Mandatory Vaccinations?

[metis]

309 hospitalizations for heart inflammation among C.O.V.I.D.-19 mRNA vaccinated young adult males and adolescent males in comparison to 8 among an equal amount of the non-vaccinated; this should draw a red flag, which this has by the FDA requiring warning of this adverse side effect from being vaccinated.

What you are essentially doing is to take the exceptions to the rule and then sorta imply that they're the rule-- at least that's what it seems to me that you're doing, but correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Suave]

What you are essentially doing is to take the exceptions to the rule and then sorta imply that they're the rule-- at least that's what it seems to me that you're doing, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I am myself mRNA-19 C.O.V.I.D.-19 vaccinated with no apparent bad reactions to being vaccinated whatsoever. That being stated, I belong to an older age group having a significantly higher infection fatality rate from C.O.V.I.D.-19 than the infection fatality rate of adolescents or very young people being infected by C.O.V.I.D.-19. Also, there are evidently few incidents of bad reactions to being mRNA vaccinated against C.O.V.I.D.-19 among my age group. I'm guessing most anybody over the age of 25 years old having the benefit of near certain immunity against C.O.V.I.D.-19 by being vaccinated is greater than the dangerous health risk of getting a bad reaction to being vaccinated. However, I am not yet convinced the benefits of very young people being vaccinated against C.O.V.I.D.-19 significantly outweighs the health risk of them getting heart inflammation or blood clotting by being vaccinated.

 

[metis]

However, I am not yet convinced the benefits of very young people being vaccinated against C.O.V.I.D.-19 significantly outweighs the health risk of them getting heart inflammation or blood clotting by being vaccinated.

We are now seeing the greatest increase of those coming down with covid in that age group, and the only way to stop it is getting the vaccine.

 

[Suave]

We are now seeing the greatest increase of those coming down with covid in that age group, and the only way to stop it is getting the vaccine.

The C.O.V.I.D. infection fatality death rate among very young adults is only somewhere around 1 in a 100,000. Also, with the older population being vaccinated and having no chance of death by contracting the SARS-CoV2 virus, I would not consider an unvaccinated youth being a significant overall public health risk. If very young adult men were to have a 1 in 10,000 chance of being hospitalized due to heart inflammation by being mRNA vaccinated against C.O.V.I.D.-19 in exchange for having near certain immunity against this disease that would otherwise be non-fatal to them contracting in 99,999 out of 100,000 cases, then I seriously doubt they should be obliged to get mRNA vaccinated against C.O.V.I.D.-19.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally somewhere in the beginning of this thread I said I didn't care for how the hospital gave the ultimatum and how people lost their jobs. It wasn't specific about the reasons why nurses don't want to take the vaccine-though, I can empathize with them "too."

"My body, my choice" doesn't imply "I'm entitled to keep my job whatever my choice."

They actually say it is experimental. What is wrong with that for provaxxers???

Experimental or clinical trial or however you put it, it's still being tested on people-youth now-as we speak.
What we know and don't know about the COVID-19 vaccine | wthr.com
CoVPN | Walgreens

There is still much more to know...

None of the vaccines currently in widespread use are experimental; they've been approved under an emergency use order (in the US) or simply approved (e.g. in Canada).

All of them went through all the clinical trials needed for normal approval.

I'm honestly not sure why you would disagree with this or challenge it. It doesn't need to be a valid reason for you, but that doesn't exclude its still experimental.... you'd have to take into consideration the world involvement in making vaccines that are work better and adapting ones we have to be more efficient. All of this is experimental.

What am I missing?

You're missing the fact that none of the major COVID-19 vaccines are experimental.

Political agendas? The only ones I can think of that's "out there" are things like Chinese government conspiracy and how China created the virus.

Do you consider that reason intelligent and valid?

The censoring, though, kind of puts up a red flag among other things. But honestly, it's probably because they don't want to start a panic.

It's because there's liability risk if a media outlet spreads false information that kills people.

I don't look into political agendas. I find it odd, though, when I come across one I share some agreement and just laugh.



I'll say I don't know other than what I mentioned.



It's a bias.

Form opinions over a stranger's character as ye will, but what are you asking me to do-change my opinions?

What's the intrinsic point you're making?

I'm not making any point. I'm just trying to figure out if there's anything to the claims you made.

So far, it's been a struggle just to get you to express your claims coherently.

 

[Kooky]

I don't believe they all do.

