Poll to moderate the phrase "Anti-vaxxer" as a violation of the 'clean start' rule

[justinacolmena]

Traditional vaccination is based on sound, proven science

The only proof these doctors have for anything anywhere in their black bag of tricks is twice the percentage of alcohol, by volume, in a shot of vodka, whiskey, or other hard liquor.

 

[Natural Citizen]

To use the term “anti-vaxxer” against those of us who are skeptical of mRNA is deceptive, in that it groups us together with genuine kooks who oppose traditional, scientifically-proven vaccination.

Precisely. Thanks, Bob. It didn't seem like the point I was making was being understood. Glad you got it, though.

It's a very convenient kink in the rule structure if one's intent isn't genuinely aimed toward promoting genuine discussion on the issue, however, but rather only interested in avoiding any semblance of critical discussion or debate by shutting it down as quickly and as easily as possible before it actually takes root. Defining and permitting ad-hom arbitrarily as it pertains to the clean start rule is very convenient in that regard. It's unfortunate that it is that way. Doesn't have to be, though. It just is.

 

[Crepitus]

I am a proud anti-vaxxer.

As bill engvall would say:

View attachment 513988

And heeere's your sign.

View attachment 514043

Weak.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We have a "clean start" rule?

We have a conservatives aren’t subject to the clean start rule rule.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Clearly this is understood to be and meant to be a derogatory term which is universally made applicable to antagonize, offend, intimidate and ridicule

Rightwing cancel culture.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

those who may be pro-freedom of choice

Everyone is pro-freedom of choice, including those who engage in appropriate, warranted criticism of individuals so reckless and irresponsible as to spread misinformation and lies about vaccinations, and individuals so reckless and irresponsible as to not be vaccinated for no justifiable reason.

 

[Scottish_Brexiteer_UK]

If you're against the vaccine then isn't anti-vaxer the most accurate term you could use?

There's nothing offensive about it.

If you throw the term anti-vaxer around in a negative way, who cares? where do you even begin to draw the line when it comes to other things?

Leave the bastardising and censorship of our language to the politically correct lunatics on the left.

 

[MisterBeale]

absolutely it should be considered are slanderous term. It isn't even an accurate depiction of folks that are hesitant of this new medical technology. . . .


The experimental gene therapy isn't even a vaccine. . . most folks that are leery of normal vaccines, aren't "anti-vaccine," they are just pro-vaccine safety. . .

. . . and as far is this experimental gene therapy is concerned?

 

[candycorn]

We have a "clean start" rule?

No guns are banned except for the enforcers of the cut of flesh and the draw of blood throughout the district.

Good to know...thanks.

 

[justinacolmena]

those who may be pro-freedom of choice

Everyone is pro-freedom of choice, including those who engage in appropriate, warranted criticism of individuals so reckless and irresponsible as to spread misinformation and lies about vaccinations, and individuals so reckless and irresponsible as to not be vaccinated for no justifiable reason.

Damn grown-ass men need to be aborted, not innocent children. Otherwise Democrats need to be forced off the property with their abortion choice politics by gunfire. They opened fire first, and started the war after all.

 

[MadChemist]

I am a proud anti-vaxxer.

As bill engvall would say:

View attachment 513988

How ironic.

You spelled his first and last name without capitals.

You must be lending him that sign.

 

[Oddball]

Self explanatory.

Clearly this is understood to be and meant to be a derogatory term which is universally made applicable to antagonize, offend, intimidate and ridicule those who may be pro-freedom of choice in exercising their right to decide whether to undergo intrusive medical procedures or not to undergo intrusive medical procedures and is in no way intended to initiate, much less stimulate, fruitful, civil discourse.

I'm only talking about the clean start rule here. Initiating discourse specifically. Meaning thread titles and OPs.

You know. ''Equity" with relation to the existing rule itself.


For reference...

"It is wrong to call a person who declines a shot an 'anti-vaxxer,'" states AAPS executive director Jane Orient, M.D. "Virtually no physicians are 'anti-antibiotics' or 'anti-surgery,' whereas all are opposed to treatments that they think are unnecessary, more likely to harm than to benefit an individual patient, or inadequately tested."

AAPS being the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

Absolutely.

Declining to take certain marginally effective shots (i.e. annual flu and the FauxiFlu in particular), doesn't make anyone an "anti-vaxxer" overall.

The leftist authoritarian control freaks, and their media bootlickers, are engaging in the broad brush.

 

[MadChemist]

Self explanatory.

Clearly this is understood to be and meant to be a derogatory term which is universally made applicable to antagonize, offend, intimidate and ridicule those who may be pro-freedom of choice in exercising their right to decide whether to undergo intrusive medical procedures or not to undergo intrusive medical procedures and is in no way intended to initiate, much less stimulate, fruitful, civil discourse.

I'm only talking about the clean start rule here. Initiating discourse specifically. Meaning thread titles and OPs.

You know. ''Equity" with relation to the existing rule itself.


For reference...

"It is wrong to call a person who declines a shot an 'anti-vaxxer,'" states AAPS executive director Jane Orient, M.D. "Virtually no physicians are 'anti-antibiotics' or 'anti-surgery,' whereas all are opposed to treatments that they think are unnecessary, more likely to harm than to benefit an individual patient, or inadequately tested."

AAPS being the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

Absolutely.

Declining to take certain marginally effective shots (i.e. annual flu and the FauxiFlu in particular), doesn't make anyone an "anti-vaxxer" overall.

The leftist authoritarian control freaks, and their media bootlickers, are engaging in the broad brush.

MIT Study: Vaccine Hesitancy Is 'Highly Informed, Scientifically Literate,' and 'Sophisticated'

pjmedia.com

MIT study shows that many who are not taking it are highly informed.

 

[Oddball]

MIT Study: Vaccine Hesitancy Is 'Highly Informed, Scientifically Literate,' and 'Sophisticated'

pjmedia.com

MIT study shows that many who are not taking it are highly informed.

Of course we are....It's the knuckle dragging dullards on the back end of the bell curve, who want to force the vax into people.

 

[MadChemist]

Of course we are....It's the knuckle dragging dullards on the back end of the bell curve, who want to force the vax into people.

And yet, they seem intent on trying to shame people into getting vaxxed.

I had the virus and I intend on getting the shots.

But virus brought certain issues I still struggle with emotionally and getting vaxxed is not as easy (mentally) as it may seem (for me).