• 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

Yakshi said:
No, I meant exactly what I said. For future reference, read that, rather than your brain dead strawman.

And if that strawman is the conclusion that your brain reached after reading my post, then I ask us all to say a prayer for you.
Click to expand...

Shutting down their ideas with mockery or censorship is a win-win situation in almost every case.

Pretty straightforward. You favor censorship. Censorship wielded by governmental power is tyranny. So, you favor tyranny. Oh, but I'm sure it's the "good" kind of tyranny.:lamo
 
Read it all again. Keep doing so until it clicks. Your mental mistakes are not my problem.
 
NiceGuyEddie said:
"I'm sorry, but we've determined that your opinions are not legitimate enough to be heard ... please place all of your propaganda in the incinerator on your way out."
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that every single argument addressing an issue should be considered 'legitimate?'
 
Yakshi said:
Read it all again. Keep doing so until it clicks. Your mental mistakes are not my problem.
Click to expand...

I quoted you. Now you're trying to run away. I guess maybe nobody ever challenged your nonsense before.
 
I’m blatantly making fun of your moronic posts, in the hopes that you will respond with similar idiotic notions so that I can continue doing so. Where am I running again?

Post more. I want to laugh.
 
Lursa said:
I see you could not answer the direct question. You continue to demonstrate my previous post.

I never said they couldnt express their opinion. Ever.
Click to expand...

"So a newspaper is the only place to get information on medical research and health issues? And opposing view points?"

This "direct question"?

What do you think that's a 'gotcha' question? :thinking The point that there are other venues available doesn't negate the fact that HP is caving to pressure from their liberal viewership to suppress opposing thought ... a practice liberals embrace with alarming regularity ever chasing the utopian bliss of a safe-space conformity bubble.
 
Yakshi said:
I’m blatantly making fun of your moronic posts, in the hopes that you will respond with similar idiotic notions so that I can continue doing so. Where am I running again?

Post more. I want to laugh.
Click to expand...

Please elaborate on your desires for censorship. I can hardly wait.
 
Lursa said:
Are you claiming that every single argument addressing an issue should be considered 'legitimate?'
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm claiming that banishing the opposing viewpoint entirely because they have failed to adopt your position is probably not the best approach.
 
NiceGuyEddie said:
"I'm sorry, but we've determined that your opinions are not legitimate enough to be heard ... please place all of your propaganda in the incinerator on your way out."
Click to expand...

Nice rhetoric. However, this is not a matter of opinion, but verifiable and objective evidence. The rhetoric you are using is typical of the conspiracy theorists. Your ignorance is not equal to the knowledge of the medical community .
 
veritas1 said:
Please elaborate on your desires for censorship. I can hardly wait.
Click to expand...

The entirety of my opinion is in the post you read. Do you want me to dumb it down with crayon?
 
LowDown said:
"Settled science" is an oxymoron. People who use that term don't know science and probably put their trust in the wrong people.
Click to expand...

Medical science can be settled to some degree. For example, we know that smoking cigarettes is bad for health. There is no controversy on that anymore.

But there is controversy about vaccine safety. The medical authorities are shouting down everyone who dares to wonder if all vaccines are worth the risk. If you question even one ingredient in one vaccine you are called an anti-vaxxer.

If you trust the authorities and do not read for yourself, you will be brainwashed.

And there is an awful lot of exaggeration and hysteria. Measles was never thought of as a deadly disease until recently, because of the propaganda.

Vaccine makers might have some good intentions, but they are churning out more and more vaccines. Supposedly to eradicate every single infectious disease. At some point, the risk has to outweigh the benefits.
 
Yakshi said:
The entirety of my opinion is in the post you read. Do you want me to dumb it down with crayon?
Click to expand...

You said you wanted to shut down ideas with censorship. I'm just wondering if you could tell us what that would entail. The only thing apparent is that you don't want to answer or can't answer that question.
 
RAMOSS said:
Nice rhetoric. However, this is not a matter of opinion, but verifiable and objective evidence. The rhetoric you are using is typical of the conspiracy theorists. Your ignorance is not equal to the knowledge of the medical community .
Click to expand...

When did it cease to be a matter of opinion? Who decided this? Why were the blogs permitted to begin with? What major medical advance has recently taken place to render these previously "acceptable" blogs into harmful propaganda?
 
LowDown said:
Your faith in experts is touching, but dangerous. Experts, or "the educated", always have their own self interest at heart, not yours.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are experts who sincerely want to help people. But they aren't all-knowing gods.

