Jut read this article. The govenor is recquiring that all girls entering the 6th grade (ages 11 and 12 years) get vaccinated from the STD HPV that could cerival cancer.
The STD association with this is enough to make a lot of groups (notice I’m avoiding political party affiliation and name calling) oppose something like this. It’s the same whacked out logic that whines about abortion while demanding “abstinence only” sex education.
I have heard some people say that there a lot of different strands of HPV and this vaccine only protect from 3 strands of it and there isn’t enough info and tests to see if it really works.
Yeah, I would agree that any vaccines that are mandated should be proven to be safe and effective, but as long as that’s the case, then I’m all for it, even if (in some cases) the disease they are meant to prevent is contracted under bad circumstances or as the result of poor choices.
I think that in general it’s good to support curing and preventing disease, regardless of how a particular disease is normally contracted.
i’m all for making vaccines free and even making people actively turn them down, but requiring people to get a shot is a little creepy. i understand that this isn’t the only shot that’s required and yes my kids get all their shots. i just get a little wigged out when the government says, “you are required to take these pills.” why? what’s in the pills? what are you trying to do?
Yeah, I can see that, but when you’re talking about communicable diseases the decision to not take the vaccine doesn’t just affect you, it affects the people around you too.
Polio is a great example of this. It’s been eliminated in the US for a couple decades, and pretty much the whole western hemisphere for quite a while now too. Yet, there is an increasing number of people who believe that they shouldn’t get the vaccines because they’re afraid of potential side affects (which are extremely rare).
I think it’s generally good to be skeptical, especially when it comes to medicine, but as long as there’s good, solid science backing it up I think things like this are a good idea.
this isn’t really about skepticism, but rather allowing skeptics to freely exist. in that article it does say that the shot it ultimately optional (folk can back out for “religious or conscientious objections”). of course that just begs the question: why do they need the law to begin with?
i don’t want to downplay the seriousness of cervical cancer, i’m just bothered that the government thinks people won’t make wise decisions unless they’re instructed to do so.
Yeah, I think in general it’s a good idea to let people make right decisions on their own. But I also think that in matters where other people’s health (or that of minors whose parents won’t make the right decision) are concerned, it’s OK for the government to mandate those decisions for them.
It’s the same reason we need laws in general: unfortunately a lot of people won’t make the right decisions without them. They should (of course) be as minimally invasive as possible, and not intrude on the freedoms of the individual, unless they are necessary to preserve the freedom of the greater whole. In this case, that would mean the freedom not to catch some easily prevented disease because someone else didn’t feel like doing their part to prevent it.
Mandatory vaccinations, are you kidding? What’s next,forced hysterectomies for anyone genetically at risk? Seriously, don’t allow these mofos any more power than they already have. This disease is highly preventable, mostly by just getting your annual pap. Just b/c they say it’s safe doesn’t mean it is. Wise up people.
some of us happen to think laws are unnecessary. the freedom of the individual sacrificed for the “greater” freedom of the whole is called democracy, or as plato is often summarized, “the oppression of the masses.” this sort of thinking is the short road to fascism; personal responsibility is not something that can be forced, but rather something that is learned through experience and the support of a community, muthefuckaz!
Laws of some sort are definitely necessary; it’s just a matter of what degree you will accept. I don’t think many people would seriously / rationally argue that point, so I’m not going to try.
As for the mandatory vaccinations, no, I’m not kidding. I think it’s a pretty far stretch from forced hysterectomies, and the line should be drawn way short of that.
Maybe this particular vaccine is a borderline case because of the nature of the disease it’s trying to prevent, but in other cases (polio is a great example) I have no problem whatsoever with mandatory vaccinations. Polio is gone in our society only because everyone got the vaccine.
I guess not seeing it over a long period of time has made us start to question it, but when I traveled through eastern Europe and Russia I saw a lot of kids that were devastated by it. They are suffering because of lack of supply (which in itself is upsetting and wrong), but if a parent in our country were to put their kid at risk for something like this when a safe preventative measure is readily available to them, I would consider that child abuse.
Sure, there are rare cases where people suffer from side affects or other reactions, but those are extremely rare and negligible compared to the alternative of polio spreading throughout the population.
Speaking of child abuse, I guess that’s one great example of something a healthy society should have laws to prevent. Sure, it would be great if parents who regularly beat the crap out of their kids would just grow out of it “through experience and community support”, but unfortunately for the kids involved that usually doesn’t happen.
OK, after reflecting on that last comment I realize that some of my language was a bit strong, and I especially don’t want to accuse anyone that chooses not to vaccinate their kids of being child abusers (even though I did above).
