(September 27, 2017 at 8:24 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:(September 27, 2017 at 7:12 pm)Bob Kelso Wrote: In what world is preventing your children from receiving the help they need to keep from contracting completely avoidable diseases *not* child neglect?
And damn, CL, the argument of freedom for something like this? Fuckin hell...
M- "Oh, Sue?"
S- "Yes, Mary?"
M- "Little Johnny is perilously close to that ravine, don't you think you should intervene?"
S- "I'm a free American, Mary, fuck you."
Two different scenarios to be sure, but I'd say it's the same level of accountability. Will no one think of Little Johnny Sonofabitch?
She seems to be avoiding this question given the number of times it's been asked (many) and the number of times she's answered (none). She seems to be completely ok with "but, the parents really believe they're doing the right thing."
I already addressed this earlier on in the thread. Simply choosing not to give a vax bc you think the vax might hurt your child is completely different from not giving a child medical care when they are ill, not giving them food or water, not getting them away from a ravine, and all the other extreme examples given. Even Bob himself admitted they were definitely 2 different scenarios.
Mind you, I still find it unwise to not vaccinate, but child abuse? A crime? No.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
