This week's Health Quiz for DUers

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

Do you think that only some viewpoints should be allowed in the Health Forum,
or do you think that opposing viewpoints should be encouraged?

Do you think that if you don't like a topic, you can ignore that thread, or
would you prefer that those threads be banned.

Do you believe that opinions on "health" amongst DUers are diverse or do you think
that "true DUers" think alike?



(edited for spelling)

[Ian David]

1. You forgot the option for, "I believe the OP has set up some straw man arguments...

... and should go engage in a solitary exercise of their rights under Lawrence v. Texas."

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

2. You should vote FOR the option that you wish to stifle opposition speech

wouldn't that make you happy?

[Ian David]

3. No, I just think that the woo-woo shit should be confined to your alternative medicine sanbox.

DU has set aside some nice, safe little padded rooms here for you to play in where you won't embarrass us when visitors come by our board.

Play nicely in there with your woo-woo whack-a-doodle baby-murdering luddite parasites and we'll leave you alone.

[cosmik debris]

4. Some of the Merck bashing threads

belong in the conspiracy theory dungeon, but I couldn't see that option for all the straw men in the way.

[Ian David]

5. Bashing Merck for actual misdeeds is different.

Although I have been out of the loop on whatever's been going on lately.

[kestrel91316]

6. I think people who promote crackpot voodoo ideas need to have

their own crackpot voodoo forum.

[cosmik debris]

7. They have one

They just want to expand their sphere of influence.

[dropkickpa]

8. Ooozing out!!!

RUN!

[TZ]

9. There's alternative viewpoints and then theres bullshit

Like all vaccines are toxic..and women spontaneously shed a virus..I don't think scientific inaccurate or DELIBERATE DISINFORMATION should be tolerated.
Since when is it okay to post scientifically fraudulent information? I'm not a repuke.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

12. I guess I should have offered another choice:

"I think that viewpoints I deem to be bullshit should be blocked".

Maybe next time. But I thought I covered that in the other questions.

Myself, I can ignore a thread quite easily if I want to.

[TZ]

16. Ignorance is DANGEROUS, particularly deliberate IGNORANCE

Like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.. Anti-vaxxers are a danger to public health! THats why the PROPAGANDA they spout should be challenged ALWAYS. Or perhaps you think that global warming deniers, and creationists should be given a pass because of free speech as well?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

20. some posts to this thread prove my point

Some miss the point of the poll entirely, they believe that only opinions
that mirror theirs should be allowed.

Oh, they will find ways to rationalize this censorship - "the opposition is ignorant"
or "they are stupid, or prudish or right wingery etc.

Some even believe that only people with titles (real or imagined) may post with any
creditability about topics related to health. (Even if the non titled persons post articles from
the New England Journal of Health).

If someone here doesn't peddle a certain line they get flamed, insulted, harassed, stalked,
attacked, or otherwise denigrated as human beings.

Some people refuse to tolerate any viewpoint that differs from theirs, and would happily
censor those voices.

The denigration of opposition speech is based on ignorance and intolerance.

[Celebration]

10. I voted

But I agree with a lot of these. Usually polls are set up in a way that is a bit different--like if one clearly fits the others don't as much. This one seems to be all over the map. Nevertheless, I did my best to choose one.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

11. not a very well organized poll, but results surprised me anyway

it was interesting, because people could only vote for one, so the fact that certain
things got NO Vote and certain things did get a vote was telling.

Also, it appears that many people have opinions and will vote anonymously, but hesitate to
enter the type written fray.

Thats fine, but it is important to consider.

[LeftishBrit]

17. Part of this may be because you biased the questions

For example, no one sensible is going to vote for the statement:

'I don't believe that any vaccine has ever made anyone sick or harmed them'

because you can't say that of ANYTHING, whether a vaccine or anything else.

If the question were rephrased as:

'Overall, vaccines do far less harm than the diseases that they are designed to prevent'

then I think it would have got some votes!

Also, what do you mean by 'viewpoints that are different from mine must be eliminated' and similar comments. Do you consider that *attacking* a viewpoint is the same as suppressing it? In my opinion, (a) it's only suppression if you get the mods to ban it; (b) there are in fact more serious attacks on pro-vaccine than anti-vaccine people (i.e. each group is accused by the other of being fools and being influenced by right-wingers, but only the pro-vaccine people get accused of being corrupt and mercenary).

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

21. always have an excuse

I am not surprised at the whining that goes on when all that was presented was
a poll that people can either take or not take.

Those who didn't like the poll could simply get off their asses and post one of their own.

I am sure that the many brilliant and oh so talented critics could post a better poll
and get a more enthusiastic response.

