Natural measles is good, provided the people who get it are cared for well. What is proper care? Good resting time with good hygiene and nutrition. Why is measles good? It does a better job of vaccinating than vaccines do... without the deadly after effects. Properly cared for chicken pocks does the same.

Neither of these is deadly when proper care is used with them. And they don't produce the bad after effects of vaccines, yet do a job similar to the one expected from vaccines.

Vaccinating in advance for no reason, when there is no sign of a major problem, is dangerous and stupid.

Proper hygiene and proper nutrition in a nation make it so that vaccination is not need.

If vaccination is used, the right kind of nutrition is doubly needed, to wash the contaminants from the bodies of those who have been vaccinated, and to rebuild their immune systems.

Those who were exposed, like Yoder’s cousin Mary Nisley, were put in a 21-day quarantine. She and her siblings didn’t contract the disease, but she watched uncles, aunts and cousins become ill. “People were sick. Very, very sick. Four of my cousins were taken to the hospital. A couple of babies were taken. Some people lost about 20 pounds,” she said.
...
hundreds of people lined up at Ivan Miller’s business, Mohican Wood Products, to be vaccinated during the height of the outbreak.

Watching the MSM say the wheels are coming off the bus and there are no more adults in the room for the 701st time is a little funny.  

As a candidate, Donald Trump warned against foreign wars, not least in Syria. A year into his presidency, he is adding Syria to a list of open-ended conflicts that already includes Afghanistan and Iraq.

…

As of last month, there were about 2,000 American troops in Syria — up from 500 a year ago — a mix of engineering units and Special Operations units that fight and train with local militias in the battle against the Islamic State. Now that we know they will be there indefinitely, who can say the number won’t go higher and the mission won’t creep more?

Syria is a complex problem. But this plan seems poorly conceived, too dependent on military action and fueled by wishful thinking.

…

But the goals in Syria are so sweeping they may be unattainable, thus leaving American troops there in perpetuity.

On Wednesday, Mr. Trump summarily overruled Mr. Bolton and the rest of his national security team. He ordered the withdrawal of all 2,000 American ground troops from Syria within 30 days.

That abrupt and dangerous decision, detached from any broader strategic context or any public rationale, sowed new uncertainty about America’s commitment to the Middle East, its willingness to be a global leader and Mr. Trump’s role as commander in chief.

…

An American withdrawal would also be a gift to Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader, who has been working hard to supplant American influence in the region and who, on Thursday, enthusiastically welcomed the decision, saying, “Donald’s right.” Another beneficiary is Iran, which has also expanded its regional footprint. It would certainly make it harder for the Trump administration to implement its policy of ratcheting up what it calls “maximum pressure” on Iran.

Like, how much more info do you need to see that vaccines have been one of the scourges of the world for decades, now.


Healthy Triplets All Autistic within Hours of Vaccination

Video.

Yes, you are absolutely right. This is basically like the ''The trolley dilemma'' where you basically have two options, kill 1 guy or kill 5 people, of course people will chose killing 1 person instead of 5 even though you don't want to kill anyone because, well, that's the best choice. It's the same in real life, unfortunately we cannot save everyone and it's not because pharma and other companies are doing it on purpose. (At least not most of the times)

The article says that the medical has been lying about the autism vaccine dangers for at least 14 years, but this is just the tiny tip of the iceberg of medical lies, both about vaccines and other medicine. If you search for it, you will find that chemo has killed more people than cancer has.


Scientific voices speak out unequivocally about vaccines and their dangers




Read the whole article. It's quite interesting, with links included.

Well, it is on purpose. They would make them safe if they didn't want to harm people. Of course, the only way to do that is to stop using them altogether.

Yeah probably but it's a slippery slope. If they come out and say vaccines aren't 100% safe and there is a chance your kid will get something undesirable, A LOT more parents will stop vaccinating their kids which will lead to really bad consequences in the future.

Of course, like with everything, there are side effects and they are not 100% safe. People here, however, seem to think that they are being made on purpose like that, to kill us or to make us sick which is delusional. They also don't believe vaccines stopped smallpox or anything ever.

https://sharylattkisson.com/2018/12/10/cdc-possibility-that-vaccines-rarely-trigger-autism/

Interesting quote from CDC official. CDC: “Possibility” that vaccines rarely trigger autism. Sounds like the usual slow walk they do when they know they are facing massive liabilities.

My country has weapons banned. Its also the country with the highest violent (by guns) death rate per capita of the hemisphere. Only state armed forces are legally allowed to have weapons (it used to be possible to obtain a permit for civilians a couple of decades ago, now void).

Where do criminals get weapons and ammo now? From the black market and... said state forces either by corruption or by killing them.

...

Teens, especially girls, whose parents are religious may be less likely to die by suicide, no matter how they feel about religion themselves, new research suggests.

The lower suicide risk among those raised in a religious home is independent of other common risk factors, including whether parents suffered from depression, showed suicidal behavior or divorced, the Columbia University researchers said.
...
About 12 percent of American teens say they have had suicidal thoughts. And suicide is the leading cause of death among 15- to 19-year-old girls.

For the study, Priya Wickramaratne and colleagues examined data from a three-generation study at New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University. The data, spanning 30 years, included 214 children from 112 families.

Most belonged to Christian denominations and some families lived in areas with limited church choices. All were white.

Among teens who thought religion was important, researchers found a lower risk for suicide among girls but not boys. Researchers saw the same association with church attendance.

When parent and child views were weighed together, however, researchers found a lower risk for suicide among young people whose parents considered religion important.

Wickramaratne, an associate professor of biostatistics and psychiatry at Columbia University, said, "Our findings suggest that there may be alternative and additional ways to help children and adolescents at highest risk for suicidal behaviors."

She said those strategies include asking parents about their spiritual history when a child is brought in for psychiatric evaluation, and assessing the child's own religious beliefs and practices -- especially with girls.

December 18, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The responses to my column last week detailing the horrific story of a boy who engaged in porn-inspired sexual molestation of his young nieces after accessing porn on his iPhone have indicated once again that many parents simply do not want to recognize the dangers that smartphones pose to their children.

Over and over again, commenters made genuinely stupid and ill-thought-out assertions, such as “You must be a Luddite!” Obviously, one does not have to be opposed to technology to recognize the dangers of some devices. We all agree that children should not drive cars, because it is not safe. We are not anti-car just because we do not think everyone should be able to drive them at a young age.

Additionally, many people seemed unaware of the fact that pornography has mainstreamed sexual violence, and that the vast majority of young people access porn on their cell phones. These are unfortunate realities, and I could tell you hundreds of stories of children accessing porn on phones at incredibly young ages, often impacting their lives for years into the future.

I could provide you with 20, but for today, here are just 10 reasons you shouldn’t give your child a smartphone:

1. Many parents harbor the mistaken belief that once their children have a smartphone, they can still control their behavior. In reality, it is nearly impossible to completely lock down a device (although there are very important steps that can be taken), and 71 percent of teens hide their smartphone activity from their parents. I’ve had many parents tell me how relieved they are that their children haven’t ended up hooked on porn or involved in “that stuff,” knowing full well that their children have been involved.

2. As Vanity Fair journalist Nancy Jo Sales laid out in her devastating book American Girls: Social Media and the Secret Lives of Teenagers, sexting and sending nude selfies are now ubiquitous in every school from the big cities to the rural Bible belt. I interviewed a number of high school girls (from Christian schools) on this issue over the past several years, and every one of them said the same thing: The pressure to send photos is relentless. Giving your child a smartphone is providing the opportunity for that pressure to be applied. Many give in. Lives are ruined as a result. The photos are forever.

3. The average age a child first looks at porn is now age 11. (The youngest porn addict I ever met was homeschooled.) Providing children a device that, regardless of how hard you try to implement oversight or lock the device down (which is impossible to do completely), you are handing them a portal to the totality of human sexual depravity as it exists online. The majority of young people now view pornography, boys and girls. The majority of them have seen things (grotesque sexual violence among other things) that previous generations could not have imagined. To give them this opportunity and this temptation at an age when we would not trust them with the right to vote, drink, smoke, or drive makes no rational sense and is arguably more dangerous.

4. Most children are exposed to sexual violence via pornography via smartphones. As I mentioned in my previous columns, experts are increasingly noticing that children are trying what they see in porn on other children, with tens of thousands of cases in the U.K. of child-on-child sexual abuse being investigated, and healthcare professionals in the United States sounding the alarm.

5. Our society still has not figured out how to control these technologies. In fact, the very Silicon experts who create these devices and these screens warn that they are a “dark influence” on children and either do not provide their own children smartphones at all, or they strictly limit the amount of time they may be on one. If those who develop smartphones are saying that they are dangerous for young people, perhaps we should be listening more closely.

6. Porn companies are actively trying to get children to look at pornography. Some have tagged hardcore porn content with phrases like “Dora the Explorer,” for example, in order to get kids to stumble on to their material. Your child may not be looking for porn. Porn is certainly looking for your child.

