|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 30 2021 15:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 15:39 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 30 2021 15:17 JimmiC wrote:On April 30 2021 15:06 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 30 2021 14:59 JimmiC wrote:On April 30 2021 14:47 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 30 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2021 14:13 NewSunshine wrote:On April 30 2021 14:10 BlackJack wrote:
Let me spell out my position for you as simply as I can: It's wrong to think one should not get vaccinated, but people should be entitled to their wrong opinion without having the truth police crack down on them. People are entitled to be wrong, but to convince other people of your wrong opinion and put their lives at risk is something entirely different. This isn't just a discussion about whether the sky is blue, it's a bloody pandemic. It's like if there were a section on the internet of people who like to make arguments about why you should drive drunk. There's consequences to having certain opinions, as well as to letting people proliferate beliefs that are objectively dangerous. You haven't addressed that. You're right, it's not a discussion about whether the sky is blue. We don't have a 1st amendment so that we can talk about the sky being blue. Free speech is freaking useless if it only gives us the right to talk about things that aren't controversial. The fact that you're willing to to go full blown authoritarian at the first sign of danger shows exactly why we need a 1st amendment and people to stand up for it. Yeah its pretty simple imo. Its not the government's place to tell people what to think and what they are or are not allowed to hear and say. Its doubly bad when what people are saying is rooted in a mistrust of the government and medical establishment. Anti-vax at its core (although it is obviously full of misinformation and terrible conclusions) is a bunch of people saying "I don't trust the government to tell me what chemicals to put in my body", which on its own, without all the nonsense of the specifics of anti-vax is a fair message. It might be a fair message if that was what they were saying, however there is a huge crossover between the antivax and the prolife people. So if the fundamentally believed people should have control over their own bodies and the government should not regulate that they would not be wanting the government to regulate other peoples bodies.What antivaxxers are saying is I have received bad information and I believed it and now I have come to a bad conclusion. Coming to a different conclusion from true facts should be allowed. Tricking people into bad conclusions with bad facts should not be. The bolded part is a bad argument, because its based on a generalization and in most cases that I've come across, it isn't true (I support your right to make the argument though  ). I just don't get what it is you want. A lying commission set up by the government to detect and censor anything they decide is a lie? Some mechanism by which the government can use the courts to censor people in extreme circumstances? The outright banning of all conspiracy theory or anti-vax messaging? Edit: posted by misclick while adding sources, will update with sources. I think your anecdotal experiences are giving you the wrong info. Here's an article about how similar the beliefs are and what it's based on. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/429602-anti-vax-and-anti-abortion-movements-are-filled-with-misinformation?ampIt originally was the "earthly cruncher" who was antivaxx but since covid its been adopted by the far right, which in the US context means almost certainly prolife. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/06/the-anti-vax-movements-radical-shift-from-crunchy-granola-purists-to-far-right-crusaders/https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-pseudoscience/anti-vaccine-movement-2020Anti vaxx is also very much Republican, the most Republucan states can't rid of their vaccines where as heavily democratic states are needing more. First article is on why, next is showing the statement is true. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/05/27/anti-vaccine-republican-mainstream-1344955https://www.google.ca/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/wireStory/red-states-us-electoral-map-lagging-vaccinations-77073867https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/03/07/republicans-covid-vaccine/?outputType=ampIt's becoming even more so since now some vaccines are developed from a fetal cell. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/re-officials-gird-war-vaccine-misinformation-vaccines-create-needless-anti-vaxxers-using None of these conclusively prove that being anti-vax makes you more likely to be anti-abortion. The only reason I'm going on my anecdotal evidence is because I know probably about 40 anti-vax people and not a single one of them is anti-abortion. I guess its different in America because its such a religious country, so I'd be happy with the association with the caveat that it only applies in the US and religious communities. This creates another problem though, which is religious freedom. I don't even want to touch that tbh because I disagree with religious freedom that grants exceptions to people based on their religion, but its still a thing. First I belive you on the 40 people, from what I know of you you are pretty far left and likely hangout with similar people and the far left antivaxx would fall more in what the one article.describes as "earthly crunchers".
Yeah I'm a musician and anti-vax is absolutely rife in my community. I hate it. I've had so many heated arguments with my friends and its getting to the point where i won't drink and hang out with them if all they want to talk about is sheeples and their vaccines. I think its a counter-culture thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On April 30 2021 15:34 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 15:31 Artisreal wrote:
If I tell you the bridge is safe to cross even though I know it isn't, would you want me to be prosecuted or at least ensured that I stop telling people to cross the bridge?
What if I think the bridge looks fine and there's just incompetence at work as I mightn't be a qualified structural engineer -and a bit of ideology because these bridges they want to rebuild, they are expensive and these are my taxes after all? Would that warrant the police stopping me from telling people to cross the bridge? I don't know how much of this is a genuine question and how much is just analogy making but the sensible solution is to put a barrier across the bridge that stops people from crossing it with a giant sign saying 'unsafe bridge'. That way the guy can keep telling people to cross it anyway and probably no-one would. At that point, even if they did, with terrible consequences, it would be their fault for believing the guy. Another point is that there's a fundamental difference between encouraging people to do something dangerous and encouraging people not to do something that will grant safety.
you can't put a fence around covid deniers to go with your apt response.
Putting up a sign and barring the bridge would be a sensible thing do, I agree 
Though the point I was trying to make is, that in some situations there has to be a line of public endagerment where the state has to protect its citicens from another. That is done through regulation of what they are allowed to impose on others. It's called the law. Not censure.
It becomes censure when you're 6 feet apart, protesting against lockdown restrictions and go to prison for that. Like in Russia. But connected to Covid, we're as far away from that as the sun is from melting ice on Pluto.
On a related note:
We had a landmark ruling here in Germany yesterday. Our supreme court ruled, that the goverment has to be more precise in how they want to engage in climate action after 2030, because failure to do so will result in endangerment of the liveliehoods of the younger generation.
|
On April 30 2021 16:26 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 15:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 30 2021 15:31 Artisreal wrote:
If I tell you the bridge is safe to cross even though I know it isn't, would you want me to be prosecuted or at least ensured that I stop telling people to cross the bridge?
What if I think the bridge looks fine and there's just incompetence at work as I mightn't be a qualified structural engineer -and a bit of ideology because these bridges they want to rebuild, they are expensive and these are my taxes after all? Would that warrant the police stopping me from telling people to cross the bridge? I don't know how much of this is a genuine question and how much is just analogy making but the sensible solution is to put a barrier across the bridge that stops people from crossing it with a giant sign saying 'unsafe bridge'. That way the guy can keep telling people to cross it anyway and probably no-one would. At that point, even if they did, with terrible consequences, it would be their fault for believing the guy. Another point is that there's a fundamental difference between encouraging people to do something dangerous and encouraging people not to do something that will grant safety. you can't put a fence around covid deniers to go with your apt response. Putting up a sign and barring the bridge would be a sensible thing do, I agree Though the point I was trying to make is, that in some situations there has to be a line of public endagerment where the state has to protect its citicens from another. That is done through regulation of what they are allowed to impose on others. It's called the law. Not censure. It becomes censure when you're 6 feet apart, protesting against lockdown restrictions and go to prison for that. Like in Russia. But connected to Covid, we're as far away from that as the sun is from melting ice on Pluto. On a related note: We had a landmark ruling here in Germany yesterday. Our supreme court ruled, that the goverment has to be more precise in how they want to engage in climate action after 2030, because failure to do so will result in endangerment of the liveliehoods of the younger generation.
When the law involves regulating what private citizens can and can't say, that is censorship. They are not mutually exclusive.
I get your point, but i disagree that the government should be making law to protect its citizens from each others words (unless harassment/stalking is the issue). This applies doubly to political speech, and i suppose anti-vax does fall into that category.
|
|
|
On April 30 2021 16:33 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 16:26 Artisreal wrote:On April 30 2021 15:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 30 2021 15:31 Artisreal wrote:
If I tell you the bridge is safe to cross even though I know it isn't, would you want me to be prosecuted or at least ensured that I stop telling people to cross the bridge?
