Fucking morons

[hel_ana]

Regis O'Connor, you're unspeakably stupid.

The Huron-Superior trustees have reservations about allowing the vaccine in their schools, said trustee Regis O'Connor.

"As a Catholic school board, we are very, very aware that this a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease and that giving it means children are going to be promiscuous," he said.

Don't think for a second that I think the rest of the board brain trusts quoted in this article aren't complete morons, too. But O'Connor manages to bring the stupid in a very special way.

One that makes me want to punch him.

Comments

[eliskimo.livejournal.com]

While I may not agree with his conclusion, I understand where he is coming from and therefore cannot bring myself to be that hard on him.

He is a trustee at a Catholic school board.
The Catholic position is to teach abstinence to child/teens
As trustee, he must be a voice of the official position.

The King James Version of the Bible translates I Thessalonians 5:2 as "abstain from every appearance of evil."
As the KJV is probably (even today) the most wide-spread translation available, as for a great many years practically the only translation of available, this idea of avoided the "appearance of evil" is well-rooted.

Therefore:
IF your official position is sexual abstinence
and
IF the vaccine in question is to prevent a primarily sexually transmitted disease
and
THEN administering it becomes paramount to admitting (or accusing, depending on how you look at it) that the children/teens in your care are NOT following the official position

Now, one may say it is only a preventive,
BUT, given the above conclusion,
COUPLED WITH the ingrained message of the widely understood message of I Thes 5:22
THE RESULT is an "appearance of evil"
which the trustee would be understandably keen to avoid.

Like I said, I don't agree with him, but understand where he's coming from and why. I can't bring myself to call him "stupid" for it.

[hel_ana]

My reason for calling his statement stupid isn't the underlying message (being against the vaccine) -- that I regard as more evil than stupid.

My issue is with the logical fallacy he's making. The vaccine will not cause any child to be promiscuous.

[eliskimo.livejournal.com]

True, as stated, it's a fallacy of presumption (affirming the consequent, I believe). However, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (considering the thought process that I think must have gone into this) that it may have been a slip of the tongue: saying "means" when he meant "sends the message"

Giving the vaccine may send the message that you believe the children will be promiscuous.

[the-nita.livejournal.com]

Given that it will protect them past the point where they are children, and hypothetically become sexually active, it's still not a good arguement...

[the-real-crispy.livejournal.com]

But (and to take the devil's advocate - God's advocate position? )... the vaccine only needs to be administered before sexually activity begins (in a couple of rounds IIRC). So from a strictly Orthodox POV, you could say that you get your last shot the day of your wedding, and as long as you've been a good Catholic girl, you'll still be protected. If you haven't been, it's God's will.

[hel_ana]

The idea that this could be considerd the "Orthodox POV" or "god's advocate position" frankly makes me a bit sick to my stomach.

[the-real-crispy.livejournal.com]

Agreed, but it shouldn't be that big of a surprise - I would think that you heard worse while living in Florida.

[hel_ana]

oh, certainly - a certain bumper sticker comes to mind.. I still want to spit nails when I think of it.

But being there, frankly, really reduced my tolerance for this kind of BS. I came back considerably more radicalized and leftist than when I moved there.

[eliskimo.livejournal.com]

Last time I checked, Catholics weren't Calvinists who believe in any kind of predestination. However, if, as hel_ana suggests, he's merely working from talking points, then the point is somewhat moot.

[Slightly off-topic, I would also quibble with calling anything Catholic "strictly Orthodox" with a capital "O"; that split happened over 10 centuries ago, and the estrangement started 5 centuries before that.]

[the-real-crispy.livejournal.com]

You're right - Catholics aren't Calvinist. I think that's a bit of a theoretical point though. I've seen Catholics that range from "they might as well be secular" to some that I swear are Pentecostal.

The O in Orthodox was unintentional - in fact, I was being downright lazy at that point. I was really attempting to refer to the ultra-conservative catholics that seem to have cropped up in the last twenty years or so.

[eliskimo.livejournal.com]

Yes, but there is a difference between offering a weak argument and being stupid.

[the-real-crispy.livejournal.com]

I have heard far too many times over the years from people who believe that providing birth control to teenagers leads directly to increased sexual activity. I personally believe it much more likely that Regis here simply falls into that camp (and replace birth control with the vaccine).

