Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tornado chaser (talk | contribs) at 00:47, 4 February 2019 (→Open to criticism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

2017 May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December. 2018 January-July, August, September, October, November, December 2019 January

Libertarianism and vaccines

Above, TC writes

"I have libertarian-leaning political views, so I don't think vaccination should be mandatory in most cases. The fact that so many pro-vaccine people act like being against vaccine requirements is that same thing as being antivax, and that antivaxers use libertarian talking points, confused me into thinking of antivaxers as more and more reasonable, but I eventually realized (I wish I realized this sooner) that regardless of my agreement with their politics, the science is all wrong. This is why I am hesitant to label groups antivax without clear evidence that they are actually antivax, not just libertarian, because in my experience, the conflation of libertarianism with antivax can lead people into believing antivax misinformation"

Who owns the children?

Someone who values property right above all, else might respond by saying that children are in fact owned by their parents until such time as they achieve adulthood, and that, as property, children may be treated by their parents as the parents see fit. Besides the obvious problems of defining adulthood and dealing with two parents who disagree, this view implies that eating babies, keeping children in cages or selling them into slavery is OK. This is a problem. There are places in this world where parents do sell children -- especially daughters -- into slavery. That being said, this could work in some cultures. Under Roman law the father had the right of life and death over his children, but what actually happened was that on a regular basis these fathers gave their lives to protect their children.

A hardcore statist might respond by saying that children are owned by the state. Sort of "it takes a village to raise a child" on steroids. This also has been tried by various totalitarian dictatorships, and the results were not pretty. Do we really want to raise children the way the Spartans did? The Taliban say that it is the state's right to choose whether girls are allowed to learn how to read.

Although I know of exactly nobody who believes this, one might argue that children own themselves and are free to do as they please as long as they don't hurt others. Anyone who has dealt with a baby who really really wants to put razor blades in their mouth will see the problem with this view. A related issue is adults who are mentally incapable of taking care of themselves (severe retardation, advanced Alzheimers). Do they own themselves? Is a person with severe dementia free to leave the nursing home and walk out into busy traffic?

While these are all interesting moral and ethical questions, what I am actually seeing among antivaxers is a lot more self-serving. They don't like vaccines, so they say it is the parent's right to choose whether their children are vaccinated. They don't like slavery, so they say it is the state's right to choose whether children can be sold into slavery. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I don't thing it's right not to vaccinate your kids, but I think it sets a dangerous precedent for the government to force any medical treatment on a population, the only thing to do (in my opinion, and I don't want to bias[REDACTED] toward any opinion) is to try to inform people so that they will voluntarily vaccinate their children. And I agree re antivaxers pretending to be libertarians, I find this trend quite frustrating. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Peter Russell (ice hockey)

Hello, I noticed the above artice Peter Russell (ice hockey) was PROD for deletion by you because of a lack of sources. I have since now added a source under his appointment as Glasgow Clan head coach. The ref reads Braehead Clan but the appointment was made before they re-branded as Glasgow Clan. Please review the article with the ref and report back regarding acceptability asap. Tay87 (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tay87:I'm glad you added a ref, but you need refs for everything in the article, not just this one fact, let me know if you have any questions. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: Well in regards to my role, the tag stated that all bios “must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article”, in my case being Clan head coach, and that “once the article has at least one reliable source, you may remove this tag”, which I did and reported it to you for review. If it at least stops the article being deleted in due course, I'm satisfied. As for refs, I may have Great Britain covered as well as Braehead but everything else will be a piece of work. I have so far found two refs for Russell LEAVING MK Lighting but nothing on him being appointed as yet. Tay87 (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

New Section

I know what I just did may seem to have been an edit war but it was an edit conflict mistake. I was trying to clean up mistakes I left behind in the article. I will avoid doing that again.Somenolife (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Somenolife: I did edit conflict with you, fixing the mistakes in the cites is fine, the only reason I said you were edit warring was because you changed the title back to "vaccine safety reporting". 20:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't accusing you of creating a conflict, only that I was not trying to do so with you. I hit the "edit conflict" page and use the back page to get my edits back, then hit submit which reverted the new title you put up.Somenolife (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I know you weren't accusing me of creating a conflict, I did the same thing with the edit conflict button, I understand now. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

So I have seen that you have removed most of the content I added, which confuses me. Outside of the UMass Twitter account, everything I added was reported by her in interviews that she had with various individuals; why were none of those valid?Somenolife (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Somenolife: Misplaced Pages is supposed to use secondary sources, especially for controversial claims, so just referencing someone's website for info on something controversial she said is not good. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I certainly understand the problem is 'she' said it, but in the interviews, those being interviewed are the ones making the claim. Dr. Bernadine Healy flatly says that she believed the medical officials working for the US federal government were being "too quick to dismiss the hypothesis" that vaccination could cause autism in a subset of children, as I quoted in the article. I am also confused by the removal of the Full Measure article; though she is associated with it, she doesn't have full control of the show, AFAIK. Wouldn't a report by Anderson Cooper on his show be just as valid for his talk page?Somenolife (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Michael Beasley

I was editing Michael Beasley's profile and I was just providing straight facts, none of the information I provided was invalid. You gave me a level two warning and said I will be banned soon.

You were blatantly vandalizing wikipedia, do it again and I tell an admin to block you. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

"Only" warnings

Giving a level 4-im "only warning" for ordinary vandalism, rather than major problems such as serious libel, is likely to be counter-productive. Administrators regularly decline to take action against vandals because they have been inappropriately warned in that way. In fact that is so standard that there is even a specific template for administrators to do so at WP:AIV. Breaking sticks (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Breaking sticks: I am aware of that, this user had created an account and the first thing they did way try some racist vandalism that was stopped by the filter log, then they made a more ordinary nonconstructive edit, pretty obviously NOTHERE but I was hesitant to report to AIV with less than three instances of vandalism, so I left a warning that it was his last chance. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Update: the vandal has been indeffed after a third bad edit and an AIV report from me. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I did think it strange that an editor with your history would make what looked so much like a newbie mistake, but I didn't think to check the edit filter log. Breaking sticks (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Breaking sticks: Thanks for understanding, BTW you would have been right had it not been for the racial slur in the filter log. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank You for explaining this point to me. I appreciate your knowledge. AD1960 (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)