Remove Advertisements

Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:06 pm

Do you home-school? If not, you put your child in far more danger driving him to school or letting him ride the bus than you would be having him immunised.

Does your child eat? He's far more likely to get food poisoning than to catch anything from a vaccine.

Does your child play outside? The odds of contracting melanoma are higher than catching anything from a vaccine.

Will your child play any sports? The odds of injury or even death as a result of an accident playing sports is greater than contracting anything from a vaccine.

Will you allow your child to marry? The odds of being killed by his spouse is greater...

How far will people take this immunisation paranoia?

It's ridiculous to spaz out about vaccine risks, then turn around and take even greater risks with your child on a daily or even hourly basis.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1980
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Darielle » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:35 pm

...ok then it's just a data point. The point you are getting at is so tangential, I just don't care about it.


It's not tangential; it's the entire reason the discussion even exists.

Of course it's irrelvent to the system. The person making a choice isn't concerned about the efficient management of a system over which they have almost zero control. They are concerned about their child. If the system breaks down, that's just a change to the value of that data point in their assessment.


The person making a choice IS concerned about the efficient management of a system, because it's that system that allows for the choice to be made. Ignoring it puts your child at greater risk than getting a vaccine does, especially if you trust other people to be just as "self-interested" or "easily swayed by a bad study that got tons of press".
Last edited by Darielle on Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Darielle
 
Posts: 1317
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:39 pm

Is that directed at me?  I'm not paranoid about immunizations.  I was in the military so I've had my fair share of vaccinations...
 
That said, those analogies are all terrible.  First, you could totally flip all of them right back at you and your "paranoia" about people who aren't immunized.  But more importantly, people are doing those actions because the reward that they are getting from those activities is of greater value to them than their concern over the risks.  That reward value though is not itself risk based.
 
Immunization is purely a risk scenario, you get the shot to reduce the risk of getting a disease, or you don't get the shot to reduce the risk of not suffering side effects from the shot.  It's a straight risk tradeoff.  That's a completely independent and different scenario than your analogies.  
 
The "paranoia" was caused when scientists published accepted research which said that an immunization wasn't as safe as it should be, linked it to a disease, and said that it should be pulled from the market for further analysis. 
 
 
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Darielle » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:41 pm

That said, those analogies are all terrible. First, you could totally flip all of them right back at you and your "paranoia" about people who aren't immunized.


You actually can't without altering either models or context. But go ahead.

But more importantly, people are doing those actions because the reward that they are getting from those activities is of greater value to them than their concern over the risks. That reward value though is not itself risk based.


No, the "reward value" is entirely risk based.
Darielle
 
Posts: 1317
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:15 pm

Darielle wrote:
...ok then it's just a data point. The point you are getting at is so tangential, I just don't care about it.


It's not tangential; it's the entire reason the discussion even exists.

Of course it's irrelvent to the system. The person making a choice isn't concerned about the efficient management of a system over which they have almost zero control. They are concerned about their child. If the system breaks down, that's just a change to the value of that data point in their assessment.


The person making a choice IS concerned about the efficient management of a system, because it's that system that allows for the choice to be made. Ignoring it puts your child at greater risk than getting a vaccine does, especially if you trust other people to be just as "self-interested" or "easily swayed by a bad study that got tons of press".


...this is silly.  I just do not care how much you value that data point.   It quite obviously is not the entire reason this discussion exists.  This conversation exists because vaccinations have a non 100% effectiveness, they have a non 0% risk, and there is a non 0% exposure chance (the latter being the data point in question).  If vaccinations were 100% effective and had zero risk, exposure rate wouldn't matter, everyone would choose the vaccine.  It's a data point...  Call it the most important thing in the world if you want, I just do not care and most importantly it makes no difference to this discussion.

 

The person making the decision is concerned about the exposure risk, but not the system.  The system could just as easily be a heavily mandated quarantine system, but at the end of the day it just results in a risk.

