|
Post by elaine on Feb 3, 2015 0:35:03 GMT
Was all for quarantining the nurse who returned from Africa in the name of "public safety," but is fine with parents choosing not to vaccinate their children in the face of a REAL health crisis in our country.
He is an idiot, and following our discussion on the Super Bowl thread, he and his cronies are thugs. Bridge-gate, anyone?
Anyone who chooses not to vaccinate their kids for anything other than medical reasons should be held financially responsible for the medical costs of anyone their unvaccinated kids spread diseases to, responsible for their long-term health care costs if there are long-lasting consequences, and should also have to cover funeral costs.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 22:24:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 0:56:46 GMT
I have to agree that Christie is a "thug". Don't like him at all..... (and I have one child whose pedi recommended due to a reaction to not vax anymore -- luckily she has already had all the major ones as a young child but it was a booster that caused issues with her)
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 3, 2015 1:16:50 GMT
I saw a sign on facebook that said "Vaccinating is NOT a "personal choice"; it's a social obligation.
|
|
|
Post by grace2882 on Feb 3, 2015 1:21:49 GMT
I had measles when I was 14 and I thought that I was going to die. It is nothing to mess with and I am terrified that my loved ones will get it. I missed almost 8 weeks of school.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,648
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Feb 3, 2015 1:32:57 GMT
ITA!
We just had our first case in my county and we have big pockets of non-vaccinated kids. I hope it doesn't spread.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 3, 2015 2:44:53 GMT
I saw a sign on facebook that said "Vaccinating is NOT a "personal choice"; it's a social obligation. Thanks, everyone! I admit that this is a hot topic for me. I think that if you want to take the risk by not vaccinating your children, you need to be willing to accept the responsibility for EVERYONE you are actually putting at risk, because your choice doesn't impact ONLY your children, but it potentially impacts many many others. Again, I'm not talking about people like @luvspaper, whose child is even more at risk. It is children like hers, and those who are immunocompromised for a variety of reasons, that are in the most danger.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 22:24:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 2:57:07 GMT
That's Not Exactly What He Said, ThoughThere is just no way holding people accountable to the degree or the manner in which the OP advocates is logistically or financially possible. I don't think forcing vaccinations at the point of a gun is the way to go, as irresponsible as I think not vaccinating is.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 3, 2015 3:27:52 GMT
That's Not Exactly What He Said, ThoughThere is just no way holding people accountable to the degree or the manner in which the OP advocates is logistically or financially possible. I don't think forcing vaccinations at the point of a gun is the way to go, as irresponsible as I think not vaccinating is. Um, I am anti-gun, so that isn't at all what I said, but nice try. I think people should be held FINANCIALLY responsible - how you got gun out of that is nuts! If I hit you, or your kids, with my car I am held financially responsible, without guns I might add. If your unvaccinated-by-choice kids harm my kids, you damn well should be just as responsible. I wonder if homeowners insurance could be collected against... Christie certainly wasn't that concerned with the Nurse's right to make choices.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Feb 3, 2015 3:34:14 GMT
That's Not Exactly What He Said, ThoughThere is just no way holding people accountable to the degree or the manner in which the OP advocates is logistically or financially possible. I don't think forcing vaccinations at the point of a gun is the way to go, as irresponsible as I think not vaccinating is. Um, I am anti-gun, so that isn't at all what I said, but nice try. I think people should be held FINANCIALLY responsible - how you got gun out of that is nuts! If I hit you, or your kids, with my car I am held financially responsible, without guns I might add. If your unvaccinated-by-choice kids harm my kids, you damn well should be just as responsible. I wonder if homeowners insurance could be collected against... Christie certainly wasn't that concerned with the Nurse's right to make choices. I'm fairly certain she wasn't being literal when she said at the point of a gun. You can't hold someone FINANCIALLY responsible because there is no way to determine without a shadow of a doubt where someone was infected. We can assume, but the fact is, they could have been exposed on the bus or in a grocery store or wherever. Even if there is a person you would in close contact with, it isn't 100% certain that that is the person who infected you.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 3, 2015 3:50:05 GMT
Um, I am anti-gun, so that isn't at all what I said, but nice try. I think people should be held FINANCIALLY responsible - how you got gun out of that is nuts! If I hit you, or your kids, with my car I am held financially responsible, without guns I might add. If your unvaccinated-by-choice kids harm my kids, you damn well should be just as responsible. I wonder if homeowners insurance could be collected against... Christie certainly wasn't that concerned with the Nurse's right to make choices. I'm fairly certain she wasn't being literal when she said at the point of a gun. You can't hold someone FINANCIALLY responsible because there is no way to determine without a shadow of a doubt where someone was infected. We can assume, but the fact is, they could have been exposed on the bus or in a grocery store or wherever. Even if there is a person you would in close contact with, it isn't 100% certain that that is the person who infected you. Very poor choice of words then. Very poor choice of words. Offensively poor choice of words. In a civil suit, cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way). You don't need 100% proof in a court of law for a civil suit. If my child is in a classroom with your unvaccinated child that comes down with the measles or mumps and then my child comes down with that disease, I think it would be interesting to see what would happen with a civil suit, because it is most likely my child got it from yours. And it would probably meet the definition of "guilty" from a civil suit perspective. I personally believe that that all we need is that all we need is one civil court case where the not-vaccinated-by-choice parents lose and have to pay, that we would see a rush to get the majority of those unvaccinated kids vaccinated. The parents' choices are guided by selfishness, and the only way to change that is to make it disadventageous to choose to not vaccinate. If they fear losing $$, which is more tangible than their children's health, since the reality of measles is incomprehensible to them, that might be a great way to leverage them into doing the right thing for society.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Feb 3, 2015 4:00:17 GMT
Are we then able to sue someone who spreads the flu and someone died as a result of complications of the flu? While the standard of civil trials may be less, I don't think you can be held legally responsible for the spread of a disease.
It's a phrase that is commonly used. I'm sure she wasn't trying to offend.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 22:24:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 4:09:37 GMT
Yes, thank you, freecharlie, you've understood and addressed my intent precisely in all your posts.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 3, 2015 4:12:05 GMT
Are we then able to sue someone who spreads the flu and someone died as a result of complications of the flu? While the standard of civil trials may be less, I don't think you can be held legally responsible for the spread of a disease. It's a phrase that is commonly used. I'm sure she wasn't trying to offend. Well, it was offensive. And, in this case, improperly used, so all the more offensive. One does not have to sign paperwork in order to opt out of flu vaccinations. Flu vaccines aren't required to attend public school. So, no that isn't the same. Being up to date on Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Whooping Cough, vaccines are all requirements in order to attend school districts around the country. The only way your child can attend school without these vaccines is with signed paperwork by the parent if it is simply by choice, or by a physician if it is a medical necessity to bypass the vaccines. If a parent is willing to sign the paperwork to voluntarily opt out of vaccines for her or his kids, he or she should be held responsible for their decision's impacts on other families. Unfortunately, in our society, sometimes it is only by penalizing one's pocketbook, can you force them to care, because they care about their own well-being, including financial, above anyone else's. I hope that it does come to court soon. And I hope they are made to pay. And even if eventually it is overturned through appeals, one guilty conviction with $$ attached to it will be enough to motivate a whole herd to listen to science rather than Jenny McCarthy and get their kids vaccinated.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 3, 2015 4:13:17 GMT
Yes, thank you, freecharlie, you've understood and addressed my intent precisely in all your posts. It was still offensive to me, scrubologist, especially since I am anti-gun and wouldn't force anyone to do anything at gun point. Thanks for addressing that.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 22:24:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 4:24:49 GMT
Yes, thank you, freecharlie, you've understood and addressed my intent precisely in all your posts. It was still offensive to me, scrubologist, especially since I am anti-gun. Thanks for addressing that. The phrase has nothing to do with being pro- or anti- gun, so your offense is misplaced. It has to do with law, and the fact that eventually, if people continuously disobey the law, compliance can only be gained by force. I'm actually quite surprised that you've never run across that phraseology before.
|
|
LeaP
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,939
Location: Los Angeles, CA where 405 meets 101
Jun 26, 2014 23:17:22 GMT
|
Post by LeaP on Feb 3, 2015 4:26:11 GMT
Whenever I see Chris Christie's name in the headlines, I grab the popcorn. He has a knack for being a lightening rod for controversy. That said, the fiscal woes and underfunded pensions of New Jersey make me very sad.
