Honestly, these people are actually dangerous. It isn't even an exaggeration to say there are walking around as terroristic bioweapons. They are literally bringing back polio which we nearly eliminated with the vaccines that they claim are "ineffective".
Nearly? I dunno where anyone is. But here in the U S of A back in the day we knocked out smallpox, polio and a bunch of other things. But hey,Our new independent kids think European things are better. I have a daughter that won't shave her pits. I shave my pits.
I DON'T LIVE IN A CAVE. Our parents and grandparents died so we could live. How about giving those folks the benefit of the doubt.
I believe.... that an individual should shave whatever that individual chooses. Unless it means you are shaving when the you could have been stopping the Smallpox. Then I won't be happy.
It's time to stop letting these people get away with their stupidity: make vaccinations a legal requirement and start jailing the people who have caused (previously believed) eradicated diseases to spread.
Hundreds of children each year have "polio like symptoms" such as lose of use of one side of there body. Taking childrens' quality of life is wrong! It's like mesles- the only reason to prevent it is that so few people get it that doctors are not trained on how to treat it. Its treatable.
Idc about debate here, if you are an anti vaxxer or defend one, you're a public danger and there's a special place in hell for you.
You are potentially exposing your own child and countless others to horrific and preventable diseases which we were smart enough to figure out were treatable , before some halfwit oafs missed the memo on what vaccines were and started claiming doctors are poisoning children...
I can’t support this. Antivaxxers are ignorant and dangerous in my book. However- the fact I do no agree with them and have evidence and belief that they are harmful to society does not give me a right to vandalism. I can prove your truck or SUV is harmful using as concrete a science as can prove vaccines are safe and necessary. Does that mean if I am passionate about saving the planet I can vandalize your vehicle and be a hero? If you believe a politician or a president is harmful, and can back that with data, can you vandalize the signs on someone’s home or vehicle? What about “fur is murder,” and people who throw paint on others wearing fur? Yes- anti vax is dumb and dangerous as best we know. But there comes a point of distinction. The “FIRE!” Test. Yelling “fire!” In a crowded theater is not protected by freedom of speech. It is dangerous. If we can show something to be so dangerous- then we can outlaw it. If it has not held this burden of proof- then to treat it as anything but..
If we can show something to be so dangerous- then we can outlaw it. Personal weapons.Terrorist cells, Old men beating their chests. Children dying because they didn't get a cure. Oh,wait that's not even a thing.
... opinion is a slap against fee speech. McCarthyism and other witch hunts have been founded on that same principal- to label that in opposition to your beliefs as dangerous- and in many ways legitimately so, but to hold the possibility of danger against the protections of expression of speech and ideas as a method of control and silencing those we don’t agree with isn’t the way. Freedom and democracy come at costs. One of those costs is that we take the good with the bad. Allowing people to examine and critique and bring dissenting opinions to every subject imaginable allows for both intelligent debate and improvement of society, and for morons with bad ideas to speak. It’s important to remember though that many judged “morons with bad ideas” turned out to be right idea wrong time. So even when we KNOW almost 100% an idea is dumb- we still must protect its place, because the people who silenced heliocentricism of the idea of germs were 100% sure it was dangerous and dumb too.
The people who opposed women’s rights or de segregation and civil rights considered it dumb and dangerous too. I’m not putting antivax up with such right and hallowed ideas. I’m saying that if we could magically push a button to quash anything labeled dangerous or wrong, we wouldn’t have freedom nevause even ideas with nobility and merit have been labeled wrong. Same as protecting criminals rights. A society only has as much freedom and rights as those seen at the “bottom,” as “wrong,” in that society. That’s the measure of freedom- how we treat the “worst” and “least liked,” not how we treat the “smartest” or those who go with accceoted opinion right or wrong. The same logic behind this billboard is the logic behind painting hate speech on a holy building, the idea that a group is “dumb and dangerous” and trying to undermine their message with yours. An anger and hate that people you disagree with have a voice and are spreading their “ignorance” and “subversive ways.”
It’s important to remember though that many judged “morons with bad ideas” turned out to be right idea wrong time. So even when we KNOW almost 100% an idea is dumb- we still must protect its place, because the people who silenced heliocentricism of the idea of germs were 100% sure it was dangerous and dumb too.
OK That's a Hail Mary!.....
Because absolutely nothing you said is correct. Usage of the McCarthyism methodology is very similar to reaching for the "Hitler did nothing wrong" group. You should ease into the JFK"We should all work together. Together "We" are a sum of all that combine to be the best there ever will be.
TL:DR- challenge beliefs in debate. Challenge them through your own conduct, through legal channels. Challenge them on equal ground and show your side is right- ifit truly is. If you enjoy your freedom to oppose idiotic ideas then respect other people’s freedom to do the same. From where they stand you are just as wrong as they are to you. So imagine how you would feel about a person spray painting anyivax messages on a billboard for a vaccination clinic. If you wouldn’t think they were heroic or awesome, then the only reason to think this is isn’t because it is right, but because you happen to agree with it. That’s a scary thought.