But some prefer to whine or attack.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

13. Oh oh I just realized something

I forgot to put "Anti vaccers are heretics" on there. Maybe next time.

[cosmik debris]

14. You really didn't need any more straw men

The ones you have covered the entire straw spectrum.

[LeftishBrit]

15. It's not a matter of heresy...

But I will NEVER sacrifice my basic human RIGHT to vaccinations for myself and my family!!! Nor will I stand by if anyone tries to deny them to others, especially poor people who cannot just get them for themselves.

People should have a right NOT to have vaccines; I don't believe in mandates except under extreme circumstances. But I believe that vaccines should be universally available and free to everyone; and that this is a basic human right!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

18. This poll is about *tolerance* of other peoples views on health

Some here have urged a censorship of views that differ from their own.

Regardless of whether you think your view is the only right one, do you believe that
no other viewpoints may be expressed in this forum?

That is the point of the poll.

There is a sustained and deliberate effort to try to stifle those who disagree with
a particular POV.

[cosmik debris]

22. LMAO! Tolerance? ROFL!

Every one of the potential answers is biased against anyone who disagrees with your righteous crusade against the "sex vaccine".

Every potential answer shows your overt prejudice against those with whom you disagree.

This is not about tolerance, it is about grinding on those that stand up to superstition.

You can put lipstick on this pig, but it is still a pig.

:rofl:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

31. the poll is entirely voluntary and in fact you can ignore the topic or thread

You can post your own threads if you have better ideas, right? But you prefer to whine.

You can ignore posts that you don't like or don't want to read, right? But you prefer to whine.

[cosmik debris]

32. I'm laughing, not whining.

Your assertion was quite comical.

:)

[LeftishBrit]

24. There is NO sustained and deliberate attempt to 'stifle' those who disagree with a particular POV

There is robust criticism of certain POVs AND of opposition to these POVs.

You can't have it both ways. You can't demand absolute freedom of speech for yourself, and deny it to those who disagree with you. If your critics are 'stifling' you, then by the same token, you are 'stifling' them!

Do you consider it tolerant to accuse people who disagree with you of being 'shills', 'Pharmhands', or 'Pharma lovers'?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

25. Of course there isn't, as long as it is your view point not being surpressed

riiiiiight.

[LeftishBrit]

26. Well then, if we use your definition, MY viewpoint is being CONSTANTLY suppressed!!!!

People who support Gardasil are constantly treated to truly VILE accusations of being Pharmhands, shills, Pharma lovers, Merck-lovers, or at the very best brainwashed by Government and Big Pharma!

If you want to call it suppression - then it IS my viewpoint being suppressed, at least as much as yours!

If you don't think that my viewpoint is being suppressed, then yours isn't either. If you think that yours is, then so is mine. You can't have it both ways!

[cosmik debris]

27. What Delicious Irony!

If you were really being suppressed, your complaints about being suppressed would be suppressed.

The evidence that you are wrong is in the fact that you keep complaining about being suppressed.

:)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

19. Or this could be broader - should DU ban opposition speech in ALL forums?

If people were not allowed to express differing views in the Health Forum, would
that extend to all forums?

And if censorship was enacted, as some hope - would that make this a forum or a bunch of stenographers?

Some would prefer to end topics that they disagree with and have made organized efforts to
stifle those topics.

[LeftishBrit]

23. Please define 'not allowed'

I have VERY rarely seen any opinion in this forum banned or deleted - probably much LESS than in other forums on DU in fact.

What happens is that sometimes people criticize, attack or even ridicule opinions. Is that the same thing 'not allowing' these opinions? Should those who attack your opinions have their free speech restricted?

[SidDithers]

28. Other...

I believe that idiocy should be ridiculed, and dangerous idiocy should be fought tooth and nail.

Ignoring the dangerous idiocy of the anti-vaxers is the worst possible option. Their spew might then be accepted as truth by someone who might not know better.

Sid

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

30. and "The Earth is Flat" - to disagree with that was deemed idiotic.

and the majority felt that way, so they must have been right!

And today if a majority says that something about medicine is so, it must be so, right?

They can NEVER be wrong?

Kind of like recommending hormone replacement therapy for all post menopausal women,
the majority said that was the way to go.

20 years later, Hormone replacement therapy was the "flat earth" of medicine.

Everyone who disagrees with you is idiotic.

[Crunchy Frog]

29. I currently have about 3 dozen threads on this forum hidden

just from the past month.

I think there are legitimate discussions to be had on vaccines and vaccine safety, but that seems to be impossible on this forum, and these threads simply degenerate into pointless flamewars that clutter up the place.

I appreciate different points of view, but I don't think anything meaningful gets discussed when it devolves into such blind partisanship and pointless personal attacks and insults.

I wish there were some better way to handle these discussions.