If they refuse to vaccinate out of fear that the consequences far outweight dying of COVID then they certainly do.
That is also the case if they refuse to vaccinate out of belief in some kind of pharmaco-political conspiracy to control The People or somesuch.

Provaxxers meaning those who are for the vaccine.
Antivaxxers meaning those against the vaccine.

Not everyone falls under these two sides.

Sure, there are also people who have never heard of vaccines and therefore completely ignorant of them, but I would suggest that these are a small minority in most Western societies.

Once you know that taking a vaccine to protect against a global pandemic is a viable option for most people, I would venture that there really are only two possible choices: Either taking the vaccine, or refusing to take the vaccine.

So in most of the Western world (where there is generally little scarcity when it comes to COVID vaccines) I would argue that there really are only people who want to take the vaccine ("provaxxers" in your parlance) or those who refuse to take it.

So far, least online, I only know provaxxers more concerned than antivaxxers.

What does that even mean? "Concerned" about what? How did you measure that?

Not sure if the latter put everyone in one boat, but the former sure do.

Nope.

Confirmation bias on both sides?

I can spot some confirmation bias alright!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"My body, my choice" doesn't imply "I'm entitled to keep my job whatever my choice."

I get what you're saying now. No. It isn't. It's valid when considering one's own ethics but can't be held in court to keep a job. When it was taken to court, though, it was thrown out. So, I'm sure there were other reasons just I'm a little skeptical it was a objective reason why they didn't win the case.

None of the vaccines currently in widespread use are experimental; they've been approved under an emergency use order (in the US) or simply approved (e.g. in Canada).

All of them went through all the clinical trials needed for normal approval.

Those links and info I gave you define why its experimental. They are still experimenting them on children now.

What's wrong with it still being experimental? Emergency usage I'd assume they had to skip some steps like testing. I've never heard of a vaccine linked to heart inflammation and things of that nature. Side affects usually are pain in the air, maybe a headache... seizure meds, some if you have fevers the first couple of months its a medical emergency.

I don't believe scientists are magicians. If that were the case, FDA should have speed up the process with other deadly illnesses.

Do you consider that reason intelligent and valid?

No. That's only thing I can think of though. My question is just because some things are true and not a conspiracy, what does that mean in the scheme of things?

If the US doesn't want to start a panic and coercing people to get the vaccine and censoring anything against it, to an provaxxer, what is wrong with that? Why challenge the validity of it--unless you can't see it?

I mean one doesn't need to pro/anti to see what's going on, I'm sure.

It's because there's liability risk if a media outlet spreads false information that kills people.

That and headlines. But that's really sad. Because I bet a lot of information against the vaccine is not false information.

I'm not making any point. I'm just trying to figure out if there's anything to the claims you made.

So far, it's been a struggle just to get you to express your claims coherently.

That, yes. I have trouble with that. I do better with direct questions that aren't emotionally charged.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If they refuse to vaccinate out of fear that the consequences far outweight dying of COVID then they certainly do.
That is also the case if they refuse to vaccinate out of belief in some kind of pharmaco-political conspiracy to control The People or somesuch.

Some people get the vaccine because of fear they will get COVID. Some people don't get the vaccine because they fear side affects.

Some people get the vaccine without fear likewise those who are unvaccinated.

My health and health decisions aren't up for debate. Though, any other intentions I have that hasn't been expressed are assumptions.

No refusal-I have no internal push to get the vaccine-so no pushback. Just a decision.

(Thinking of religious to atheist) Does one really need to refuse or reject to make a decision against the majority and what they believe?

Sure, there are also people who have never heard of vaccines and therefore completely ignorant of them, but I would suggest that these are a small minority in most Western societies.

It is a small minority. That's why its silly to get upset at the minority as if they are going to kill the world.

Once you know that taking a vaccine to protect against a global pandemic is a viable option for most people, I would venture that there really are only two possible choices: Either taking the vaccine, or refusing to take the vaccine.

No. Choosing to get it. Choosing not to get it.

Refusal and acceptance doesn't need to play into this. Refusal, rejection, etc connotes emotional attachment where in many people none exists. (Excuse the comparison-atheist don't need to be mad at god to not follow it)

So in most of the Western world (where there is generally little scarcity when it comes to COVID vaccines) I would argue that there really are only people who want to take the vaccine ("provaxxers" in your parlance) or those who refuse to take it.

I think majority of people chose to take the vaccine and a minority choice not to. If I had the majority of opinion and took the vaccine, I wouldn't say others reject. That's herd mentality-cult like thinking.

What does that even mean? "Concerned" about what? How did you measure that?