[hel_ana]

and he probably does.

but the people he's getting his talking points from are, arguably, fighting against the vaccine because it helps them push their abstinence-only "education" mandate through

Because it's so very moral to try to keep a disease around in service of your agenda.

[hel_ana]

I think one of my basic problems with it is that there *isn't*, imo, a real "thought process" here. He's repeating talking points. I know, because I heard those talking points plenty when I was living in Florida.

[eliskimo.livejournal.com]

No offense to any Floridians who actually do think, but I like to think that folks in Ontario are bit more savvy. Yes, I know it's *my* bias showing ..

[the-nita.livejournal.com]

Come on - this has been the arguement of the socially conservative for years - "if we teach/protect them against sexual things, that automatically means they'll be sexually active, which we will stop at all opportunities"

He's not being stupid - he's being consistent.

[hel_ana]

arguably, he's being both. consistency doesn't preclude stupidity, and it's arguable that rigid consistency tends towards stupidity.

[much-ado.livejournal.com]

there is also some reason to believe he's using this as a strawman argument to forestall pressure on the catholic church and school board to administer the vaccine broad-stream, given that widespread application of the vaccine beyond the scope of the original clinical trials is now showing up some unexpected results (i'll try and find online refs for that; i came across a paper-based article, i think in the most recent issue of More magazine, to that effect, but haven't had time to track down substantiating references).

again, i don't agree with his approach, especially if it *is* just a strawman stalling tactic, bu there are a lot of reasons why the Church *may* be taking this tack. badly voiced reasons to the public, yes, absolutely; misleading, for certain. but then again, that's generally how the Church has operated: better strawman arguments than actually making straight statements of policy in the face of decreasing public support.

not an argument in their defence, just another perspective that they may have their reasons, whether we agree with the reasons or methodologies, or not.

[hel_ana]

I'd be interested in seeing that, thanks.

Do you remember what kind of unexpected results the article was talking about?

[much-ado.livejournal.com]

IIRC, a slew of unpredictable side effects, but since i was mostly skimming the mag, i didn't retain much. i'll see what i can find.

[much-ado.livejournal.com]

so far, not much is turning in in a remedial online search, but there's this:

Now, there's new information about the three-dose vaccine's adverse side effects.

The Centers for Disease Control collected more than 500 complaints since the vaccine's approval last June, including: soreness at the injection site, fainting or dizziness and fever or nausea.

And, while Gardasil is considered safe, the vaccine is still surrounded by controversy.
(http://cbs5.com/health/local_story_052190156.html%20)

also, http://hpvnews.blogspot.com/ includes an article from ctv.ca news staff about incoming responses to the vaccinations, in terms of noted side effects from both standalone innoculations and those paired with other vaccines. ctv.ca reports the incoming results as currently being reasonably inconclusive about the vaccine's direct link to the reported side effects, and the medical establishment's contention that a small number of repoted issues in a candidacy base of 7 million innoculation thus far is a very acceptable level of variance from the expected responses.

[hel_ana]

Thanks.

I did find this:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070911/hpv_vaccine_070911/20070911?hub=TopStories

But Shannon Nelson, an 18-year-old athlete from outside of Chicago, wonders about the vaccine. She got the HPV shot at the same time as two other vaccines. Within a week, she developed Guillian-Barre Syndrome (GBS), a mysterious autoimmune disorder that causes muscle weakness and paralysis. In Nelson's case, she developed paralysis that lasted for over two months.

"I couldn't sit up in bed, I could not lift up my arms," she recalls. "I appear recovered but I'm not. I can't feel my hands and feet that good."

Nelson's parents reported what happened to their daughter to U.S. health authorities. So did more than a dozen other people who suspected their cases of GBS were linked to the HPV vaccine after they received it either on its own or with other vaccines.

The CDC says they cannot prove a link.

"In most of the cases we reviewed, it appeared as though there were other factors more likely to be the cause of the Guillain-Barré," says Iskander. "It's a pretty rare event. But you know, in a population of 7 million people, some cases are going to happen."

Iskander says a vaccine used in the U.S. against meningococcal disease, called Menactra, has been linked to GBS, in rare occasions.

