Why Didn’t Bill Gates Vaccinate His Own Children?

[Derron]

Because you said so.

Yes. That my rule. The only threads that should be about you are the ones where you're getting your ass handed to you.

And that would be every thread he posts in on a daily basis.

[Kierland]

More supposition from the playground crowd.

[Goober McTuber]

Because you said so.

Yes. That my rule. The only threads that should be about you are the ones where you're getting your ass handed to you.

And yet you can’t explain why that is so. It just is. Good fucking grief.

Because I said so. Duh.

[BSmack]

How on Earth does anybody even know if Bill Gates had his kids vaccinated or not? I'm pretty sure HIPAA still exists. So somebody has a quote of Bill Gates saying that he doesn't vaccinate his kids, feel free to go ahead and share it.

[Carson]

Bsmack with an excellent point.

[Rooster]

An eye opening read that looks Bill Gates and other elites not vaccinating their children the likely reason why.

Why Didn’t Bill Gates Vaccinate His Own Children?

It doesn't say in the article why he didn't vaccinate his own children. Maybe you have an answer?

All parents are free in California to vaccinate their kids, or not, whichever they prefer (Gates doesn't live in CA, BTW), and I'm fine with that.
Just don't send your kids to a public school unvaccinated. That's what the law is about.

If some rich asshole wants to be stupid and keep his kids from being vaccinated, and keep them home, that's OK with me.

Whoa. Now there’s a double standard. Whatever happened to “My body, my choice?” The government cannot get involved in the business of a woman murdering a baby, but absolutely can dictate whether or not that baby gets vaccinated? That makes no sense at all.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Fun Fact:

Open up your local directory for doctors specialising in "Women's Medical Services" (abortions)...

Blattberg
Weinstein
Roth
Moscowitz
Bloomstein
Goldberg
Silver

...but I'm sure it's...

[Goober McTuber]

The government cannot get involved in the business of a woman murdering a baby

You mean aborting a fetus? Get your facts straight, you inflammatory bitch.

[Rooster]

That’s how you are rationalizing the death of children? By ignoring that a fetus is a baby? Can you do that with your whiskeys? “It’s not hard alcohol— it’s just whiskey! That’s why I’m not an alcoholic. I define it differently.”

[Mikey]

An eye opening read that looks Bill Gates and other elites not vaccinating their children the likely reason why.

Why Didn’t Bill Gates Vaccinate His Own Children?

It doesn't say in the article why he didn't vaccinate his own children. Maybe you have an answer?

All parents are free in California to vaccinate their kids, or not, whichever they prefer (Gates doesn't live in CA, BTW), and I'm fine with that.
Just don't send your kids to a public school unvaccinated. That's what the law is about.

If some rich asshole wants to be stupid and keep his kids from being vaccinated, and keep them home, that's OK with me.

Whoa. Now there’s a double standard. Whatever happened to “My body, my choice?” The government cannot get involved in the business of a woman murdering a baby, but absolutely can dictate whether or not that baby gets vaccinated? That makes no sense at all.

Apples and oranges. In more ways than one.

You might want to re-read my post. I didn’t ever say that the government should require every parent to vaccinate their kids. Just don’t send them to public schools where they can infect other children and the rest of the population.

Your “my body my choice” analogy is also BS. It’s the child’s “body” do you propose that they should make the “choice?”

From your post it seems that you probably come down on the side of banning abortion but also against any requirements for vaccination. By your definition isn’t that also a “double standard?”

Typical of many “conservatives” you seem only to be concerned about the welfare of other peoples’ children when they’re still in the womb. Once they’re born...fuck ‘em. Especially if they’re poor.

[smackaholic]

Is school the only place diseases can be spread?

Mikey, are you basically saying that they should be free to not vaccinate just so long as they are quarantined at home?

I am generally for leaving people alone, but the problem here is that if you don't vaccinate your kid, he might infect my kid. I am not OK with that.

It would be nice if we could simply put these fukkers on an island somewhere, but we can't. So maybe forced immunization is the answer.

As for abortion, it should remain legal until viability, but women should receive counseling and have all options explained, including adoption. The pro abortion diehards don't want to hear this. They are every bit as fukked as the hard-core anti-abortion folks are. They don't want to admit the fact that many women who do abort, are tormented by their choice years later.

Sadly, it is the hard-core assholes on each end of the spectrum that keep this issue from being settled in any reasonable manner.

[Mikey]

Is school the only place diseases can be spread?

Mikey, are you basically saying that they should be free to not vaccinate just so long as they are quarantined at home?

I am generally for leaving people alone, but the problem here is that if you don't vaccinate your kid, he might infect my kid. I am not OK with that.

It would be nice if we could simply put these fukkers on an island somewhere, but we can't. So maybe forced immunization is the answer.

I'm surprised to hear (see?) you, the great libertarian, come out in favor of forced anything. Isn't that against you principles?

I think people are fucckikng stupid not to immunize their children. It should be automatic and free of charge - it's a form of child abuse not to do it - but you have to draw the line somewhere. If the parents are going to act irresponsibly then at least keep them out of public schools, where most childhood diseases are spread, but I don't think you can force a medical procedure on anybody.

Besides, if your kid is vaccinated, then you have nothing to worry about. It's the other kids with irresponsible parents but, especially, those kids who have compromised immunity or other reasons that prevent them from being vaccinated who really have to worry.

[Goober McTuber]

That’s how you are rationalizing the death of children? By ignoring that a fetus is a baby?

That's your definition. The law does not agree with you. Neither do I and a whole lot of other people.

[Left Seater]

That’s how you are rationalizing the death of children? By ignoring that a fetus is a baby?

That's your definition. The law does not agree with you. Neither do I and a whole lot of other people.

Laws used to say segregation was legal. Lots of people agreed with that as well.

[Goober McTuber]

The majority of the population believes that abortion should be legal. Does the majority of the population believe segregation should be legal?

[Left Seater]

So if laws should be decided by want the majority wants, why do we have Congress?

[Rooster]

The majority of the population believes that abortion should be legal. Does the majority of the population believe segregation should be legal?

Our system of government was set up to protect the minority from "the oppression of the majority." Unborn children facing certain death at the hands of their own mothers definitely fall under the category of a threatened and oppressed minority.

[smackaholic]

Is school the only place diseases can be spread?

Mikey, are you basically saying that they should be free to not vaccinate just so long as they are quarantined at home?

I am generally for leaving people alone, but the problem here is that if you don't vaccinate your kid, he might infect my kid. I am not OK with that.

It would be nice if we could simply put these fukkers on an island somewhere, but we can't. So maybe forced immunization is the answer.

I'm surprised to hear (see?) you, the great libertarian, come out in favor of forced anything. Isn't that against you principles?

I think people are fucckikng stupid not to immunize their children. It should be automatic and free of charge - it's a form of child abuse not to do it - but you have to draw the line somewhere. If the parents are going to act irresponsibly then at least keep them out of public schools, where most childhood diseases are spread, but I don't think you can force a medical procedure on anybody.

Besides, if your kid is vaccinated, then you have nothing to worry about. It's the other kids with irresponsible parents but, especially, those kids who have compromised immunity or other reasons that prevent them from being vaccinated who really have to worry.

I am generally Libertarian, but make exceptions where I think they make sense. Protecting kids from other sick kids or from their moronic parents, is an area where I leave the Libertarian plantation. I am also for public funding of vaccinations. They are cheap and it wouldn't be much of a source of fraud.

As for your kid's vaccination being a foolproof shield against unvaccinated kids, I don't believe that is necessarily so. Not all medications always do what they should. But they are generally effective and the "herd effect" is a thing which will protect those who the vaccine itself might not have protected.

[BSmack]

Our system of government was set up to protect the minority from "the oppression of the majority." Unborn children facing certain death at the hands of their own mothers definitely fall under the category of a threatened and oppressed minority.

No it wasn't. Our government was set up to protect the elites who wrote the Constitution from the unwashed masses. It mostly succeeded in that task. You obviously read de Tocqueville and misunderstood his critique.

[Kierland]

In a way he is right. It was set up to protect the rich minority from the majority of unwashed masses

[Goober McTuber]

So if laws should be decided by want the majority wants, why do we have Congress?

Ostensibly to represent our wishes, you fat obtuse fuck.

[Left Seater]

Since you answered the last question with another question, this is how it goes.

At one point much of the population supported slavery, Jim Crow, separate but equal, etc. Does that mean we should have had those laws then? Much of the country supported one male and one female only for marriage. Those laws evolved. Why can’t abortion now that 23 weeks is the accepted viability threshold?

[Mikey]

It can. But it hasn't.

[Rooster]

Our system of government was set up to protect the minority from "the oppression of the majority." Unborn children facing certain death at the hands of their own mothers definitely fall under the category of a threatened and oppressed minority.

No it wasn't. Our government was set up to protect the elites who wrote the Constitution from the unwashed masses. It mostly succeeded in that task. You obviously read de Tocqueville and misunderstood his critique.

Wow. What a grim revisionist picture of our nation’s beginnings you and Kierland have! I cannot fathom ever being so cynical about my home.

[Goober McTuber]

Since you answered the last question with another question, this is how it goes.

At one point much of the population supported slavery, Jim Crow, separate but equal, etc. Does that mean we should have had those laws then? Much of the country supported one male and one female only for marriage. Those laws evolved. Why can’t abortion now that 23 weeks is the accepted viability threshold?

I've said more that once on this board that I'm good with that. Late term abortions should be quite rare. And as a matter of fact, they are.

[BSmack]

Wow. What a grim revisionist picture of our nation’s beginnings you and Kierland have! I cannot fathom ever being so cynical about my home.

You mistake realism for cynicism.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Rooster]

So our founding fathers were jaded from the start? These elites looked at their circumstances in life and decided that engaging in war against the world’s best equipped and trained army was the best course of action for their financial future? That a sure fire way to safe their social and political position was to risk it all fighting the British rather than negotiate with the Crown for greater autonomy?

These men put their lives on the line for the values and ideas contained in the founding documents. If caught they could look forward to the business end of a rope.

I am definitely calling you out and labeling you cynical. Yours’ and Keirland’s ideas smell of the taint of our rotten-to-the-core public education system.

[BSmack]

Seriously grow up a little bit. You seriously think the people who actually literally owned other human beings weren't maybe just a little bit fucking cynical?

The Revolution was a trade war sparked by New England colonists saw a chance at obscene levels of profit if they could just get the fucking middleman out of the way.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Mikey]

Rooster still thinks Trump is in it because he loves America.

[Rooster]

You obviously haven't been keeping up with my stance on Trump, Mikey.

As for our forefathers, BSmack, your immediate playing of the racism/slavery card tells me all I need to know about at whose knee you gained an education. That's quintessential Progressive cant.

[Joe in PB]

The Revolution was a trade war sparked by New England colonists saw a chance at obscene levels of profit if they could just get the fucking middleman out of the way.

And I thought the Revolution was about taxation without representation. And while I'm sure people did make a lot of money, that certainly is better than that money going back to England.



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[BSmack]

And I thought the Revolution was about taxation without representation. And while I'm sure people did make a lot of money, that certainly is better than that money going back to England.

The taxation was on trade dipshit.


Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Joe in PB]

Taxation without representation.

"No taxation without representation" is a slogan originating during the 1700s that summarized one of 27 colonial grievances of the American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies, which was one of the major causes of the American Revolution. In short, many in those colonies believed that, as they were not directly represented in the distant British Parliament, any laws it passed affecting the colonists (such as the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act) were illegal under the Bill of Rights 1689, and were a denial of their rights as Englishmen.

The firm belief that a government should not tax a populace unless that populace is somehow represented in the government developed in the English Civil War following the refusal of parliamentarian John Hampden to pay ship money tax.[1] "No taxation without representation," in the context of British American Colonial taxation, appeared for the first time in the February 1768 London Magazine headline, on page 89, in the printing of Lord Camden's "Speech on the Declaratory Bill of the Sovereignty of Great Britain over the Colonies."

[BSmack]

God that was fucking tedious.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk