As a legal issue, I consider it up to the states to decide.commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:48 pm I object to being called an anti-vaxer and being put down for it.
It isn’t anti anything. It’s really pro-choice, but it’s a choice that’s already protected by the right of self determination. No one should have to defend themselves over a right that everyone already has.
It’s a known fact that vaccines have side effects, and side effects could be harmful. For that reason, no parent should have to allow their children to be vaccinated.
Everyone knows that the flu shot doesn’t even work. You can still get the flu even if you’ve had the shot.
Most of the other vaccines are for conditions that don’t happen very much anymore. Why should children be subjected to any of the side effects if the vaccines aren’t needed anymore?
I know there’s such a thing as natural immunity anyway. If there’s a natural way to develop immunity against disease, shouldn’t everyone do it that way?
This whole situation means that mothers in some places, like Oregon, are forced to “consent” to vaccines if they want their children to go to public schools or even to go to extracurricular activities like soccer and basketball. Now they’re even talking about banning a child who’s unvaccinated from going to any public spaces, like a mall or a movie theater. That’s an infringement on parental rights.
I think I speak for most of the vaccine pro-choicers, when I say just leave us alone and keep your hands off our children. Try to remember that when you go so far as to introduce government propositions about this, you are just establishing a big brother society.
Respectful comments are welcome.
Most "pro-vaxxer" propaganda is anti-intellectual nonsense put out there by capitalist manufacturers to detract from the actual legitimate concerns about vaccine side effect or manufacturer defects resulting in potential lawsuits.
This is why uneducated people and internet trolls with a 6th grade reading level at most, who have never worked in a high-level medical or manufacturer job related to the vaccine industry are chiming in about it or even using childish nonsense terms and neologisms which belong on urban dictionary like "anti-vaxxer" as a "buzzword" which really just means "anything they don't like", or using silly strawmen, such as outlandish or extreme anti-vaccine "conspiracy theories" (e.x. David Icke, etc) to detract from the actual research into the more "plausible" claims, such as the manufacturer defects or side-effects which might result in lawsuits.
(Many of them being so outright stupid or dishonest as to falsely conflate "medicine" as a industry with the "natural sciences" to begin with, which is why they're not even worth a thinking or even marginally literate person's time).
It's kind of the same deal with the uneducated or superstitious people using and abusing the word or term "conspiracy theory" to just mean anything they don't like for some reason or another (using stereotypical, "outlandish" analogies such as David Icke or things which belong on the X-files), either in ignorance or denial of what a plausible "conspiracy theory' actually is to begin with.
(e.x. Watergate was a conspiracy theory which turned out to be true, and it wasn't something "absurd" involving Illuminati NWO, tin foil hats, fluoride poisoning, and other silly stereotypes).
The same would, of course be true in regards to the conspiracy theories about, say, Donald Trump masterminding or being in some being in some kind of direct collusion with Russian election hackers, and so on; but the reality is that hacks and kooks will simply dive full in to whatever conspiracy theories and nonsense they want just because they want to, while using the term only to refer to conspiracy theories which they don't like, such as ones involving their political party or candidate.
Another example would be the conspiracy theories which refer to "capitalist / corporate" conspiracy theories, such as in regards to opposition of global warming alarmist nonsense and denial of the role which nature plays in climate, and the realistic limits and feasible MOs in regards to attempting to "change" the scenarios, and whatever other anti-intellectual, underlying political or philosophical axioms are predicating it and falsely or dishonestly conflating it with "raw, scientific" data itself (as well as abuse of other silly, anti-scientific terms like "consensus", either in uneducated or quasi-superstitious ignorance or misinformation of what "science" as an industry or institution even is or how it works to begin with, or "scientists" as industry workmen even are to begin with, or even sheer dishonesty and desires to corrupt or pervert the establishment and process intentionally solely for their own silly political or quasi-"religious' reasons another antisocial idiocies.
(For example, one could easily postulate the same conspiracy theory, and argue that "capitalists" or companies which invest in "green" or "green-branded" products are intentionally hyping up the fears and unlikely global warming alarmist scenarios for their own financial reasons, and relying on the low education and apparent intelligence or rationality of the average consumer of mass media marketed to and at the 6th grade level, the same superstitious and anti-intellectual morons who would likewise be believing that "War of the Worlds" was a documentary if they heard it on TV or radio, or anything with an unlikely, alarmist disaster or "end of the world" scenario which prays on the "negativity" bias and tendency to emotion and fear over calm rationality and logic).
