If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Study: messages designed to convince parents to vaccinate their children actually convince parents to not vaccinate their children   (motherjones.com) divider line 67
    More: Ironic, Brendan Nyhan, MMR, messages  
•       •       •

1089 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Mar 2014 at 5:26 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-03 05:18:29 PM  
I don't know. Could it have something to do with the years upon years of hyperbolic lies piled onto society by social do gooders who were full of shiat like MADD and the anti-smoking lobby? Could that have maybe, I dunno, somehow influenced your credibility in some way?
 
2014-03-03 05:28:59 PM  
Vaccines are bad cuz Dr Mercola can't legally sell anything you inject yourself with.
 
2014-03-03 05:29:55 PM  
The goal is not to change the mind of the loud idiots. They are lost causes.

The goal is to prevent the loud idiots from convincing ignorant but otherwise intelligent people from believing bullshiat that sounds vaguely reasonable if you don't know any better.
 
2014-03-03 05:31:09 PM  
Because they have the mentality that everything is some kind of conspiracy, nothing will convince them. You can offer whatever you like and they will ignore it for their version of the truth. I think we should force the kids to be vaccinated, and criminally charge parents that fail to do so. It is no longer a "mother's choice" anymore. Not vaccinating your child does actual harm to the population.
 
2014-03-03 05:37:26 PM  

doglover: I don't know. Could it have something to do with the years upon years of hyperbolic lies piled onto society by social do gooders who were full of shiat like MADD and the anti-smoking lobby? Could that have maybe, I dunno, somehow influenced your credibility in some way?


img.fark.net
 
2014-03-03 05:40:10 PM  
Apparently what we really need is a diptheria outbreak to show people how useful vaccines are.
 
2014-03-03 05:41:19 PM  
Actually, this sums it up pretty well...

The long and short of it is that when we make connections and use memories, they are actual hard connections in our brains, and to change these deep seated beliefs can actually require the brain to be physically rewired. Not easy for most people, but a lot harder for others. It explains the Politics tab... Our computer doesn't work like our brains, so it's easier for a computer to rewrite memory spaces than it is for people.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Republican-Brain-Science-Science/dp/111809 45 14
 
2014-03-03 05:41:52 PM  
If you're trying to convince people who reject the notion that vaccines work or are safe based on some illogical conspiracy theory and irrational evidence, then using real evidence and facts will not convince them otherwise.

The trick isn't to convince those who are stubbornly refusing reality, it's to prevent their false messages from spreading to innocent people who are not as well versed on the issue.

It's just like every other pseudoscience out there: you're not trying to convince the con artists and true believers that they're wrong, you're just trying to limit their nonsense from spreading.  And you do this by educating everyone as much as you can, through whatever means you have available.
 
2014-03-03 05:45:36 PM  

doglover: I don't know. Could it have something to do with the years upon years of hyperbolic lies piled onto society by social do gooders who were full of shiat like MADD and the anti-smoking lobby? Could that have maybe, I dunno, somehow influenced your credibility in some way?


So you're saying that smoking is healthy as all get out? Like we should start babies on it? Maybe require it in the workplace, restaurants and shopping centers? I mean, I'm with ya that MADD stepped out of their box YEARS ago, and has switched from just being about drunk driving prevention to moving into a prohibition sphere, but I'm not really sure what "evils" the anti-smoking people have done, except made it so the rest of us no longer want to shoot up so many farking public places because of all of the self absorbed smokers polluting the air and throwing their butts on the ground.
 
2014-03-03 05:46:07 PM  
It's even simpler than that. Your brain has a very difficult time accepting contradictory information, once it's decided a thing is correct. No doubt this had value in prehistory, so we didn't question whether food was safe or water was clean after the first time. Not so much now.
 
2014-03-03 05:50:25 PM  

Summoner101: Apparently what we really need is a diptheria outbreak to show people how useful vaccines are.


We already have a derptheria outbreak so might as well go with your plan too
 
2014-03-03 05:55:03 PM  

Mikey1969: So you're saying that smoking is healthy as all get out?


No, but it's also not polonium soaked in aids and cilantro.

Tobacco is bad for you coming in at a 4 or 5 out of 10. Maybe even a 3. The golden death frog's venom is a 10. One of those walks on your hand, and you die that day in horribly agony. You smoke a ton of cigarettes, literally 2,000 lbs of tobacco, over the years and you might get cancer at a much higher rate than someone who didn't.

Frog footprint sized drop foot vs 2,000 lb palette. Which is more dangerous?

Being fat is way more dangerous and yet there's no anit-lazy laws or "put down the fork" legislation. Nor should there be. It is not the government's place to tell us what to do, only advise. And multiple times in the past, they've advised very poorly. Why? People who think the ends justify the means to enact their own personal crusade against vice repeatedly worm their way up to a position of power and ban what they don't enjoy. fark those people and everyone like them.

You don't want to vaccinate your kids? Why would you not? Maybe it's Darwin's will that you don't become grandparents.
 
2014-03-03 05:55:23 PM  

Mikey1969: Actually, this sums it up pretty well...

The long and short of it is that when we make connections and use memories, they are actual hard connections in our brains, and to change these deep seated beliefs can actually require the brain to be physically rewired. Not easy for most people, but a lot harder for others. It explains the Politics tab... Our computer doesn't work like our brains, so it's easier for a computer to rewrite memory spaces than it is for people.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Republican-Brain-Science-Science/dp/111809 45 14


Came to mention this book. Motivated reasoning is a biatch.


doglover: I don't know. Could it have something to do with the years upon years of hyperbolic lies piled onto society by social do gooders who were full of shiat like MADD and the anti-smoking lobby? Could that have maybe, I dunno, somehow influenced your credibility in some way?


Or the people who tried to tell us we'd go crazy and rape all the white women in sight after one puff of the demon weed?
 
2014-03-03 05:58:45 PM  
VICE (NSFW) piece about increasing smoking rates in Indonesia and how quack doctors are telling folks smoking actually cures things and they don't know any better.


It is a Libertarian paradise where these anti-vaccine types are not helping at all.
 
2014-03-03 06:04:49 PM  

fusillade762: doglover: I don't know. Could it have something to do with the years upon years of hyperbolic lies piled onto society by social do gooders who were full of shiat like MADD and the anti-smoking lobby? Could that have maybe, I dunno, somehow influenced your credibility in some way?

Or the people who tried to tell us we'd go crazy and rape all the white women in sight after one puff of the demon weed?



THIRD HAND REEFER MADNESS!

awordsmithsbrainworks.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-03 06:04:53 PM  

doglover: Mikey1969: So you're saying that smoking is healthy as all get out?

No, but it's also not polonium soaked in aids and cilantro.

Tobacco is bad for you coming in at a 4 or 5 out of 10. Maybe even a 3. The golden death frog's venom is a 10. One of those walks on your hand, and you die that day in horribly agony. You smoke a ton of cigarettes, literally 2,000 lbs of tobacco, over the years and you might get cancer at a much higher rate than someone who didn't.

Frog footprint sized drop foot vs 2,000 lb palette. Which is more dangerous?

Being fat is way more dangerous and yet there's no anit-lazy laws or "put down the fork" legislation. Nor should there be. It is not the government's place to tell us what to do, only advise. And multiple times in the past, they've advised very poorly. Why? People who think the ends justify the means to enact their own personal crusade against vice repeatedly worm their way up to a position of power and ban what they don't enjoy. fark those people and everyone like them.

You don't want to vaccinate your kids? Why would you not? Maybe it's Darwin's will that you don't become grandparents.


Yeah, but you sitting there being fat next to me doesn't make me hack my lungs out every morning to the point that my friends call me Doc Holliday, now does it? I vaccinate my kids, I just don't understand why you think smokers get the right spew their shiat all over the place, that's all. And yeah, they actually keep passing different kinds of 'put down the fork' legislation, whether it's banning trans fats, or overly large sodas, it keeps happening. Like I said though, I don't care what you do sitting next to me until it affects my health or safety, or that of my family.
 
2014-03-03 06:05:16 PM  
You can always tell an anti-vaxxer, but you can't tell them much.

/I hate the backfire effect
//I wonder if it's Bayesian reasoning applied to retroactive self-justification
 
2014-03-03 06:07:30 PM  

doglover: Mikey1969: So you're saying that smoking is healthy as all get out?

No, but it's also not polonium soaked in aids and cilantro.

Tobacco is bad for you coming in at a 4 or 5 out of 10. Maybe even a 3. The golden death frog's venom is a 10. One of those walks on your hand, and you die that day in horribly agony. You smoke a ton of cigarettes, literally 2,000 lbs of tobacco, over the years and you might get cancer at a much higher rate than someone who didn't.

Frog footprint sized drop foot vs 2,000 lb palette. Which is more dangerous?

Being fat is way more dangerous and yet there's no anit-lazy laws or "put down the fork" legislation. Nor should there be. It is not the government's place to tell us what to do, only advise. And multiple times in the past, they've advised very poorly. Why? People who think the ends justify the means to enact their own personal crusade against vice repeatedly worm their way up to a position of power and ban what they don't enjoy. fark those people and everyone like them.

You don't want to vaccinate your kids? Why would you not? Maybe it's Darwin's will that you don't become grandparents.


I'm with you.  Half of my workplace is into frogging now.  Way worse than smoking.
 
2014-03-03 06:08:41 PM  

Mikey1969: And yeah, they actually keep passing different kinds of 'put down the fork' legislation, whether it's banning trans fats, or overly large sodas, it keeps happening.


And I keep opposing it.

There's things that should be banned, like DDT. But then there's thing like olestra, which is kind of its own punishment.

And if cigarette smoke bothers you THAT MUCH, maybe don't go to bars, cities, camping, church, or smithies, or kitchens, or anywhere fun really.
 
2014-03-03 06:20:55 PM  

doglover: Mikey1969: So you're saying that smoking is healthy as all get out?

No, but it's also not polonium soaked in aids and cilantro.

Tobacco is bad for you coming in at a 4 or 5 out of 10. Maybe even a 3. The golden death frog's venom is a 10. One of those walks on your hand, and you die that day in horribly agony. You smoke a ton of cigarettes, literally 2,000 lbs of tobacco, over the years and you might get cancer at a much higher rate than someone who didn't.

Frog footprint sized drop foot vs 2,000 lb palette. Which is more dangerous?

Being fat is way more dangerous and yet there's no anit-lazy laws or "put down the fork" legislation. Nor should there be. It is not the government's place to tell us what to do, only advise. And multiple times in the past, they've advised very poorly. Why? People who think the ends justify the means to enact their own personal crusade against vice repeatedly worm their way up to a position of power and ban what they don't enjoy. fark those people and everyone like them.

You don't want to vaccinate your kids? Why would you not? Maybe it's Darwin's will that you don't become grandparents.


I don't recall golden poison frogs being marketed with campaigns and characters that appeal to kids more than they appeal to adults. I also don't recall them being packaged and sold with the claim that they were perfectly safe and even, in very old ads, healthy. But, please, continue to compare cigarettes to something almost no one on here has heard of and most people will never encounter ever. Of course, if they find a way to grow tobacco in a manner that it is not carcinogenic, then we can go back to the comparison. Here, read all about it.

Also, bad comparison with obesity. I'll admit, I'm fat. I'm a pretty little fattie with a big fat fannie. The only way I am going to pass that onto someone else is if I instill bad eating habits in my child, which I haven't done so far. To her, sliced tomatoes and cucumbers are a treat equal to any bowl of ice cream. It's all in how you treat the food. But, my being fat is not going to directly impact the health of people around me.

A kid not being vaccinated can. Some children cannot be vaccinated because of other health conditions. Parents who choose not the vaccinate their kids because of the autisms and the mercuries endanger those children. Also, if I am recalling my biology correctly, it has been years, a population that is not vaccinated against a bug allow that bug more opportunity to grow and mutate, so that even the vaccinated population are endangered by new forms of the bug that we're not ready for.

Try again.
 
2014-03-03 06:36:03 PM  

DERP KILLS.

\o/
|
/ \
 
2014-03-03 06:37:05 PM  
Hey, no fair.  The preview clearly showed the little stick guy in the middle.
 
2014-03-03 06:50:00 PM  
______________
|  Whar Stikc Guy|
|   in the middle    |
|         Whar         |
______________
         \o/
           |
          /\
 
2014-03-03 06:51:34 PM  

Summoner101: Apparently what we really need is a diptheria outbreak to show people how useful vaccines are.


DARWIN is never wrong.
 
2014-03-03 06:56:31 PM  
Conspiracy theorists are not rational people.  They will not be swayed by a rational argument.
 
2014-03-03 07:06:14 PM  

namatad: Summoner101: Apparently what we really need is a diptheria outbreak to show people how useful vaccines are.

DARWIN is never wrong.


If we want to get into a philosophical discussion about it, actually vaccines are an example of where Darwin is very wrong.The very diseases we create vaccines for should be driving factors behind natural selection, with the human species breeding stronger natural immunities to those diseases. See Sickle Cell and Malaria. However, as a self-aware species, we have rail-roaded natural selection by creating artificial means by which to create immunity: vaccines. One could argue that we actually breed a weaker species, dependent on these artificial means to generate immunity.

If we want to argue philosophy.

/i immunize my kid
//she will get the hpv vaccine when she's old enough because less chance of cancer > than someone else's sensibilities.
 
2014-03-03 07:27:15 PM  

Summoner101: Apparently what we really need is a diptheria outbreak to show people how useful vaccines are.


That's all that does it.

That, and high profile media reports of children dying of otherwise preventable diseases.
 
2014-03-03 07:28:26 PM  

doglover: Mikey1969: And yeah, they actually keep passing different kinds of 'put down the fork' legislation, whether it's banning trans fats, or overly large sodas, it keeps happening.

And I keep opposing it.

There's things that should be banned, like DDT. But then there's thing like olestra, which is kind of its own punishment.

And if cigarette smoke bothers you THAT MUCH, maybe don't go to bars, cities, camping, church, or smithies, or kitchens, or anywhere fun really.


May wherever you go be populated with people suffering from bad egg farts.
 
2014-03-03 07:41:18 PM  

meat0918: Summoner101: Apparently what we really need is a diptheria outbreak to show people how useful vaccines are.

That's all that does it.

That, and high profile media reports of children dying of otherwise preventable diseases.


www.cdc.gov
 
2014-03-03 07:48:58 PM  
1. Vaccines have been essential tools to control and in some cases eradicate some diseases. Therefore, all vaccines are implicitly good for you.

2. Drug companies can be counted on to never fudge testing numbers in the interests of profit. They will always think of their long term interests and realize that the short term profit isn't worth it if it damages their reputation.

3. Anyone who ever questions the efficacy or safety of any vaccine is an anti-vaxxer even more stupid than Jenny McCarthy if that was possible.

4. That goes for anyone who questions whether 686 injections by the age of six is a good idea. This is what our bodies are evolved for and profit motive has nothing to do with it.

5. The government health authorities are always right and always get it right. Except of course if contradicts my personal ideology or pre-conception.

6. If a chemical compound can preserve a vaccine, it must be great for you.

Words to live by I tell you.

Disclaimer: I keep up with my vaccinations with the best risk assessment I can manage. I would do the same for my kids if I had any that age.
 
2014-03-03 07:50:55 PM  

Witty_Retort: meat0918: Summoner101: Apparently what we really need is a diptheria outbreak to show people how useful vaccines are.

That's all that does it.

That, and high profile media reports of children dying of otherwise preventable diseases.

[www.cdc.gov image 850x638]


Our vaccination rate has increased in our county in Oregon.

http://www.registerguard.com/rg/news/local/31206800-75/percent-paren ts -students-county-oregon.html.csp

"Lane County was one of only a handful of counties in the state that last year decreased the number of students entering schools with a non-medical waiver for vaccinations. During the 2011-12 school year, 8.5 percent of students entering kindergarten were not vaccinated, compared to last year's 7.4 percent.

Lane County health officials attribute the drop to an outreach campaign that seeks to educate parents about vaccinations.
"(We've done) tons and tons and tons of outreach," Lane County Public Health spokesman Jason Davis said.
The county organized several town-hall style meetings at the University of Oregon and at downtown Eugene's Cozmic Pizza to answer questions about vaccination safety, which Davis said is largely what parents are most concerned about.
"Most of the people who were making the choice to not vaccinate their children were well-educated, well-informed people who unfortunately had the wrong information," Davis said.
The new law, Davis said, will help educate parents about vaccines, which he said are "largely safe and effective."
Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, D-Portland, a family physician and sponsor of the law, said the idea is that once people hear the science they will be less likely to say no."

The change in the law will have the backfire effect on the parents that have already made up their mind on vaccinations.

For those that are dubious, it's going to increase our rate.

And given that for some it's just laziness or lack of time to get the kid to the doctor, I think Oregon will reverse its vaccination trend.

I think our only flu death in the county so far this year was also a young boy whose mother was on the news multiple times begging people to make sure they don't just vaccinate their children, but also for adults to get the shot.  She and her husband didn't, and they got sick, and his vaccination didn't take.
 
2014-03-03 07:52:08 PM  

AntiNerd: 1. Vaccines have been essential tools to control and in some cases eradicate some diseases. Therefore, all vaccines are implicitly good for you.

2. Drug companies can be counted on to never fudge testing numbers in the interests of profit. They will always think of their long term interests and realize that the short term profit isn't worth it if it damages their reputation.

3. Anyone who ever questions the efficacy or safety of any vaccine is an anti-vaxxer even more stupid than Jenny McCarthy if that was possible.

4. That goes for anyone who questions whether 686 injections by the age of six is a good idea. This is what our bodies are evolved for and profit motive has nothing to do with it.

5. The government health authorities are always right and always get it right. Except of course if contradicts my personal ideology or pre-conception.

6. If a chemical compound can preserve a vaccine, it must be great for you.

Words to live by I tell you.

Disclaimer: I keep up with my vaccinations with the best risk assessment I can manage. I would do the same for my kids if I had any that age.


Keep building those strawmen dude.
 
2014-03-03 08:00:35 PM  

meat0918: "Most of the people who were making the choice to not vaccinate their children were well-educated, well-informed people who unfortunately had the wrong information,"


IIRC there was a story a couple years back about an anti-vaxxer mother whose child died from whooping cough or something else preventable. She was pissed that other people weren't vaccinating their kids, so herd immunity was breaking down.
 
2014-03-03 08:02:02 PM  

AntiNerd: 1. Vaccines have been essential tools to control and in some cases eradicate some diseases. Therefore, all vaccines are implicitly good for you.

2. Drug companies can be counted on to never fudge testing numbers in the interests of profit. They will always think of their long term interests and realize that the short term profit isn't worth it if it damages their reputation.

3. Anyone who ever questions the efficacy or safety of any vaccine is an anti-vaxxer even more stupid than Jenny McCarthy if that was possible.

4. That goes for anyone who questions whether 686 injections by the age of six is a good idea. This is what our bodies are evolved for and profit motive has nothing to do with it.

5. The government health authorities are always right and always get it right. Except of course if contradicts my personal ideology or pre-conception.

6. If a chemical compound can preserve a vaccine, it must be great for you.

Words to live by I tell you.

Disclaimer: I keep up with my vaccinations with the best risk assessment I can manage. I would do the same for my kids if I had any that age.


That is some strawman you have there. I am glad you read every single peer reviewed scientific paper that is against vaccinations. Oh wait, there are none.
 
2014-03-03 08:05:54 PM  

AntiNerd: 1. Vaccines have been essential tools to control and in some cases eradicate some diseases. Therefore, all vaccines are implicitly good for you.

2. Drug companies can be counted on to never fudge testing numbers in the interests of profit. They will always think of their long term interests and realize that the short term profit isn't worth it if it damages their reputation.

3. Anyone who ever questions the efficacy or safety of any vaccine is an anti-vaxxer even more stupid than Jenny McCarthy if that was possible.

4. That goes for anyone who questions whether 686 injections by the age of six is a good idea. This is what our bodies are evolved for and profit motive has nothing to do with it.

5. The government health authorities are always right and always get it right. Except of course if contradicts my personal ideology or pre-conception.

6. If a chemical compound can preserve a vaccine, it must be great for you.

Words to live by I tell you.

Disclaimer: I keep up with my vaccinations with the best risk assessment I can manage. I would do the same for my kids if I had any that age.



That's a museum-quality collection of straw men right there.
 
2014-03-03 08:30:02 PM  

AntiNerd: 1. Vaccines have been essential tools to control and in some cases eradicate some diseases. Therefore, all vaccines are implicitly good for you.

2. Drug companies can be counted on to never fudge testing numbers in the interests of profit. They will always think of their long term interests and realize that the short term profit isn't worth it if it damages their reputation.

3. Anyone who ever questions the efficacy or safety of any vaccine is an anti-vaxxer even more stupid than Jenny McCarthy if that was possible.

4. That goes for anyone who questions whether 686 injections by the age of six is a good idea. This is what our bodies are evolved for and profit motive has nothing to do with it.

5. The government health authorities are always right and always get it right. Except of course if contradicts my personal ideology or pre-conception.

6. If a chemical compound can preserve a vaccine, it must be great for you.

Words to live by I tell you.

Disclaimer: I keep up with my vaccinations with the best risk assessment I can manage. I would do the same for my kids if I had any that age.


Do you know what the profit margin is on scheduled vaccines?  Take a guess.  50%?  60%?  20%?  10%?  No.  A whopping 0-1.5%.  Vaccines are not a money maker for the pharmaceutical industry.  In fact, a pharmaceutical company often ends up in the red on things like the flu vaccine because of the cost associated to produce them.  This is one reason why the government pays to make up for any loss associated with manufacturing things like the seasonal flu vaccine.  This is also the reason why the number of companies manufacturing things like the flu vaccine have gone from around 20 to 7 in the last two decades.  There's no money in it.  It's such a stupid argument that profit margins motivate the sale of vaccines.

As for 686 injections...where the heck are you getting that number from?  A complete schedule is 49 doses of 14 vaccines by age 6.  That's a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of germs a child is exposed to on a daily basis.
 
2014-03-03 08:47:06 PM  
AntiNerd:

4. That goes for anyone who questions whether 686 injections by the age of six is a good idea. This is what our bodies are evolved for and profit motive has nothing to do with it.


The fark did you get that number from? I have a kid, and at age six, she had no where even close to approaching that number of vaccines. And we're those on-time-on-the-dime with vaccine parents (medicaid when she was a baby because we were in college helped us keep up with that cause her visits were 100% covered).

Also, my experience on Medicaid is why I would like us to move to single payer. I had great coverage, a great doctor, and a great delivery experience (sans the not dilating and having to get a C-Section, but them's the breaks). Once I was signed up and established with my card, visits were easy. No confusion about what costs would be - everything was up front and if something wasn't covered by Medicaid I knew right away so I could make a decision. Thinking about it, my government-run insurance  (in a Red State - GA - by the way), which I am told is horrible and does more harm for people than good, was better than my current private insurance. For my meds I have play guessing games with whether or not something is actually covered and what the copay will be. It leaves me depending on handouts (coupons) from the companies to get some of my prescriptions affordably (my asthma controller is currently free thankies to the coupon .. ... my last one cost me about $80 with private insurance ... thanks Aetnabama).
 
2014-03-03 08:49:58 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: AntiNerd: <SNIP>


That's a museum-quality collection of straw men right there.


It's not a strawman if he admits that he has vaccines and would get vaccines his kids if he had them. I'm sure some of the best doctor visits he's had are for vaccines. He's just concerned.
 
2014-03-03 08:50:21 PM  

shamanwest:  To her, sliced tomatoes and cucumbers are a treat equal to any ...


Tomatoes are farking awesome. I only realized the past few months that I don't have to feel like an asshole for never wanting salads. Because sliced tomatoes with a bit of italian dressing is a salad. I can totally eat that without trying to like crunchy water alongside it.

/I eat tomatoes til my mouth is raw and my stomach is in agony from all the acid
//and don't regret it
 
2014-03-03 08:57:54 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: shamanwest:  To her, sliced tomatoes and cucumbers are a treat equal to any ...

Tomatoes are farking awesome. I only realized the past few months that I don't have to feel like an asshole for never wanting salads. Because sliced tomatoes with a bit of italian dressing is a salad. I can totally eat that without trying to like crunchy water alongside it.

/I eat tomatoes til my mouth is raw and my stomach is in agony from all the acid
//and don't regret it


Even better. If you like some other veggies, like cucumber (slightly tastier crunchy water), celery, carrot, maybe some sweet peas and/or garbanzo beans, maybe spinach, berries, and nuts (if you're not like me and 'llergic) ... you can just toss those together with your fav dressing (if you're going with fruit, I would do something like a raspberry vinaigrette) and it's a salad. You can even add cheese if you want. :D

Not that  I would do that. I don't like most of the foods that I listed there. But the kid loves mixed fruits and veggies.
 
2014-03-03 08:59:30 PM  

doglover: I don't know. Could it have something to do with the years upon years of hyperbolic lies piled onto society by social do gooders who were full of shiat like MADD and the anti-smoking lobby? Could that have maybe, I dunno, somehow influenced your credibility in some way?


"
I can see that objective reality angers you. Talk to a doctor about that.
 
2014-03-03 09:12:41 PM  

shamanwest: namatad: Summoner101: Apparently what we really need is a diptheria outbreak to show people how useful vaccines are.

DARWIN is never wrong.

If we want to get into a philosophical discussion about it, actually vaccines are an example of where Darwin is very wrong.The very diseases we create vaccines for should be driving factors behind natural selection, with the human species breeding stronger natural immunities to those diseases. See Sickle Cell and Malaria. However, as a self-aware species, we have rail-roaded natural selection by creating artificial means by which to create immunity: vaccines. One could argue that we actually breed a weaker species, dependent on these artificial means to generate immunity.

If we want to argue philosophy.


Actually, that sounds more like a Nietzschean objection to vaccines, rather than a Darwinian one.

Darwin's "survival of the fittest" is a tautology -- the fittest are defined just by the fact that they survive and procreate.  If human self-awareness and vaccines leads to artificial means of survival, it by definition makes us fittest.  You can't "rail-road" natural selection.  Natural selection is just every organism living its life and trying to get it on.  It doesn't matter if the survival is "artificial" or not.  And the fact that there are nine billion of us now means it's going to be tough to completely wipe us out to extinction.

The Nietzschean worry is a big one though ... I worry much more about a flu superbug than a nuclear war.  Six or seven billion deaths to a superbug spread by intercontinental travel is downright depressing.

/I love arguing philosophy
 
2014-03-03 09:13:54 PM  

shamanwest: doloresonthedottedline: shamanwest:  To her, sliced tomatoes and cucumbers are a treat equal to any ...

Tomatoes are farking awesome. I only realized the past few months that I don't have to feel like an asshole for never wanting salads. Because sliced tomatoes with a bit of italian dressing is a salad. I can totally eat that without trying to like crunchy water alongside it.