When there is a scientific controversy we should not automatically take the side of the authorities.
 
Good, bunch a damn baby’s...the left can kiss my white narrow ass.
 
NiceGuyEddie said:
Well then, the anti-vaxx bloggers should be easy to refute ... yes?
Click to expand...

Right. If the anti-vaxxers are so obviously wrong, why are they considered dangerous? If there is clear scientific proof that they are wrong, why not show it to us? Then the whole debate would be over.
 
NiceGuyEddie said:
"So a newspaper is the only place to get information on medical research and health issues? And opposing view points?"

This "direct question"?

What do you think that's a 'gotcha' question? :thinking The point that there are other venues available doesn't negate the fact that HP is caving to pressure from their liberal viewership to suppress opposing thought ... a practice liberals embrace with alarming regularity ever chasing the utopian bliss of a safe-space conformity bubble.
Click to expand...

No, it's not a 'gotcha' question. So then why didnt you answer it? It seems pretty straightforward. And if you had given it any real consideration, you might have been spared that whole 'limited thinking' reinforcement.
 
NiceGuyEddie said:
Nope. I'm claiming that banishing the opposing viewpoint entirely because they have failed to adopt your position is probably not the best approach.
Click to expand...

Dont know why you addressed that at me, since I never suggested it.
 
NiceGuyEddie said:
These people obviously have an opinion on vaccinations, why not let them be heard?

If these anti-vaxx blogs have been permitted until now, what has happened recently to prompt this change in HP's policy?
Click to expand...

Cracking down on any kind of opposition to the drug companies' power.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Right. If the anti-vaxxers are so obviously wrong, why are they considered dangerous? If there is clear scientific proof that they are wrong, why not show it to us? Then the whole debate would be over.
Click to expand...

:doh

The current measles outbreaks in the US are a very good example that they are wrong. The proof would be degrading of herd immunity.

(not dangerous? :roll: Jeebus)
 
Good4Nothin said:
Opposing reckless meddling with complex natural systems is more associated with conservatives. Progressives love Big Science and almost never question anything it does.
Click to expand...

Before Trump it was still common for leftists to be against big business. This why HuffPo was once open to vaccine skepticism.

Good4Nothin said:
No, only Big Tech belongs to the left. Others can be either or both.
Click to expand...

Vierually every major corporation has a rainbow flag on its Twitter profile. There are some right-wing corporations like Chick-Fil-A, but they’re a small minority.
 
Lursa said:
No, it's not a 'gotcha' question. So then why didnt you answer it? It seems pretty straightforward. And if you had given it any real consideration, you might have been spared that whole 'limited thinking' reinforcement.
Click to expand...

I did answer. "The point that there are other venues available doesn't negate the fact that HP is caving to pressure from their liberal viewership to suppress opposing thought ..."

Follow?
 
OlNate said:
Sorry, Good4Nothing, but I disagree with you about pretty much everything, and despite admitting to being an incorrigible asshole, I don't have it in me to beat you up over it anymore.

For the vast, vast, VAST majority of people, vaccines are perfectly safe. I think we need to do more to create a better screening process, to ensure that the steps we take to protect society as a whole doesn't put individuals at greater risk...but anyone who can take them should take them, so that looking after the needs of the tiny group of folks who will experience negative reactions to them can skip them without impacting herd immunization.

That is my most charitable response. I could go on about the moral obligation, but that's when things get heated...
Click to expand...

HOW DO YOU KNOW they are safe for most people? HOW DO YOU KNOW the dramatic increases in autoimmune and chronic diseases are completely unrelated to vaccines?

I'll tell you how you know -- you know because that's what the drug companies tell you.
 
NiceGuyEddie said:
I did answer. "The point that there are other venues available doesn't negate the fact that HP is caving to pressure from their liberal viewership to suppress opposing thought ..."

Follow?
Click to expand...
Ah...then my other question is indeed valid: for any given issue, is every opinion legitimate?

And btw, by no means do I believe that the anti-vax crowd is heavily weighted towards the conservative side.
 
Lursa said:
Er...now you are desperately grasping. The vaccine sets up the immune system to kill the virus.

Dont be pathetic...as I mentioned earlier, this is why discussing science with non-scientifically oriented people is often a waste of time...in order to give an overview of something, one generalizes. Then the ignorant fasten onto specifics in order to attempt to debunk it. If I wanted to post a scientific treatise on how vaccines work, I would have. But it's generally a waste of time...and thanks for demonstrating that.
Click to expand...

Your statement that vaccines kill viruses was not a generalization. It was an ignorant false statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom