Thank you, EarlG for serving this anti-vax troll his pizza!

[stevenleser]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=317043&sub=trans

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. The site was vaccinated against 'HariSeldonitis'. nt

[stevenleser]

2. LMAO, I see what you did there!

[Arugula Latte]

5. Let's hope this strain doesn't mutate and return

as something like "DefinitelyNotTheDUerFormerlyKnownAsHariSeldon-itis"

[Kelvin Mace]

73. How annoying that the name "Hari Seldon"

was used to spout utter anti-science horseshit.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. Yep.

Honestly, the username was probably the cause of at least half of my outrage in response.

[SidDithers]

3. And this one too...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=319760&sub=trans

Sid

[stevenleser]

7. Excellent! Skinner on that one.

Skinner!

[HappyMe]

4. Yay!

This is one of LG's favorite topics, so I would imagine she has gotten the boot several times also.

[KamaAina]

6. 30 minutes or less!

[Arugula Latte]

8. Here's one who needs the boot as well:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6171349

[stevenleser]

9. Yep, give them the proverbial size 16 Boot!!! nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. I almost responded to that comment,

but just felt too exhausted at the time. Glad to see others took up the slack.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. All anti-vaxers should be tombstoned

immediately.

[stevenleser]

16. At the very least they should be relegated to Creative Speculation. Not GD. nt

[HereSince1628]

82. The only vaccine I'm against is the BCG based anti-TB vaccine.

I think that's a rational position. I'm supported in that by the vast majority of the American MDs and American public health officials.

I get the feeling that DUers would, despite blind ignorance, support all vaccines including the BCG based anti TB vaccine.

Reality is somewhat more complex. Manicheanism, black and white thinking, isn't shallowly tolerant and it's potentially deeply dangerous. I rather suspect it is as dangerous when coming from the left as it is when it comes from the right. Yelling SCIENCE! SCIENCE! as a background Greek chorus doesn't make it otherwise it simply amplifies the tragedy.

Why isn't it better to say, anti-vax statements should be judged on their merits, one at a time before tombstoning a DUer?

[NuclearDem]

12. Good. Anti-vaxxers have no place here.

[SidDithers]

15. Yup. Nuke 'em all under the Crazy Talk section of the TOS...nt

Sid

[William769]

13. Kick & recommended.

[HappyMe]

14. They are crawling out of the woodwork.

Trolls, socks, moles.....

[HereSince1628]

17. And we thought we loved freedom of expression. We were Charilie Hebdo?

Really?

Shunning/banning/tombstoning is what we do.

How does that square with the passionate ferver for freedom of expression so prevalent last month???????

I disagree with the antivaxers,

I swore to serve in the military to protect constitutional rights, and the nation I served in that shitty war poisoned me with agent orange...

I could be bitter.

But I believe misuse of freedom of speech is best protected by more free speech.

Not by silencing.

[NuclearDem]

18. Let me know when Skinner and EarlG start throwing people in prison for anti-vaxx positions.

Then you can talk "free speech."

[Orrex]

49. I can't prove it, but I'm pretty sure that Skinner murdered Jenny McCarthy.

Or maybe it was EarlG.

[Arugula Latte]

55. Skinner murdered EarlG?!

[Orrex]

62. Now you've done it.

I foresee a rampage of unprecedented carnage. Way to go.

[Arugula Latte]

65. Things could a bit Stalinistic around here.

But, ya know, you've gotta break a few eggs and all of that ...

[stevenleser]

19. Please. DU never intended to be a free speech zone. It's not for Republicans/Tea Partiers etc.

If you want to discuss things from that perspective, DU has never been for you. It's not a free speech zone. The TOS clearly lays out for whom DU was intended.

The admins created discussionist where there are practically no restrictions. Perhaps you would like it better? That is not a snarky comment btw.

