And back to politics, here’s a site with info on a bunch of Independent candidates you might find helpful.

http://2016.presidential-candidates.org/

scruffy said

so then, based on current scientific understandings, you would agree that the notion of vaccines causing autism is considerably less plausible than the notion that flossing causes toe jam…? 

 

actually, the toe jam/flosser ratio is far more alarming than the autism/vaccinated ratio.  why, if vaccines are a safety issue, flossing must be the most savagely criminal act of deceit in world history. 

this is all the governments fault. 

there oughtta be a law. 

i know all about this stuff, cuz im a mother. 

please listen to me.   

I’d have to read the studies, and draw my own conclusions. The “cuz im a mother” and “please listen to me” arguments are as much based in critical analysis as “the science IS in” and “trust me, I’m a mod.” Based on current scientific understanding from Oxford

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/…..4/456.full

“…These studies, in concert with the biological implausibility that vaccines overwhelm a child’s immune system, have effectively dismissed the notion that vaccines cause autism. Further studies on the cause or causes of autism should focus on more-promising leads.” Here’s to the next good hypothesis, wherever it may lead.  

For real, thanks for telling me you were being funny. Explanations after the fact really drive home a punch-line for me. True scientists don’t even know if gravity is repeatedly provable. The scientific method is what is used to prove a hypothesis, not hearsay or declaring something to be a crock. And vaccinations may not have met their true enemy head on: Christian Scientists with their religious exemption from vaccinations. Science and religion always play so nicely together.

Slumerican502 said
What about science religion and the law? Do you guys think religious parents should be held accountable when their child dies because they think praying is a feasible alternative to actual medicine? Im sure it is rare but i do remember reading about a case 5 or 6 years ago. How far are you guys religious or not willing to give them the freedom to chose for their child? As a libertarian it is a tricky one for me.  

It is rather tricky. I think, specifically regarding vaccines anyway, that the parents choice to not get their kid vaccinated directly affects other people, therefor it’s not a personal choice issue. Maybe lol. My right to throw a punch stops when it hits you, type of deal. At least that’s what my guts tell me. I’m also aware of the slippery slope argument, which just makes me even less sure. 

About the prayer thing, hmm…damn. I’m not sure lol. Like Rob said, it really comes down to “who defines abuse”. Which isn’t something that I pretend to be smart enough to do.

It appears I’m not much help but you’re asking something that I’m iffy about too so I want more convo about it.

 @noah-fence , the circumcision and prayer ones are the clearest examples of it but what about non extreme examples? Religious parents that prevent their children from learning about other religions for example. You could easily argue that they’re causing damage to their child in that case too. They’re preventing them from expanding their world view and thus, causing serious mental harm in the long run. It’s not as extreme as circumcision but that’s just because we tend to not recognize mental issues as being as serious as the physical ones. 

So not to be a grammar nazi.  But hypotheses cannot be “proven,” they are supported, rejected/failed to be rejected, etc.  Proofs are for mathematics.  :)  

Like really though, I know it’s just a word and no one on here probably even thought about it or meant it all like that, but I do feel that it is an important distinction to make.  

JC said
So not to be a grammar nazi.  But hypotheses cannot be “proven,” they are supported, rejected/failed to be rejected, etc.  Proofs are for mathematics.  :)  

Like really though, I know it’s just a word and no one on here probably even thought about it or meant it all like that, but I do feel that it is an important distinction to make.    

I agree, and see u more as a grammar commie.  Seems the science is never in, but just in a holding pattern until the next experiment. Hypotheses are reasoned predictions that may lead to theories, which are “tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanations for a set of verified, proven factors.” At the end of the day there are just as many questions as there were at the beginning, and if we’re lucky, there are more. Science rules, and Bill Nye sucks.

https://youtu.be/QwviDPo4Rh4?t=2m5s

YouTube DEBUNKED: Top 5 “Climate Change” Myths

Nah, Bill Nye is cool. I applaud his temperament when debating Creationism. He doesn’t seem to get overly touchy, yet you can imagine he is frustrated at times… also, he is respectful and doesn’t talk down to those that probably should be talked down to.