Who has a neutral stance in this vaccine

[Friend of Mara]

Neutral about the emotional attachment to the argument. This post says you've taken a side. Most people are privaxxy. I'm asking about emotional attachment not a position.

I am emotionally neutral. I have chosen a side because emotion has nothing to do with it. If I desire X and Y is the best way to get to X then thats all there is to it. If someone doesn't want to get vaxxed because they are misinformed then I take issue with it simply because they are making decisions based on the incorrect information. If they agree with the facts but still don't want it then perhaps we could have a conversation about why.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am emotionally neutral. I have chosen a side because emotion has nothing to do with it. If I desire X and Y is the best way to get to X then thats all there is to it. If someone doesn't want to get vaxxed because they are misinformed then I take issue with it simply because they are making decisions based on the incorrect information. If they agree with the facts but still don't want it then perhaps we could have a conversation about why.

I edited it. I meant sentence clarity.

I don't know if people just disagree (under the emotions) with me or an I not clear therefore the defensiveness.

 

[Kooky]

No one is the victim here Kooky.

(Sounds like you have a more personal argument in your head, to tell you honestly.... a lot of assumptions)

The last sentence, I wasn't going to be. The OP just singled on those who are neutral. So, don't accuse the OP for a original post majority of people shouldn't have replied to if they were going to debate over it-read the OP.

Are you ever actually going to adress the points I have raised so far?
Or does your engagement with my posts begin and end at overly vague condescension?

 

[Kooky]

I edited it. I meant sentence clarity.

I don't know if people just disagree (under the emotions) with me or an I not clear therefore the defensiveness.

Perhaps you could employ a more rational approach and engage more logically coherent argumentation. I can also imagine that it would help if you started addressing the points people raise instead of retreating towards a defensive posture.

 

[Friend of Mara]

I edited it. I meant sentence clarity.

I don't know if people just disagree (under the emotions) with me or an I not clear therefore the defensiveness.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding. For example my position is that vaccination is good especially with regard to this pandemic. Or are you talking about the emotional response to those who have chosen a side? Such as feeling some kind of way towards someone who is anti-vax?


Edit:

When you say "neutral" do you mean "ambivalent" or "undecided"?

 

[Kooky]

3. The ones who feel it isn't needed due to..
-already having covid(and have the antibodies),
-or are not around many people or out in public much,
-or feel they are healthy enough

How significant a portion of vocal vaccination opponents are these, in your opinion?
Do you think that when people talk about "antivaxxers", these are the people they are referring to?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Are you ever actually going to adress the points I have raised so far?
Or does your engagement with my posts begin and end at overly vague condescension?

I get annoyed (and am annoyed) when the OP ask one thing and it goes elsewhere as if no one can help themselves rehashing an old debate where we know each other's views right, wrong, or distorted. I'll get to it when I get back but at least have some open interest I what I say.

There's no reason to change your views, so show me that same respect.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding. For example my position is that vaccination is good especially with regard to this pandemic. Or are you talking about the emotional response to those who have chosen a side? Such as feeling some kind of way towards someone who is anti-vax?


Edit:

When you say "neutral" do you mean "ambivalent" or "undecided"?

Emotional response to those who chosen a side. On RF, I only know provaxxers take an emotional side in reference to the vaccine. Only one antivaxxer that may have the same strong emotions (I don't know-just guessing from what they say and tone). I was wondering, especially in person, who doesn't have an emotional investment in the topic. For example, when I'm not on RF 99.999% of the time I'm not thinking of vaccines and masks. Probably others the same. I don't know.

Thanks for asking for clarification

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Which points are you referring to?

And you have displayed nothing but contempt and hostility for people who argue in favor of vaccination. So, as per your personal definition, I guess that makes you an antivaxxer, then? You are clearly emotionally invested in that side of the argument.

No. I don't like the sarcasm, emotionalism, attached to it.

It's one thing to say you put others at risk and a whole 'nother to say you're a potential murderer.

It literally has nothing to do with who takes the vaccine and who does not. Now that I think of it, can you show me (honestly) where I have told people not to take the vaccine or argued that taking it was a bad idea or something similar?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Perhaps you could employ a more rational approach and engage more logically coherent argumentation. I can also imagine that it would help if you started addressing the points people raise instead of retreating towards a defensive posture.

The OP wasn't about that... so my mindset wasn't to address and rehash old arguments.

For some reason you guys can't help ya selves so I put it in political debate for those who wish to argue.

Do I need a motive all the time to be curious... goodness gracious.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If they agree with the facts but still don't want it then perhaps we could have a conversation about why.

How would that conversation go, though?