[HereSince1628]

20. Now I'm invited to leave... How charming. Merci Charilie.

[stevenleser]

21. If you want to promote right wing positions or woo, absolutely. nt

[HereSince1628]

23. I'm only advocating more discussion rather than cheerleading bannings.

Work that out in the spirit of Voltaire...

But I do much appreciate how important it is that discussion always be disciplined to be righteously correct according to the standards of the the in-group

[stevenleser]

24. You've been here since 2003. Let's stop pretending this is some sort of new horrific disclosure.

You've never been allowed to discuss chemtrails, the HAARP conspiracy, or promote right wing viewpoints on DU. Various other conspiracy theories are relegated to the creative speculation dungeon.

Do you mean to tell me you have been here for twelve years and are just becoming indignant about this now?

[F4lconF16]

67. Wait, I can't talk about chemtrails here??

What kinda place is this? They're out to get us--you will regret not listening!!!11!!1

[HappyMe]

22. Having a difference of opinion is one thing.

Completely disregarding science puts anti-vaxers in the same column as climate change deniers.

[HereSince1628]

29. Oh-Oh my PhD (1988 TAMU) is obviously in trouble again... that damned oral exam

must have let me slip through unnoticed as anti-science.

I believe in vaccination with very few caveats...but I also believe in freedom of expression. More to the point it's important to challenge the pomposity of those who weeks ago championed rival, hateful speech, but who now have little capacity to deal with it's rhetorical challenge short of banning people...

It'sreally preposterously silly to think that public policy about vaccination is soley based upon science. It isn't. It's also much about trade-offs even within medicine. If you don't believe that, you simply MUST read more about the history of the TB vaccine using BCG and the concerns that existed about chicken pox vaccine prior to it's adoption.

It's even more silly to think that DU discussion about vaccination is based on rational conceptualization about science and medicine. The discussion is very heavily punctuated with fear and it is increasingly punctuated with what can only be called assumed righteousness surrounding assumptions about how science should have a central role in public policy. Science is very much unwelcome in many important public policy discussions.

Fear is a powerful cognitive motivator of conservative behavior (such as tolerance of opposing point of view) it is also true that responding to fear isn't scientific or even of necessity even rational.

[HappyMe]

39. You are welcome to go, if you don't like it.

You're complaining about pomposity and righteousness? I find that funny after reading your post.

[HereSince1628]

45. Another invitation to leave, how quaint.

Surely you've got something better that can be an argument AGAINST freedom of expression or SUPPORT FOR BANNING DEVIANT views.

[HappyMe]

52. There are plenty of places you can go

to discuss things with a variety of deviants about freedoms.

The invitation to leave is also freedom of expression. Or you can stay and keep whining about how things are done.

[HereSince1628]

57. Yes. But I think it's better to encourage improved discussion...

which in GD sort of requires rational (as opposed to fearful or righteousness based) consideration of diverse and even minority views.

I do understand how and why it isn't so in the protected safe havens.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. There's a second site run by Skinner called Discussionist. You can enjoy all the nutbag consipracy

and anti-medical science nonsense you want over there.

Here, there is a Terms of Service, and this kind of anti-vax PPR'd bullshit is prohibited in no less than two sections.

[HereSince1628]

74. Can we just stipulate that many of those here would prefer me to go?

I'm not going, you know, but I'm willing to accept that many would like that.

[pintobean]

78. And, many would not.

[HereSince1628]

80. I suppose that depends upon the meaning of "many"

Even so, I'd still stipulate to it.

[pintobean]

81. Well, the pile-on sucks

You've contributed a lot of useful content over the years. Sometimes I agree and sometimes I don't. I just wanted you to know that some of us see a great deal of value to your input at DU.

[HereSince1628]

84. thanks...

