MaidenOfMercy

I don't know why you're all so worried about 2012. My calendar ends on December 31, 2009. That means we're all going to die then, right

The only benefits to any kind of Internet censorship or restrictions are to put money in select individuals pockets, or pander to an arbitrary belief system. The Internet is probably the biggest educational resource and research tool in the history of mankind (even though a lot of us only use it to look at funny pictures and buy things on eBay) and any censorship has a negative impact on knowledge. Depending on the extent of the censorship it could be negative on a global scale.

Surely some people would argue "well it's ok to censor X" but once you start letting people have their opinions, people will start censoring things based on all sorts of ideas other than helping people.

It's not that big of a deal. I'm sure this is one of those "just in case" measures and it'll never be used. I honestly don't mind it when people are forced to be vaccinated. H1N1 is not a big deal, but if something worse than that comes up and threatens a country, I think they have every right to call for a state of emergency.

Also I forgot to mention but the reason they are doing it in Massachusetts is H1N1. And that is one of the problems with this. You said that you agree that H1N1 isn't a big deal and that it'd take something worse for them to call for a state of emergency. But this isn't something worse. Massachusetts is doing it because of H1N1, which most of us seem to agree is unjustified. We can say it's just in case this or that or they won't really do it but H1N1 is the cause.

Damn those local governments that believe in water fluoridation! It's my choice to have rotten teeth.

I am not required by law to drink tap water. It's not the same thing.

Paramore - Ignorance

Okay fine. They don't stick a "damn needle" in your arm. I think they have the right to quarantine you if you walk around becoming a health risk to the entire population.

I'm fine with that. At that point someone is hurting everyone else. But before someone is actually sick, it sets a bad precedent to just start sticking people. I don't see why it matters anyway since the people who are for the vaccinations would likely get one themselves anyway, rendering them safe from the effects of the disease whether or not the slow person next door decided not to get one and now is sick.

It isn't that I think vaccinations are bad. I'm not some anti-government nut but I don't trust the local government's competence to the point where I'd let them start medicating me by force.

iargue, people without the vaccine cause the virus to remain alive. The longer it remains in a population, the higher the chance of mutation. Look at smallpox. The disease was completely wiped out because governments mandated vaccinations. Polio is no longer in North America because the government mandated vaccinations. It is in the government's best interest to keep its populations healthy.

I suppose I get your point here, but again I don't have the same faith in the capability of the government to not mess it up somehow. Telling me I have to stay indoors is one thing, but injecting something into my body is a completely different one.

By not getting the vaccine while you had the opportunity to do so, you risk infecting those who were unable to get it for various reasons.

Point taken once more but IMO it's one of those freedom vs. security issues. It may be for the greater good but I'm afraid forced vaccinations crosses the line of what I'm willing to give up. It'd also be impossible for terrorists to attack our country if we had to get a cavity search any time we walked into a public place, but I'm not saying yes to that either. Not that it's the same thing but it's a similar "if we gave up freedom X then Y would not be dangerous" thing.