[lit-ideas] Re: flu vaccine
- From: "Erin Holder" <erin.holder@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:03:46 -0400
> Do you EVER feel remotely vulnerable on a
> rollercoaster?
C'mon Paul, you've seen those contraptions down at the Exhibition. Would
you get on one of those? :)
Erin
Toronto
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Stone" <pas@xxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:55 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: flu vaccine
> Well, it's a good thing there was a lunar eclipse to keep me awake. WHERE
> do I begin? These discussions are EXACTLY why I fought so vehemently
> against the 3-post rule on that other list. It's impossible to defend your
> argument when you are limited. Of course some will say that it's simply
> impossible to defend my argument.
> >I don't know where the notion that 'millions of people...[who don't need
flu
> >shots] are getting them' comes from.
>
> I have a hard time believing that 1/3 of the population NEEDS flu shots.
As
> I said before, if they do, then we've got serious issues.
>
> >That certainly hasn't been reported locally ornationally
>
> Aside: This is a lovely accidental enjambement.
>
> >(although Marlena did suggest that her library staff didn't want to
> >be making decisions about who did and didn't need innoculation and was
giving
> >everyone a pass). In Oregon there's no flu vaccine for anybody, let alone
> >those
> >who are in the 'at risk' category.
>
> That's terrible and I'm not trying to be callous to anyone.
>
> >The lines shown on TV and reported in the press are made up of aged folk,
> >some in wheelchairs, most assisted by abler
> >persons. The innoculation of people who fall outside the guidelines
didn't
> >create the present US flu vaccine shortage.
>
> NO... and that was never my contention. I'm only saying that the HUGE
> outcry is because of the general unavailability of it, not JUST because of
> the vaccine shortage for those who actually need it. Previously, if you
had
> 10 bucks, you could get one... and MANY, MANY did.
>
> >And later:
> >
> > >They are not being altruistic, whining about how their grandmothers and
kids
> >can't get it.<
> >
> >Who are 'they'? I guess I'm asking which planet's newspapers you read.
>
> Yes, the planet iceasedtogiveashitlastmonth.
>
> >Yet further:
> >
> > >It's like air bags, car safety, seatbelts etc. How about learning how
to
> >fucking drive so that you don't smash into anything? How about more
difficult
> >driving tests? How about making sure that people who are not extremely
> >competent
> >drivers DON'T DRIVE?<
> >
> >'It's like'? I have a hard time seeing how it is. It seems odd to say
that
> >because most accidents are caused by people who don't know how to fucking
> >drive,
> >there is no need for seatbelts and airbags in general (if that _is_
what's
> >being
> >said). Although there are lethal one car accidents, I think there are far
more
> >multiple car accidents, and it takes only one incompetent driver to ruin
your
> >day, however competent you may be.
>
> Not really. If you are FULLY at attention, the odds of you getting creamed
> by an errant driver are very low. Even head-on collisions, if not caused
by
> someone suddenly just deliberately creaming you, are generally avoidable
if
> you are paying attention. How many times have you seen a close call on the
> highway? HUNDREDS of times. The fatal collisions are mostly caused by both
> the causer and the person who is hit NOT paying attention at the same
time.
> I'm not blaming the 'innocent' creamee, but they ARE at fault somewhat. If
> you are always prepared to drive into a ditch to avoid that semi coming
> your way, then the VAST probability is that you will NOT die in a car
> accident. YEs, I am still idealistic, but I've ridden a donorcycle for 20
> years defensively and successfully.
>
> >Are you saying that if the Kingdom of God on earth resulted in only
> >'competent' drivers there'd be no need for safety devices on cars?
>
> NOPE. I'm saying that the more safety devices that are invented, the LESS
> responsibility the driver feels. Do you EVER feel remotely vulnerable on a
> rollercoaster? NO! That's because you are completely at the mercy of the
> safety precautions that were taken to ensure your safety and you have
faith
> in them. But LIFE is not an amusement park. It has been marketed as such,
> but it's not. People have been lulled into a false sense of security about
> life in general. When you drive, you are taking a 1 1/2 -2 ton projectile
> and hurtling it around at 60-70 miles an hour. Most people who do this
have
> no appreciation for the momentum they carry and the subsequent damage that
> can inflict. The fact that 'safety' is a major selling point on cars is
> telling. Nobody wants responsibilities. It's no longer "IF" I crash, it's
> "WHEN" I crash.
>
> >I'm waiting for the Paul Stone isolation-satisfaction unit, which is
> >modeled on
> >early brain-in-a-vat technology, to come on the market. When it's
available it
> >will be so attractive that nobody will want to leave its cozy confines
and
> >expose themselves to germy people and Massachusetts drivers.
>
> The internet is a pre-cursor.
>
> Going out to check on the eclipse's ebb. Still trying to interact with my
> artificial world.
>
> paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