7. The porn companies have quite literally re-digitized their content in order to make it more accessible on a smartphone. They know that the vast majority of young people will not be viewing their material on laptops or desktops or TVs anymore. Most young people are viewing porn on their smartphones, in their bedrooms. If parents have restricted Wi-fi, it is easy these days to find free Wi-fi almost anywhere. So while you may be convinced that your child/teen can withstand the relentless sexual temptation of having access to pornography, the porn companies are quite certain that they can win this fight.

8. Smartphones provide children the first environment in history that exists without any oversight by any adult whatsoever. The reason cyber-bullying is so effective and so dangerous is the fact that social media has created an alternative world, inhabited by young people and their peers and inaccessible to parents and guardians. A generation ago, the bullying would stop when you got home from school. Today, you can be bullied at home, in your bedroom. In fact, a spate of suicides resulting from cyber-bullying tell that precise story.

9. Children do not need smartphones. They think they do, of course, because they want access to social media and the Internet. Who wouldn’t want access to something that can answer any and all of their questions? But considering the tremendous power of this tool, it is incredibly naïve to think that children and young teens are mature enough to handle it when the impact of smartphones on adults (and the skyrocketing rates of tech addiction) indicates that we have not even been able to figure out how to use this technology responsibly. If they need a phone for calling and texting purposes, get them a device without Internet access.

10. Smartphones often eliminate a child’s interest in other, healthier activities – like reading, outdoor recreation, and family time. I’m sure it comes as no surprise to anyone who has given their child a smartphone that a smartphone rapidly becomes an enormous part of the child’s life. This, of course, was predictable: There is a reason they begged so hard to have one in the first place.

Take care.

And that is the fundamental difference between us.  I care about what I believe is actually true.  That is why I accept objective evidence to validate my worldview.  You don't.  You feel that some (fundamental) aspects of your worldview can be accepted without evidence and assumed to be correct and true.

If you don't require evidence you can pretty much come up with whatever irrational belief system your mind can dream up.

Sleep on it, eventually it will sink in.

I think I understand.  You think there is some inherent morality that is embedded in reality around us.

You don't know how to get to it, but you believe it is there and Jewish Bronze Age leaders had the wisdom to translate some of the objective morality for us.

In your view, the moral judgments that we pass (throughout history) are just erroneous interpretations of this objective morality. If we only knew what it was we would be behaving morally forever.

The problem for you is that there is no evidence that it is actually true.  On the contrary, morality is formed and shaped by the societies we live in.  I gave you plenty of examples of immoral actions that were based on Jewish moral law.

The categorical imperative (German: kategorischer Imperativ) Introduced in Kant's 1785 Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals... may be defined as a way of evaluating motivations for action.

Sentient beings occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed up in an imperative, or ultimate commandment of reason, from which all duties and obligations derive. He defined an imperative as any proposition declaring a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary.

Hypothetical imperatives apply to someone who wishes to attain certain ends. For example:

* If I wish to quench my thirst, I must drink something.
* If I wish to pass this exam, I must study.

A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances and is justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

The capacity that underlies deciding what is moral is called pure practical reason, which is contrasted with pure reason (the capacity to know without having been shown) and mere practical reason (which allows us to interact with the world in experience).  Hypothetical imperatives tell us which means best achieve our ends. They do not, however, tell us which ends we should choose. The typical dichotomy in choosing ends is between ends that are "right" (e.g., helping someone) and those that are "good" (e.g., enriching oneself). Kant considered the "right" superior to the "good"; to him, the "good" was morally irrelevant. In Kant's view, a person cannot decide whether conduct is "right," or moral, through empirical means. Such judgments must be reached a priori, using pure practical reason.

Reason, separate from all empirical experience, can determine the principle according to which all ends can be determined as moral. It is this fundamental principle of moral reason that is known as the categorical imperative. Pure practical reason is the process of determining what ought to be done without reference to empirical contingent factors. Moral questions are determined independent of reference to the particular subject posing them. It is because morality is determined by pure practical reason, rather than particular empirical or sensuous factors, that morality is universally valid. This moral universalism has come to be seen as the distinctive aspect of Kant's moral philosophy and has had wide social impact in the legal and political concepts of human rights and equality.

Hmm, I think you are trolling me.  I see it, I am not sure why you don't.

Is it moral today to...

Just like every other "novel bit of communism" you come up with, it's been tried before and failed.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1926/07/the-russian-effort-to-abolish-marriage/306295/

Building society is more important than your feelings, more important than fucking, more important than your delusional Postmodernist dumpster fire of experimentation on society.