saying vaccines should stop for health reasons - applying your logic means we stop protecting against polio, smallpox, diptheria, and see who survives. Stop trolling.

The health of the herd is not enhanced by vaccinations, they are an artificial protection for those weakening the herd with their vaccination-dependent genes.

 

[Arwon]

Dr Berserker, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Dr Berserker, ladies and gentlemen.

Actually, his science is good. If we had never developed polio vaccine and had allowed everyone who contracted it to die the human race would have eventually been composed entirely of people who were naturally immune to polio. Same with all the other infectious diseases.

There may have been a serious problem if we didn't have enough people with natural immunity to work with.

 

[Arwon]

It's not really the scientific claim which is the bugeyed lunacy here.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Different prioritization of individuals and species, but I wouldn't call either view lunacy. Berzerker's position is very harsh to individuals while beneficial to the species, yours weakens the species to the benefit of individuals. I have no clear preference.

 

[Arwon]

"Weaken the species" is really rubbish ontology, just so you guys know.

 

[Traitorfish]

Different prioritization of individuals and species, but I wouldn't call either view lunacy. Berzerker's position is very harsh to individuals while beneficial to the species, yours weakens the species to the benefit of individuals. I have no clear preference.

If it's possible to achieve effective immunity through immunisation, what difference does it make? Surely "the strength of the species" (which, y'know: gross) is measured in its practical resistance to disease, not an academic tally of natural immunity?

 

[Borachio]

"Weaken the species" is really rubbish ontology, just so you guys know.

I agree. But I'd like you to talk me through it. How does allowing weaker members to survive and pass on their genes to future generations not weaken the species?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Actually, his science is good. If we had never developed polio vaccine and had allowed everyone who contracted it to die the human race would have eventually been composed entirely of people who were naturally immune to polio. Same with all the other infectious diseases.

Maybe I am missing something - but I thought we tried that already.
Didn't stop infectious disease, which was the reason we felt it necessary to create vaccines in the first place.
Not to mention that as I understand polio will often not kill you but simply disable you. But I guess we could sterilize those cases.

I agree. But I'd like you to talk me through it. How does allowing weaker members to survive and pass on their genes to future generations not weaken the species?

I think it is about taking objection to classifying a whole person as weaker because this person has a particular vulnerability.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If it's possible to achieve effective immunity through immunisation, what difference does it make? Surely "the strength of the species" (which, y'know: gross) is measured in its practical resistance to disease, not an academic tally of natural immunity?

Consider the fragility of modern civilization. Should war, natural disaster, or any other factor disable the ability of civilization to continue to produce and distribute these vaccines where are we? We have prevented our own species from selecting for stronger immune systems, while simultaneously providing anti bacterial and anti viral agents that have helped select for the strongest members of their species.

I agree, the strength of the species is a gross thing to think about, by the way, but that doesn't change the reality that natural selection is a process that got us here and over riding it may not have been our best move ever.

 

[Borachio]

But hang on just a minute. It was natural selection that led us to over-ride natural selection? Is that what you're saying?

Because that just makes my head hurt.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But hang on just a minute. It was natural selection that led us to over-ride natural selection? Is that what you're saying?

Because that just makes my head hurt.

Natural selection gave us the ability to over ride natural selection. Choosing to do so was optional.

 

[Borachio]

How could we choose to do otherwise?

Natural selection led to the elephants' tusks. Why would they choose not to use them?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Because we cut them off.