@this_isntme- I’m glad you took the time to educate me on my being wron without actually offering any counter arguments or examples beyond quoting me and then saying “that’s wrong.” If you are looking for work, your skills are in high demand at Fox News and the White House currently. You’re about 30 years too late to work for the Kremlin sadly. They like to be a little more subtle now days. But to the point- nothing you’ve said has actually refuted anything I’ve said. But see- one of us may be wrong- but we both have the freedom to believe as we like. Does that mean that if one of us were to deface the others property we would be justified?
I would say that it would depend upon the property and our counter beliefs. If I was a black in the 1960's America I might feel justified to deface a 'Whites Only' sign. Would you feel that I shouldn't?
deleted
· 6 years ago
Knowledge is the intersection of belief and truth. The benefits of vaccination have been proven way beyond doubt, so fnck debates with anti-vaxers. This type of people should stick to challenge other people's view on the color of a dress but not judge things they clearly haven't got any clue of. The problem is these people are not excluded from public debate like in the pre-internet, or rather, pre-facebook days. Then, when someone like that would speak up in a public debate, he'd be confronted with the looks of the people around him and most likely just shut the fnck up and sod off. Now it seems everyone needs to respect his "views and beliefs" so he won't get cranky and vote a lunatic as president. Worked great sofar, amirite?
@this_isntme- you’re reaching pretty far comparing a billboard advertising an antivax website to a sign to a sign prohibiting an entire race from even existing in a place. If your teacher keeps you after school do you claim apartheid and compare yourself to Nelson Mandela as well? More constructively I can say that your example isn’t even apt. You are talking about a constitutionally barred policy that was ALWAYS wrong by the constitution and took centuries of struggle to get recognized. I am arguing to uphold the very same constitution which says you can’t have “no blacks allowed” signs or the like because it is in violation of the fundamental freedoms of all people. Despite the views of many that blacks were somehow inferior- harmful to society, and less intelligent, the constitution says that your beliefs on such matter ARE NOT grounds to deprive a person their basic rights to freedom of belief and expression and the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. ....
So since you are a fan of over exaggeration- let me be the MLK to your Malcolm X (MX later with age, experience, and wisdom came around to A philosophy similar to Dr. Kong’s by the way...), and say: No. I would not approve of you defacing a whites ony sign. The action would not be constructive. It would be an act of anger and frustration but one which would undoubtably be seen by most ad confirmation of many of the untrue negative generalizations about blacks being dangerous, uncivilized criminals who lacked the education and intelligence to function on the same level as whites. I would advocate that instead of defacing a sign, you sit in as non violent protest, force arrests if necessary, and then allow the headlines to show proud, defiant and peaceful people being unjustly treated harshly and unfairly. The publicity and court proceedings would then give a voice o the cause and allow you to eloquently speak your piece in public venue. Or if I was going to advocate criminal activity...
Or violent/militant activism, I would pursue a course of action more noteworthy and powerful than some chicken shit graffiti, because I’m not interested in showing anyone that the limits of my resolve and defiance are that I’ll make them replace a bunch of signs if they don’t back off- because an issue as powerful and meaningful as civil rights is a battle one commits to fully or not at all if they really want it, and they hope to get it. Comparing the issue of a misguided minority of anti vaxers to the civil rights struggle is beyond a stretch and beyond a desperation move. I would be ashamed to make such a comparison to try and win an internet argument over the basic rights of the constitution, and your argument actually hurts your cause because it is a clear example of why we can’t pick and choose who gets rights based on popular belief and current science. Read what the science of the 50’s said about black people. Medicine and science often supported racism. Oh- and funny enough...
... you bring up civil rights in a discussion of antivax- considering that many black people DO have a Lego age reason to be apprehensive of government backed medical programs due to things like the Tuskegee experiments and other cases where unethical and illegal medical experiments on par (without hyperbole) with the war crimes we hung Nazis for, were carried out on blacks, native Americans, and others, under the guise of legitimate medical care and vaccination. Experiments like Tuskegee where people were deliberately infected with diseases like syphilis and experimented on for cures or left untreated just to see what would happen. So while I still think people should get vaccinated despite that shameful history- you happened to bring up one of the groups which have a legitimate historical precedent for mistrusting doctors saying “it’s perfectly safe, take this vaccine.” You’ve said about as much to hurt your argument in one post as it’s taken me several to point out.
So yes- people should get vaccinated, but I still maintain and have yet to be rebuffed with any substance: that people who don’t believe in vaccination should not be silenced until and unless it is the ruling of a higher court that such actions constitute a true and dire public threat, and akin to shouting “fire” in a theater, cannot be tolerated- or it is ruled that one has the right to be antivax, but can be charged for manslaughter or related crimes if anyone is injured or killed by their behavior. But answer me this- is it not a dangerous precedent to set, making it the highest law, that if the government tells you to stick a needle in your arm and not ask questions, that you do not have the right to refuse, to question or doubt that whatever substance they deem as for “the greater good” is something you want in your body? That is the failing of freedom. It is a precious thing, and to have freedom requires allowing people to do some things we may not like, to ask questions, and...