I'm done with this digression.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:20 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Is that directed at me?  I'm not paranoid about immunizations.  I was in the military so I've had my fair share of vaccinations...
 
That said, those analogies are all terrible.  First, you could totally flip all of them right back at you and your "paranoia" about people who aren't immunized.  But more importantly, people are doing those actions because the reward that they are getting from those activities is of greater value to them than their concern over the risks.  That reward value though is not itself risk based.
 
Immunization is purely a risk scenario, you get the shot to reduce the risk of getting a disease, or you don't get the shot to reduce the risk of not suffering side effects from the shot.  It's a straight risk tradeoff.  That's a completely independent and different scenario than your analogies.  
 
The "paranoia" was caused when scientists published accepted research which said that an immunization wasn't as safe as it should be, linked it to a disease, and said that it should be pulled from the market for further analysis. 
 
 

I'm not paranoid about people who aren't immunized; I am pissed off at people who don't get their children vaccinated, because their little petri dishes pass along their diseases to my vaccinated child.

The "paranoia" was caused when a scientist deliberately falsified test results to suggest a link that he couldn't prove otherwise. Idiots and conspiracy freaks now use that research to "prove" that vaccinations are potentially dangerous as an excuse so they don't have to take their kids to the doctor for some jabs because it's inconvenient for them, and because the responsible people out there do most of the work for them by creating herd immunity, and because maybe they are afraid of needles themselves and project that to their children.

Any injection can possibly be dangerous. Simply going to the doctor's office potentially exposes you to illness. But there are so many more dangerous activities that people pursue several times every day without even thinking about them that the idea of avoiding vaccination due to potential harm is absurd.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1980
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:28 pm

Yes but that research persisted for a long time. I expect vaccination rates will now increase as that has been settled.

The value of playing a sport is fun. If people stop having fun they stop playing. The value of an immunization is lowered risk of disease, if they feel that it actually increases risk of disease it would be dumb to get it. It doesn't matter how risky other behavior is.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:52 pm

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11054
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Darielle » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:54 pm

...this is silly. I just do not care how much you value that data point. It quite obviously is not the entire reason this discussion exists. This conversation exists because vaccinations have a non 100% effectiveness, they have a non 0% risk, and there is a non 0% exposure chance (the latter being the data point in question). If vaccinations were 100% effective and had zero risk, exposure rate wouldn't matter, everyone would choose the vaccine. It's a data point... Call it the most important thing in the world if you want, I just do not care and most importantly it makes no difference to this discussion.



The person making the decision is concerned about the exposure risk, but not the system. The system could just as easily be a heavily mandated quarantine system, but at the end of the day it just results in a risk.


If vaccinations were 100% effective and had zero risk, exposure rate would still matter. After all, exposure rate drives the need and cost to produce, supply and effectively apply vaccinations to begin with, and people DO care about that. Plus, even with a "zero risk" vaccine, you have a "non-zero risk" process simply due to human error.

The value of an immunization is lowered risk of disease, if they feel that it actually increases risk of disease it would be dumb to get it.


No, the value of an immunization is not simplified to "risk of disease", it's a compound of "risk/magnitude".
The value is also a long-term effect beyond your child to your grandchild and so on, in the case of diseases that aren't like the flu where new strains develop so fast that there's no realistic hope for the disease to be eradicated.

Meanwhile in the UK
http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/time-to-jail ... scamsters/


The comments on that are beyond hilarious.
Darielle
 
Posts: 1317
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:47 pm

Darielle wrote:The comments on that are beyond hilarious.


I can only stomach a handful before my IQ starts to drop
Image

Same can be said for the freeper website, Breitbart, NRO, American Thinker and such.

But yeah, they're a funny bunch
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11054
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:59 pm

More politics, less vaccination

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013 ... ts-act.php
Scalia is a grade A douchecanoe
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11054
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:24 pm

Klaudandus wrote:More politics, less vaccination

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013 ... ts-act.php
Scalia is a grade A douchecanoe


At issue was the constitutionality of Section 5 of the 1965 law, which requires state and local governments with a history of racial discrimination to pre-clear any changes to their voting laws with the Justice Department prior to enacting them.

