Pro-vax and Anti-vax Totalitarianism

[JonC]

I'm starting a thread off the two ideas expressed below:

This is really simple - if you believe the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks of the vaccine and the risks of covid then get vaccinated. If you believe the risks of the vacvine outweigh the risks associated with the virus then don't get vaccinated.

Don't whine that others get vaccinated....or that others do not....that is none of your business.

It just seems here that the anti-vaxers are afraid they are wrong and want to justify their position. You only need to justify your choice to be vaccinated or not to you or your family.

I believe choosing whether to be vaccinated is a simple process-

1. Weigh the benefits-risks of the vaccine
2. Weigh your risks associated with the virus
3. Choose to be vaccinated or not based on these pros and cons.

I also believe there should be no pro-vaccibe or anti-vacvibe agendas, but that individuals should be allowed to make the decision themselves regarding the virus and vaccination.

People should not be harassed based on the decision.

Whether to be vaccinated or not is an individual choice and regardless of the decision that person does not have to justify him/herself to others.

Pro-vaxers and anti-vaxers go beyond this to advocate their position for other people (either by trying to talk people out of getting a vaccine or by forcing people to get a vaccine). They are not content staying in their own lane.

It seems that pro-vaxers and anti-vaxers just want to justify themselves before others to satisfy a fear they may be wrong.

thats not what it seems at all. That’s just what you want to make it seem. Quite frankly I find most if your rhetoric on this topic disengenuous

(the above articulated by @Revmitchell , confirmed in agreement by @Wingman68 , @xlsdraw , and @Scott Downey....who I invite to defend the position).

Others believe one must advocate a position, they must try to persuade others into making the same medical choices they have made. In other words, opinions they value should be adopted by the whole).

They believe the choice of being vaccinated or not involves more than weighing the benefits-risks of the vaccine against the risks of the virus.


In other words, pro and anti-vaxers want their conclusions to be forced on the whole. They do not believe personal choices should be allowed on the basis of individual people weighing the pros and cons to make a personal decision about their individual health.

Are they correct, or should we be allowed to make our own decisions regarding our health?

 

[xlsdraw]

I have yet to see a mandate to not vaccinate.

Only in your mind do you think those that choose not to take the vaccine are Authoritarians.

 

[JonC]

I have yet to see a mandate to not vaccinate.

Only in your mind do you think those that choose not to take the vaccine are Authoritarians.

I have yet to see a mandate TO vaccine.

Trying to deny choice, either way (you trying to stop vaccines, your counterparts trying to force vaccines) are Authoritarians.

Why cannot you just advocate letting people decide for themselves...even if they choose to reject your opinion???

It is not your business what others decide. You are not qualified to advise or make thatcdecusion for them.

 

[xlsdraw]

I have yet to see a mandate TO vaccine.

Trying to deny choice, either way (you trying to stop vaccines, your counterparts trying to force vaccines) are Authoritarians.

Why cannot you just advocate letting people decide for themselves...even if they choose to reject your opinion???

It is not your business what others decide. You are not qualified to advise or make thatcdecusion for them.

Please show where I have tried to force anything on anyone. Evidence please.

 

[Wingman68]

Seems Squire started a thread already on this. Apparently, it wasn’t enough for Jon. Now we have a new thread where, as the story goes, Jon is the man in the middle while named members are challenged to challenge the moderator. Do I have this right? Set ‘em up, move ‘em out.

 

[xlsdraw]

Seems Squire started a thread already on this. Apparently, it wasn’t enough for Jon. Now we have a new thread where, as the story goes, Jon is the man in the middle while named members are challenged to challenge the moderator. Do I have this right? Set ‘em up, move ‘em out.

Part of the reason why I don't debate.

 

[JonC]

Please show where I have tried to force anything on anyone. Evidence please.

Read your posts. You mask your agenda in "opinion" but are not qualified to ascertain what is best for other people. You are no better than the pro-vaxerd who do the same.

