Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Can you do that? Seriously. That's all I'm asking for here. Just some acknowledgement that in your worldview there exists *any* limit to the infringement of individual liberty in the context of public health.
Known
COMMUNICABLE DISEASES FOR WHICH THERE ARE VACCINES should be mandatorily inoculated against, fully funded by the state.
FULL STOP.
Instead of full stop, how about "nothing else should be mandatory"? I just find it amusing that there's like this mental block that prevents you from actually saying/writing this down.
We're in agreement on the communicable diseases. I just want to verify with you that we should *only* mandate inoculations for those things and nothing else.
Quote:
I'm not going to follow up on the rest of your "argument" because it's irrelevant, you led-by-the-nose selfish a-hole.
I only make this argument because I consistently see people hem and haw out of actually saying "this is all the government should mandate". It's not enough to say what it *should* require, but also what it *should not* require. Because if you don't actually say "the government should not require X, Y, or Z", then you are allowing the government to do so by the absence of the restriction. Get it? And you might call me paranoid about this, but when I point out the absence of restriction instead of the expected "well, of course the government should not be allowed to mandate anything else", I get tap dancing in response.
Can you just write down that the only immunizations that the government should be allowed to require for attendance at public school are those which immunize against diseases that are communicable within the public school environment itself? Because if you can't, then the rest of my argument is very very relevant.