What if I think the bridge looks fine and there's just incompetence at work as I mightn't be a qualified structural engineer -and a bit of ideology because these bridges they want to rebuild, they are expensive and these are my taxes after all? Would that warrant the police stopping me from telling people to cross the bridge? I don't know how much of this is a genuine question and how much is just analogy making but the sensible solution is to put a barrier across the bridge that stops people from crossing it with a giant sign saying 'unsafe bridge'. That way the guy can keep telling people to cross it anyway and probably no-one would. At that point, even if they did, with terrible consequences, it would be their fault for believing the guy. Another point is that there's a fundamental difference between encouraging people to do something dangerous and encouraging people not to do something that will grant safety. you can't put a fence around covid deniers to go with your apt response. Putting up a sign and barring the bridge would be a sensible thing do, I agree Though the point I was trying to make is, that in some situations there has to be a line of public endagerment where the state has to protect its citicens from another. That is done through regulation of what they are allowed to impose on others. It's called the law. Not censure. It becomes censure when you're 6 feet apart, protesting against lockdown restrictions and go to prison for that. Like in Russia. But connected to Covid, we're as far away from that as the sun is from melting ice on Pluto. On a related note: We had a landmark ruling here in Germany yesterday. Our supreme court ruled, that the goverment has to be more precise in how they want to engage in climate action after 2030, because failure to do so will result in endangerment of the liveliehoods of the younger generation. When the law involves regulating what private citizens can and can't say, that is censorship. They are not mutually exclusive. I get your point, but i disagree that the government should be making law to protect its citizens from each others words (unless harassment/stalking is the issue). This applies doubly to political speech, and i suppose anti-vax does fall into that category.
Antivax fall more into "inciting violence" category of speech. It does have very real and harmfull consequences for people and society as a whole. People are and will contuine to die because of it. It is government duty to do something about it.
|
On April 30 2021 16:33 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 16:26 Artisreal wrote:On April 30 2021 15:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 30 2021 15:31 Artisreal wrote:
If I tell you the bridge is safe to cross even though I know it isn't, would you want me to be prosecuted or at least ensured that I stop telling people to cross the bridge?
What if I think the bridge looks fine and there's just incompetence at work as I mightn't be a qualified structural engineer -and a bit of ideology because these bridges they want to rebuild, they are expensive and these are my taxes after all? Would that warrant the police stopping me from telling people to cross the bridge? I don't know how much of this is a genuine question and how much is just analogy making but the sensible solution is to put a barrier across the bridge that stops people from crossing it with a giant sign saying 'unsafe bridge'. That way the guy can keep telling people to cross it anyway and probably no-one would. At that point, even if they did, with terrible consequences, it would be their fault for believing the guy. Another point is that there's a fundamental difference between encouraging people to do something dangerous and encouraging people not to do something that will grant safety. you can't put a fence around covid deniers to go with your apt response. Putting up a sign and barring the bridge would be a sensible thing do, I agree Though the point I was trying to make is, that in some situations there has to be a line of public endagerment where the state has to protect its citicens from another. That is done through regulation of what they are allowed to impose on others. It's called the law. Not censure. It becomes censure when you're 6 feet apart, protesting against lockdown restrictions and go to prison for that. Like in Russia. But connected to Covid, we're as far away from that as the sun is from melting ice on Pluto. On a related note: We had a landmark ruling here in Germany yesterday. Our supreme court ruled, that the goverment has to be more precise in how they want to engage in climate action after 2030, because failure to do so will result in endangerment of the liveliehoods of the younger generation. When the law involves regulating what private citizens can and can't say, that is censorship. They are not mutually exclusive. I get your point, but i disagree that the government should be making law to protect its citizens from each others words (unless harassment/stalking is the issue). This applies doubly to political speech, and i suppose anti-vax does fall into that category.
I am in general agreement with that, with certain exceptions. And it's difficult for me to find a sweeping definition of what could constitute a regulation that is more nuanced than "that's literally praising what Hitler did", encompasses hate speech and incitement of violence even in the case that it is veiled in political expression (i.e. protesting coronavirus restrictions).
I will have to ponder more.
|
On April 30 2021 17:02 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 16:33 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 30 2021 16:26 Artisreal wrote:On April 30 2021 15:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 30 2021 15:31 Artisreal wrote:
If I tell you the bridge is safe to cross even though I know it isn't, would you want me to be prosecuted or at least ensured that I stop telling people to cross the bridge?