I mean, you can be curious as to why (right?) while on the other hand the why leads to discrediting the other person's reasons. From some provaxxers here, that's pretty much what happens (a couple of them asked why).

 

[Friend of Mara]

How would that conversation go, though?

I mean, you can be curious as to why (right?) while on the other hand the why leads to discrediting the other person's reasons. From some provaxxers here, that's pretty much what happens (a couple of them asked why).

Yeah. I mean I'm pretty sure what their answer will be. Its either they are anti-vax all the way anyway no matter if its Covid or not. Or some people are specifically anti-covid-vax for whatever reason. Almost always its misinformation. Since this is a debate section of the site I would obviously engage in why they don't think the vaccine is legitimate. For anti-covid-vax I don't have a huge emotional vestment because I see that there is a whole facet of our "media" that wants to convince them of a false narritive. I almost can't fault them for falling into it if thats all they consume. But actual anti-vaxers do get a rise out of me.

I too don't think about anything I discuss on this site most of the time. Usually I'm at work or doing one of my hobbies. But in a way this is one of my hobbies. I tend to come and go from this site. I will stick around for a few weeks. Then things get stale so I drop it for a while till I remember it again and attempt to stir up trouble.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yeah. I mean I'm pretty sure what their answer will be. Its either they are anti-vax all the way anyway no matter if its Covid or not. Or some people are specifically anti-covid-vax for whatever reason. Almost always its misinformation. Since this is a debate section of the site I would obviously engage in why they don't think the vaccine is legitimate. For anti-covid-vax I don't have a huge emotional vestment because I see that there is a whole facet of our "media" that wants to convince them of a false narritive. I almost can't fault them for falling into it if thats all they consume. But actual anti-vaxers do get a rise out of me.

I too don't think about anything I discuss on this site most of the time. Usually I'm at work or doing one of my hobbies. But in a way this is one of my hobbies. I tend to come and go from this site. I will stick around for a few weeks. Then things get stale so I drop it for a while till I remember it again and attempt to stir up trouble.

What if your side is not legitimate in the objective sense of things?

What if both sides have a point?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The misinformation and carefully managed public perceptions scare me more.

It scares me too. Because it feeds right into this conspiracy theory nonsense and obscures the actual facts.

 

[Deeje]

It scares me too. Because it feeds right into this conspiracy theory nonsense and obscures the actual facts.

And what are the actual facts? Would you even know? Who provides information on the safety of these vaccines? The ones who manufacture them with profits as their primary focus? And who swallows whatever they say without question because the "studies" are done....right?

What long term studies have ever been done on the covid vaccines?

With no way to bring them to court for any unwanted, long term after effects...like disability or death.....why would these companies, who earn billions of dollars from this vaccine rollout, each competing to gain the first foothold, want to indemnify themselves against any legal redress in advance of this rollout, if they knew it was "safe"?

Did they already know that there were some warning signs, but ignored them?
I smell a rat.....follow the money trail.
What do the medical experts who are warning us of possible serious complications have to gain, compared to those who are desperate for every person on earth to have this jab that will earn them billions of dollars? What have the nay-sayers got to gain by comparison? You tell me.....vaccinations cannot be undone.

Emotional blackmail and scare tactics seem to be the order of the day.
Why are we only hearing about the number of cases now? Because the majority of people recover from this virus the same way that they would recover from any other corona flu virus......only a very small percentage get critically ill or die.....so isn't the rationale for the jab based on the same principle? You can't have it both ways.

We saw what the Delta strain did in India.....but what were the circumstances surrounding that catastrophe? Poor health care, poor hygiene, poor education, overpopulation and NO OXYGEN. Seriously, this is presented as the outcome for all who get this strain.....but where are the stats on how many need hospitalization or who die from this supposedly more infectious strain in other countries with better health care?

Its getting harder and harder to say who is telling "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".....

I will reserve my judgment and take my chances with the virus, rather than have something injected into my body against my better judgment.....once its in, there is no going back, and there can be no apologies for the "ooops we made a mistake....and now we can't undo it". For something with the potential for devastating harm, each person who trusted those who promised that it was safe, must be responsible for their own choices. I am responsible for mine as you must take responsibility for yours.

 

[Kooky]

There's no reason to change your views, so show me that same respect.

You've already told me what my views are, so what's our point of discussion here?

 

[Kooky]

What if your side is not legitimate in the objective sense of things?

What if both sides have a point?

What if not?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You've already told me what my views are, so what's our point of discussion here?

I don't know. You cut it off awhile back. Shrugs.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What if not?

You'd have to add more context so I know what you're getting at since I was asking @Friend of Mara.

 

[Kooky]

I don't know. You cut it off awhile back. Shrugs.

Then what was the point of this thread in the first place?