• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Huffington Post Bans "Dozens" of Anti-Vaxxers

Deuce said:
Because every teenager tells their parents before having sex? Absurd. Vaccinate your children before it's too late.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be ON THE DAY THEY ARE BORN????
 
Lursa said:
What do they do? I asked you that already, I believe. So...please educate me.
Click to expand...

I explained it. Not my fault if you can't pay attention.
 
Lursa said:
What do they do? I asked you that already, I believe. So...please educate me.
Click to expand...

Good4Nothin said:
This has nothing to do with whether viruses are alive or not. Vaccines do not kill them. That is not what vaccines do.
Click to expand...

Good4Nothin said:
No, they cause the virus to be registered so it can be recognized in the future by immune system killer cells. Similar to what happens when you are infected by a virus naturally.

But natural immunity is much better.
Click to expand...

LMAO...what are the "immune system killer cells killing in 'the future' if it's not the virus? :doh

So, back to our regularly scheduled programming...please explain how depending on natural immunity is better? If it's 'better,' why do Drs recommend vaccines? (Are they all Big Pharma stooges?) If they're not better, why are your odds of surviving a disease better using a vaccine rather than depending on natural immunity? (Yeah...the links supporting that are plenty and easily found).
 
Good4Nothin said:
No, they cause the virus to be registered so it can be recognized in the future by immune system killer cells. Similar to what happens when you are infected by a virus naturally.

But natural immunity is much better.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to make the case that polio would have simply just gone away without the vaccine?

Seriously?
 
I'm not confusing anything and your analogies are silly.

JasperL said:
So if you choose not to invite into your house the Mormons to preach to you for two hours, are you also banning speech, and against personal freedoms? Fox News bans liberals as hosts in their evening hours. Are they against personal freedoms? I haven't been to any scientific conferences but I bet they "ban" flat earthers and creationists. Is that an infringement on personal freedom or them using editorial control to advance theories in line with their mission and beliefs? Do you see gun banners given speakers' slots at the NRA conventions? Why is that not an infringement on personal freedoms?

Etc.

What you're confusing is "lefty" sites using their editorial discretion, the same thing the mods do here at DP, in a way you don't like with infringements on personal freedom. Freedom and private property include the right to moderate content on a private website.
Click to expand...
 
LowDown said:
The purging of internet platforms continues apace.

Pretty soon all that will be left are cat blogs and recipes. But not high carb recipes.

Not that I'm in favor of anti-vaxxers.

HuffPost Gets Shamed Into Taking Stand on Anti-Vaxxers
Click to expand...

It's hard to remember, but before Trump made that remark about vaccines and autism (way back in 2015), vaccine skepticism was more associated with the dissident left than the dissident right. The editors of HuffPo are merely commissars (a good chunk of what the site does is doxing and harassing people whose views they disagree with), and what kind of Stalinists would they be if they let other schools of leftism continue to exist on their own website?
 
Deuce said:
Antivax is not a political opinion, it's dangerous ignorance that objectively causes harm to children. You can feel free to look through HuffPo's mission statement and see if that fits.
Click to expand...

"Kids can handle the kink at pride parades" - an actual HuffPo headline

Please spare us any pretense that the editors of the Huffington Post care about the well-being of children.

Good4Nothin said:
Yes, evil giant corporations can belong to either political team.
Click to expand...

In theory perhaps. But in practice they all seem to belong to the left.

Deuce said:
Is Fox News either constitutionally or morally obligated to let me use their platform?
Click to expand...

Fox News allows its opinion shows to have independent POVs.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Why shoot toxins and genetically engineered mystery substances into a tiny newborn baby???? Anyone who cares about children's health should object to this insanity.
Click to expand...

What toxins and mystery substances? Sorry but that's total nonsense. When I was a kid over 60 years ago, I got shots of all kinds of stuff. I'm still alive. You talk as if there was something sinister going on! In any case the MMR vaccine, which is what all the fuss is about, is usually given around 12 months, so hardly "new born".
 
Last edited:
NiceGuyEddie said:
Bubble-dwellers come to crave, protect and further insulate the bubble at all costs.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, and being a contrarian when it comes to public health.

The anti-vax position is dangerous to the public at large and is imho child abuse. They aren't woke. They aren't edgy. They aren't cool. They're misinformed people that are proliferating a dangerous conspiracy that is killing or harming their children.
 
rocket88 said:
The things you'll get outraged over...a position you don't support is being taken off of a website owned by a private business. Damn, tomorrow you'll be outraged that the sun came up. Not that you don't like the sun....
Click to expand...

It's not that it's a private business; it's their model.

Unlike Facebook, they have every right to do this.
 
Last edited:
LowDown said:
So, just to clarify, you deem my front lawn to be equivalent to a platform intended for publication of political opinions on the internet?
Click to expand...

In this case, the analogy is somewhat valid.

In the case of Facebook, YouTube & etc., it is not.
 
Obscurity said:
There's a difference between being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, and being a contrarian when it comes to public health.

The anti-vax position is dangerous to the public at large and is imho child abuse. They aren't woke. They aren't edgy. They aren't cool. They're misinformed people that are proliferating a dangerous conspiracy that is killing or harming their children.
Click to expand...

I happen to support your position, however, eliminating opposing viewpoints in order to placate the mob is never a good idea.
 
