Anti vax totalitarianism is a myth

[canadyjd]

No. Manuplation is just as bad as force. Often it is far worse. The free exchange of ideas should not devolve into a free exchange of lies.

This is why groups like Mormons and JW's are not permitted on this board.

The “free exchange of ideas” does involve freedom to say what you believe to be true, even if someone else thinks it’s a lie.

The answer is to expose the “lie” for what it is with contra information.

If you suppress the “lie” from being heard, you devolve into totalitarianism which forbids the free exchange of ideas.

And then, mankind being evil, you will only hear the propaganda from those “in charge” because everything contra the official position is suppressed as a “lie”.

You used the analogy of the church and false teachers. The Catholic Church suppressed to the death those who believed differently than the official position. I’m sure they considered the reformers, and those before them, to be false teachers and liars that were feeding misinformation to the masses. I’m sure they believed they were saving people from being “conquered” by manipulation and misinformation.

The common belief, then and now, is that ordinary people aren’t smart enough to figure out the truth for themselves. We reject that notion in the USA, or at least we used to.

More free speech, more information. Let people decide for themselves.

Freedom!!!

peace to you

 

[just-want-peace]

Just reading this thread, to me it is obvious (and that it’s working) that the left wants to keep COVID front & center, cause it keeps the desired division, AND, it deflects from the faux pa of Afghanistan!!

 

[JonC]

The “free exchange of ideas” does involve freedom to say what you believe to be true, even if someone else thinks it’s a lie.

The answer is to expose the “lie” for what it is with contra information.

If you suppress the “lie” from being heard, you devolve into totalitarianism which forbids the free exchange of ideas.

And then, mankind being evil, you will only hear the propaganda from those “in charge” because everything contra the official position is suppressed as a “lie”.

You used the analogy of the church and false teachers. The Catholic Church suppressed to the death those who believed differently than the official position. I’m sure they considered the reformers, and those before them, to be false teachers and liars that were feeding misinformation to the masses. I’m sure they believed they were saving people from being “conquered” by manipulation and misinformation.

The common belief, then and now, is that ordinary people aren’t smart enough to figure out the truth for themselves. We reject that notion in the USA, or at least we used to.

More free speech, more information. Let people decide for themselves.

Freedom!!!

peace to you

I am not talking about differences of opinion (or one side thinking the other is a lie).

I am talking about outright misinformation (on both sides).

You seem to advocate sin as freedom. Christians can lie, but that us not a freedom in Christ.

 

[JonC]

Just reading this thread, to me it is obvious (and that it’s working) that the left wants to keep COVID front & center, cause it keeps the desired division, AND, it deflects from the faux pa of Afghanistan!!

Actually both sides are keeping covid front and center. I don't think it can detract from President Biden's bungling of Afghanistan.

 

[canadyjd]

I am not talking about differences of opinion (or one side thinking the other is a lie).

I am talking about outright misinformation (on both sides).

You seem to advocate sin as freedom. Christians can lie, but that us not a freedom in Christ.

That is an outrageous statement. I do not advocate “sin” for anything.

And yes, you are talking about differences of opinion on what is “truth” and what is “disinformation”.

Do you have the wisdom to determine which is truth and which is disinformation? Are you the one to filter all comments so that only “truth” can be heard by us commoners?

The founders of this country understood the tendency of men to corrupt the “truth”. Freedom of the press/expression was a foremost freedom they wanted to protect.

Don’t accuse me of advocating for sin. It is a lie and Christians shouldn’t lie.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

That is an outrageous statement. I do not advocate “sin” for anything.

And yes, you are talking about differences of opinion on what is “truth” and what is “disinformation”.

Do you have the wisdom to determine which is truth and which is disinformation? Are you the one to filter all comments so that only “truth” can be heard by us commoners?

The founders of this country understood the tendency of men to corrupt the “truth”. Freedom of the press/expression was a foremost freedom they wanted to protect.

Don’t accuse me of advocating for sin. It is a lie and Christians shouldn’t lie.

peace to you

Then I misunderstood you (and you me).

My complaint was that people should not post known misinformation (like extracting quotes from studies to claim their conclusion was different from what it actually was).

My position:

I believe people should be able to HONESTLY argue their positions. But at least twice we have seen a member post a snip from a study and claim it concluded something entirely opposite from its conclusion. This is called lying. And it is a sin.

We have seen data manuplation on both sides to support a conclusion. This is also lying. It is what we call "journalism" today, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.




You seemed to imply that my argument against Christians being untruthful was somehow a denial of freedom - that people should be free to post anything.

I am glad that is not your position.

There is only one truth (truth is not subjective). There is not "your truth" and "my truth". Conclusions may differ but the data is consistent....until manuplated (lying).

Looks like you and I completely agree on this issue.

 

[canadyjd]

Then I misunderstood you (and you me).

My complaint was that people should not post known misinformation (like extracting quotes from studies to claim their conclusion was different from what it actually was).

My position:

I believe people should be able to HONESTLY argue their positions. But at least twice we have seen a member post a snip from a study and claim it concluded something entirely opposite from its conclusion. This is called lying. And it is a sin.

We have seen data manuplation on both sides to support a conclusion. This is also lying. It is what we call "journalism" today, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.

You seemed to imply that my argument against Christians being untruthful was somehow a denial of freedom - that people should be free to post anything.

I am glad that is not your position.

There is only one truth (truth is not subjective). There is not "your truth" and "my truth". Conclusions may differ but the data is consistent....until manuplated (lying).

Looks like you and I completely agree on this issue.

The “truth” is corrupted by political influence.

For example, during this “COVID crisis” the Cleveland Clinic conducted a study that said people who had been exposed and recovered got no benefit from receiving the vaccine. That same study concluded people who have had the virus and recovered should be vaccinated anyway.

So a prestigious Medical Research facility gave conflicting information in the same study. People from both sides of this debate can quote the same study and be truthful.

As far as posting on this board, the moderators decide what is appropriate, it is a private board.

I am concerned that throughout this country people are being conditioned to accept an anonymous group of “fact checkers” are deciding what “truth” should be allowed for others to see.

That can only lead to trouble, imo.

peace to you

 

[rlvaughn]

Jon, none of your post # 18 directly addresses the issue of your narrowing the definitions to only mean what you say they mean when you want them to mean what you want them to mean. One time you know the difference; next time there is no difference. That way no one can pin you down.

The funny thing is it did not bother you enough to speak up until now. You did not challenge those who categorized pro-vax people as those who think the vaccine works even though you posted on those websites.

What websites? If someone is posting under my name about Covid on other websites, please let me know, 'cause it is not me.

What and who I choose to address is up to me, at least for the present and unless you moderators decide to go totalitarian. There are certain members of the board, whether pro-vax or anti-vax (or whatever about whatever) that I choose to seldom engage or not engage at all. A few I have on ignore so that I do not know what they are going on about. Since you come across to me as one who speaks out of both sides of his mouth, I am moving you to the seldom or not at all list. I'm sure you'll shed no tears.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

No. Manuplation is just as bad as force.

Censorship of opposing viewpoints is manipulation. Your side are the manipulators.

The free exchange of ideas should not devolve into a free exchange of lies.

That's the rhetoric of lying despots. Only a liar must protect his ideas by silencing the opposition.

You speak from arrogance, you know. Somehow, you managed to sort through the mix of lies and truth, and somehow, you think you figured one out from the other. Now, you would have us believe we cannot do the same, poor idiots that we are, so we must be protected by greater minds, such as yourself, who can divine the truth from the lies. We must only be exposed to the side that you have deemed the truth, because we might see both sides, as you have, and fail to choose the one that you have chosen. This is pure arrogance.

 

[JonC]

The “truth” is corrupted by political influence.

For example, during this “COVID crisis” the Cleveland Clinic conducted a study that said people who had been exposed and recovered got no benefit from receiving the vaccine. That same study concluded people who have had the virus and recovered should be vaccinated anyway.

So a prestigious Medical Research facility gave conflicting information in the same study. People from both sides of this debate can quote the same study and be truthful.

As far as posting on this board, the moderators decide what is appropriate, it is a private board.

I am concerned that throughout this country people are being conditioned to accept an anonymous group of “fact checkers” are deciding what “truth” should be allowed for others to see.

That can only lead to trouble, imo.

peace to you

I agree. Politics has corrupted truth on both sides (when you see politics you know there are two opposing crooks close by).

That is why I said people should consider the data - not he opinions.

I don't mean statistics which is often data manuplation. But look at the virus and the vaccine - at the dangerous of the virus, the risks and benefits of the disease. Look around your own area and decide

Ignore the anti-covid-vaxxers and the pro-covid-vaxxers. They are just noise spewing an agenda.

Make a decision knowing come what may we are people purchased by the blood if Christ and if our decision results in our physical death we will be with Him.

No fear and no anxiety.

