Florida plans to become first state to eliminate all childhood vaccine mandates

[Tbird19482]

Autism is mostly caused by Tylenol?

Could Be.

Well I know the MMR shot had it in it and after they took it out the number of kids getting AUTISM went down, and as the atricle says they have now put it in other shots and the numbers are going up.
They say they have done studies on it but the ones I have read are all over the place on this one.
They need to do some really deep research on it and find out for sure.
My son got his MMR shot before they took it out, he was normal , outside playing with the kids in the pool laughing and having a good time , took him to DRs got the shot and with-in several hours he had a temp of over 102 , had to give him cold baths to get it down, don't remember if we gave him anything like aspirin .
But with-in a day or two we could see him withdrawing back into himself. not a pretty thing for a parent to watch.
That is when we took him to Children Hosp. and had a team of doctors look at him back then it was like 1 in every 27,000 kids got it , they had no idea what was going on till an intern said something , he had just been reading about Autism

Autism is mostly caused by Tylenol?

Could Be.

I still wonder if it isn't the mercury.
“The sharp drop in the ID fraction between birth year 2000 and 2002 coincided with the removal of thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative and neurotoxin linked to autism severity, from most childhood vaccines. Conversely, the renewed increase in the ID fraction after 2006 coincided with the reintroduction of thimerosal via flu shots promoted for infants and pregnant women.
Like it says they took it out of the MMR shot and the numbers went down now they put it in other shots and it is going up again.
They have to do a lot more really deep research into this.

 

[Scott]

What I'd like to stress is that no one, to my knowledge, has ever claimed that vaccines are the -only- cause of autism.

You have no basis for eliminating vaccines as a cause of autism, correct?

Definitely . However, I'd like to add that I have -also- seen a lot of evidence that strongly suggests that vaccines are a cause of autism as well.

 

[Damocles]

Where are you imagining a "right not to be sick."

What constitution are YOU reading?

Maybe he thinks it is in the 9th Amendment...

 

[Damocles]

Are you saying that sick people have the right to be around me and make me sick?

I think he's saying you are claiming something to be a "right" that is not one of the enumerated rights listed in the constitution.

I would say that the law would be constitutional in that the government has an interest in a healthy citizenry, therefore such laws would not be unconstitutional. They are not, however, rights, those would exist without the laws.

 

[Scott]

Nor abortion for you

I’m pro abortion, faggot.

Which kinds? ... the mandatory kind? ... the late-term kind? ... the post-birth kind? ... the "human with a heartbeat" kind?

Post birth up until age 18.
I’m pro death.

I think at this point you're just trolling IBD.

... or you could hazard an answer.

Why do you think contract killings are OK?

[ for purposes of discussion, a "contract killing" is defined as the killing of living human A by living human B who was paid by living human C for his "unaliving" services. Furthermore, living human A does not get a say in the matter, the killing fee is negotiated between humans B and C, and the entire matter is human C's choice. ]

I once had a young female friend who also liked to take control of language terms when it came to abortion. It ended in us being unable to discuss the subject anymore because she refused to accept dictionary definitions of the term. Will you accept either of the following terms for abortion which are used by the American Heritage Dictionary, 5th edition?

**

• noun Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus.
• noun Any of various procedures that result in the termination of a pregnancy.

**

Source:

abortion — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

I'll consider it when we are actually discussing "abortion."

Wait a second- we -were- discussing abortions. What do you think we're discussing?

@IBDaMann is confused.

I think so, yes. To be fair, though, I see that he never mentioned abortion in the nested quotes above. The first person to directly mention abortion was Diesel, way back in post #663, which was responded to by anonymoose saying that he was pro abortion in post #716. It was at this point that IBD responded to anon in post #718 asking him what kinds of abortion he was pro for. Anonymoose's response seemed like he was just trolling IBD, so I said that. It looks like IBD decided to switch discussion topics in his response to me, going from abortions to contract killings. Here's Wikipedia's definition of a contract killing:
**
Contract killing (also known as murder-for-hire) is a form of murder or assassination in which one party hires another party to kill a targeted person or people. It involves an illegal agreement which includes some form of compensation, monetary or otherwise.
**

Source:

Contract killing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now don't get me wrong, I can definitely see how some abortions could be labelled that way by some people. I'm just not one of those people.

 

[Scott]

Don't you see, though? The left here calls those on the right MAG***, the right calls those on the left fag***. There is a sad symetry in the epithets. I'll tell you what I think is perhaps the largest part of the problem- I'm pretty sure that most people here have never met. I also think that it's quite frequent that people here get divided into left and right camps and then the stereotypes set in and the insults fly. The way out, as far as I'm concerned, is to just not play the game. When someone starts insulting me, I try to draw their attention to that and frequently exclude anything else they say and if all else fails, I just don't respond to posts with insults from said person. I think that it's working to some extent.

Welcome to humanity. Warts and all.

Agreed, humanity can be pretty messy sometimes. But I do think that by -trying- to reign in our darker impulses, we can be rewarded by getting treated better in return.

 

[Scott]

The article I linked to cites 9 battles. Supremacy isn't one of them. Again, the article I linked to if you're interested in taking a look:

9 Battles The LGBTQ Community In The US Is Still Fighting

Here are some of the battles for LGBTQ equality that are still being fought across the country.

www.globalcitizen.org

Au contraire, mon frère, the article states clearly in the very first sentence that the topic is gay supremacy, and what follows are simply battles in attaining that goal.