[zeemike]

87. And I am not going ether

But if they can get Skinner of the Admin to tell us we can no longer talk freely here I will go.
So that is the next step then for the witch hunters...ask Skinner to tell us we are not wanted here and I will go.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. I got nothing against you but

consider any pro-Iraq war sentiment here on DU in 2002. I don't recall that being a debate anyone wanted to have in the spirit of free speech.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. I don't think you 'have to leave' but, if you want that conversation and you need to get it out of

your system, think of discussionist as a place you can do that.

Here, the fact this issue was built on Wakefield's fraud, it's just not welcome. We get some peer reviewed science in here that stands up to scrutiny, and you'll see people start to have a conversation. Right now, it's made up bullshit that is going to get a lot of people killed.

[Dawgs]

31. And neither should be banned.

I'd rather change minds on DU than have it be a place where everyone agrees.

There are plenty of ways to block and hide inappropriate posts.

[HereSince1628]

38. Careful...examine the above...that path leads only to misery

[LanternWaste]

75. Your martyrdom is noted, filed and given all the credibility it warrants.

Your martyrdom is noted, filed and given all the credibility it warrants.

[HereSince1628]

76. It was for Dawgs, buf Dawgs appears to be doing OK.

Got an argument or just something more ad hominem?

[LanternWaste]

99. Don't confuse ad hominem with an observation-- it undermines the position you pretend to have.

Don't confuse ad hominem with an observation-- it undermines the position you pretend to have.

[SidDithers]

25. You agreed to the Terms of Service when you created your DU3 account...

The TOS limits all kinds of speech at DU.

There is no "free speech" at DU.

And I, for one, am fucking happy to see anti-vax trolls get banned.

Sid

[HereSince1628]

35. Yes, all that Charlie Hebdo falldeeeralll was just posturing

What is critically important is the TOS.

Fundamentalistically speaking, that is for sure!

[SidDithers]

42. You seem confused...

about the difference between speech in the public arena, and speech on a private messageboard.

Is there something I can do to help you better understand the difference?

Sid

[HereSince1628]

50. No, I understand Get thee behind the TOS

and use whatever mechanisms it still holds as operational, and therein is a challenge to sort out for any legal mind here for more than 10 years, to silence others.

[geek tragedy]

47. Yeah, getting shot and losing DU posting privileges are totally the same thing nt

[HereSince1628]

51. What's not provocative of both Charilie Hebdo and Anti-vax speech?

Who gets to choose the ground the other stands on?

[geek tragedy]

56. Your questions are incoherent.

Antivax ideology is a public health problem. Anti-vaxxers endanger the rest of society through their failure to immunize their children.

Charlie Hebdo hurt people's feelings.

[HereSince1628]

72. But if you approach it as risk then you must address it in terms of the risks

and that includes ALL of the risks of ALL the stake holders involved. If public policy could be made in a democracy simply by banning the stake holders from stating their views it would be TOTALITARIANISM

Frankly most of the arguments on DU are based in irrationality: fear; hurt feelings; and antiwar on science sentiment. The fear is usually that of someone's mostly hypothetical family members might be harmed. When I say hurt feelings I mean that opinions on the goodness of vaccines to public health are not shared and this makes people unhappy, frustrated, vexed etc., Not a small amount of the angst seems to be linked to identification with combatant placement in the war against science.

All the running around yelling SCIENCE! adds nothing, convinces no one of anything but the presence of soldiers struggling against the war on science.

As a person who worked as an epidemiologist in state government I can tell you...public health policy IS NOT SCIENCE. IT IS POLICY. In a democracy constructing policy and getting consensus and compliance to public health policy has something to do with medical research. But while it is a significant factor, it isn't the only factor. In point of fact, it's actually the gradual extinction of social/economic factors opposed to implementing policy that typically allows the view of public health research to carry the policy forward.

I know that's SO obvious. But it is apparently not so obvious to those running around threads on DU yelling SCIENCE! SCIENCE!

The point to shout about is really PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY! PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY! And making public health policy requires building consensus, rather than culling the population.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Nobody is saying you can't be an anti-vax troll.

You just can't be one *here*.

You'd get a similar reaction if you went around replying to posters all day long with "Kill Yourself", and for the same reason.

[HereSince1628]

77. But then, I not even against vaccination. Brilliant that you missed that.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. Oh, I read what you wrote.

Did you read what I wrote? (Typed, if we want to get all technical.)

Since *you* didn't get PPR'd as a troll, you can probably assume the 'you' was in the general sense, not *you* specifically. (After all, we'd not be able to have the conversation at all)

[onenote]

86. so do you think there should be no topics that are off limits?

Should DU tolerate birthers? Holocaust deniers? Moon landing conspiracy theorists? Folks who argue that certain minority groups are inherently inferior to others?

This is a community and it decides, as a community, what speech crosses a line of acceptability for the community. If you want to go outside the community and talk about matters that are not acceptable to this community, there is a whole world (and a whole world wide web) for you to explore.

It's really not that complicated.

[arcane1]

28. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to a private website.

Should we allow republicans to post here too?

[HereSince1628]

30. Were you Charlie Hebdo?

[arcane1]

33. Apples and oranges. Actually, more like apples and pickup trucks.

DU is a discussion board, with rules to follow in order to participate.

Charlie Hebdo is a magazine.

It's a bogus comparison.

Should there be zero restrictions on what gets posted here?

[Dawgs]

34. Actually we should. Do we not want to change minds?

They will learn quickly that inappropriate posts will be hidden.

[HappyMe]

43. I don't think DU will change anybody's mind

about anything.

[F4lconF16]

68. Well...

I know it has for me. There's a surprising amount of really good discussion underneath a lot of the usual online forum stuff.

[arcane1]

46. There are plenty of websites to argue with conservatives. DU is, thankfully, not one of them.

The purpose of DU is for like-minded people to discuss things.

[salin]

32. The poster in question was trolling.... hard.

One sentiment expressed was that the provax folks were contributing to overpopulation... and that pandemics were necessary in order to control population growth.

His/her trolling was rather disturbing - and not unlike the postings of yore when a CCer would create an account to post outrageous things - and then go back to CC or elsewhere and link to the examples of "outrageous things" duers post.

[Dawgs]

37. Fine. Then why not just hide it?

They will learn quickly that those opinions are not accepted.

[salin]

44. I think there were several hides

[HappyMe]

48. So just let Cavers and others post

here with abandon? Hell no.

If you want that, go to Discussionist and have at it.

[Dawgs]

58. Not true. Their posts will be hidden, and eventually the user will be dropped.

There are already procedures in place to take care of them.

And, who knows, maybe someone that is uninformed could be persuaded to come over to the good side.

[HappyMe]

61. Why bother with constant alerting and juries

when it can be dealt with more efficiently.

[Dawgs]

64. Because we're trying to change minds.

And, the anti-vax person that was dropped might be a good hearted Democrat that is wrong on this one issue. I don't see the need to kick people out because someone said one or two things that were stupid.

I thought we were better than that.

[stevenleser]

83. That's what discussionist is for. It is exactly the environment you seem to want.

DU is not it.

[Dawgs]

95. I have no interest in discussionist. I like DU, and think it could be better.

Kicking people out because they are stupid on one subject seems dumb to me.

[bahrbearian]

36. Hey don't get in the way of a Grave dancing ,Troll hunter Meet Up.

They are protecting our Freedoms

[Major Nikon]

54. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have to provide nutbags with a soapbox

[Dawgs]

59. That's why we have the ability to hide.

There are options here. Dropping someone shouldn't be one of them.

[Major Nikon]

69. You could make the same argument for homophobic posters

Certain ideas shouldn't be tolerated here. The only question is which ones and that's the purview of the admins. They don't have to provide a soapbox for everyone. That's not what free speech means. If an anti-vax dipshit wants their free speech, they can grab a bullhorn and go stand on a streetcorner.

[Dawgs]

100. Or, we can try to educate them and hopefully change their mind.

If not, they can go. BTW, being a homophobic asshole whose mind is set is different than someone who's ignorant on a subject.

If their mind can't be changed, and they continue to be a dick, then maybe they should go. But, we should at least try.

[Major Nikon]

106. The ones given the boot appear to be pretty closed minded

Homophobia is a different subject and the impact is different, but you're still talking about people promoting ideas that are dangerous and harmful, so it's not the same thing as someone simply expressing an opinion that happens to be wrong or misguided.

Another problem is you have people like LG who are creating socks just to promote their anti-vax bullshit. Low postcount shitstains that sign up and immediately start making anti-vax posts need to go.

[Tarheel_Dem]

104. Why are you so insistent that everyone & his nutjob Uncle post here? Discussionist------->>>>>>

[bettyellen]

119. Somewhere, there's a place for them........Laaa laaaa, laaa laaa.

It's not here though. We have a TOS we ALL agreed to, deal.

[Tarheel_Dem]

124. Thank You!

[LanternWaste]

102. By all means, rationalize the irrational for its own sake, keep it in the Creative Speculation Group

By all means-- rationalize the irrational for its own sake. Just don't expect people rushing to your defense, and don't get upset by the mockery.

Twain and Volatire mocked irrational uses of free speech-- but, as a lot of sub-literate half-wits pretend they're smarter and state otherwise (all the while lacking a premise or evidence for the conclusion), and defend the irrational as a symbol of martyrdom, it seems DU has preempted your righteous concern and you have a home in the Creative Speculation Group.

Bitterness is choice. Ignorance is too.

[progressoid]

26. Rec!

[Dawgs]

27. Why? It makes for a worse DU.

[LostOne4Ever]

41. No, it makes DU better! (Nt)

[Dawgs]

66. Kicking Democrats out for saying something stupid on one issue is BETTER?

Couldn't disagree more.

[LostOne4Ever]

70. We do it all the time here. Go make a bigoted post against LGBTQ community and see how long u last

Last edited Tue Feb 3, 2015, 04:58 PM - Edit history (1)

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]This is a message board for promoting liberal ideas nothing else. DU is now rejecting the anti-vaxx conspiracy theorists and is a better place for it.

Those ideas are not only anti-science but endanger public health. DU does not need to support such dangerous bullshit.[/font]

[Humanist_Activist]

88. Actually, thats a bad example, look up...

For example, pwnmom and transgender/bathroom issues, cleita and lifestyle choices, Gman and comparions of homosexuality with adultery. And those are just three members off the top of my head. Just use the google site search, its disheartening.

[LostOne4Ever]

89. I stand corrected. You are completely correct.(nt)

[Dawgs]

96. No one is suggesting that we "support dangerous bullshit".

And, liberals are accepting of everyone, not just those that are like minded.

[LostOne4Ever]

111. We are not accepting of the White supremacists, fundamentalists, or RW laissez fair capitalists

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I think you are mistaking "open mindedness" and "tolerant" with accepting.

Just because you are open minded to an idea does not mean you are accepting of it. It just means that you considered it and weighed the possibilities.

Similarly, tolerating the intolerant is not tolerance at all, but rather just another form of apathy.

In this particular case we have weighed and seen the evidence and found the anti-vaxx movement to be wanting. They are anti-science and putting people who can't get vaccinated (for legitimate medical reasons), and those for whom the vaccines did not take in danger. Putting innocent people's lives and the general health of society into peril is not liberal at all. It is the epitome of the self-centeredness one expects from the libertarian Right wing.

Liberals put the needs of community as a whole first, and the individual's whims second. Public safety trumps their ignorance.

By putting their discredited ideas here on DU, the anti-vaxxers could influence someone else not to vaccinate and endanger more people....making DU a source for this reckless and dangerous conspiracy theories. Why would a site that is supposed to promote liberal ideas and ideology support that?

It has got to go from the main site. Just like Climate change denial, holocaust denial, eugenics, young earth creationism and other pseudoscience. The only place on DU, imho, that there is room for anti-vaxx views is creative speculation...and even then I am not very comfortable with it being there.

What do you think? Do you think we should allow White supremacist, fundamentalist, etc views here on DU? Do you think a site for promoting liberal ideology should be "accepting" of things like that?

If not, why do you think we should be supportive of an something like the anti-vaxx movement that denies science and puts the public health in danger? Do you think DU be a source for something like that is honestly a good thing?

How can we call DU a liberal website if it allows any RWer to promote illiberal views?

If you want a site that allows both sides to participate then you might feel more at home here.[/font]

[freshwest]

40. Wowsa! Ayn Rand lives in that hide today:

54. and your response is fascism?

color me "equally stunned"

the Left is not expected to walk in lock stop.

You want to know what? There are too many goddam people in the world, and the biggest reason for that?

Vaccines.

You guys and the overpopulation are KILLING the planet. Disease is mother nature's way of getting rid of idiots. You are not helping the race or the planet by letting everyone survive. You are doing all kinds of long term damage to the immune system of the population, but I guess as long as you keep the population pumped up with vaccines then the odds are that won't matter very often (but not never)

I'm sorry to say it, but we could use a few could pandemics about now, and let the fittest survive.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=317043?=trans

My response to Supermen demanding people die to save the planet...

FINE, YOU GO FIRST.

WAITING...

[Warren Stupidity]

53. anti-vax ought to be a chemtrails level abuse.

[Maedhros]

71. "Disease is nature's way of getting rid of idiots."

Now that wins the Ignorant Statement of the Decade.

Luckily, the sheer power of my genius protects me from harmful viruses!

[Douglas Carpenter]

79. that's great EarlG. Now when are you going to take a stand against bigotry- and not just the popular

victims - but the unpopular victims like the millions of decent Muslim people who are just trying to live normal lives. When you are you going to stand up for them?

[zeemike]

85. Let the witch hunt begin.

Burn them at the stake if they fail the water dunk test.

So let the ones who may question this keep their mouth shut or you will be hounded out of here...it always plays out that way.

[NuclearDem]

93. Yeah! We should allow chemtrailers too.

After all, there's No Conclusive Proof that airplanes aren't spraying us with HIV and nanobots. I mean, seriously, have you seen how American Airlines and United skirt their safety checks and screw their workers? Obviously chemtrails are involved too!

[zeemike]

97. And the anti-GMOers too.

There is no scientific proof that putting fish genes in your tomatoes has any harmful effects...And the anti GMO crowd are causing people all over the world to starve because of their opposition to this wonderful science...lets get rid of the anti GMO crowd.

Well shit, let's just turn it all over to you and you can tell us what we must believe to have posting privileges here.

[NuclearDem]

98. There's a legitimate debate to be had over GMOs.

There is, however, no legitimate debate to be had over whether people should be vaccinated or not. People who insist it's a "choice" or push anti-vaxxer talking points here are public health menaces.

[zeemike]

101. So you are the decider then.

In that case I nominate you to decide for us what is appropriate to believe and talk about.
But glad to know that liberals now embrace mandatory injections into their blood streams...no choice for you.

[NuclearDem]

103. Universal vaccination wiped smallpox off the face of the earth.

Anti-vaxxers, on the other hand, have brought back measles and whooping cough.

Take that selfish libertarian bullshit and be gone with it before you kill somebody.

[zeemike]

105. Well as I understand the argument against it.

It is not about the vaccine but about the mercury in it...can you tell me that the mercury being used is responsible for the immunity in any way?...and can you assure me in any way that it will do no harm to a growing child?...And can you tell me there is no other way to preserve that vaccine other than mercury?

And BTW, I don't know the answers to those questions...but have yet to see them addressed, and I can see good reason to find out...if you have young children which I don't.

