Anti vax totalitarianism is a myth

IMO, JonC is a Sensationalist. And his false use of Totalitarianism is a prime example of that. It's like he's addicted to conflict. He posts provocative threads repeatedly. IMO, he's overly zealous of his own erroneous perceptions, like Saul.

Another prime example, anti-vax Thugs.

 

I think there is also somewhat of a problem with the terminology "anti-vaxxer". Most dictionaries have something like this:

This is pretty consistent in all dictionaries that I checked, except Merriam-Webster, which adds, "a person who opposes...laws that mandate vaccination." My main point is that many people who are opposed to the Covid-19 vaccinations are technically anti-covid19-vaxxers and are not necessarily anti-vaxxers on principle, opposed to all vaccinations. People who are "anti-vax" by the definition above will, of course, also oppose the Covid vax. However, a number of people who do not oppose all vaccinations do not think the Covid vaccination is trustworthy and therefore oppose it.

 

According to some sources, a "pro-vaxxer" is an individual who supports and advocates for vaccination, especially a parent who wants to have a child vaccinated. Interestingly, a number of dictionaries that have "anti-vaxxer" do not even include "pro-vaxxer".

In searching for pro-vaxxer, I found there is a recent word "vacctivist" (coined circa 2008). Though originally used to mock those against vaccinations, it has found use to describe either side of vaccine activism, either for or against.

 

No, everyone who is opposed to vaccinations (either some or all) does not necessarily care whether others get vaccinated; and everyone who favors vaccinations (either some or all) does not necessarily care whether others do not get vaccinated. Some just live and let live.

 

May be... but the context of what I wrote that you quoted in post # 8 (as well as what I previously posted before that) was the actual definition of the terms, as opposed to how they are loosely used in the covid vaccine debate.

 

Jon, feel free to use words any way you want to, but also don't be surprised if you confuse people when you do.

However, the "context" of what I am talking about is that you made a reply to what I said about definitions with a general statement that all -vaxxers do or believe this or that -- "The only difference between the pro-vaxers and anti-vaxers is the side they take (both want to decide for other people)." I disagreed. That is just not correct regardless of what definition (that we have discussed) that you put on it. For that statement to be true, you would have to define pro-vaxxer as an individual who wants to force everybody to be vaccinated and anti-vaxxer as an individual who wants to keep everybody from being vaccinated. You don't actually believe that is what those words mean, even if applied only to pro-covid-vaxxers and anti-covid vaxxers, do you?

 

So, to be clear Jon, you are saying that you are using pro-vaxxer and anti-vaxxer defined as individuals who want to decide what other people do about being vaccinated? Yet you agreed with me when I said all pro-vaxxers and anti-vaxxers do not believe that? It is no wonder we have difficulty communicating!

 

You could be more clear by not making up your own definitions. Even in the context of covid, pro-vaxxer and anti-vaxxer does not mean just those who want to have their way.

 

See, now that's where this discussion gets foolish. You start talking about force, then morph into suggesting that the free exchange of ideas is some manner of totalitarian force, because it leads to the free exchange of ideas that don't agree with your position. Then, then next logical step would be to use force to suppress this "manipulation" and "misinformation" as a means of putting down anti-vax propaganda. This is the same sort of twisted logic used by dictators the world over to control people, suppressing freedom in the name of freedom, suppressing free speech in the name of protecting free speech. You can't silence us and then tell us that you have made us more free. You can tell us that you would silence our "lies," but we must be permitted to speak, lest you get away with your lies.

The tyrannical position in this case is purely on the side of the pro-vax movement. Only their opposition has been silenced. Only their opposition has been mandated to violate their conscience. This is a one-sided coin. Had both sides been given equal rights, then both sides would have been heard, and vaccine mandates would not exist at all, anywhere.