I think I left out a point.

So far, least online, I only know provaxxers more concerned than antivaxxers. Not sure if the latter put everyone in one boat, but the former sure do.

So far I know only provaxxers are more concerned about what antivaxxers. The latter doesn't generalize, but the former sure does.

Nope.

Yes. You guys do. What's wrong with that from a provaxxers view?

If someone didn't live near anyone, was young and healthy, etc and said they didn't take the vaccine you'd be upset at them as the person who didn't take it in a condensed populated area and a senior. The only thing that seems to get empathy are those who can't take the vaccine but then you guys say "but that's rare" as if it didn't exist (somewhat as if admitting some people cannot it would weaken your argument).

I can spot some confirmation bias alright!

Both sides.

No attacks.

 

[Kooky]

Some people get the vaccine because of fear they will get COVID. Some people don't get the vaccine because they fear side affects.

Some people get the vaccine without fear likewise those who are unvaccinated.

Yet "provaxxers" are a monolithic bloc of authoritarians who want nothing but to oppress and persecute those who think differently. Don't you find it curious how you can only find a diversity of opinion on the side of the debate that you happen to identify with?

No refusal-I have no internal push to get the vaccine-so no pushback. Just a decision.

The decision not to vaccinate, yes.

(Thinking of religious to atheist) Does one really need to refuse or reject to make a decision against the majority and what they believe?

Apparently.

It is a small minority. That's why its silly to get upset at the minority as if they are going to kill the world.

You are argueing against strawmen, then, because I don't get upset over other people's conscious and deliberate choices. I do, however, reserve the privilege to call them out when they offer bad or spurious reasoning in defense of choices that have potentially far reaching consequences for everyone else. Apparently some of these people, including yourself it seems, perceive the simple existence of vocal disagreement as equivalent to persecution and oppression of the most brutal kind.

No. Choosing to get it. Choosing not to get it.
Yes. Antivaxxing is a conscious choice. Thank you for making my point.

Refusal and acceptance doesn't need to play into this. Refusal, rejection, etc connotes emotional attachment where in many people none exists. (Excuse the comparison-atheist don't need to be mad at god to not follow it)

The example you brought up in the very first post of this thread involved the explicit refusal to take the vaccine, at great personal cost.

I think majority of people chose to take the vaccine and a minority choice not to. If I had the majority of opinion and took the vaccine, I wouldn't say others reject. That's herd mentality-cult like thinking.

Sorry, the mind control chip Bill Gates implanted with my dose of AstraZenica scrambled this inane bit of name calling inside my brain. Would you mind rephrasing this argument without personal insults?

Yes. You guys do. What's wrong with that from a provaxxers view?

I am not a "you guys". I am myself. Please show me where I did what you claim I did.

If someone didn't live near anyone, was young and healthy, etc and said they didn't take the vaccine you'd be upset at them as the person who didn't take it in a condensed populated area and a senior. The only thing that seems to get empathy are those who can't take the vaccine but then you guys say "but that's rare" as if it didn't exist (somewhat as if admitting some people cannot it would weaken your argument).

How many "young and healthy, etc." people function in society with absolutely zero human contact?
To how many antivaxxers does this actually apply in our lived, material reality?

 

[metis]

If very young adult men were to have a 1 in 10,000 chance of being hospitalized due to heart inflammation by being mRNA vaccinated against C.O.V.I.D.-19 in exchange for having near certain immunity against this disease that would otherwise be non-fatal to them contracting in 99,999 out of 100,000 cases, then I seriously doubt they should be obliged to get mRNA vaccinated against C.O.V.I.D.-19.

The heart inflammation problem is very treatable, but as far as "obligation" is concerned, I do believe that should be left unto the parents. However, if they are working or in school, then that decision can be made by both the business and also the school district and/or the state board of education.

BTW, glad you got the vaccine, and a new study is optimistic that the relative immunity may last for quite a while: https://www.usnews.com/news/health-...ely-induce-persistent-immunity-to-coronavirus

 

[Deeje]

The thing about conspiracy theorists is that they always say this.

Yes...because it’s true. There are some ridiculous ones, no doubt about it.....but would you be able to spot the real ones with the attitude that they must all be phoney? You tar them all with the same brush. In this day and age, advanced technology can make outright lies appear to be gospel truth. You really can’t believe a thing you see or hear on the news anymore......but you can if you want to.

Seriously, don't get your information from YouTube videos if you want to be both well informed, and taken seriously.