NiceGuyEddie said:
I happen to support your position, however, eliminating opposing viewpoints in order to placate the mob is never a good idea.
Click to expand...

But that's kind of the thing, Eddie...this isn't a debate, and the consequences aren't merely academic. People die because of this misinformation. If medical professionals, or conspiracy theory nut jobs, want to have this debate, then there are still plenty of platforms to do it. Refusing to be a part of spreading this nonsense is the responsible approach for any media outlet to take.
 
OlNate said:
But that's kind of the thing, Eddie...this isn't a debate, and the consequences aren't merely academic. People die because of this misinformation. If medical professionals, or conspiracy theory nut jobs, want to have this debate, then there are still plenty of platforms to do it. Refusing to be a part of spreading this nonsense is the responsible approach for any media outlet to take.
Click to expand...

So, you're of the opinion that once the 'majority' of 'experts' agree on something that any further discussion of the topic is detrimental to society because others may be persuaded to adopt the 'wrong' point of view? That reeks of authoritarianism.
 
Last edited:
OlNate said:
But that's kind of the thing, Eddie...this isn't a debate, and the consequences aren't merely academic. People die because of this misinformation. If medical professionals, or conspiracy theory nut jobs, want to have this debate, then there are still plenty of platforms to do it. Refusing to be a part of spreading this nonsense is the responsible approach for any media outlet to take.
Click to expand...

Exactly would anyone complain if Huff post refused to post anything promoting the cinnamon challenge or the tide pod challenge?
 
NiceGuyEddie said:
I happen to support your position, however, eliminating opposing viewpoints in order to placate the mob is never a good idea.
Click to expand...

"Mob" is the public at large including conservatives. I find your position distasteful. It's not a "mob". It's a group of concerned citizens. I have no taste for your typical soundbyte ad hominem.

There's a difference here. Anti-vax is not an opposing viewpoint. It's a radical conspiracy. It's malinformed nonsense. It's not rational, and it endangers the public by allowing these idiots to resurrect dead diseases.

There is an odd dichotomy here with state authority; but imho, vaccines are scientifically proven to be safe. I do not agree with these people having a chance to spread this idiocy. It's one thing to have an opposing viewpoint about, say, taxes. It's entirely another thing to have an opposing "viewpoint" that endangers people's children.

My son is 8 months old. We had a MEASELS scare this year. He doesn't get vaccinated until he is 1 year old. Why should my child be threatened by this disease because a bunch of retards with "opposing views" think it's OK to ignore science and endanger the public?
 
NiceGuyEddie said:
So, you're of the opinion that once the 'majority' of 'experts' agree on something that any further discussion of the topic is detrimental to society because others may be persuaded to adopt the 'wrong' point of view? That reeks of authoritarianism.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm of the opinion that it's a bad thing when children die because their parents have their head up their ass over proven, and admitted, fraudulent claims. And I fully support Huffington's post to do their part ensuring that more children don't die because dumb assed parents read a Huff Po article. :shrug: That stink you're complaining about is called responsibility....it's ok, it's an easy mistake to make, with the overwhelming amount of bull**** associated with this topic.
 
Quag said:
Exactly would anyone complain if Huff post refused to post anything promoting the cinnamon challenge or the tide pod challenge?
Click to expand...

Nearly perfect equivalency. Except in your example, the dumbass participating in it only puts themselves at risk. Most anti-vaxxers I know were given the shots when they were kids, were fine with them, but, because of some long ago debunked click bait nonsense, are risking their kids to be trendy at conspiracy theory parties.
 
Obscurity said:
"Mob" is the public at large including conservatives. I find your position distasteful. It's not a "mob". It's a group of concerned citizens. I have no taste for your typical soundbyte ad hominem.

There's a difference here. Anti-vax is not an opposing viewpoint. It's a radical conspiracy. It's malinformed nonsense. It's not rational, and it endangers the public by allowing these idiots to resurrect dead diseases.

There is an odd dichotomy here with state authority; but imho, vaccines are scientifically proven to be safe. I do not agree with these people having a chance to spread this idiocy. It's one thing to have an opposing viewpoint about, say, taxes. It's entirely another thing to have an opposing "viewpoint" that endangers people's children.

My son is 8 months old. We had a MEASELS scare this year. He doesn't get vaccinated until he is 1 year old. Why should my child be threatened by this disease because a bunch of retards with "opposing views" think it's OK to ignore science and endanger the public?
Click to expand...

"I have no taste for your typical soundbyte ad hominem."

"...a bunch of retards with "opposing views"..."

"I do not agree with these people having a chance to spread this idiocy."

Thanks for contributing.
 
Deuce said:
Is Fox News either constitutionally or morally obligated to let me use their platform?
Click to expand...

It's the height of hypocrisy for journalists to censor opinions they don't like.
 
NiceGuyEddie said:
"I have no taste for your typical soundbyte ad hominem."

"...a bunch of retards with "opposing views"..."

"I do not agree with these people having a chance to spread this idiocy."

Thanks for contributing.
Click to expand...

You call a group of concerned citizens a "mob."

Yes, I am deriding and mocking anti-vaxxers. They have earned the derision. They are dangerous. They are also malinformed. They threaten the children of this country with their hysterical nonsense.
 
apdst said:
Free speech is free speech. Don't you just love the irony of journalists censoring other citizens?
Click to expand...

Given the kids have died because of this BS, isn't this literally like hollering fire in a theatre, though?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom