New York City attempts to forcibly vaccinate orthodox Jews

submitted by [deleted] from nytimes.com

all 43 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

Buckle your seat belts guys, this is going to be wild ride no matter which side of the debate you are on. Judaism is one of the most respected religions in the US, so it'll be interesting if NY can force them out of their religious exemption.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

More so than Christianity?

Considering how many factions Christianity is split up into, I wouldn't be overly surprised, but I'd still be a little.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I'd say about on par with Christianity... They are both the most popular public religions of the ruling elite. For the state to blatantly target Jews seems new and highly contentious. Of course this is a sect that might not even be respected by Zionists in power.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Doesn't this suggest, then, that the "Zionists in power" aren't actually favouring the Jewish population, and are merely looking out for their own interests like the other people in power?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It does.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So why even call out the "Zionists in power" in the first place? Isn't that just a distraction from the real issues?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well you asked me a tangential question and that's when I mentioned it. I am generally curious about how the Zionists view the Orthodox. Lots of factors here including religious freedom.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

285 people get measles out of a city of millions, none die. not worth making them all get autism

[–]cmdrrockawesome 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Not sure if serious

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

blocked for being a paid shill

[–]cmdrrockawesome 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Shit dawg. I wish someone were paying me.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

There pharmacudical companies benefit.

That's the problem.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Pharmaceutical companies benefiting is ok. Pharmaceutical companies excessively profiting more than the value they're providing isn't. They shouldn't be exploiting their monopoly to artificially drive prices up – or, if you're a more staunchly capitalist person, they shouldn't be exploiting their wealth to ensure their monopoly.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Pharmaceutical companies benefiting is ok.

We've had numerous exchanges, and I've never heard of anyone looking out for the interests of the pharmacudical companies like you do.

It's truly uncanny.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The entirety of my comment was criticising them, and every other sentence was doing so explicitly. In context, that first sentence was discussing a hypothetical.

Stop attacking me. Is that seriously the best you can do? Am I really making such good arguments that you can never argue against them?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Stop attacking me.

This is not an attack. This is a statement of a fact.

I have never encountered anyone who diligently supports the interests of the pharmaceuticals for their seemingly indefensible actions; as you do.

In the past, i have asked you to provide evidence of comments where you have taken positions that oppose the corporate economic interests.
You admitted to being unable to do so.
It's probably safe to assume that nothing has changed.

It's worth noting that rather than attempt to refute the fact that you are a dedicated supporter of big pharma, you instead chose the appeal to emotion fallacy; and are pretending to be a victim.

Is that seriously the best you can do? Am I really making such good arguments that you can never argue against them?

Your appeal to emotion argument (fallacy) suggests that you are the one that is unable to articulate a decent argument.

EDIT: Here comes the Wizzy forum slide. The topic of discussion has completely changed.

Note that no evidence is ever provided to counter the fact that all comments support corporate interests.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You admitted to being unable to do so.

You made an extremely specific request involving MSM and other terms I hadn't heard of. Which I obliged, by providing you with an example.

It's probably safe to assume that nothing has changed.

Have you even read my comment? I'll include everything but the first sentence here again, to make it easier:

Pharmaceutical companies excessively profiting more than the value they're providing isn't [ok]. They shouldn't be exploiting their monopoly to artificially drive prices up – or, if you're a more staunchly capitalist person, they shouldn't be exploiting their wealth to ensure their monopoly.

That is me taking a position that "oppose[s] the corporate economic interests" as you put it. Why are you attacking the characteristics of me, the writer, instead of my argument? I was literally agreeing with you.

It's worth noting that rather than attempt to refute the fact that you are a dedicated supporter of big pharma,

I didn't feel the need to repeat the comment you'd replied to. I have been unable to refute this in your eyes before, so I don't see how now will be any different.

you instead chose the appeal to emotion fallacy; and are pretending to be a victim.

It's not an appeal to emotion. I'm calling you out on your ad hominem and utter refusal to actually address my arguments. And even if I was invoking the appeal to emotion fallacy, that would not invalidate my claims; simply that an argument is fallacious doesn't make it false.

Is this seriously the best you can do? Why are you deliberately confusing things? If I'm wrong, why can't you argue against me, instead of completely ignoring my argument, linking to dozens of YouTube videos and calling me a shill for:

  • not watching over a day's worth of videos; and
  • not replying within a day.

This is not a fallacy. It is a question. Why are you not arguing properly?

[–]bonked_or_maybe_not 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Autism isn't the danger, but vaccines are not 100% safe. If they were there wouldn't have been $4B in payouts from the VICP

Since 1988, over 20,522 petitions have been filed with the VICP. Over that 30-year time period, 17,772 petitions have been adjudicated, with 6,465 of those determined to be compensable, while 11,307 were dismissed. Total compensation paid over the life of the program is approximately $4.1 billion.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

CDC Blocks Whistleblower William Thompson from Testifying in Vaccine Injury Case

Dr. Thompson has publically stated to Congressman William Posey and others that he and his colleagues in the CDC Vaccine Safety Branch were ordered to commit scientific fraud, destroy evidence and manipulate data to conceal the link between autism and vaccines.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

that doesn't say what the danger was, autism, or something else, it even says it doesn't mean vaccines are unsafe although the question is why pay people off then . . . I suspect it is autism and they bribe parents to stay quiet on it, $4.1 bill can do that.

[–]FormosaOolong 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How did the world collectively forget that measles are not an emergency? Why are doctors and scientists not calling this repeated lie out for what it is?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Measles has demonstrably cured stage 4 cancer tumors in patients with no other options.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They're tired.

[–]cmdrrockawesome 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

There should be no personal or religious exemptions from getting vaccinated. None. The only legitimate excuse is medical.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I'm on the fence, but with only 5 people going to ICU and no deaths, this doesn't seem to be a public health emergency.

[–]cmdrrockawesome 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

It's a completely preventable disease. The only reason people are getting it is because they're ignoring science. I'd say that's an emergency.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I think America is all about the freedom to make poor decisions and even die if they are poor enough. The state has no right to impose rationality or morality. We're talking about a forced medical procedure.

[–]cmdrrockawesome 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I think it has every right to protect the most vulnerable. When some jagoff reads a mommy blog article about vaccines and decides to endanger the immunocompromised and young children, I have a problem. The government should 100% step in. Your personal choices and freedom end when they endanger other people.

You want to get sick and possibly die from something? Great. Just don’t go out in public and never interact with anyone else for the rest of your life. There’s your freedom.

[–]Work2Death 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Yeah, I'll take a hard pass on that level of authoritarian nightmare. My body - My choice.

I'm not against vaccination - I'm for not pissing away what few rights we have left to a government that will abuse that power.

[–]cmdrrockawesome 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

No one has a right to infect vulnerable people.

[–]Work2Death 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No one has a right to violate someone else's body without consent. That's kinda rapey, dude.

[–]cmdrrockawesome 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Happens all the time in law enforcement and it's 100% legal (well, most of the time). I'm ok with governments at any level passing laws to ensure people get vaccinated.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Then why don't you make that the crime? I think knowingly giving someone HIV is already a crime.

[–]cmdrrockawesome 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, 1. I'm not a politician, but 2. I would absolutely introduce a bill like that if I were.

[–]FormosaOolong 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

which is what vaccination often is

[–]cmdrrockawesome 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We need a new plague.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Well my tax rate will surely explode once we start protecting kids from obesity, heart disease, diabetes, intoxicated parents, etc. etc.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It doesn't in other countries.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Probably because they have clean food to start with. Show me a country regulating what you can and cannot feed your kids.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Does counter-propaganda count?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, we have programs like that in the US too.