 

[JonC]

Jon, none of your post # 18 directly addresses the issue of your narrowing the definitions to only mean what you say they mean when you want them to mean what you want them to mean. One time you know the difference; next time there is no difference. That way no one can pin you down. What websites? If someone is posting under my name about Covid on other websites, please let me know, 'cause it is not me.

What and who I choose to address is up to me, at least for the present and unless you moderators decide to go totalitarian. There are certain members of the board, whether pro-vax or anti-vax (or whatever about whatever) that I choose to seldom engage or not engage at all. A few I have on ignore so that I do not know what they are going on about. Since you come across to me as one who speaks out of both sides of his mouth, I am moving you to the seldom or not at all list. I'm sure you'll shed no tears.

Sorry...I meant threads on the BB.

Revmitchel, xlsdraw, and SGO all mentioned pro-vaxers pushing an agenda, but often these were just scientists voicing their conclusions (not advocating what you would call a pro-vaxx agenda).

Does not really matter anyway as I have clarified my meaning.

 

[JonC]

Censorship of opposing viewpoints is manipulation. Your side are the manipulators.



That's the rhetoric of lying despots. Only a liar must protect his ideas by silencing the opposition.

You speak from arrogance, you know. Somehow, you managed to sort through the mix of lies and truth, and somehow, you think you figured one out from the other. Now, you would have us believe we cannot do the same, poor idiots that we are, so we must be protected by greater minds, such as yourself, who can divine the truth from the lies. We must only be exposed to the side that you have deemed the truth, because we might see both sides, as you have, and fail to choose the one that you have chosen. This is pure arrogance.

Except my side has not censured any voice.

 

[canadyjd]

Except my side has not censured any voice.

Technically, you are correct. Many see the censorship as coming soon if not addressed head on.

I think rlvaughn has done of good job of describing the concern that you may be painting with the broad brush in some of your posts.

You have clarified. I accept that and pray for continued civil debate. The issues are too important to waste time with name calling and character assassination.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Technically, you are correct. Many see the censorship as coming soon if not addressed head on.

I think rlvaughn has done of good job of describing the concern that you may be painting with the broad brush in some of your posts.

You have clarified. I accept that and pray for continued civil debate. The issues are too important to waste time with name calling and character assassination.

peace to you

I admit to using a broad brush to try and paint in narrow lines. That is my bad.

I first encountered the terms "anti-vax" and "pro-vax" on the BB (I do not watch the news).

I was surprised there were people in GA trying to shut down vaccination sites by harassment. I was also surprised there were people trying to force every citizen to be vaccinated.


I am assuming by "my side" you are referencing tge Baptist Board?

 

[canadyjd]

I admit to using a broad brush to try and paint in narrow lines. That is my bad…..
I am assuming by "my side" you are referencing tge Baptist Board?

I don’t recall using the words “my side” or “your side”.

From your posts, I don’t think you have taken sides, per sae, other than to encourage people to get all the information they can and avoid extreme comments.

Like you said, you have painted with a broad brush at times. Addressed and clarified. No need to dwell on it.

peace to you

 

[Revmitchell]

So to sum up this thread it’s untrue that any so called anti vax is totalitarian and only the pro covid vax side is using government to not only force people to get faxed but to silence opposition.

the true definition of totalitarianism.

it is completely untrue that both sides are equally guilty in this. It’s completely one sided

 

[JonC]

I don’t recall using the words “my side” or “your side”.

From your posts, I don’t think you have taken sides, per sae, other than to encourage people to get all the information they can and avoid extreme comments.

Like you said, you have painted with a broad brush at times. Addressed and clarified. No need to dwell on it.

peace to you

You are right. I'm sorry (it was someone else).

 

[Andre]

It is true that pro vaccine people in many cases are as they are trying to use the force of government to make people get the vaccine...

What evidence do you have that anybody is trying to get the government to force people to get vaccinated. And note, making vaccination a requirement of employment (e.g. in the federal government) does not equal forcing you to get vaccinated.

 

[canadyjd]

What evidence do you have that anybody is trying to get the government to force people to get vaccinated. And note, making vaccination a requirement of employment (e.g. in the federal government) does not equal forcing you to get vaccinated.

Sure, telling people they will lose their job if they don’t get vaccinated, is in no way “forcing” them. Yeh, right.

peace to you

 

[Andre]

Sure, telling people they will lose their job if they don’t get vaccinated, is in no way “forcing” them. Yeh, right.

peace to you

Again, it is not force: no one is forced to get a vaccination.

Let me ask you a simple, clear question: do you believe employers have the right to establish requirements for employment subject, of course, to laws against discrimination based on race, gender etc.?

I will be interested to read your reply.