... to disagree. That is where freedom and safety are often at odds. A camera in every home, on every person, a device that reads thoughts and allows criminals to be stopped instead of caught... all very safe. All a chip away at freedom, a slippery slope that leaves whoever is in control at an unquestionable advantage in power, with unprecedented possibilities for abuse. Iny mind it would be “right” to stop these people- but the liberties we take to do that set precedent that can be invoked on other issues, and all it takes is one guy in office making a stretch like you did comparing civil rights to vaccinations, and you can justify whatever you want. Look how the fight on terror became justification for things that have almost nothing or nothing to do with the goal. Just people stretching a way to work their agenda into a budget or get some popular “hash tags” behind an idea they tried to pass for other reasons but couldn’t get traction. You have illustrated the very danger with that.
@halfdeadhammerhead- if people weren’t allowed to have opinions about things they knew shit about, voter turnout would be around 1%. That’s why we have a representative republic with an electoral college and not a direct democracy. The founders declared in the constitution you don’t have to know jack shit about anything to have the freedom to speak on it, and so they knew most voters would be too ignorant to be truly informed and experienced, and they set up a safety net. Our country was built on the idea that idiots aren’t ideal, but we can’t march them into the sea so we just have to deal with them as best we can, and being an idtiot isn’t grounds to infringe upon freedoms- no one would have freedoms them because we are all an idiot to someone.
deleted
· 6 years ago
Who is trying to forbid people having opinions? My opinion is that people who don't have a fncking clue about a certain matter should not be taken that much into account when it is about that very frigging same matter. All I'm considering is giving them less attention in public debates. That has nothing whatsofnckingever to do with marching them into the sea or forbidding them to have (and express) opinions. And you know that all too well, so your soap box attitude is a bit pathetic. Maybe look for an additional hobby?
@halfdeadhammerhead- I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings by making you feel as though I thought I was somehow better than you. You seem to have a lot of hostility as the issue was a misunderstanding of your point, which you have clarified, and if you had desired could have done so without making personal attacks. When you say things like: “so fnck debates with anti-vaxers.” That implied to me a finality- that one shouldn’t bother to communicate with them. The next line:
“This type of people should stick to challenge other people's view on the color of a dress but not judge things they clearly haven't got any clue of.”
Implied to me that they should speak on trivial matters but not on things they don’t know about- hence my reply that even the uninformed have rights to opinions if they feel strongly. Then: “The problem is these people are not excluded from public debate like in the pre-internet, or rather, pre-facebook days.” Implying to me an exclusion of them, taking their voice away.
deleted
· 6 years ago
It can only be my lacking ability to express what I mean (cause what else could it possibly be (<-- now that's sarcasm which you might experience as hostility)), but you still didnt seem to catch my point. I'm not trying to take away anything from anybody, I'm just suggesting not to take everything anyone says for serious and relevant at any place and time.
I’m not missing your point. Not everyone on the internet is arguing with you. I was explaining WHY I had PREVIOUSLY misunderstood your intentions. I actually wrote 2 posts but the second one seems to not have went through? But further detailed the exact quotes and relations or conflicts where I had taken meaning from. It could be your ability to communicate, or it could be my ability to comprehend, or it could be that our communications styles didn’t mesh up. It is possible to have misunderstanding without fault, or equal fault. There is no “missing of the point,” as I said in my reply, you have clarified your point to me previously. And nothing about my reply calls in to question your asserted points, it merely notes the areas in which the original post obscured your point from me. The inclusion of those areas is not a critique, you may or may not choose to eliminate possible perceived ambiguities in the future as you see fit. I noted them for posterity and so that if you desired to..
.. you could analyze and understand my own though process upon first reading. You do not need to defend your position as you have already stated your position, and we have already agreed there was a misunderstanding, not an actual issue of contention.
I DON'T LIVE IN A CAVE. Our parents and grandparents died so we could live. How about giving those folks the benefit of the doubt.
You are potentially exposing your own child and countless others to horrific and preventable diseases which we were smart enough to figure out were treatable , before some halfwit oafs missed the memo on what vaccines were and started claiming doctors are poisoning children...
OK That's a Hail Mary!.....
Because absolutely nothing you said is correct. Usage of the McCarthyism methodology is very similar to reaching for the "Hitler did nothing wrong" group. You should ease into the JFK"We should all work together. Together "We" are a sum of all that combine to be the best there ever will be.
“This type of people should stick to challenge other people's view on the color of a dress but not judge things they clearly haven't got any clue of.”
Implied to me that they should speak on trivial matters but not on things they don’t know about- hence my reply that even the uninformed have rights to opinions if they feel strongly. Then: “The problem is these people are not excluded from public debate like in the pre-internet, or rather, pre-facebook days.” Implying to me an exclusion of them, taking their voice away.