RE: Vaccination exemption in CA, personal down, medical up
December 19, 2017 at 10:06 am
(This post was last modified: December 19, 2017 at 10:25 am by Catholic_Lady.)
(December 19, 2017 at 4:01 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote:(December 19, 2017 at 12:44 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: I think she was talking about differentiation of motives, like how the scaremongering in the Anti-vaccination movement (at least in America, unlike those pockets of the Muslim world where extremists fight efforts to eradicate polio because they’re afraid it’s part of some genocide plot) and more to people spreading information that’s misleading, if not outright wrong (which is the case more often than not). Unfortunately, it seems her libertarian ideals have led her to give the anti-vaxxers far more benefit of the doubt than they really merit. She’s really a thoughtful person, but sadly, her thoughtfulness doesn’t always translate into thinking things through. Emotion has its place, but sometimes you have to step back and think through it all and see if what you’re advocating is all that morally or intellectually sound. To revise an old Fritz Lang quote “the mediator between the hands and the heart must be the head.”
Well, I'm sorry. It came across as a dodge. The Schaibles murdered two of their children because of christianity. They are not an isolated case. While I would agree that CL is amenable, nothing in her response addressed the question asked. Why is that?
I honestly don't even know what you are talking about or why you brought religion into the argument. It's pretty bizarre considering I never said a word about religion on this thread. You brought it up to me randomly and I'm not sure what you were expecting to prove to me by doing so.
(December 19, 2017 at 12:44 am)Rev. Rye Wrote:(December 18, 2017 at 11:53 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Wow, so for the record, you endorse infanticide. OK then. As an atheist I find that position morally repulsive and it has changed my perception of you forever.
I think she was talking about differentiation of motives, like how the scaremongering in the Anti-vaccination movement (at least in America, unlike those pockets of the Muslim world where extremists fight efforts to eradicate polio because they’re afraid it’s part of some genocide plot) and more to people spreading information that’s misleading, if not outright wrong (which is the case more often than not). Unfortunately, it seems her libertarian ideals have led her to give the anti-vaxxers far more benefit of the doubt than they really merit. She’s really a thoughtful person, but sadly, her thoughtfulness doesn’t always translate into thinking things through. Emotion has its place, but sometimes you have to step back and think through it all and see if what you’re advocating is all that morally or intellectually sound. To revise an old Fritz Lang quote “the mediator between the hands and the heart must be the head.”
We are talking about anti vaxxers in this thread (not a word about religion) and he randomly throws religion in my face out of nowhere and links to a story about parents who's kid died because they didn't take him to the doctor when they were sick.
I'm not sure what his point was or what he was expecting to prove to me in this particular discussion.
"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