Insofar as vaccinations, he should have kept quiet. Saying one thing and issuing a revision later in the day really didn't add to the discussion.
It will be interesting to see if somebody tries sue over the current outbreak. I also wonder if malpractice insurance companies were to withhold insurance to pediatricians who don't vaccinate if more doctors would "fire" patients.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 3, 2015 4:31:49 GMT
It was still offensive to me, scrubologist, especially since I am anti-gun. Thanks for addressing that. The phrase has nothing to do with being pro- or anti- gun, so your offense is misplaced. It has to do with law, and the fact that eventually, if people continuously disobey the law, compliance can only be gained by force. I'm actually quite surprised that you've never run across that phraseology before. I have, but only when it comes to using physical violence to force someone to do something. I have NEVER heard it used when encouraging using the courts and civil law to solve an issue. I guess that none of the dictionaries out there define it in terms of non-violent legal problem solving terms, rather than using firearms, either. So, not buying it. But feel free to keep trying to make it seem like I misunderstood the phrase, rather than you misusing it and being called on it.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Feb 3, 2015 4:32:11 GMT
That's Not Exactly What He Said, ThoughThere is just no way holding people accountable to the degree or the manner in which the OP advocates is logistically or financially possible. I don't think forcing vaccinations at the point of a gun is the way to go, as irresponsible as I think not vaccinating is. From that link.... You're reading more into what Christie said than I am, elaineFrom what I quoted, I would take it that Christie and his family believe strongly in vaccinating but as a politician it is his job to refrain from making absolute judgments on other parents in public. If he had come out and said, "Yes. Uncategorically, Yes. All parents should vaccinate their children." there would have been a hew and cry from those with children allergic to the vaccines or are somehow otherwise physically comprised. Would you have liked what he said if he spelled out what he considered valid exemptions? Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by roundtwo on Feb 3, 2015 4:35:22 GMT
I don't know Chris Christie but I did just read this article tonight courtesy of a repost by Wired. It was written in 2009 but it is still very relevant to the discussion today as it addresses the anti-vaccine topic and the war on science.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 3, 2015 4:38:55 GMT
That's Not Exactly What He Said, ThoughThere is just no way holding people accountable to the degree or the manner in which the OP advocates is logistically or financially possible. I don't think forcing vaccinations at the point of a gun is the way to go, as irresponsible as I think not vaccinating is. From that link.... You're reading more into what Christie said than I am, elaineFrom what I quoted, I would take it that Christie and his family believe strongly in vaccinating but as a politician it is his job to refrain from making absolute judgments on other parents in public. If he had come out and said, "Yes. Uncategorically, Yes. All parents should vaccinate their children." there would have been a hew and cry from those with children allergic to the vaccines or are somehow otherwise physically comprised. Would you have liked what he said if he spelled out what he considered valid exemptions? Just curious. Yes, I would have perfectly FINE if he just said, as many people do, with the exception of those that have valid medical reasons, I support vaccination regulations. He doesn't need to list them all out in a speech. Eta: most of us that support vaccines are easily able to put that phrase into our discussions with no problem and mean it. To say that there needs to be "a balance with parents' choice" is a huge cop out. Especially, since he felt so strongly about the Nurse's being to West Africa that he publicly supported her being quarantined. Why was he able to so easily make judgements against her, if he doesn't want to judge people as a politician?
