• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where do my rights end and yours begin?

Sure. But you would punish the unvaccinated child before they are able to do any harm, based on a decision they weren't party to?

this is not about punishing anyone, it is about the well being, safety and health of society in general

if one chooses to be a part of society, then one must adhere to certain rules which protect the majority of the tribe

otherwise...be gone
 
They are not 100 percent effective

Well maybe you can keep yours in a bubble if you’re that fearful they might contact one of the undesirables. Short of that, it’s likely already happened.
 
Well maybe you can keep yours in a bubble if you’re that fearful they might contact one of the undesirables. Short of that, it’s likely already happened.

Then don’t use seatbelts either. Your kids will probably be fine. Probably
 
this is not about punishing anyone, it is about the well being, safety and health of society in general

if one chooses to be a part of society, then one must adhere to certain rules which protect the majority of the tribe

otherwise...be gone

And here we see the typical justification of why the government should have control over you and your kids.
 
Then don’t use seatbelts either. Your kids will probably be fine. Probably

except

if they aren't, then must insurance foot the bill because that is going to cost us all a huge amount extra...and herein lies the problem with people who want to use society for their own well being without giving a damn about the rest
 
And yet you have no argument against affording the society rights, all you have is "That means something that I call totalitarianism, YUK!". What you fail to comprehend, most likely because your education is shoddy, is that everything in life is a balancing act, when one becomes as fundamentalist as you are bad results always follow, because you are out of sync with the Universe.

I see no need to repeat myself, or the facts. Your argument is specious and everyone that reads it that understands the Constitution and basic logic, sees that I've already taken care of showing you the failings of your position. The fact that you obviously still can't or just refuse to admit that you see it, and are doubling down on the inaccurate and ignorant position of your first post, says more than enough to anyone reading these posts, and precludes me from having to rewrite what's already been done. Now, carry on...
 
this is not about punishing anyone, it is about the well being, safety and health of society in general

if one chooses to be a part of society, then one must adhere to certain rules which protect the majority of the tribe

otherwise...be gone

Sounds awesome, but I'd be way more interested in one that put everyone who consistently drove 5 miles over the limit in isolation camps.

Let them drive around all crazy in there, so society is safe!
 
Then don’t use seatbelts either. Your kids will probably be fine. Probably

My kids would wear seatbelts and would have their shots. They are the only kids, though, that I have the legit right to make those decisions for.
 
My kids would wear seatbelts and would have their shots. They are the only kids, though, that I have the legit right to make those decisions for.

Not in the US
 
Then don’t use seatbelts either. Your kids will probably be fine. Probably

Good point!

People who don't use seatbelts should be executed by the state.

It's a safety thing!
 
no

there is no justification here at all for that except in your mind

Not only is it there and obvious, you doubled down on it with this.

except

if they aren't, then must insurance foot the bill because that is going to cost us all a huge amount extra...and herein lies the problem with people who want to use society for their own well being without giving a damn about the rest
 
sure, I don't see how it addressed any of my points though

Help me understand why it's justified to isolate unvaccinated children from society, to protect society but it's not ok to isolate people who drive outside the law.

I doubt very much we have any solid grasp on how many lives are lost or gained due to lack of vaccination. Maybe you can enlighten me there.

I expect we can get fairly accurate numbers on how many people died in auto accidents that involved speeding.

So who's trying to protect society, and who's nursing pet peeves?
 
Last edited:
If you choose to vaccinate your kids then you have nothing to fear from unvaccinated kids. AND interestingly.. its obvious that you have nothing to really fear from unvaccinated kids because kids that cannot be vaccinated because of obvious health reasons. (immunodeficiency disease, etc) are allowed waivers into public school. Which pretty much refutes the "but they put my kids at risk". If lack of vaccination put kids at risk.. then logically NO unvaccinated kids should be allowed in public school. But they are...

So the reality is that the only reason is to punish parents for not choosing to do what you want them to do.

You do realize that there are some children who because of their illnesses can not be vaccinated. These children have immune deficiencies. To be around children who are not vaccinated could cause them to die.
 
Help me understand why it's justified to isolate unvaccinated children from society, to protect society but it's not ok to isolate people who drive outside the law.

I doubt very much we have any solid grasp on how many lives are lost or gained due to lack of vaccination. Maybe you can enlighten me there.

I expect we can get fairly accurate numbers on how many people died in auto accidents that involved speeding.

So who trying to protect society, and who's nursing pet peeves?

I have explained all of that, you just don't like my answers.
 
You're looking at this all wrong. Each individual has "certain inalienable rights." Inalienable means that neither the government can take them away from you, nor can you give them away. You posses these rights at birth, and they stay with you your entire life. The nation doesn't afford rights.

The law (the US Constitution) precludes the government's ability to limit or infringe upon rights that the people (minority or not) posses naturally by simply existing. You have the right to freedom of speech. No one gives you that right. The government damned sure doesn't give you that right. The Constitution and other laws prevent the government from limiting that right. The Constitution doesn't even give you that right, it simply recognizes that your right exists and states that the government shall not have the power to change that.

You need to change your perspective here, and look at rights differently. That's why I said you were defining totalitarianism - you still are.

The first of those rights is "life". CHildren who are not vaccinated can take that right, life, away from some children who have immunity deficiencies.
 
On most levels, I can agree with that. Well done.

We are not limiting their right to choose not to vaccinate. Like any choice we make it has consequences. So you make the choice not to vaccinate and I agree you have that right, but, the government has the right to safeguard other children from your choice. That does not limit your choice.
 
Back
Top Bottom