Ah, but if he DOES pull the trigger, there is intent to kill. And nobody is delivering diseases, where as someone delivers the bullet. Nice try, but your analogy breaks down.
Actually it digs into the deeper issue. If these parents understand the reason and effectiveness of vaccination yet do not do so....they are purposefully placing their and others children at risk, and if not they are simply ignorant...ignorance is no excuse.
Little late for that. We import hordes of people who pose a health risk to Americans. So why not sue them all, and the federal government while we're at for endangering the lives of Americans.
If people still trusted the MSM this problem likely wouldn't exist. You can't force people to put foreign substances into their bodies, but in cases such as this where it is reasonable, the elites should be able to make the case by employing reason. But they have lost trustworthiness. The case was made by reason before, when measles was essentially shut down. And measles ain't that bad. I know. Me and 3/4 of my school had it before the immunization existed.
For clarity, my response is predicated on two facts: -some of these cases are the vaccinated contracting the disease (http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/outbreaks-of-measles-in-vaccinated-children-intensifying/) -vaccines can potentially be harmful (https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/data/index.html) Thus, the question in the OP equates to: 'Should parents be charged for putting the health of their children above that of the rest of society.' As an individualist, I say- hell no! Body autonomy/freedom of choice > the collective good. It should remain up to each individual whether they are willing to risk injury/death from a vaccine or injury/death from an illness, and yes, even risk undermining the immunity of the 'herd' and effecting others. There are precautions we can each take to protect ourselves that don't involve coercing others with the violence inherent in making laws. If you fear the unvaccinated, you can wear PPE in public spaces, avoid potentially contagious contact and follow decontamination procedures that altogether will effectively nullify your risk of infection. The personal inconvenience inherent in following these precautions does not outweigh the importance of other peoples freedom of choice and body autonomy to the foundational principles of our civilization.
Yes...I did, I think. If you actually needed to Google such a clear and obvious term....I simply don't know what to say. pur·pose·ful /ˈpərpəsfəl/ adjective adjective: purposeful having or showing determination or resolve. "the purposeful stride of a great lawyer" synonyms: determined, resolute, resolved, firm, steadfast, single-minded; More enthusiastic, ambitious, enterprising, motivated, driven, committed, dedicated, persistent, persevering, tenacious, dogged, unfaltering, unwavering, unshakeable "I sense a more purposeful attitude toward clients" antonyms: aimless, irresolute having a useful purpose. "purposeful activities" ig·no·rance /ˈiɡnərəns/ noun noun: ignorance lack of knowledge or information. "he acted in ignorance of basic procedures" synonyms: incomprehension, unawareness intentional.
And I'm sure that you know the words, "wet" and "dry." Does that mean that the term "wet dry" makes sense?
I'm sorry...I have no idea what to say without risking an infraction. I'll try this...if there is something so obviously clear and factual presented everywhere one looks yet the individual cannot or will not see it even though they are not physically impaired, the explanation falls to a desire to not recognize or accept what is seen. Purposeful ignorance just seems to be an easier way to say it. Think of a Flat Earther flying in a plane across the ocean....they see a curved earth but try to figure out a more convoluted reasoning for it.
Alright, fair enough. I'll accept your term, but: "Even though they are not physically impaired." Isn't it possible that they are MENTALLY impaired?
How many times do you need me to say YES? Are you mentally impaired? Pardon me...I forgot who I was typing at.
So then it wouldn't be "purposeful ignorance" then if they were mentally impaired, right? So shouldn't your statement have read as follows?: If there is something so obviously clear and factual presented everywhere one looks yet the individual cannot or will not see it even though they are not physically or mentally impaired, the explanation falls to a desire to not recognize or accept what is seen.
I think the schools will be sued for allowing a risky child to attend without vaccination like airlines were sued for allowing people to smoke on planes once a school loses such a lawsuit, it will be all over for the anti-vaxers
No...I stated it that way for good reason, and you are an excellent example of why. Lets review your stance on religion; All available data indicates aspects of the Christian Bible(s) to be impossibility. The God you believe in relies on these books, as do you for belief in its viability, You have access to all of this information and should also be aware of the council of Nicea, yet you choose not to access or accept it. This is a definition of purposeful ignorance. In this thread you have also shown this in the very simple definition of the concept, the alternative explanation is not flattering and risks infraction, so I will pass.
Our legal system is unfortunately flawed fundamentally by being easily corrupted from the Top, eliminating the core of its intent completely especially if the Congress loses its power of oversight...which is happening as we speak. We are at risk of banana republic drift into a worst case scenario dictatorship.....if our election system fails our experiment is over. There's your freakin' coup.
Just answer this, if you are even REMOTELY capable of doing so: is there anything which would exempt someone from being purposefully ignorant in your mind?