 

[xlsdraw]

Read your posts. You mask your agenda in "opinion" but are not qualified to ascertain what is best for other people. You are no better than the pro-vaxerd who do the same.

Nope. You started this thread and You made the accusations. YOU provide the evidence. Because without a doubt, it is YOU that lacks discernment.

And the BB Administration should hold you, one of their moderators, to that basic standard.

 

[Reynolds]

I'm starting a thread off the two ideas expressed below:


I believe choosing whether to be vaccinated is a simple process-

1. Weigh the benefits-risks of the vaccine
2. Weigh your risks associated with the virus
3. Choose to be vaccinated or not based on these pros and cons.

I also believe there should be no pro-vaccibe or anti-vacvibe agendas, but that individuals should be allowed to make the decision themselves regarding the virus and vaccination.

People should not be harassed based on the decision.

Whether to be vaccinated or not is an individual choice and regardless of the decision that person does not have to justify him/herself to others.

Pro-vaxers and anti-vaxers go beyond this to advocate their position for other people (either by trying to talk people out of getting a vaccine or by forcing people to get a vaccine). They are not content staying in their own lane.

It seems that pro-vaxers and anti-vaxers just want to justify themselves before others to satisfy a fear they may be wrong.

(the above articulated by @Revmitchell , confirmed in agreement by @Wingman68 , @xlsdraw , and @Scott Downey....who I invite to defend the position).

Others believe one must advocate a position, they must try to persuade others into making the same medical choices they have made. In other words, opinions they value should be adopted by the whole).

They believe the choice of being vaccinated or not involves more than weighing the benefits-risks of the vaccine against the risks of the virus.


In other words, pro and anti-vaxers want their conclusions to be forced on the whole. They do not believe personal choices should be allowed on the basis of individual people weighing the pros and cons to make a personal decision about their individual health.

Are they correct, or should we be allowed to make our own decisions regarding our health?

I want to stop the loss of my rights. The pro vax crowd is trying to take away my rights.
I know the vax is not the mark of the beast, but it is getting too close.
Show me your papers or you can't buy, sell, trade, work, or travel. That is giving govt too much power.

 

[Reynolds]

I have yet to see a mandate TO vaccine.

Trying to deny choice, either way (you trying to stop vaccines, your counterparts trying to force vaccines) are Authoritarians.

Why cannot you just advocate letting people decide for themselves...even if they choose to reject your opinion???

It is not your business what others decide. You are not qualified to advise or make thatcdecusion for them.

Listened to Joe today? He is trying to mandate it.

 

[JonC]

Nope. You started this thread and You made the accusations. YOU provide the evidence. Because without a doubt, it is YOU that lacks discernment.

And the BB Administration should hold you, one of their moderators, to that basic standard.

I did provide two quotes.

My position is well known. I am not pro-vax or anti-vax.

I believe that I am not qualified to make decisions for other people.

I know you are not.

Yet for some reason you feel that you are the arbitrator of vaccination opinions.

The truth is you are not qualified to choose between different doctor opinions and push your opinions to other people.

You made your choice, placed your bets, but you are clueless as to what the future holds.


I have not advocated getting a vacvine - nor have I suggested people should avoid getting vaccinated.

The difference is I believe people need to make those decisions - based not on opinions about what might happen but based on consulting with people they trust and weighing the pros and cons to make their own decisions.

You act as if any information from the CDC is false. But this is a facade. What you really mean is you accept information that supports your decision (like the CDC providing that the vaccine can cause Bell’s palsy and heart problems) while rejecting what you disagree with.

And that is fine....for you. But it us not fine to pretend you know what is best for other people.

 

[JonC]

I want to stop the loss of my rights. The pro vax crowd is trying to take away my rights.
I know the vax is not the mark of the beast, but it is getting too close.
Show me your papers or you can't buy, sell, trade, work, or travel. That is giving govt too much power.

I am not sure which rights you are speaking of, but using their tactics is not the answer.

Address the removal of those rights- not the actual vacvine or virus.