What if I think the bridge looks fine and there's just incompetence at work as I mightn't be a qualified structural engineer -and a bit of ideology because these bridges they want to rebuild, they are expensive and these are my taxes after all? Would that warrant the police stopping me from telling people to cross the bridge? I don't know how much of this is a genuine question and how much is just analogy making but the sensible solution is to put a barrier across the bridge that stops people from crossing it with a giant sign saying 'unsafe bridge'. That way the guy can keep telling people to cross it anyway and probably no-one would. At that point, even if they did, with terrible consequences, it would be their fault for believing the guy. Another point is that there's a fundamental difference between encouraging people to do something dangerous and encouraging people not to do something that will grant safety. you can't put a fence around covid deniers to go with your apt response. Putting up a sign and barring the bridge would be a sensible thing do, I agree Though the point I was trying to make is, that in some situations there has to be a line of public endagerment where the state has to protect its citicens from another. That is done through regulation of what they are allowed to impose on others. It's called the law. Not censure. It becomes censure when you're 6 feet apart, protesting against lockdown restrictions and go to prison for that. Like in Russia. But connected to Covid, we're as far away from that as the sun is from melting ice on Pluto. On a related note: We had a landmark ruling here in Germany yesterday. Our supreme court ruled, that the goverment has to be more precise in how they want to engage in climate action after 2030, because failure to do so will result in endangerment of the liveliehoods of the younger generation. When the law involves regulating what private citizens can and can't say, that is censorship. They are not mutually exclusive. I get your point, but i disagree that the government should be making law to protect its citizens from each others words (unless harassment/stalking is the issue). This applies doubly to political speech, and i suppose anti-vax does fall into that category. Antivax fall more into "inciting violence" category of speech. It does have very real and harmfull consequences for people and society as a whole. People are and will contuine to die because of it. It is government duty to do something about it.
Nah, its not inciting violence, because it doesn't incite violence. You would have to come up with a new category of speech (legally speaking) to be able to make that argument. Not that I don't get where you're coming from. I would still say that it is political speech.
There are distinct types of anti-vax speech here though. One is people talking about their beliefs and information they have come across online. These people should be free to say whatever they want to say. Another is people using it to promote their business (these people should be held accountable, as should other businesses who lie about their products).
|
On April 30 2021 13:46 plasmidghost wrote:
Biden saying he has the trans community's back and then doing literally nothing to help us as state after state target us with legislation is simultaneously infuriating and depressing.
It's incredibly messed up, but allowing trans people to risk their lives to help kill poor people around the world for the military is about all I'd expect from him on that front.
Beyond that there's not very many Democrats that won't keep voting Democrat while they do nothing for trans people so they'll keep doing little/nothing, say they'd do something if it weren't for Republicans, and shame/gaslight you if you don't support them despite their failure to advance even rudimentary political goals for whatever oppressed group one is from.
People that are part of those groups or that support their liberation from oppressive conditions have to plan/build/work/etc outside of the Democrats if they want the progress Democrats are pros at promising and not delivering imo.
|
|
|
|
|
On April 30 2021 15:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I seriously don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding BlackJack. I'm reading the same posts everybody else are reading and I don't see anything dumb there.
It's basically, "That sounds like something an anti-vaxxer would say so I'm going to assume you're an anti-vaxxer and tell you why you're stupid" even though I said maybe 4 times that my argument is not an anti-vax argument but a pro-free speech argument.
But I get it. I said earlier in this thread, it's endemic in arguing on the internet. It's less about what people are actually saying and more about trying to determine what group the person belongs to.
|
On April 30 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 14:13 NewSunshine wrote:On April 30 2021 14:10 BlackJack wrote:
Let me spell out my position for you as simply as I can: It's wrong to think one should not get vaccinated, but people should be entitled to their wrong opinion without having the truth police crack down on them. People are entitled to be wrong, but to convince other people of your wrong opinion and put their lives at risk is something entirely different. This isn't just a discussion about whether the sky is blue, it's a bloody pandemic. It's like if there were a section on the internet of people who like to make arguments about why you should drive drunk. There's consequences to having certain opinions, as well as to letting people proliferate beliefs that are objectively dangerous. You haven't addressed that. You're right, it's not a discussion about whether the sky is blue. We don't have a 1st amendment so that we can talk about the sky being blue. Free speech is freaking useless if it only gives us the right to talk about things that aren't controversial. The fact that you're willing to to go full blown authoritarian at the first sign of danger shows exactly why we need a 1st amendment and people to stand up for it.
It's not a matter of saying controversial things. It's literally the pandemic equivalent of crying "FIRE" in a packed theater, causing people to trample one another.
|
On April 30 2021 18:28 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2021 14:13 NewSunshine wrote:On April 30 2021 14:10 BlackJack wrote:
Let me spell out my position for you as simply as I can: It's wrong to think one should not get vaccinated, but people should be entitled to their wrong opinion without having the truth police crack down on them. People are entitled to be wrong, but to convince other people of your wrong opinion and put their lives at risk is something entirely different. This isn't just a discussion about whether the sky is blue, it's a bloody pandemic. It's like if there were a section on the internet of people who like to make arguments about why you should drive drunk. There's consequences to having certain opinions, as well as to letting people proliferate beliefs that are objectively dangerous. You haven't addressed that. You're right, it's not a discussion about whether the sky is blue. We don't have a 1st amendment so that we can talk about the sky being blue. Free speech is freaking useless if it only gives us the right to talk about things that aren't controversial. The fact that you're willing to to go full blown authoritarian at the first sign of danger shows exactly why we need a 1st amendment and people to stand up for it. It's not a matter of saying controversial things. It's literally the pandemic equivalent of crying "FIRE" in a packed theater, causing people to trample one another.
I just took 2 pages of shit for arguing that "temporarily stop administering a vaccine" is the same as "temporarily stop taking a vaccine."
People are honestly going to come here and say that saying something anti-vax is literally the same as inciting violence or yelling fire in a packed theater?
If people let this shit slide I'm gonna be upset lol
|
On April 30 2021 18:40 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 18:28 maybenexttime wrote:On April 30 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2021 14:13 NewSunshine wrote:On April 30 2021 14:10 BlackJack wrote:
Let me spell out my position for you as simply as I can: It's wrong to think one should not get vaccinated, but people should be entitled to their wrong opinion without having the truth police crack down on them. People are entitled to be wrong, but to convince other people of your wrong opinion and put their lives at risk is something entirely different. This isn't just a discussion about whether the sky is blue, it's a bloody pandemic. It's like if there were a section on the internet of people who like to make arguments about why you should drive drunk. There's consequences to having certain opinions, as well as to letting people proliferate beliefs that are objectively dangerous. You haven't addressed that. You're right, it's not a discussion about whether the sky is blue. We don't have a 1st amendment so that we can talk about the sky being blue. Free speech is freaking useless if it only gives us the right to talk about things that aren't controversial. The fact that you're willing to to go full blown authoritarian at the first sign of danger shows exactly why we need a 1st amendment and people to stand up for it. It's not a matter of saying controversial things. It's literally the pandemic equivalent of crying "FIRE" in a packed theater, causing people to trample one another. I just took 2 pages of shit for arguing that "temporarily stop administering a vaccine" is the same as "temporarily stop taking a vaccine." People are honestly going to come here and say that saying something anti-vax is literally the same as inciting violence or yelling fire in a packed theater? If people let this shit slide I'm gonna be upset lol anti-vaxxers are intentionally trying to inflict potential harm to people, so yeah I see no problem with throwing them in with inciting violence and yelling fire in a packed theater.
|
On April 30 2021 18:48 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 18:40 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2021 18:28 maybenexttime wrote:On April 30 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2021 14:13 NewSunshine wrote:On April 30 2021 14:10 BlackJack wrote:
Let me spell out my position for you as simply as I can: It's wrong to think one should not get vaccinated, but people should be entitled to their wrong opinion without having the truth police crack down on them. People are entitled to be wrong, but to convince other people of your wrong opinion and put their lives at risk is something entirely different. This isn't just a discussion about whether the sky is blue, it's a bloody pandemic. It's like if there were a section on the internet of people who like to make arguments about why you should drive drunk. There's consequences to having certain opinions, as well as to letting people proliferate beliefs that are objectively dangerous. You haven't addressed that. You're right, it's not a discussion about whether the sky is blue. We don't have a 1st amendment so that we can talk about the sky being blue. Free speech is freaking useless if it only gives us the right to talk about things that aren't controversial. The fact that you're willing to to go full blown authoritarian at the first sign of danger shows exactly why we need a 1st amendment and people to stand up for it. It's not a matter of saying controversial things. It's literally the pandemic equivalent of crying "FIRE" in a packed theater, causing people to trample one another. I just took 2 pages of shit for arguing that "temporarily stop administering a vaccine" is the same as "temporarily stop taking a vaccine." People are honestly going to come here and say that saying something anti-vax is literally the same as inciting violence or yelling fire in a packed theater? If people let this shit slide I'm gonna be upset lol anti-vaxxers are intentionally trying to inflict potential harm to people, so yeah I see no problem with throwing them in with inciting violence and yelling fire in a packed theater.
Wait wait.
Intentionally trying to inflict harm?
I'd like to see some evidence of that. I could see that maybe a tiny minority of them are intentionally trying to inflict harm, but in general they are people who believe what they are saying and believe that it is good, and right, but they are misinformed.
In fact I'm going to go further and say that what you're saying here is reprehensible, and is the entire reason I am participating in this discussion.
People have labelled them as awful people because of their beliefs. Its the easiest way to create an outgroup so you can justify creating exceptions for them in law to treat them worse than others. Its the first step to tyranny.
The idea that anti-vaxxers want everyone else to suffer and die is MORE misinformed than the anti-vaxxers are, or at least on par with it.
|
Norway28747 Posts
Ya, honestly the anti-vaxxers I myself know of are deeply caring and empathetic people. (Again, in Europe, my anecdotal experience is that anti-vaxx is more likely to be a far left than far right position). They've fallen into a deep rabbit hole of misinformation, it's tragic, it's impossible to convince them because they're convinced that the sources that prove them wrong are part of the misinformation conspiracy, but every anti-vaxxer I know myself is not remotely malicious.
I can't really think of a solution that doesn't involve increased focus on developing critical thought from an early stage of the educational system, but it's certainly problematic that even if such a policy was implemented today, we wouldn't really see the results for another decade.
Now, there can be made a case for government intervention in Alex Jonesy types of people, where he's clearly a malicious actor, but I don't see how such a thing can be done without it also further convincing his followers that the conspiracy he's been warning of is true.
|
On April 30 2021 18:51 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2021 18:48 Gorsameth wrote:On April 30 2021 18:40 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2021 18:28 maybenexttime wrote:On April 30 2021 14:27 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2021 14:13 NewSunshine wrote:On April 30 2021 14:10 BlackJack wrote:
Let me spell out my position for you as simply as I can: It's wrong to think one should not get vaccinated, but people should be entitled to their wrong opinion without having the truth police crack down on them. People are entitled to be wrong, but to convince other people of your wrong opinion and put their lives at risk is something entirely different. This isn't just a discussion about whether the sky is blue, it's a bloody pandemic. It's like if there were a section on the internet of people who like to make arguments about why you should drive drunk. There's consequences to having certain opinions, as well as to letting people proliferate beliefs that are objectively dangerous. You haven't addressed that. You're right, it's not a discussion about whether the sky is blue. We don't have a 1st amendment so that we can talk about the sky being blue. Free speech is freaking useless if it only gives us the right to talk about things that aren't controversial. The fact that you're willing to to go full blown authoritarian at the first sign of danger shows exactly why we need a 1st amendment and people to stand up for it. It's not a matter of saying controversial things. It's literally the pandemic equivalent of crying "FIRE" in a packed theater, causing people to trample one another. I just took 2 pages of shit for arguing that "temporarily stop administering a vaccine" is the same as "temporarily stop taking a vaccine." People are honestly going to come here and say that saying something anti-vax is literally the same as inciting violence or yelling fire in a packed theater? If people let this shit slide I'm gonna be upset lol anti-vaxxers are intentionally trying to inflict potential harm to people, so yeah I see no problem with throwing them in with inciting violence and yelling fire in a packed theater. Wait wait. Intentionally trying to inflict harm? I'd like to see some evidence of that. I could see that maybe a tiny minority of them are intentionally trying to inflict harm, but in general they are people who believe what they are saying and believe that it is good, and right. Being delusion doesn't change what they are doing. Nor do I think police would simply let you go if you tell them you thought was a fire despite 0 evidence to suggest it.
Besides, didn't we see with Covid that public influencers trying to downplay everything while running to be first in line for the vaccine themselves?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