/I eat tomatoes til my mouth is raw and my stomach is in agony from all the acid
//and don't regret it

Even better. If you like some other veggies, like cucumber (slightly tastier crunchy water), celery, carrot, maybe some sweet peas and/or garbanzo beans, maybe spinach, berries, and nuts (if you're not like me and 'llergic) ... you can just toss those together with your fav dressing (if you're going with fruit, I would do something like a raspberry vinaigrette) and it's a salad. You can even add cheese if you want. :D

Not that  I would do that. I don't like most of the foods that I listed there. But the kid loves mixed fruits and veggies.


Cucumbers always tasted like a bathroom product to me. Like eating lotion or makeup. I don't understand it.
 
2014-03-03 09:47:38 PM  
we have an outbreak of measles and carry over from last year whopping cough going on in NorCal.
 
2014-03-03 09:50:32 PM  

doglover: I don't know. Could it have something to do with the years upon years of hyperbolic lies piled onto society by social do gooders who were full of shiat like MADD and the anti-smoking lobby? Could that have maybe, I dunno, somehow influenced your credibility in some way?


Lies?
 
2014-03-03 09:52:15 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: Because they have the mentality that everything is some kind of conspiracy, nothing will convince them. You can offer whatever you like and they will ignore it for their version of the truth. I think we should force the kids to be vaccinated, and criminally charge parents that fail to do so. It is no longer a "mother's choice" anymore. Not vaccinating your child does actual harm to the population.


Once you believe there's a conspiracy, any evidence to the contrary actually becomes evidence of the conspiracy.  All of a sudden your concerned doctor is a pawn of the Pharma Nazis, and your worried relatives are sucker sheeples believing everything they read in some rag like "the New England Journal of Medicine".
 
2014-03-03 10:14:09 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: Because they have the mentality that everything is some kind of conspiracy, nothing will convince them. You can offer whatever you like and they will ignore it for their version of the truth. I think we should force the kids to be vaccinated, and criminally charge parents that fail to do so. It is no longer a "mother's choice" anymore. Not vaccinating your child does actual harm to the population.


I'm all for this.  Obviously, with medical exemptions, but get rid of the religious ones.  Parents aren't allowed to withhold medical treatment from sick children on religious grounds, so I don't see why this doesn't apply, as well.  If, as an adult, you wish to never get a vaccine again, then that's your right...but it shouldn't be your right to endanger the lives of your and other people's children simply because you're a paranoid conspiracy nutter.
 
2014-03-03 10:14:14 PM  

shamanwest: namatad: Summoner101: Apparently what we really need is a diptheria outbreak to show people how useful vaccines are.

DARWIN is never wrong.

If we want to get into a philosophical discussion about it, actually vaccines are an example of where Darwin is very wrong.The very diseases we create vaccines for should be driving factors behind natural selection, with the human species breeding stronger natural immunities to those diseases. See Sickle Cell and Malaria. However, as a self-aware species, we have rail-roaded natural selection by creating artificial means by which to create immunity: vaccines. One could argue that we actually breed a weaker species, dependent on these artificial means to generate immunity.

If we want to argue philosophy.

/i immunize my kid
//she will get the hpv vaccine when she's old enough because less chance of cancer > than someone else's sensibilities.


If we want to argue philosophy, the "artificial selection" we impose on our species by developing vaccines is in fact a product of the natural selection that led to use having amazing brains.

Whoa man.
 
2014-03-03 10:17:07 PM  

doglover: I don't know. Could it have something to do with the years upon years of hyperbolic lies piled onto society by social do gooders who were full of shiat like MADD and the anti-smoking lobby? Could that have maybe, I dunno, somehow influenced your credibility in some way?


Could it? I guess. Are you claiming that it has? Then provide some evidence, or GTFO.

Also, despite what you're reading on right wing, anti-regulation blogs, smoking is indeed bad for you, and it's bad for others around you. I'm all for your "freedom" to smoke as much as you want in places where it will not impact me, as long as tobacco companies aren't marketing towards children, etc.
 
2014-03-03 10:19:09 PM  
www.sott.net
/Pipe smoker since 1975. What? More Latakia? Yum!
//Praise "Bob"!
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report