I do not watch the news, but I have seen this argument before with the measles vaccine. And I agree. If a family dies not want to be vaccinated then the risk is on them....leave them alone. If they want to be vaccinated...leave then alone.

The elephant in the room for the pro-vaxers whi believe those without the vaccine will die and the vaccinated will live is that per their thinking the only real danger is to the unvaccinated.

If the pro-vaxers think the unvacvinated will be superspreaders then let it go. If tge vaccine works they are safe (even if they get sick....just not seriously so).

If the anti-vaxers believe the vaccinated will be super-spreaders so what? The anti-vaxer "science" tells them the vacvinated will be the ones dying of covid variants and will be dead within 5 years. Tge unvacvinated have less than 2% chance of getting sick and of they get covid they will have natural immunity.


My point is both the anti-vax and the pro-vax agendas betray a lack of conviction in their beliefs.

 

[xlsdraw]

I did provide two quotes.

My position is well known. I am not pro-vax or anti-vax.

I believe that I am not qualified to make decisions for other people.

I know you are not.

Yet for some reason you feel that you are the arbitrator of vaccination opinions.

The truth is you are not qualified to choose between different doctor opinions and push your opinions to other people.

You made your choice, placed your bets, but you are clueless as to what the future holds.


I have not advocated getting a vacvine - nor have I suggested people should avoid getting vaccinated.

The difference is I believe people need to make those decisions - based not on opinions about what might happen but based on consulting with people they trust and weighing the pros and cons to make their own decisions.

You act as if any information from the CDC is false. But this is a facade. What you really mean is you accept information that supports your decision (like the CDC providing that the vaccine can cause Bell’s palsy and heart problems) while rejecting what you disagree with.

And that is fine....for you. But it us not fine to pretend you know what is best for other people.

Not guilty. Where is your evidence? If it existed, you would provide it.

I think you may be insane.

Let the other members judge your evidence when you provide it.

 

[JonC]

Listened to Joe today? He is trying to mandate it.

No. I never listen to President Biden (I do not watch politics).

But I did look it up. Apparently Biden cannot make vaccinations mandatory. BUT in some cases he may be able to withhold federal funds (like with nursing home staff) should they not require vaccinations.

It is manditory (from what I've been told) in the military (now that it is FDA approved). But many vaccines are (got a cool story about that I'll tell ya one day).

That said, address the "rights" you believe are being taken away. That is fair.

But there is a huge difference between adopting the anti-vax agenda and fighting for your rights.


I stand with you that no person should be forced to be vaccinated. I agree 100%.

I just get tired of people suggesting other people take or refrain from getting vaccinated (they are mor qualified, it is not their business, and it can be dangerous).

 

[JonC]

Not guilty. Where is your evidence? If it existed, you would provide it.

The guilty always cry "innocent" the loudest.

How are you qualified to recommend another person take or refrain from taking a vaccination?

 

[JonC]

I think you may be insane.

Here is my proof for a couple of members (a conversation about agendas and integrity...anti-vax Chriatians refraining from addressing things when it comes from within their camp):

@Revmitchell , @SGO .... do you believe the above is appropriate?

If it were said to an anti-vax member would you consider it inappropriate?

That, SGO, is what I have been pointing you towards.

 

[SGO]

"The guilty always cry "innocent" the loudest."

"That, SGO, is what I have been pointing you towards."

Make it personal Jon why don't you?

Cut?

 

[JonC]

"The guilty always cry "innocent" the loudest."

I agree. He knows that he is trying to persuade people against the vaccine. Glad you see it as well.

People need to allow others to make their own decisions about their health.

This goes for people who want forced vaccinations and people who want to deprive others of the option.

Each agenda disproves itself.

 

[xlsdraw]

We are still waiting for you to provide evidence of your false accusations.

If there was evidence of your false claims you would post it.

 

[SGO]

"Glad you see it as well."

I don't agree Jon, but I am not going to respond to indirect call outs.

Does the director say, "Cut!"?

By the way, I do regret losing my temper in the pm and would like to apologize for the way I phrased things.

Goal line.