I realize that a lot of people believe for various reasons that some vaccinations are not safe, and make choices based on that, and I shouldn’t criticize them just because I believe differently.
HPV is highly preventable by people choosing to have protected sex and/or abstinence. It is NOT preventable by women getting a yearly pap. HPV can be detected through a yearly pap, and, therefore women and their healthcare providers can help ensure that they get proper treatment so that HPV is not spread or so that it does not turn into Cervical CA.
I am all for vaccinations, whether government mandated or not. I think if a vaccination came out for AIDS, melanoma, and Hep C, you better believe that I’d be first in line to get them, as I think that any healthy person would want to. To eradicate these diseases would be a blessing. Think of how many people died from (to use the example mentioned) polio, or diphtheria, tetanus, pneumonia, or the flu before vaccinations were available! Sure, people still die because of some of the ones I mentioned but the vaccinations have saved a tremendous number of lives.
i believe that a court system without legislation serves the needs of every person much more than law makers outlawing every single thing they think will please their lobbies/get them re-elected. sorry you feel that is irrational, but i stand with a great number of thinkers from plato to mark twain in my irrational opinion.
Well, if you put it that way… (which isn’t what I said at all…)
How would a court system function without an underlying basis of laws on which to judge? Without that, every decision would be purely subjective, and ripe for abuse and discrimination. How could you possibly safeguard against the court being just as corrupt as the lawmakers you despise? They’re all people, after all.
i trust a unanimous jury of my peers to divine when a wrong has been done and what steps towards reconciliation should be made. we already have such a system (civil court) and it seems to be immune to many of the shortcomings of criminal court system (mandatory sentences, narrow definition of wrong deeds, etc).
Civil courts still heavily depend on laws. You should know more than anyone that there are all kinds of laws that govern how civil courts are set up and run. They also have to be given authority to operate by laws as well.
What do you do when the loser of the case refuses to comply with the judgment in a civil case?
Both civil and criminal systems are necessary, and pretty much all functioning modern societies have recognized this. Just because our current criminal court system has its problems doesn’t mean that the only answer is not to have one at all; that’s a black and white solution that doesn’t make any sense.
i believe that the law is an opiate. because modern society has adapted the law as a self-perpetuating systems, it would take a cultural sea change to sway from that tendency. that doesn’t mean that moving in that direction wouldn’t idealistically be the best form of order. the “laws” governing civil court procedures are regulations, not rules — a subtle difference, but a difference none-the-less. i think it’s clear i am not proposing anarchy, just pure personal freedom.
I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think I’ve heard any good answers to how it would practically work.
Whether you call them regulations or rules, there has to be some authority enforcing that they are respected, for the common good. People who absolutely refuse to acknowledge the “will of the community” and choose instead to continually do things that would harm those around them have to be dealt with somehow, which means having the concept of “crime” and “punishment”. I don’t see any way around that.
I’m all for personal freedom as well, but personal freedom is impossible to preserve without having some degree of restriction on the public as a whole. Whether you call those “laws” or not, they would have to work the same way.
Not to drag the discussion on farther if you don’t want to, but you haven’t answered my questions. Hunt through my last several comments looking for the “?”s and please point out your answers to them.
I do get what you’re saying, but I just disagree that it would ever work in the real world, because people aren’t inherently good.
How would a court system function without an underlying basis of laws on which to judge?
a victim comes forward and presents their case of how they were wronged by the accused. a jury then votes on the validity of their claims based on the evidence presented. if a “guilty” judgment is delivered, the jury then decides upon the punishment/reconciliation should be. it does not require inherent goodness in people, simply the God given ability to discern right from wrong. if all 12 don’t agree, a wrong was not done.
How could you possibly safeguard against the court being just as corrupt as the lawmakers you despise?
because this court system puts the actual power in the hands of citizens. the people are not confined by law makers’ decisions about what is “right” and “wrong.” the fact that 12 random people must agree prevents outside influence.
What do you do when the loser of the case refuses to comply with the judgment in a civil case?
same as now, a warrant is issued for their arrest.
1. But they would need to make those decisions based on a predefined set of laws, otherwise every decision is ripe for favoritism / discrimination and all kinds of abuses.
2. We have that now, with the additional (and necessary) support of laws. For the areas in which current lawmakers and the law making process fails, there is a lot of room for reform, and abolishing laws altogether is far from the only answer.
3. Which would be a criminal proceeding, and would inherently rely on it being “illegal” to not comply with the judgement.