Congress has renewed the law four times, most recently in 2006 for a period of 25 years. The margin of victory was 99-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House.

Scalia attributed the repeated renewal of Section 5 to a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” He said, “Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”

.....

The core struggle in the case is between the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, and the 15th Amendment, which tasks Congress with enforcing a ban on discriminatory voting laws.


So, if I'm understanding this correctly, any state or local government that used to have a history of racial discrimination can't pass new voting laws unless pre-screened by the Justice Department. Who determines what governments fall under this purview? Has the JD had to take action on any purposed legislation in the last three decades? Is there anything in this legislation that doesn't fall under the 15th anyway?

If this legislation were removed, is the danger that these state and local governments would suddenly impose racist laws that would survive a legal challenge? I can see oversight being required in 1965. Nowadays, I'm willing to bet someone, somewhere had a cushy job rubber stamping legislation because of this law.

Are Scalia's characterization of this Section as a "perpetuation of racial entitlement" fair, or unfair? Is his quoted statement about the removal of racial entitlements true or false?

I'm not seeing much in this particular article that paints Scalia as a douchecanoe, even if it is from TPM.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Darielle » Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:40 pm

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, any state or local government that used to have a history of racial discrimination can't pass new voting laws unless pre-screened by the Justice Department. Who determines what governments fall under this purview? Has the JD had to take action on any purposed legislation in the last three decades? Is there anything in this legislation that doesn't fall under the 15th anyway?

If this legislation were removed, is the danger that these state and local governments would suddenly impose racist laws that would survive a legal challenge? I can see oversight being required in 1965. Nowadays, I'm willing to bet someone, somewhere had a cushy job rubber stamping legislation because of this law.


"It was last extended in 2006, and required Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia; and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota to obtain preclearance before changing voting laws.

Jurisdictions that can prove voting discrimination has been absent for the past 10 years can "bail out" of Section 5, and be exempt from requiring federal approval of voting procedural changes."

There's a few stuff all over about Florida and Texas in 2012 and this thing, and there was an article I read earlier today that actually had a number count for the rejections from the VRA, but I don't remember where it was since it's not on my work computer's history.

And according to this:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/27/3 ... ether.html

The court’s ideological lines were immediately obvious as Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged Shelby County’s attorney, Bert Rein.

“Some portions of the South have changed,” said Sotomayor, who then cited an ongoing pattern of discriminatory voting procedures in Shelby County. “Your county pretty much hasn’t. You may be the wrong party in bringing this.”

Rein argued that applying Section 5 of the law to only certain states violates the Constitution, which is based on laws being applied equally. He said that the formula to determine which jurisdictions fall under Section 5 is outdated, based on long-since discontinued literacy tests and voting registration dependent on mid-1960s data.

At the center of the case is whether the courts or Congress, which in 2006 reauthorized the Voting Rights Act for 25 years, should decide whether the prior approval requirement in Section 5 – considered by supporters to be a deterrent to discrimination – stays in place.

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli pointed out that Congress had looked at the record and approved the law by large margins. But Justice Antonin Scalia said, “I think it is attributable to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement.”
Darielle
 
Posts: 1317
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Aubade » Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:18 pm

So today on my drive home, I saw a bumper sticker that said.

"Best Republican president
We've ever had
Barack Obama"

I'm confused, is this a passive agressive Conservative sticker?
A "Obama is a moderate" sticker? What is it? I'm lost.
Image
- Awbade Level 85 Human Paladin - <Tsunami> Frostmourne - Retired.
Deliriously wrote:I prefer the, "Lonely Hand Approach" (trademark pending)
User avatar
Aubade
Moderator
 
Posts: 4877
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:34 pm

Thanks for that.

Darielle wrote:then cited an ongoing pattern of discriminatory voting procedures in Shelby County


What constitutes a discriminatory voting procedure?
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest