Jump to content

Polio, Measles, Smallpox - Why Are Conservatives Anti Vaccination??


EnlightenedMessiah

Recommended Posts

I'm a conservative but I'm not anti-vaccination......I am against forcing someone to get a vaccination if it's their choice not to.......I had all the vaccinations.....my kids had all their vaccinations....it is not my right nor is it the government's right to force vaccinations upon those who choose not to be vaccinated.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never asserted that "most" conservatives oppose vaccination. My belief is that the majority of people who do oppose vaccination happen to be conservative and fit into the "I don't need gubment telling me what to do" crowd.

"A lot of conservatives" does not constitute most conservatives. Most conservatives I know think the anti-vaccination thing is ludicrous. Your assertion that conservatives generally oppose vaccinations isn't well founded,.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never asserted that "most" conservatives oppose vaccination. My belief is that the majority of people who do oppose vaccination happen to be conservative and fit into the "I don't need gubment telling me what to do" crowd.
 

 

The title of this thread, which you started, is "Polio, Measles, Smallpox - Why Are Conservatives Anti Vaccination??". You did not add any quantifying descriptor which would indicate that you were referencing a limited number of conservatives, you simply referenced "conservatives" in general. In a case where the portion of a group you reference isn't specified, the implication is that you are referencing all of that group, or at least most of it. The implication is not that all of the people you wish to discuss happen to fall within the group you reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The implication that the majority (>50%) was definitely not there considering the country wide vaccination rates are pretty high.. Unless you believe liberals are 75% of the population.

I typically like debating with you because you challenge me.....
 
Don't ruin that by having grammar wars with folks over content.......
 
No matter how you worded it, the implication was there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,206
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Ceb2000
    Newest Member
    Ceb2000
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Here’s a link to another story about it This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up
    • It’s behind a paywall but here’s Baytown Sun’s story on it.  It was reported on in other papers statewide so if you search by the date I think you’ll find other stories on it. UIL strengthens student transfer rules By Ron McDowell [email protected] Oct 18, 2024   In order to maintain a level playing field for all member schools, the University Interscholastic League strengthened rules regarding transfer student eligibility at its most recent meeting in Austin. Every year thousands of students transfer schools in the state of Texas. A student’s ability to participate in UIL sanctioned activities may be limited base on the reasons for the transfer. A change in family status, work transfers, enrollment in an academic magnet program, or a move across town, receive scrutiny, but only rarely does one of these reasons result in the loss of eligibility. The only reason to automatically cause the loss of participation eligibility is a transfer for athletic purposes. The current rule, which has been in place since 1981, does not require a Previous Athletic Participation Form (PAPFs) to be submitted if the student-athlete does not participate in a varsity level sport during the first year of enrollment. There has been growing concern among some member schools, that other members are breaking the current rule and creating “super teams” with new transfer enrollees, and that the UIL is not doing enough to police, what appear to be, the inordinate number of transfers among high school athletes. To mitigate these concerns, the UIL approved a proposal to expand the power of the State Executive Committee (SEC) and allow it to investigate schools based upon the number of PAPFs submitted. Schools that submit an inordinate number of PAPFs would face heightened scrutiny and possible public reprimand and future sanctions. The UIL has also changed the requirements for PAPF submission, mandating that the form be submitted before a grade 9-12 transfer student may participate at any level of school athletics. This is a marked departure from the current policy which encourages schools not to complete PAPFs for students who transfer in, if the school believes that the student will not play a varsity sport in the first year the student is enrolled at the new school. Some critics of the current system think that the change doesn’t go far enough. Speaking on background, one local school district source suggested that there should be an automatic year wait for transfer students due to the number of loopholes in the waiver process. “If a student transfers, it should be a year out of competition automatically,” the source said. In addition, the UIL also approved a proposal that gives the SEC the power to appoint an independent administrator to oversee the conduct of the local District Executive Committee (DEC) if it is determined that the DEC is not consistently enforcing the rules of the governing body. The change is significant since all appeals that a school brings, starts and usually ends with the DEC. That includes the determination of transfer student eligibility. It is believed that with the implementation of this change, schools in a UIL district will be less likely to face retribution from the DEC chair and other members. The policy changes will go into effect, Aug. 1, 2025 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  
    • I was hoping WOS was going to win. To get another chance to redeem ourself. Silsbee did not look good in that game and has not played consistent during the season. Hopefully against La Vega they will play 4quarters of football
    • This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up   GCCISD paid a firm called PASA to compile this report ahead of them closing/consolidating some schools and redrawing attendance zones.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...