Basically, I still think you absolutely need basic laws that set the rules on certain things, especially ones that are never acceptable no matter what the majority of the community would believe.
If (“hypothetically”) some states in the south decided that it was OK to hang minorities from the nearest tree until they died, would it be OK as long as twelve random people from the community said it was? “if all 12 don’t agree, a wrong was not done”?
The “majority” (even the vast majority) isn’t always right, and sometimes there need to be guidelines that keep them on track. That’s my opinion, at least.
1. who makes the predefined set of laws and what makes those not ripe for favoritism? there’s no way to stop the will of the community, laws just make it harder to admit those ideas were wrong.
2. this comment is recursive around your own position because you believe laws are necessary and i obviously do not.
3. failure to fulfill court obligations isn’t a new crime, it’s a refusal to make amends for an old crime.
4-6. i believe that when the majority isn’t “right,” they elect officials and law makers that aren’t right. the only right and wrong that is absolute is the law of God, and the law of God is impossible to keep. every other concept of right and wrong is simply public opinion. this country was founded on the opinion that government is created to secure people’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. so if you need a jury to have some sort of absolute, it should be that and nothing else.
Codifying things into laws makes it easier for the community (or whoever) to debate and decide on them all in one place, rather than reevaluating those same basics over and over in each individual case. To do that would be impractical for any court system.
Are there unique circumstances to every case Sure, but there are also huge areas of overlap that would have to be rehashed in every instance of wrong doing if you don’t have a common set of already determined rules that apply to everyone. I just don’t think any society has the time or money for that.
I do believe that the general common public sentiment around a given issue, but I believe that a jury is far too limited to allow that to be expressed fairly. Of course, you would argue that the system we have now isn’t great either, but I’d rather reform it to allow the larger body of citizens to have a more accurately represented voice in establishing those laws or rules than to do without them altogether, and leave every decision up to a random group of twelve people who could easily make a very bad decision, with no recourse since there would be no “laws” other than what they decide.
I recognize that we disagree on the fundamental principle that laws of some sort are necessary, so maybe there’s no point in discussing it further.
32 responses to “don’t mess with texas”
I didn’t see the article at that link, but that news is kind of surprising coming from Texas.
did you check your link? what kind of valentine’s day party are you throwing?
I think that it’s an excellent idea to give the vaccine. Go Texas!
I definitely agree with Kristie – way to go Texas! We protect our kids against polio and measles, why not protect our girls from cancer?
I saw on the news that people were upset about it. I don’t know why? Its not like its promoting promiscuity or something.
The STD association with this is enough to make a lot of groups (notice I’m avoiding political party affiliation and name calling) oppose something like this. It’s the same whacked out logic that whines about abortion while demanding “abstinence only” sex education.
I have heard some people say that there a lot of different strands of HPV and this vaccine only protect from 3 strands of it and there isn’t enough info and tests to see if it really works.
Ok, I changed the link- sorry about that?
Yeah, I would agree that any vaccines that are mandated should be proven to be safe and effective, but as long as that’s the case, then I’m all for it, even if (in some cases) the disease they are meant to prevent is contracted under bad circumstances or as the result of poor choices.
I think that in general it’s good to support curing and preventing disease, regardless of how a particular disease is normally contracted.
i’m all for making vaccines free and even making people actively turn them down, but requiring people to get a shot is a little creepy. i understand that this isn’t the only shot that’s required and yes my kids get all their shots. i just get a little wigged out when the government says, “you are required to take these pills.” why? what’s in the pills? what are you trying to do?
Yeah, I can see that, but when you’re talking about communicable diseases the decision to not take the vaccine doesn’t just affect you, it affects the people around you too.
Polio is a great example of this. It’s been eliminated in the US for a couple decades, and pretty much the whole western hemisphere for quite a while now too. Yet, there is an increasing number of people who believe that they shouldn’t get the vaccines because they’re afraid of potential side affects (which are extremely rare).
I think it’s generally good to be skeptical, especially when it comes to medicine, but as long as there’s good, solid science backing it up I think things like this are a good idea.
this isn’t really about skepticism, but rather allowing skeptics to freely exist. in that article it does say that the shot it ultimately optional (folk can back out for “religious or conscientious objections”). of course that just begs the question: why do they need the law to begin with?
i don’t want to downplay the seriousness of cervical cancer, i’m just bothered that the government thinks people won’t make wise decisions unless they’re instructed to do so.
Yeah, I think in general it’s a good idea to let people make right decisions on their own. But I also think that in matters where other people’s health (or that of minors whose parents won’t make the right decision) are concerned, it’s OK for the government to mandate those decisions for them.
It’s the same reason we need laws in general: unfortunately a lot of people won’t make the right decisions without them. They should (of course) be as minimally invasive as possible, and not intrude on the freedoms of the individual, unless they are necessary to preserve the freedom of the greater whole. In this case, that would mean the freedom not to catch some easily prevented disease because someone else didn’t feel like doing their part to prevent it.
Mandatory vaccinations, are you kidding? What’s next,forced hysterectomies for anyone genetically at risk? Seriously, don’t allow these mofos any more power than they already have. This disease is highly preventable, mostly by just getting your annual pap. Just b/c they say it’s safe doesn’t mean it is. Wise up people.
some of us happen to think laws are unnecessary. the freedom of the individual sacrificed for the “greater” freedom of the whole is called democracy, or as plato is often summarized, “the oppression of the masses.” this sort of thinking is the short road to fascism; personal responsibility is not something that can be forced, but rather something that is learned through experience and the support of a community, muthefuckaz!
Laws of some sort are definitely necessary; it’s just a matter of what degree you will accept. I don’t think many people would seriously / rationally argue that point, so I’m not going to try.
As for the mandatory vaccinations, no, I’m not kidding. I think it’s a pretty far stretch from forced hysterectomies, and the line should be drawn way short of that.
Maybe this particular vaccine is a borderline case because of the nature of the disease it’s trying to prevent, but in other cases (polio is a great example) I have no problem whatsoever with mandatory vaccinations. Polio is gone in our society only because everyone got the vaccine.
I guess not seeing it over a long period of time has made us start to question it, but when I traveled through eastern Europe and Russia I saw a lot of kids that were devastated by it. They are suffering because of lack of supply (which in itself is upsetting and wrong), but if a parent in our country were to put their kid at risk for something like this when a safe preventative measure is readily available to them, I would consider that child abuse.
Sure, there are rare cases where people suffer from side affects or other reactions, but those are extremely rare and negligible compared to the alternative of polio spreading throughout the population.
Speaking of child abuse, I guess that’s one great example of something a healthy society should have laws to prevent. Sure, it would be great if parents who regularly beat the crap out of their kids would just grow out of it “through experience and community support”, but unfortunately for the kids involved that usually doesn’t happen.
OK, after reflecting on that last comment I realize that some of my language was a bit strong, and I especially don’t want to accuse anyone that chooses not to vaccinate their kids of being child abusers (even though I did above).
I realize that a lot of people believe for various reasons that some vaccinations are not safe, and make choices based on that, and I shouldn’t criticize them just because I believe differently.
Sorry if that offended anyone.
HPV is highly preventable by people choosing to have protected sex and/or abstinence. It is NOT preventable by women getting a yearly pap. HPV can be detected through a yearly pap, and, therefore women and their healthcare providers can help ensure that they get proper treatment so that HPV is not spread or so that it does not turn into Cervical CA.
I am all for vaccinations, whether government mandated or not. I think if a vaccination came out for AIDS, melanoma, and Hep C, you better believe that I’d be first in line to get them, as I think that any healthy person would want to. To eradicate these diseases would be a blessing. Think of how many people died from (to use the example mentioned) polio, or diphtheria, tetanus, pneumonia, or the flu before vaccinations were available! Sure, people still die because of some of the ones I mentioned but the vaccinations have saved a tremendous number of lives.
i believe that a court system without legislation serves the needs of every person much more than law makers outlawing every single thing they think will please their lobbies/get them re-elected. sorry you feel that is irrational, but i stand with a great number of thinkers from plato to mark twain in my irrational opinion.
Well, if you put it that way… (which isn’t what I said at all…)
How would a court system function without an underlying basis of laws on which to judge? Without that, every decision would be purely subjective, and ripe for abuse and discrimination. How could you possibly safeguard against the court being just as corrupt as the lawmakers you despise? They’re all people, after all.
i trust a unanimous jury of my peers to divine when a wrong has been done and what steps towards reconciliation should be made. we already have such a system (civil court) and it seems to be immune to many of the shortcomings of criminal court system (mandatory sentences, narrow definition of wrong deeds, etc).
victimless crime is another shortcoming of criminal law.
Civil courts still heavily depend on laws. You should know more than anyone that there are all kinds of laws that govern how civil courts are set up and run. They also have to be given authority to operate by laws as well.
What do you do when the loser of the case refuses to comply with the judgment in a civil case?