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Feb 3, 2015 4:47:43 GMT
From that link.... You're reading more into what Christie said than I am, elaineFrom what I quoted, I would take it that Christie and his family believe strongly in vaccinating but as a politician it is his job to refrain from making absolute judgments on other parents in public. If he had come out and said, "Yes. Uncategorically, Yes. All parents should vaccinate their children." there would have been a hew and cry from those with children allergic to the vaccines or are somehow otherwise physically comprised. Would you have liked what he said if he spelled out what he considered valid exemptions? Just curious. Yes, I would have perfectly FINE if he just said, as many people do, with the exception of those that have valid medical reasons, I support vaccination regulations. He doesn't need to list them all out in a speech. Eta: most of us that support vaccines are easily able to put that phrase into our discussions with no problem and mean it. To say that there needs to be "a balance with parents' choice" is a huge cop out. Especially, since he felt so strongly about the Nurse's being to West Africa that he publicly supported her being quarantined. Why was he able to so easily make judgements against her, if he doesn't want to judge people as a politician? perhaps he learned from that over reaction and has decided to temper his reaponse.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Feb 3, 2015 4:47:47 GMT
The phrase has nothing to do with being pro- or anti- gun, so your offense is misplaced. It has to do with law, and the fact that eventually, if people continuously disobey the law, compliance can only be gained by force. I'm actually quite surprised that you've never run across that phraseology before. I have, but only when it comes to using physical violence to force someone to do something. I have NEVER heard it used when encouraging using the courts and civil law to solve an issue. I guess that none of the dictionaries out there define it in terms of non-violent legal problem solving terms, rather than using firearms, either. So, not buying it. But feel free to keep trying to make it seem like I misunderstood the phrase, rather than you misusing it and being called on it. It's simply a literal reference to innumerable instances throughout history of government using force to make the population comply. This vaccination issue is certainly making you hot.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 3, 2015 4:57:40 GMT
I have, but only when it comes to using physical violence to force someone to do something. I have NEVER heard it used when encouraging using the courts and civil law to solve an issue. I guess that none of the dictionaries out there define it in terms of non-violent legal problem solving terms, rather than using firearms, either. So, not buying it. But feel free to keep trying to make it seem like I misunderstood the phrase, rather than you misusing it and being called on it. It's simply a literal reference to innumerable instances throughout history of government using force to make the population comply. This vaccination issue is certainly making you hot. Yes, it certainly is an issue making me hot. It is one of my hot topics! I own that. 100% own that is an issue I am passionate about. And, to repeat, I have never heard "at gunpoint" used to refer to trying to solve an issue with legal courses of action, rather than violence. Never. And, so far, no one has come up with a well documented use of it in this way either. Because, well, it means the opposite of following legal means, but we wouldn't want the actual meaning of a phrase get in the way. It paints a much more frightening picture of a pro-vaccine person showing up at your door with a gun in one hand and a syringe in the other. And that is part of the problem I have with anti-vaccine propoganda.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 3, 2015 5:01:21 GMT
Yes, I would have perfectly FINE if he just said, as many people do, with the exception of those that have valid medical reasons, I support vaccination regulations. He doesn't need to list them all out in a speech. Eta: most of us that support vaccines are easily able to put that phrase into our discussions with no problem and mean it. To say that there needs to be "a balance with parents' choice" is a huge cop out. Especially, since he felt so strongly about the Nurse's being to West Africa that he publicly supported her being quarantined. Why was he able to so easily make judgements against her, if he doesn't want to judge people as a politician? perhaps he learned from that over reaction and has decided to temper his reaponse. It could very well be. And if he stated that is the reason for his about-face, I wouldn't call him a hypocrite. But he hasn't said that, and so I think he is. I am so different from Chris Christie, I can't begin to read his mind; so I would need him to spell it out for me.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 22:24:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 5:11:54 GMT
The phrase has nothing to do with being pro- or anti- gun, so your offense is misplaced. It has to do with law, and the fact that eventually, if people continuously disobey the law, compliance can only be gained by force. I'm actually quite surprised that you've never run across that phraseology before. So, not buying it. But feel free to keep trying to make it seem like I misunderstood the phrase, rather than you misusing it and being called on it. It's a very common idiom.Under the gunShe didn't misuse the term and there are plenty of popular sayings using gun terminology that also aren't literally referring to violence. At gunpoint. Lock, stock and barrel. Faster than a speeding bullet. Pull the trigger. Drop the hammer. Lock and load. Get the lead out. Hot as a pistol. Going off half-cocked. Rapid fire. Bullet proof. Loose cannon. With guns blazing. Shoot yourself in the foot. Shot down. Easier than shooting fish in a barrel. Shoot from the hip. A shot in the dark. No one held a gun to your head. Worth a shot. Bringing out the big guns. Take aim. Overshot the mark. Aim higher. (as in setting goals) Can't hit the broad side of a barn. Straight shooter. Gunning for someone. Point blank. He's a little trigger happy. Gun shy. Bulls eye! I've got you in my sights. Hair trigger. Shooting blanks. Gave it to him with both barrels. The whole nine yards. Smoking gun. I could go on, there's a lot of them. You did misunderstand and take offense to just one of many, very common, gun phrases that have nothing at all to do with actual violence.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Feb 3, 2015 5:13:17 GMT
It's been around longer than I have.