I sincerely doubt it, but let's continue in your post...

gay rights = gay supremacy

This seems rather akin to you equating abortion with contract killings. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are others who feel the same way you do. I'm just not someone of that persuasion.

 

[Scott]

Now, since you are clearly on the -other- side of the left right divide, I ask that you try to do the same- that is, try avoid the tired routine of insulting those on the other side of the left/right ideological divide.

I avoid insulting everybody ... up until I am insulted, then the gloves come off immediately. Nonetheless, I prefer rational, adult discussion.

I think everyone in this forum would agree that they prefer rational, adult discussion. The problem is in your first sentence- that is, when insults start to fly, you join right in. Therein lies the problem. I don't know why I can't stand crude insults, and not just receiving them from others, but in -giving- them to others. You may have noticed that I sometimes even censor insults when I quote or paraphrase what others say. I just sincerely doubt that -anyone- here deserves them and what I'm trying to do is mitigate the damage. A civilized conversation is something that has to be cultivated. Walls of distrust have to be overcome and that can take time. Flame wars can do a -lot- of damage to the garden of civilized discussion, which is why I've definitely put in some effort to try to avoid those fires.

 

[Scott]

Wait a second- we -were- discussing abortions. What do you think we're discussing?

Nope. We were quite clearly discussing contract killings.

I did a deep dive into how the conversation went from abortions, starting with Diesel way back in post #663, to you bringing up contract killings in post #751 in a response I made to A Proud Lefty in Post #825. Put simply, I took your using the term "contract killings" as a rather exotic way of describing abortions. So, as far as I was concerned, we were talking about abortions.

 

[Scott]

Alright, would you agree with the following:
**

• Dictionaries give meanings of words.

**
Source:

What A Dictionary Does – and Does Not – Do

A dictionary is not a rule book for the language.

wordynerdbird.com

No. Dictionaries explain usage.

They do both.

This is why all dictionaries have different explanations.

They don't.

If dictionaries carried a word's definition, then all dictionaries would have to have the exact same entry for the same word.

You've lowered the bar now. Dictionaries certainly aren't -identical-, and we could certainly agree that some dictionaries have definitions for words that others don't. But by and large, I'd say that different dictionaries are generally pretty similar to each other. As far as I'm concerned, this a very good thing. The problem with coming up with one's own definition of words is that it can soon become impossible to hold a decent conversation with someone on a given subject because there isn't even agreement on what certain words mean.

 

[IBDaMann]

Contract killing...one party hires another party to kill a targeted [living human]

(edits are mine). So, I take it you don't disagree with my definition of "contract killing". Why do you think one is somehow OK?

My position is that contract killings are abhorrent; one would have to be shitty to arrange to have a living human killed, even moreso for a woman to have her own living children killed for her own convenience.

But you say it's OK. Would you share your reasoning?

 

[IBDaMann]

I did a deep dive into how the conversation went from abortions,

I asked you why you support contract killings. You seem to be evading my question.

 

[IBDaMann]

This seems rather akin to you equating abortion with contract killings.

I did not equate the two. I defined contract killings and asked you why you support them. You were the one who decided/realized that abortion met the definition of contract killings.

Is the reason you support contract killiings that you want mothers to be able to put hits out on their living children?

 

[IBDaMann]

You are giving some of the worst, most incorrect, medical advice.

You don't get to make that assertion.

 

[IBDaMann]

I think everyone in this forum would agree that they prefer rational, adult discussion

Nope. There is a distinct group of cowardly leftist denizens who are only here to sling poo.

. The problem is in your first sentence- that is, when insults start to fly, you join right in.

The sad truth is that some posters only understand bullying and cowardice. As much as you might prefer rational conversation, that is simply not an option with them.

Therein lies the problem.

 

[Walt]

You don't get to make that assertion.

Actually, I do. You can make that assertion against me. We can both say the other is wrong, because we have a Constitutional right to do so...

And because I have the facts to backup my claims, and you do not.

 

[IBDaMann]

They don't.

Show me two that are identical.

Dictionaries certainly aren't -identical-,

... and that is all you need to know.

and we could certainly agree that some dictionaries have definitions for words that others don't.

Well, we might agree that some dictionaries explain the usage of some words that others don't.

I'd say that different dictionaries are generally pretty similar

A definition is a definition, and there cannot be two for the same thing. You are talking about a description and not a definition.

The problem with coming up with one's own definition of words is that it can soon become impossible to hold a decent conversation with someone on a given subject

Exactly! Yet this is what you claim dictionaries somehow get to do, and you absurdly assert that words should somehow be discussed under multiple definitions, rendering impossible a decent conversation.

On the other hand, I presented you with a very clear definition of "contract killing" for discussion purposes. That's how it's supposed to work.

because there isn't even agreement on what certain words mean.

 

[IBDaMann]

Actually, I do. You can make that assertion against me. We can both say the other is wrong, because we have a Constitutional right to do so...

And because I have the facts to backup my claims, and you do not.

I knew you would pull a contextual fallacy. I was referring to rational discourse, not the law. You don't get to declare efficacy of medical advice.

 

[Walt]

I knew you would pull a contextual fallacy. I was referring to rational discourse, not the law. You don't get to declare efficacy of medical advice.

Covid viruses do not "melt" at body temperature. That is just a fact.

 

[Into the Night]

Women do not pay.

Yes they do.

Fetuses under 10 weeks are not conscious and sentient. They don't feel.

Irrelevant.