Bobbo is quite correct in his analogy. And I don’t agree with him solely for his good looks.

Where I live, everyone has a septic system and everyone uses well water. If your septic fails or you decide you shouldn’t have to use it, your raw sewage can enter the aquifer that the rest of us drink from. And yes, there have been some knuckle dragging, back to nature, gun nut, Liebertarian, red neck types that insist they don’t have to meet the County’s Septic Standards. And that is shitting in MY drinking water.

*

The right of the individual can never outweigh the right of the society to exist. The best example is that of Typhoid Mary; a cook that was a carrier of typhoid even though she never displayed any symptoms a century ago. Even though she was aware she carried the disease and was infecting others, she refused to stop working in food preparation. Several people are known to have died as a result and she ended up being held in an asylum, twice. The second time until she died.

So, either you agree that Typhoid Mary had a right to ignore the safety of everyone else around her OR society had the right to hold her against her will for the good of all.

Influenza is most contagious during the first few days of infection, even though the person might not have any symptoms yet. After the body’s immune system starts taking control, the contagious aspect is reduced significantly.

If the question is would reduced populations reduce the incidence of starvation, the fact that enough food is grown to feed everyone is not dispositive. You see, there is more than one variable. I know, always more difficult to think about multi-variable events. So whatever tangential addition you think you are making serves only to misdirect.

Turn away from the dark side.

Bird Flu is still around. The largest reason it has not become more prevelant is the way it effects the body. Its infection rate is very low for an influenza.

The infection takes root deep in the lungs. That means the virus must be breathed deeply in. So far all those who have come down with the disease were poultry workers. It was their constant proximity that allowed them to catch the disease. Yet those same effected workers do not infect others.

Scientists are worried that it might mutate to something that does not need to be so deeply inhaled. Then it would become much more communicable.

Good point.

Tangent; latin – touching (on). Global warming > not enough food – (tangent) – not enough food > people say that already > there is enough food. Simple really.

“#49–SL==well, the biggest reason to…”.

I guess I didn’t kill your facsinating intillectual stoush (I guess you do not understand what kill means). The only way I could minimize it is WITH A LOT OF UNNECESSARY CAPITALIZATION == and ===== punctuation.

Toboo nuki.

Let’s face it, this is just another money making scheme for the pharms. Forcing those who can’t afford private schools, or home schooling, to get their kids medicated. One day soon, it will be mandatory anti-cholesterol meds for the kids. Because the schools’ lunch programs are a dietary mess!

I wonder. Do they force the teachers to get these shots too? I’ll bet not. Not with the kind of union they’ve got. So how are they stopping anything, by immunizing just the kids?

#49–SL==well, the biggest reason to respond is so I can show you where you are WRONG. While we can both save time by you assuming your disagreements with me are all wrong, you actually have the chance of learning something by responding. No one has learned everything there is to know, hopefully we honor learning and look forward to it without spite?

You still haven’t answered the question. WHAT WOULD YOU DO? The alternatives I offered are not identical, they have different ramifications on the morality scale. Of course I see similarities. AND I see dissimilarities. I weigh and contrast them. I rank order and process them thru different value systems. Self Actualization, public responsibility, LIEBERTARIANISM, profligate reproductive irresponsibility, foreseeable harm, relative harm etc.

In YOUR hypothetical, my main value is in respecting a conscious formed living consciousness–a born human being–over the potentialities of the unborn. How humane/responsible is it to bring a child into this world that you can’t feed? How humane is it to bring a child into this world and feed it by taking food away from another human being? “IF” I am treating people like cattle, how would you characterize your limited choices? Hmmmm?

but its funny you critize me for not seeing similarities when that is the very flaw you exhibit. You agree that there should be no freedom to shit in the public water supply but FAIL to see that shitting enfluenza virii into the air supply is not EXACTLY the same thing. What a dismal lack of insight.

So—what would you do SL?

*shrug* i’ll stick with my silver solution, tyvm.

-s

You should very easily be able to see a similarity between supporting forced sterilization during a severe, long-term food shortage, and supporting forced vaccination during a global pandemic. Both come with the idea that you have some authority to assume absolute control over the very body of another person because you’ve deemed that the right of a person to control their own body isn’t important when the rights of society (whatever that means) is concerned. And as I also said, this is completely different than prohibiting people from taking a shit in the drinking water.