And the meaning is quite literal. Governments have forced people at gunpoint to do what they wanted or else.
You refuse to change your religion when we tell you to? Off with your head. You refuse to obey the law? The firing squad will deal with you shortly.
Americans refuse to vaccinate their children. What exactly is the government to do to make them comply? Give families time outs? Fine them? As if that would stop the followers of Jenny McCarthy Wahlburg.
The only (mostly) absolute way to gain compliance is with force.
If you advocate for absolute compliance, you're going to have to face that reality.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 3, 2015 5:23:12 GMT
I don't know Chris Christie but I did just read this article tonight courtesy of a repost by Wired. It was written in 2009 but it is still very relevant to the discussion today as it addresses the anti-vaccine topic and the war on science. Thank you! I have read Offit's book. It is excellent and is a good read for anyone interested in the false vaccine and autism connection. Thank you for linking the article about the initial reaction to his book. I think he would receive more support today, but there would still be those who disagree. I've looked all over the Internet for the past 30 minutes without finding a reference to using "at gunpoint" to describe trying to persuade someone following non-violent legal courses of action. And am concluding that I am not the one confused in my understanding of the idiom. And yes, this IS a hot topic for me. (Vaccinations, and also violent idioms being used to describe my recommended course of action to get parents to vaccinate their kids who don't have valid medical reasons for not getting them) With that, I am saying good night. Sweet dreams, everyone!
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 3, 2015 5:26:42 GMT
It's been around longer than I have. And the meaning is quite literal. Governments have forced people at gunpoint to do what they wanted or else. You refuse to change your religion when we tell you to? Off with your head. You refuse to obey the law? The firing squad will deal with you shortly. Americans refuse to vaccinate their children. What exactly is the government to do to make them comply? Give families time outs? Fine them? As if that would stop the followers of Jenny McCarthy Wahlburg. The only (mostly) absolute way to gain compliance is with force. If you advocate for absolute compliance, you're going to have to face that reality. Make them financially responsible for the illness they spread. I thought that I was clear about it. Just as they are financially responsible for car accidents they cause. Without guns ever being used. Go figure. Not every social problem has to be solved with violence and guns.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 22:24:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 5:27:36 GMT
I've looked all over the Internet for the past 30 minutes without finding a reference to using "at gunpoint" to describe trying to persuade someone following non-violent legal courses of action. And am concluding that I am not the one confused in my understanding of the idiom. It has nothing to do with legal action. It's an idiom. An idiom's figurative meaning is separate from the literal meaning.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 3, 2015 5:29:07 GMT
So, not buying it. But feel free to keep trying to make it seem like I misunderstood the phrase, rather than you misusing it and being called on it. It's a very common idiom.Under the gunShe didn't misuse the term and there are plenty of popular sayings using gun terminology that also aren't literally referring to violence. At gunpoint. Lock, stock and barrel. Faster than a speeding bullet. Pull the trigger. Drop the hammer. Lock and load. Get the lead out. Hot as a pistol. Going off half-cocked. Rapid fire. Bullet proof. Loose cannon. With guns blazing. Shoot yourself in the foot. Shot down. Easier than shooting fish in a barrel. Shoot from the hip. A shot in the dark. No one held a gun to your head. Worth a shot. Bringing out the big guns. Take aim. Overshot the mark. Aim higher. (as in setting goals) Can't hit the broad side of a barn. Straight shooter. Gunning for someone. Point blank. He's a little trigger happy. Gun shy. Bulls eye! I've got you in my sights. Hair trigger. Shooting blanks. Gave it to him with both barrels. The whole nine yards. Smoking gun. I could go on, there's a lot of them. You did misunderstand and take offense to just one of many, very common, gun phrases that have nothing at all to do with actual violence. Gia, but "at gunpoint" always refers to being coerced to do something at the threat of physical violence. Always. Or it is being used incorrectly. I really don't care about the other list you posted. Those terms weren't used to describe me. Now, g'nite! Sweet dreams again!
|
|