“States and localities own the roads”

I didn’t debate this fact. I simply stated it is a violation of rights for them to do so.

“They don’t say “sober people only” at every intersection because they shouldn’t have to.”

No. They don’t say it at every intersection because the current owner of all those roads says it does…

“I am merely pointing out that IS the argument. This isn’t necessarily a horde of mouth-breathing idiots screaming about autism (although there are some)“

Don’t spoil The Narrative with facts. ;)

You have no rational argument as rebuttal so you resort to the logical fallacy of ad homs. Thanks! :D

“Unless you walk around with a blood test kit or something (in which case, I’m kind of impressed) there is NO WAY OF KNOWING whether the people you choose to interact with on a daily basis are vaccinated”

“if you shoot and kill somebody, you could be arrested and charged with murder. Not having your child vaccinated should, by that logic, be a case for neglect.”

Murder is the initiation of force - ie contact with the person or property of another absent that other’s consent (as is theft, rape, slavery, etc). Not having…

I’ll respond to this post since your other was just an emotionalist rant, whereas here you at least attempt a rational argument (with ranting simply thrown in on top).

“There are a ton of things we as individuals could theoretically do were it not for the societal contract we all enter and enjoy.”

You seem to be under…

“They’re the super-liberal version of FOX News. If you don’t drink every single drop of their flavor of Kool-Aid you’re the enemy”

Indeed.

“in this case they’re totally in the right. Anti-vax shit is a crazy religion for people who aren’t getting their crazy hole filled up enough elsewhere”

Whether this is true or not…

“Yeah, I bet Gawker also believes that gravity is a real thing !”

LOL.

Guess that means anyone who believes the issue is not JUST related to science, but is ALSO related to rights as well is just plain evil for daring to disagree. Thanks for clearing that up. :)

“Let’s say I or somebody else had a compromised immune citizen”

I presume this was meant to read “immune system” and spell check screwed things up. And let us take this example. Say you do have a compromised immune system. Does that mean everyone else must be forced to live in hazmat suits to protect you from their…

“this is all about rights: your right to be an uninformed, paranoid j-hole stops right at the point that it endangers other people.”

Well, at least you are not biased in the same fashion as most here. You identify that the issue is not JUST “science” - ie whether vaccines are “good or bad” - as most are absurdly…

“Getting a vaccine or not is not a question of rights”

LOL - because you have no right to your body. Others may dispose of it as THEY see fit. Your body is THEIR property. Naw - not an issue of rights at all. Bwahahahahah

The question of whether an individual is sovereign or slave IS an issue of rights, whichever side…

And a pretty hard “no” line on the existence of rights.

“SHUT UP!” he explained.

“There is no other issue than science here! You have NO rights, so there is NO issue about rights!” he screeched.

To pretend the issue is just one of science and not at all of rights is equally bad journalism. Dismissing the issue of rights as if it doesn’t exist is neither “neutral” nor “reasonable”. It is “misleading.” Smearing any other issue than science as “misinformation” is definitely “bias”.

:)

That the world was not formed 6000 years ago is a fact. What a parent wants to teach their child is an issue. Same with vaccinations. And the -issue- is rights.

But hey - I understand completely. Attacking straw men is a whole lot easier than attacking the actual issue. :)

And against rights, yes.

Because the issue is science. Your rights? You don’t have any.

No NO NO! It’s not “right and wrong”. It’s “good and evil”.

“church people were not publishing articles hugely abusive to white supremacists to incite this”