So as I suggested, you appear to have the belief that, should you deem it necessary, people are nothing more than cattle to be lined up to have whatever done to them that you think is for their own good.

Capisco, your English (and Americanized Italian) is perfectly comprehensible.

I do understand the concept of a hypothetical scenario (and even have a dictionary) and if you can respond to the hypothetical I posed then I assume you understand that and your rhetorical flourishes are for your own enjoyment.

I am contributing to the wider discussion as are you, “Did You Know Enforced Swine Flu Shot This Fall Is Really Multiple Shots?” with special attention to the compulsory element and have .

It would however seem that you have mostly averted to your two way hypothetical culdesac, which has it’s own value I understand (for one thing it gave me the opportunity to contribute the argument about food for which I am grateful).

“There will ALWAYS be food distribution problems”, I suspect vaccine distribution problems to be much less of a problem.

Re: WHO, you do not know, therefor I am wrong? Interesting logic.
The Director-General is responsible for the whole WHO body (that is why it is called an organization and why they are called the Director-General). It does not matter what individuals or sections wish to advocate the organization as a whole mandates how both programs will be ‘managed’.

“…you don’t know the function of a hypothetical either. It is not a launching stage for whatever tangents you wish to introduce.”

If this blog were not a launching stage for hypothetical two way conversations or tangential arguments it would have much less traffic. The hypothetical situation was a tangent from the post and my comment was a tangent from the hypothetical. So what? The points I made were not purely for your consumption or to counter your arguments.

Wakarimashita?

I think the conspiracy theorists have it backwards — it’s the “we need to kill off a lot of people” crowd encouraging the anti-vaccine groups…

Hypotheticals are of great value to set parameters to define terms to differentiate about what the decision points in a dialectic really are. Too many people are too fuzzy in their own thinking, they don’t even actually understand why they think what they think, or rather, what they think they think because they aren’t thinking at all, just parrotry.

So I like hypotheticals and try not to avoid them by claiming they don’t take in enough facts, or are otherwise not up to some other point they aren’t even trying to address.

Capiche?

To your point–there was no wider discussion about food. The only discussion was within the hypothetical frames for unknown reasons as yet, by Sea Lawyer. Evidently, you don’t know the function of a hypothetical either. It is not a launching stage for whatever tangents you wish to introduce. Such diversions destroy the beauty and utility of the learning moment==one learns nothing from hop scotching from issue to issue.

Now, I don’t know, and assume you don’t know either, that the same people at Who do not advocate/manage the vaccination program as the food program. So, very simply you are wrong. THAT doesn’t “add” anything to a discussion, relevant or otherwise.

Are there too many people? ((One of Scott’s favorite harangues.)) Thats all definitional and totally dependent on how you define the terms==hypotheticals of a sort again. Course, I think there is some sort of “dodge” going on with people starving to death but the causation is only food distribution issues and not overpopulation. There will ALWAYS be food distribution problems so that is a variable that in good faith drops out of consideration.

I so agree with you fanciful hypothetical. Those knowingly scamming people and causing death would certainly be eligible for the death penalty or other suitable punishment for such knowing crimes===all within your hypothetical.

I was not countering the hypothetical I was contributing to the wider discussion. 36 million people die from starvation while being ‘helped’ by the same people (WHO etc.) that want to force vaccinate the population of the world for a virus that has killed few with a vaccine produced partly by Baxter who a couple of months ago sent vaccines contaminated with live bird flu (which is a great way to get a mutated strain started) all over Europe and people suggest only stupid conspiracy theorists with there wacko theories object to forced vaccination because they are ignorant of science.

I quoted your post for clarity only. The points I made are relevant for the growing zombie population that assert there are too many people.

Parallel scenario, if climate change is a scam and there was enough food for everyone would you agree to forced euthanasia of advocates of forced euthanasia and catastrophic climate change.

If the moon was made of cheese and you were the Führer of the New World Order would you…

http://tinyurl.com/kkba2a