"In fact, about half of the reports involving Gardasil also involved this other vaccine. So it may be there is a bit of sort of innocent bystander effect, if you will, which is part of why those reports are showing up," he says.

There also have been seven deaths reported in the U.S after an HPV injection. But four have been attributed to other causes. In three cases, officials say there's insufficient data to conclude the HPV vaccine was the cause.

[mycrazyhair.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I thought soreness, fainting, dizziness, fever and nausea were all identified as side effects in the original studies? Certainly my doctor warned me about those months ago. I find it hard to imaginge giving up the vaccine to avoid those types of side effects.

[cous-cous.livejournal.com]

I disagree. The responsibility of the Catholic Church, is protecting souls, not bodies.

As such, HPV isn't really their problem. And of course, anything that would suggest to the student body that promiscuity is OK, is.

[hel_ana]

And if this was purely about the Catholic Church, I'd say you have a point.

However, the Catholic School Boards of Ontario, which is what we're talking about here, are wholly tax-funded educational bodies; they're a parallel, alternative, system to the public school system. They take money from the government in order to run, and thus, IMO, they have obligations beyond that which a privately run Catholic school would have. If they don't want to run the vaccination programs that schools in Ontario are expected to run, then they can stop taking the province's money to operate.

[cous-cous.livejournal.com]

That's a different argument. How tied is their tax money revenue to running certain programs? And are all private schools held to the same standard of programs/revenue?

If the only obligation in order to take the money is that they meet certain academic and attendance requirements, I'd say they're in the clear. If other private schools take funds and ignore obligations, likewise.

[hel_ana]

well, it's the response to the argument you made, which was a response to an argument that I didn't make (but do agree with) -- I was merely pointing out that the guy's logic was completely stupid (see later post about the stunning lack of people running out to jump on rusty nails after getting a tetanus shot).

Private schools don't get any provincial funding in Ontario. The Catholic schools under discussion aren't private schools, in any sense of the word. They have, so far as I understand it, the same obligations in order to take the money that the public school boards do.

[hel_ana]

It should be noted that there is a political party currently campaigning in the Ontario provincial election (to be held on Oct 10) to extend public funding to other religious (thus private) schools. Only time will tell if that will happen.

There's a good overview here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_school

[hel_ana]

And I owe you an apology -- my original reason for responding about the public school/separate school issue here in ontario was an attempt to give you the context that everyone else in the discussion had. We're kind of freak children here in Ontario as regards the whole public religious schools thing.

Unfortunately, I'm more than a bit passionate about the subject, and an attempt to inform became an argument. So I apologize for that.

[cous-cous.livejournal.com]

No worries. I don't take these things personally.

In New York (and Florida), Religious schools take public funding for a portion of their expenses, and as such, agree to follow rules (Students must take the regents or the FCAT, for example), but they remain private schools. They are not solely supported by the taxpayers, they are merely subsidized by the taxpayers.

As a result, only the rules they have originally agreed to (back to the FCAT) are required, or funding is in Jeopardy. Everything else is fair game.

And to note, I did respond on subject initially, I simply didn't explain that the Catholic School Board IS the Catholic Church. As someone who has attended Catholic High School, I can tell you that their emphasis is not on education or even the general welfare of the student body, but on making sure they raise "Good Christians". They were always up front about that, much as one might wish otherwise.

[hel_ana]

So why are you menacing me?

[cous-cous.livejournal.com]

I'm not menacing you. I'm just giving Pookie her props.

Paranoid much? ;)

[hel_ana]

Of course I'm paranoid! Any sane person would be.

[eve-the-just.livejournal.com]

Why is no one bringing up the issue of rape? Rapist do not believe in abstenance or any sort of disease-reducing birth control methods. Rapists are not likely to be squeaky-clean and disease-free. And with studies usually claiming 1 in 4 women are victims of some form of sexual assault, it seems to me that any woman can be at risk of getting this virus without being promiscuous.

It's like saying God doesn't want you to wear a seat belt because doing so would imply you are intending to hit something and cause harm to others. And though most of us never encounter a situation where a seat belt is needed, and most of us do not intentionally put ourselves in situations where a seat belt is required, we still all agree that wearing one is a good idea.

[hel_ana]

I did mention the issue of rape in the letter I wrote to the editor.

But your analogy is definitely a good one.