Should We Deny Public Schooling to "Risky" Children?

[steveh_131]

Many here seem to agree with a particular collectivist on the matter of denying public schooling to children considered to be "risky" by the medical establishment.

Responsible parents need to make their voices heard. Contact your lawmakers and request legislation ending non-medical exemptions.

The medical establishment agrees that unvaccinated children pose a risk to themselves and others, therefore it is argued that these children should be denied access to public schooling.

It is becoming clear that the intent is not actually to protect schoolmates from these children but to use this rejection as a sort of leverage to manipulate more people into vaccinating. It is essentially a form of extortion, under the guise of 'public health'.

From his article:

The evidence on this (like the evidence on vaccinations themselves) is clear. If we end both religious and personal belief exemptions to vaccine requirements for public school attendance, leaving only the medical exemption intact, far fewer children will go unvaccinated.

This begs the question: What other rights should we allow the medical establishment to extort away from us?

As an example, it appears nearly unanimous among the medical establishment that gun ownership in the home puts children at risk. There numerous examples of children taking a parent's gun to school with them. In fact, the death toll from allowing children of gun owners into schools is rather high, compared to that of allowing unvaccinated children into schools (0?).

The American Academy of Pediatrics makes their views known quite clearly:

This statement reaffirms the 1992 position of the American Academy of Pediatrics that the absence of guns from children's homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents. A number of specific measures are supported to reduce the destructive effects of guns in the lives of children and adolescents, including the regulation of the manufacture, sale, purchase, ownership, and use of firearms; a ban on handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons; and expanded regulations of handguns for civilian use. In addition, this statement reviews recent data, trends, prevention, and intervention strategies of the past 5 years.

The doctors have spoken... do we obey? What do you guys think? Should "risky" children of gun owners be denied access to our schools for the sake of public safety?

 

[Dead Duck]

H-O-M-E-S-C-H-O-O-L

That's all I have to say about that!

 

[jagee]

Where is 88GT when you need her??





...oh yeah...

 

[steveh_131]

H-O-M-E-S-C-H-O-O-L

I am all for homeschooling, but that is not the discussion at hand.

Would you support the rejection of children of gun-owners from public schools, because the parents could always homeschool them?

 

[SSGSAD]

Get the Govt., OUT of OUR lives .....

 

[rambone]

The medical establishment agrees that unvaccinated children pose a risk to themselves and others, therefore it is argued that these children should be denied access to public schooling.

It is becoming clear that the intent is not actually to protect schoolmates from these children but to use this rejection as a sort of leverage to manipulate more people into vaccinating. It is essentially a form of extortion, under the guise of 'public health'.

People who are petrified of getting sick should homeschool.

Home is where you can restrict your surroundings and control your environment. Public is not.

 

[PistolBob]

H-O-M-E-S-C-H-O-O-L

That's all I have to say about that!

Absolutely. Homeschool is the way to go if you can make the sacrifices necessary to pull it off.

 

[HoughMade]

Whether you choose home school or public school. Make sure your kids get to know these:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

If you do, you may prevent them from doing things like claiming not vaccinating and gun ownership are equivalent.

 

[IndyGunworks]

Talk about beating a dead horse.... Your anti vaxer god is a proven liar. Get the damn vaccine. I will not be posting in this thread anymore because they are never an actual conversation, just a lot of chest thumping.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I'm all for rejecting any and all children from the public school venue for any and all reasons imaginable, with but one proviso. Any child rejected from the public school system by law, regulation, rule, or any policy of any government agency whatsoever, the child takes their public education dollars with them. Every cent that the public school system was to have gotten for the rejected child's education follows that child out of the public education system and into the private accounts of his parents or legal guardians. If you say that they can always homeschool, I agree, just give them the money whereby they may buy the books and school supplies they need to do so, rather than further hobbling them by taking their education tax proceeds and refusing as a matter of law to educate their child with them.

That child's not vaccinated! $--
That child's parents own guns! $--
That child's black! $-------

Any reason whatsoever, just give them back their money and let them be on their way.

 

[steveh_131]

I think it is a fair comparison.

Keeping a gun in your home carries risks, as does leaving yourself defenseless. We weigh those risks, make a choice, and try to mitigate the remaining risks as best we can.

Keeping a gun in your home carries risks to the children who go to school with your child. The establishment agrees that the risks of owning a gun outweigh the risks of not having one, especially to "the herd". It fits.

 

[bradmedic04]

I am all for homeschooling, but that is not the discussion at hand.

Would you support the rejection of children of gun-owners from public schools, because the parents could always homeschool them?

I don't care if their parents are gun owners, or (more likely), conspiracy theorist wackjobs. Keep the unvaccinated kids out of school. May as well do it anyway so the kids don't get indoctrinated by things like science.

 

[steveh_131]

Why don't you care if the child could bring their parents gun to school? Hasn't that caused far more deaths than unvaccinated kids? Why don't you trust your pediatrician when he says you shouldn't own a gun?

 

[jamil]

Many here seem to agree with a particular collectivist on the matter of denying public schooling to children considered to be "risky" by the medical establishment.



The medical establishment agrees that unvaccinated children pose a risk to themselves and others, therefore it is argued that these children should be denied access to public schooling.

It is becoming clear that the intent is not actually to protect schoolmates from these children but to use this rejection as a sort of leverage to manipulate more people into vaccinating. It is essentially a form of extortion, under the guise of 'public health'.

From his article:


This begs the question: What other rights should we allow the medical establishment to extort away from us?

As an example, it appears nearly unanimous among the medical establishment that gun ownership in the home puts children at risk. There numerous examples of children taking a parent's gun to school with them. In fact, the death toll from allowing children of gun owners into schools is rather high, compared to that of allowing unvaccinated children into schools (0?).

The American Academy of Pediatrics makes their views known quite clearly:


The doctors have spoken... do we obey? What do you guys think? Should "risky" children of gun owners be denied access to our schools for the sake of public safety?

I said it elsewhere on a different topic, public servants elected by the public to regulate public schools get to make the rules that public schooled students must live by. And the rabid proponents are trying their best not to waste a "crisis". It's tyranny by majority time. I have to say I am pleased with the President's position so far that it is a state issue, notwithstanding his pander posturing.

People who are petrified of getting sick should homeschool.

Home is where you can restrict your surroundings and control your environment. Public is not.

In principle it's a good thought. Practically speaking, the majority will decide who has to stay home. When you put your kid in public school you're subject to the public's whims.

Since we're on this subject I've been closely watching this debate and I have to say I'm once again disappointed in how the press is spinning the debate. I don't really have a dog in the fight other than the idea of forcing parents to vaccinate their kids. I think vaccinating is generally better than not vaccinating. I'm not opposed to voluntary vaccination. If you want parents to vaccinate their kids, compel them with reason, not with law. That's how Canada, most of Europe, Japan, does it.

But the way the press and many politicians are portraying this, they're using it to slam the Right, as if the only people that oppose vaccines are uneducated, homeschooling, gun totin', back woods livin', two toothed, bible-in-hand, bitter clingers. But that is far from the truth.

One of the largest concentrations of unvaccinated kids is in Boulder Colorado. I DARE you to find a right wing nut living in Boulder. You might find one hiding UNDER a boulder if you look hard enough.

But you find mostly upper middle class, educated, crispy, liberal, twig eating, organic food buying, Prius driving, democrat voting, progressive, vegetarian, republican hating, tree worshiping, left wing, obamagasmic moon beams. Same kind of thing in unvaccinated California. So why are they so afraid to report who the largest group parenting unvaccinated kids are?

 

[jamil]

I don't care if their parents are gun owners, or (more likely), conspiracy theorist wackjobs. Keep the unvaccinated kids out of school. May as well do it anyway so the kids don't get indoctrinated by things like science.

As my last post points out, I think you're misunderstanding the demographics.

 

[bradmedic04]

As my last post points out, I think you're misunderstanding the demographics.

No, I fully acknowledge that anti-vaxxers tend to be concentrated in hyper liberal places. I used to encounter a lot more anti-vaxxer wackadoos living in the San Francisco area. Definitely a lot of the granola crowd out there.

I was talking to the gun owner parents = anti-vaxxer fallacy upon which OP was basing his "argument."

 

[steveh_131]

Calling it a fallacy does not make it one.

Make your case, if you can. Less insults, more thinking.

 

[Dead Duck]

My kid's principle Open Carrys.
My kid's teacher Open Carrys.
My kid's parents Open Carry.
My kids get to shoot guns during recess on the playground.





Why are parents of vaccinated kids scared of getting exposed to unvaccinated kids? Are they scared the vaccines didn't work?

And who the hell threw unvaccinated kids and gun owners in the same pot? That's like......Apples and Moon Rocks!

 

[HoughMade]

No, I fully acknowledge that anti-vaxxers tend to be concentrated in hyper liberal places. I used to encounter a lot more anti-vaxxer wackadoos living in the San Francisco area. Definitely a lot of the granola crowd out there...

I find the anti-vaxxers occupy both extremes.

 

[bradmedic04]

Calling it a fallacy does not make it one.

Make your case, if you can. Less insults, more thinking.

And denying that something which clearly fits the textbook definition of a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy is not the basis upon which to have an intelligent conversion based in reality.