But ridicule and threats of separation from society is a violence in itself and I am against it...verry strongly against it.
Violence of any kind begets violence, and this will drive yet another wedge in the crack.

[NuclearDem]

107. Those questions have addressed, readdressed, and addressed again.

Ethylmercury is not the same thing as methylmercury, and there isn't any ethylmercury in any childhood vaccines anyway.

The nonsense that sparked the mercury and MMR vaccine hysteria was a fraudulent study. That's all you need to know on the issue.

Anti-vaxxers deserve to be isolated and shunned because they pose a serious health risk to the rest of us, and I'm not sorry at all that that hurts some people's feelings.

[zeemike]

108. So your fear of disease and death trumps their right to say what is put in their body?

But did you talk to them and explain it to them?...if they asked who said the study was fraudulent, would you have that answer?...I am sure you would have one though.
But don't tell me, I have no dog in the fight, go tell them in a way that will convince them...it is good practice and you might convince them, but don't insult them and treat them to only angry responses which can only esculate... If the health of the world is your intentions.

[NuclearDem]

109. Herd immunity only works if nearly everyone is vaccinated.

Their right to choose what goes in their bodies ends where the spread of preventable infectious diseases begins.

[zeemike]

110. So now we must play veterinarian medicine to have a healthy herd.

And the state I guess will be the vet who decides what and where shots will be given...or should we say the drug companies who lobby the state...and the people are just cows to be herded up and herd immunized.

Sounds like I am in a Sci Fi movie.

[NuclearDem]

112. Yeah, it's a horrible dystopian nightmare, living free of smallpox.

That post is such a ridiculous strawman.

[zeemike]

113. Well in my POV the smallpox is the straw man.

If the definition of it is something held up that is easy to attack...I mean who could defend smallpox?
Scare them into it then...make a movie and call it Smallpox Madness...that will do it.

[NuclearDem]

114. You've got to be kidding me.

Comparing one of the worst plagues in human history to a stupid propaganda campaign against marijuana.

Smallpox killed millions, and without universal vaccination, it would still be killing millions.

[zeemike]

117. I made no comparison between them

I was suggesting that the same fear is being used...what it is used for good or bad does not change the fact that it is manipulative.

People can be persuaded, but not by bullying them...peple tend to plant their feet and resist when you do that...and are suspicious of people that do it...with good cause

[NuclearDem]

120. Smallpox was something to be afraid of.

Marijuana isn't.

That you made the comparison between a vaccination campaign to eradicate one of the worst diseases known and a propaganda film on the basis of "fear!!!!" means you are absolutely cheapening the damage done by smallpox.

Everyone who can get vaccinated has to be vaccinated for a disease to be killed off. If selfish assholes refuse to get vaccinated, then they should be fined and penalized for their reckless actions until they get their vaccination.

Again, take that libertarian bullshit and be gone with it. I've grown so tired of this "it's my choice" nonsense with vaccines.

[zeemike]

122. Well thee is nothing left to say.

You just repeated that you want to punish them and we should be afraid...I don't and am not.

[uppityperson]

115. Are you seriously comparing the eradication of THIS to reefer madness?

Should we assume you do not know that smallpox isn't around because of vaccinations?

[zeemike]

116. Sorry but I don't respond to emotional blackmail.

And personally find it disgusting you would use it...but I will not complain because I believe in free expression even like this.

[uppityperson]

118. You are comparing them, thanks for clarifying and responding

who could defend smallpox?
Scare them into it then...make a movie and call it Smallpox Madness.

You are comparing a sensationalistic movie to the disease I posted a picture of and call that picture "emotional blackmail"? Incredible.

[Jamaal510]

121. I never saw

that troll (or the one in Sid's post) on here before. They must've registered and unleashed a stink bomb right before they got the boot.

[Hekate]

123. There's more of them out there trolling around tonight, but I'm glad the Admins are on the problem.

Ai-yi-yi.