And again, with that attitude, when controlled media are feeding people what they want them to hear, YouTube is sometimes the only way to tell the truth, but even then, it will be only for a brief period if the truth is too hot to stay put. They are taken down quite quickly by ‘big brother’. I’m sure you are aware of “perception management”....it’s the science of how to manage people’s perceptions via their highly controlled news media. Propaganda works.....it always has. You are led to trust people who will later prove just how untrustworthy they really are......

The long term results of the trial that all human guinea pigs are undergoing at present, will show themselves in the weeks, months and years to come. But the manufactures of these vaccines are indemnified for any damage that results. They can cause grievous bodily harm on a global scale and no one can touch them. Doesn’t that raise some red flags for you? Could it be that your skepticism might just be misplaced?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yet "provaxxers" are a monolithic bloc of authoritarians who want nothing but to oppress and persecute those who think differently. Don't you find it curious how you can only find a diversity of opinion on the side of the debate that you happen to identify with?

How? The majority are provaxxers and I never disagreed with their facts and decisions to vaccinate just theur attitude and accusing people of intentionally killing people.

decision not to vaccinate, yes.

What rational reason would you accept and respect besides medical exemptions?

You are argueing against strawmen, then, because I don't get upset over other people's conscious and deliberate choices. I do, however, reserve the privilege to call them out when they offer bad or spurious reasoning in defense of choices that have potentially far reaching consequences for everyone else. Apparently some of these people, including yourself it seems, perceive the simple existence of vocal disagreement as equivalent to persecution and oppression of the most brutal kind

Okay. Maybe not upset in your emotions...I can't see that. In your words, most definite.

When you say someone is uncaring and putting people in danger and shunning people unvaccinated and such it's beyond difference of opinion.

And yes when an defensive red flag pops up the convo shifts cause I can't understand people's points if they are speaking from emotions. Instead if getting just as defensive, it helps I point it out si the convo won't be charged.

The example you brought up in the very first post of this thread involved the explicit refusal to take the vaccine, at great personal cost.

The personal cost was loosing their job. I just said I disagree with the hospitals decision, why, if there were another way I'd be more supportive, and the biases involved.

Sorry, the mind control chip Bill Gates implanted with my dose of AstraZenica scrambled this inane bit of name calling inside my brain. Would you mind rephrasing this argument without personal insults?

Sarcasm is not needed. This usually happens when people are defensive. Disagreement doesn't lead to intentional sarcasm.

I think majority of people chose to take the vaccine and a minority choice not to. If I had the majority of opinion and took the vaccine, I wouldn't say others reject. That's herd mentality-cult like thinking.

I would say the majority of opinion is an example of herd mentality. What's wrong with that?

Literally?

I am not a "you guys". I am myself. Please show me where I did what you claim I did.

You guys meaning those who share your opinions.

It's referring to your opinions that mimic your peers not your character or you personally.

How many "young and healthy, etc." people function in society with absolutely zero human contact?

To how many antivaxxers does this actually apply in our lived, material reality?

That's deflecting and another fallacy.

I don't know. Does that mean it's false?

The second part, unvaccinated are the minority.

Not all unvaccinated are antivaxxers (not all atheists are rejecting god)...how do people understand one statement and not the other.

To make a point, not discuss religion

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes...because it’s true. There are some ridiculous ones, no doubt about it.....but would you be able to spot the real ones with the attitude that they must all be phoney? You tar them all with the same brush. In this day and age, advanced technology can make outright lies appear to be gospel truth. You really can’t believe a thing you see or hear on the news anymore......but you can if you want to.

Nah, it's just something conspiracy theorists like to tell themselves in an attempt to justify their beliefs. You have no idea how many times I've heard that line, along with the rest of this.
Which always leaves me wondering, if conspiracy theorists really believe that you can't believe anything you hear on the news, then where are they getting their "information" from? Oh that's right, from unverifiable YouTube videos which for sure must be "The Truth."

I have a friend who truly believes that Tom Hanks and the Clintons are drinking babies' blood while molesting children in the basement of a pizza shop somewhere. Why does he believe this? Because he saw some guy in a YouTube video talking about how there is video on this stuff all over the "dark web." Has he actually seen any of it? Nope! And yet he still believes it and spends his days trying to "inform" others about this terrible stuff that is going on.

And again, with that attitude, when controlled media are feeding people what they want them to hear, YouTube is sometimes the only way to tell the truth, but even then, it will be only for a brief period if the truth is too hot to stay put.

Question for you then, how are you verifying these YouTube videos? How are you checking the supposed information being shared in them? How do you know it's the "only way to tell the truth" and how do you know that any of it is "the truth?"

Here's a good rule of thumb: Don't get your science information from the mainstream media. Instead, consult scientists themselves and scientific publications.

They are taken down quite quickly by ‘big brother’. I’m sure you are aware of “perception management”....it’s the science of how to manage people’s perceptions via their highly controlled news media. Propaganda works.....it always has. You are led to trust people who will later prove just how untrustworthy they really are......

Yeah, they're taken down because they're full of crap and these cites don't want to be held accountable for posting false information.

Do you think there is no propaganda on YouTube?

The long term results of the trial that all human guinea pigs are undergoing at present, will show themselves in the weeks, months and years to come. But the manufactures of these vaccines are indemnified for any damage that results. They can cause grievous bodily harm on a global scale and no one can touch them. Doesn’t that raise some red flags for you? Could it be that your skepticism might just be misplaced?

Clinical trials were already done before the vaccine was given out en masse. At present, about 3 billion doses of the vaccine have been administered worldwide.
Long term side effects from vaccines typically show up within about 8 weeks after administration.
If what you were saying were true, we should have already seen it playing out as you describe. And yet we're not. We don't see any "grievous bodily harm on a global scale" as you suggest here. Nothing even close to it.

Instead what we see is that vaccinations are bringing down infection and mortality rates. How do you reconcile that with your conspiracy beliefs?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes...because it’s true. There are some ridiculous ones, no doubt about it.....but would you be able to spot the real ones with the attitude that they must all be phoney? You tar them all with the same brush. In this day and age, advanced technology can make outright lies appear to be gospel truth. You really can’t believe a thing you see or hear on the news anymore......but you can if you want to.


And again, with that attitude, when controlled media are feeding people what they want them to hear, YouTube is sometimes the only way to tell the truth, but even then, it will be only for a brief period if the truth is too hot to stay put. They are taken down quite quickly by ‘big brother’. I’m sure you are aware of “perception management”....it’s the science of how to manage people’s perceptions via their highly controlled news media. Propaganda works.....it always has. You are led to trust people who will later prove just how untrustworthy they really are......

The long term results of the trial that all human guinea pigs are undergoing at present, will show themselves in the weeks, months and years to come. But the manufactures of these vaccines are indemnified for any damage that results. They can cause grievous bodily harm on a global scale and no one can touch them. Doesn’t that raise some red flags for you? Could it be that your skepticism might just be misplaced?

I guess they don't want to get sued. Did you see a huge example of this I posted (not to you)...

"Pros and Cons of the Vaccines | COVID-19 Vaccine FAQ | cdc.gov" (Look it up on google... it goes to this site) Benefits of Getting a COVID-19 Vaccine

It doesn't list the cons. For some reason CDC (or Google?) didn't change the title.

YouTube is a catch and go. It's easier to develop confirmation bias on it, though. Probably 99% are pro-vaccine.

I mean, US is a bit different perspective where you come from... most people I'd assume trust the doctors and I assume a good majority ask for second opinions. I think this goes a bit further than the problem with medical companies and money making. Its not always the case.

 

[Kooky]

How? The majority are provaxxers and I never disagreed with their facts and decisions to vaccinate just theur attitude and accusing people of intentionally killing people.

You claim that there are "rational reasons" to refuse to vaccinate, so clearly you disagree with proponents of vaccination on the facts at hand. You also seem to claim that people who refuse to vaccinate aren't really refusing, and you seem to see some kind of persecution of antivaxxers, other facts we're in disagreement over.

Could you cite where you read that antivaxxers are "intentionally killing people"? I've never heard of that one, though I don't doubt someone might have claimed as such.

What rational reason would you accept and respect besides medical exemptions?

What rational reason is there besides the pseudoscience and conspirationalism that's already out there?
Can you cite a coherent argument that doesn't just reiterate the vague sense of fear most people do seem to base their opposition on?

Okay. Maybe not upset in your emotions...I can't see that. In your words, most definite.

What upsets me is not people's refusal to vaccinate, it's your unwarranted accusations, hostility, and manipulative rhetoric.

It looks to me like you can't actually distinguish between myself and the "provaxxer" in your head that you've built up as your opponent in this discussion.

When you say someone is uncaring and putting people in danger and shunning people unvaccinated and such it's beyond difference of opinion.

I never said anything of that sort, so I have no idea what you're talking about - I suppose, some monolithic "provaxxer" hivemind that you assume I'm part of because I think that vaccination is actually a good idea, right?

And yes when an defensive red flag pops up the convo shifts cause I can't understand people's points if they are speaking from emotions.

This is what I mean when I talk of "manipulative rhetoric". At first it seems that you admit you can't understand my points, but then you immediately shift the blame onto me, alongside an allegiation that I am "speaking from emotions" (with the implication that you aren't, despite evidence to the contrary in the way you choose your words and adress the opposite side).

You are either failing to understand my arguments but responding anyway, or actively putting words into my mouth because you want me to be a certain type of opponent that I'm not. Either way, I find your current debating tactics extremely irritating and frankly getting tiresome.

The personal cost was loosing their job. I just said I disagree with the hospitals decision, why, if there were another way I'd be more supportive, and the biases involved.

The key point here is that they didn't just not vaccinate, they actively refused when offered the choice between vaccination and the loss of their job.

Sarcasm is not needed.

Neither is your name calling.

You guys meaning those who share your opinions.

But you have no idea what my opinions are. You simply assumed a full gamut of positions, based solely on my objection to your poor arguments and hostility towards those who champion vaccination.

It's referring to your opinions that mimic your peers not your character or you personally.

Yet you made a judgement of character and accused me of things I did not do. Maybe don't actually do that when you don't know a single thing about your peers in an online discussion?

That's deflecting and another fallacy.

No, it is directly adressing the examples you gave. If you are unhappy with those examples, then feel free to give others that better reflect what you are trying to say.

However, at this point, I am starting to think that what you're really trying to say is "I hate people who vaccinate", with little to no additional substance beyond that assertion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You claim that there are "rational reasons" to refuse to vaccinate, so clearly you disagree with proponents of vaccination on the facts at hand. You also seem to claim that people who refuse to vaccinate aren't really refusing, and you seem to see some kind of persecution of antivaxxers, other facts we're in disagreement over.

Could you cite where you read that antivaxxers are "intentionally killing people"? I've never heard of that one, though I don't doubt someone might have claimed as such.




What rational reason is there besides the pseudoscience and conspirationalism that's already out there?
Can you cite a coherent argument that doesn't just reiterate the vague sense of fear most people do seem to base their opposition on?




What upsets me is not people's refusal to vaccinate, it's your unwarranted accusations, hostility, and manipulative rhetoric.

It looks to me like you can't actually distinguish between myself and the "provaxxer" in your head that you've built up as your opponent in this discussion.



I never said anything of that sort, so I have no idea what you're talking about - I suppose, some monolithic "provaxxer" hivemind that you assume I'm part of because I think that vaccination is actually a good idea, right?



This is what I mean when I talk of "manipulative rhetoric". At first it seems that you admit you can't understand my points, but then you immediately shift the blame onto me, alongside an allegiation that I am "speaking from emotions" (with the implication that you aren't, despite evidence to the contrary in the way you choose your words and adress the opposite side).

You are either failing to understand my arguments but responding anyway, or actively putting words into my mouth because you want me to be a certain type of opponent that I'm not. Either way, I find your current debating tactics extremely irritating and frankly getting tiresome.




The key point here is that they didn't just not vaccinate, they actively refused when offered the choice between vaccination and the loss of their job.




Neither is your name calling.



But you have no idea what my opinions are. You simply assumed a full gamut of positions, based solely on my objection to your poor arguments and hostility towards those who champion vaccination.


Yet you made a judgement of character and accused me of things I did not do. Maybe don't actually do that when you don't know a single thing about your peers in an online discussion?


No, it is directly adressing the examples you gave. If you are unhappy with those examples, then feel free to give others that better reflect what you are trying to say.

However, at this point, I am starting to think that what you're really trying to say is "I hate people who vaccinate", with little to no additional substance beyond that assertion.

Please give me an example of something I said that judges your character and accuse you?

 

[Kooky]

Please give me an example of something I said that judges your character and accuse you?

How about this most recent one:

When you say someone is uncaring and putting people in danger and shunning people unvaccinated and such it's beyond difference of opinion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How about this most recent one:

That doesn't read of accusing you anything.

If you read too much into it out of context because of a "you" statement I can't really do anything more.

Give me something distinct... like "you are personally not caring and you are shunning people."

The comment you quoted of mine is talking about a difference of opinion not you-your character as a person.

 

[Kooky]

Yea, I think we're done here.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yea, I think we're done here.

Get something to drink or something.

Only you can control what you take in and how. Unless they are facts, take a break. Emotions aren't needed in an OP that doesn't concern anti/provaxxers.