Anti vax totalitarianism is a myth

[Revmitchell]

Definition of TOTALITARIANISM


Definition of totalitarianism


1: centralized control by an autocratic authority
2: the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority

It is impossible that those who oppose personally getting the vaccine can be totalitarians since they do not wield the power of the government to implement any assumed intent.

The use of anti vax totalitarianism is not only inaccurate but it’s wrongheaded and likely used with the intent to inflame hostilities among each other.


Further I never said there were not people who oppose the vaccine. I said it’s a myth that any of them are totalitarianism hence “anti vax totalitarians are a myth”

any claim I said anything different is intentionally false. Feel free to go look at my posts

 

[Revmitchell]

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 whereas no one is trying to use the force of the government to stop anyone from getting the vaccine.

 

[xlsdraw]

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.

 

[rlvaughn]

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

Anti-vaxxer, noun. An individual who distrusts or is opposed to vaccination, especially a parent who refuses to have a child vaccinated.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

well if you give that which you disagree with and want destroyed such names then you can more easily create stronger propaganda and cause more division by intent.

 

[JonC]

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.

I agree (same with "pro-vaxer").

 

[rlvaughn]

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

The only difference between the pro-vaxers and anti-vaxers is the side they take (both want to decide for other people).

 

[rlvaughn]

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

I agree....but the context is with the covid vaccines. You could read "anti-vovid-vaxxers", but that is implied in the context.

A lot of those who want to force vaccinations do not want to force every vaccination out there. Most would leave the flu vaccine, or pneumonia vaccine to choice while wanting to mandate the covid vaccine.

But most of the time on covid related sites "pro-vax" does not mean all vaccines but the covud vaccines.

 

[rlvaughn]

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

I understand. At the same time I suggest perhaps context may often dictate the meaning of the words used. Especially when a general term is used in a very specific context.

For example, you would not wonder if I went to the doctor for covid symptoms whether I went to a theologian or a medical doctor.

 

[rlvaughn]

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?

 

[JonC]

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?

Yes. At least, that is how I have used the words.

 

[rlvaughn]

Yes. At least, that is how I have used the words.

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!

 

[JonC]

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!

Yes. I have specifically said that I apply pro-vaxer and anti-vaxer to those who want to decide for other people and that I do not believe most fall into either category. I said the pro-vaxer wants everybody vaccinated either by force or manuplation via misinformation. The anti-vaxer wants to deprive people of the vaccination either by force (like in Atlanta) or by manuplation via misinformation.

You said:

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.

and I agree. I would not consider these pro or anti vaxxers.

I am in favor of vaccines. I do not care if you get vaccinated - that is your business.

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.

I also agree. But I am using anti and pro in the context of covid (maybe it is lazy).

I do not know how to make my posts any more clear than that.

 

[rlvaughn]

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

You forget that I did not make up the definitions.

Threads have been ongoing about pro-vaxxers wanting to mandate vaccinations. Obviously this was about one vacvine (not the measles vaccine, although that was a past debate, but the covud vacvine). And posts had already been made about anti-vaxxers wanting the government to recall ...not the pneumonia vaccine but the covid vaccines.

The media and websites have been using oro-vax and anti-vax in the sane context.

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.


Think of it like Calvinism. This is a Baptist Board and we typically refer to Calvinism along the lines of accepting the Calvinistic rebuttal to the 5 Articles. But technically, while there are Calvinistic views, there are no Calvinusts on this board.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

The anti-vaxer wants to deprive people of the vaccination either by force (like in Atlanta) or by manuplation via misinformation.

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

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 what Paul warned the church about - not men attacking churches by force (although that came) but about false teachers.

When you take by force resistance grows. But when you conquer by misinformation people go willingly and are truly conquered.