Both civil and criminal systems are necessary, and pretty much all functioning modern societies have recognized this. Just because our current criminal court system has its problems doesn’t mean that the only answer is not to have one at all; that’s a black and white solution that doesn’t make any sense.
i believe that the law is an opiate. because modern society has adapted the law as a self-perpetuating systems, it would take a cultural sea change to sway from that tendency. that doesn’t mean that moving in that direction wouldn’t idealistically be the best form of order. the “laws” governing civil court procedures are regulations, not rules — a subtle difference, but a difference none-the-less. i think it’s clear i am not proposing anarchy, just pure personal freedom.
I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think I’ve heard any good answers to how it would practically work.
Whether you call them regulations or rules, there has to be some authority enforcing that they are respected, for the common good. People who absolutely refuse to acknowledge the “will of the community” and choose instead to continually do things that would harm those around them have to be dealt with somehow, which means having the concept of “crime” and “punishment”. I don’t see any way around that.
I’m all for personal freedom as well, but personal freedom is impossible to preserve without having some degree of restriction on the public as a whole. Whether you call those “laws” or not, they would have to work the same way.
you obviously don’t get what i’m saying since i’ve addressed every issue you’ve brought up.
Not to drag the discussion on farther if you don’t want to, but you haven’t answered my questions. Hunt through my last several comments looking for the “?”s and please point out your answers to them.
I do get what you’re saying, but I just disagree that it would ever work in the real world, because people aren’t inherently good.
How would a court system function without an underlying basis of laws on which to judge?
a victim comes forward and presents their case of how they were wronged by the accused. a jury then votes on the validity of their claims based on the evidence presented. if a “guilty” judgment is delivered, the jury then decides upon the punishment/reconciliation should be. it does not require inherent goodness in people, simply the God given ability to discern right from wrong. if all 12 don’t agree, a wrong was not done.
How could you possibly safeguard against the court being just as corrupt as the lawmakers you despise?
because this court system puts the actual power in the hands of citizens. the people are not confined by law makers’ decisions about what is “right” and “wrong.” the fact that 12 random people must agree prevents outside influence.
What do you do when the loser of the case refuses to comply with the judgment in a civil case?
same as now, a warrant is issued for their arrest.
1. But they would need to make those decisions based on a predefined set of laws, otherwise every decision is ripe for favoritism / discrimination and all kinds of abuses.
2. We have that now, with the additional (and necessary) support of laws. For the areas in which current lawmakers and the law making process fails, there is a lot of room for reform, and abolishing laws altogether is far from the only answer.
3. Which would be a criminal proceeding, and would inherently rely on it being “illegal” to not comply with the judgement.
Basically, I still think you absolutely need basic laws that set the rules on certain things, especially ones that are never acceptable no matter what the majority of the community would believe.
If (“hypothetically”) some states in the south decided that it was OK to hang minorities from the nearest tree until they died, would it be OK as long as twelve random people from the community said it was? “if all 12 don’t agree, a wrong was not done”?
The “majority” (even the vast majority) isn’t always right, and sometimes there need to be guidelines that keep them on track. That’s my opinion, at least.
1. who makes the predefined set of laws and what makes those not ripe for favoritism? there’s no way to stop the will of the community, laws just make it harder to admit those ideas were wrong.
2. this comment is recursive around your own position because you believe laws are necessary and i obviously do not.
3. failure to fulfill court obligations isn’t a new crime, it’s a refusal to make amends for an old crime.
4-6. i believe that when the majority isn’t “right,” they elect officials and law makers that aren’t right. the only right and wrong that is absolute is the law of God, and the law of God is impossible to keep. every other concept of right and wrong is simply public opinion. this country was founded on the opinion that government is created to secure people’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. so if you need a jury to have some sort of absolute, it should be that and nothing else.
Codifying things into laws makes it easier for the community (or whoever) to debate and decide on them all in one place, rather than reevaluating those same basics over and over in each individual case. To do that would be impractical for any court system.
Are there unique circumstances to every case Sure, but there are also huge areas of overlap that would have to be rehashed in every instance of wrong doing if you don’t have a common set of already determined rules that apply to everyone. I just don’t think any society has the time or money for that.
I do believe that the general common public sentiment around a given issue, but I believe that a jury is far too limited to allow that to be expressed fairly. Of course, you would argue that the system we have now isn’t great either, but I’d rather reform it to allow the larger body of citizens to have a more accurately represented voice in establishing those laws or rules than to do without them altogether, and leave every decision up to a random group of twelve people who could easily make a very bad decision, with no recourse since there would be no “laws” other than what they decide.
I recognize that we disagree on the fundamental principle that laws of some sort are necessary, so maybe there’s no point in discussing it further.
i agree with your last point. sara, you can have your blog back now.