New York County Declares Measles Outbreak, Bans Unvaccinated Children From Public Places

[jg121783 3,907]

Something I want to bring to the attention of the mods here. If people can be banned for saying someone has TDS because it is offensive can you start banning people for calling others "anti-vaxxers" because I personally find the term to be ignorant and offensive. Not accusing anyone of calling me personally an anti-vaxxer but if they did I would take offense to it.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

35 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Something I want to bring to the attention of the mods here. If people can be banned for saying someone has TDS because it is offensive can you start banning people for calling others "anti-vaxxers" because I personally find the term to be ignorant and offensive. Not accusing anyone of calling me personally an anti-vaxxer but if they did I would take offense to it.

You know i love ya brother. just asking. 

 

Why would the term anti- vaxxer be offensive? 

 

I am anti illegal immigration and that is how I would define myself.

 

Now if they called you anti vaxxer wing nut or nut job etc i agree that would be offense.

 

Not calling you that just using an example 

[jg121783 3,907]

13 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

You know i love ya brother. just asking. 

 

Why would the term anti- vaxxer be offensive? 

 

I am anti illegal immigration and that is how I would define myself.

 

Now if they called you anti vaxxer wing nut or nut job etc i agree that would be offense.

 

Not calling you that just using an example 

Because as I explained before I am not anti vaccine. The science behind vaccines is sound. I just don't approve of how they are administered and the lack of conclusive studies showing they are in their current form safe and effective. Most people I talk to by the way who choose not to vaccinate share that view. The term "anti-vaxxer" in my opinion is a derogatory term created by the big pharma funded corporate media to demonize those who choose not to vaccinate for whatever reason. Yes there are crazies out there that don't believe there is any science behind vaccines but I am not one of them. I think if we can be banned for using the term TDS because someone is offended by it we should have equal standards across the board. But at the end of the day that isn't my decision to make.

Edited March 27, 2019 by jg121783

[Steeleballz 7,550]

8 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Because as I explained before I am not anti vaccine. The science behind vaccines is sound. I just don't approve of how they are administered and the lack of conclusive studies showing they are in their current form safe and effective. Most people I talk to by the way who choose not to vaccinate share that view. The term "anti-vaxxer" in my opinion is a derogatory term created by the big pharma funded corporate media to demonize those who choose not to vaccinate for whatever reason. Yes there are crazies out there that don't believe there is any science behind vaccines but I am not one of them. I think if we can be banned for using the term TDS because someone is offended by it we should have equal standards across the board. But at the end of the day that isn't my decision to make.

 

  TDS unfortunately includes the term "deranged" which is derogatory by definition, and thus in violation of the TOS when applied to an individual member or a broad demographic. You are hard pressed to make such a case for anti vaccination as a term, but since you have stated your personal position and asked people not to label you as such individually, you probably should report it based on the existing TOS provisions should people use the term against you personally. I don't think anyone has labeled you specifically though. The use of the term itself I think is broadly accepted.

[jg121783 3,907]

19 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

You are hard pressed to make such a case for anti vaccination as a term, 

I am not making a case either way for the term "anti vaccination" it is the term "anit-vaxxer" that I (and those who share my position who I have spoken with) take issue with. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not that term is regularly used in a derogatory context.

 

19 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

I don't think anyone has labeled you specifically though. The use of the term itself I think is broadly accepted.

No one has to this point and I pointed that out in a previous post. I am just pointing out that if someone did and the mods want to maintain equal standards the person would be banned. I am not even saying I would call for the person to be banned because I have a thick skin and I can take it but I do view it as being an offensive term in the sense that it is meant to offend.

Edited March 27, 2019 by jg121783

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

I don't like being called fat, but I am called fat, and indeed I am fat   not liking the term does not change the fact I am fat.

 

There are two sides to the vaccine question, you are for it and indulge or against it and abstain, pro or anti ... 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

26 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

I am not making a case either way for the term "anti vaccination" it is the term "anit-vaxxer" that I (and those who share my position who I have spoken with) take issue with. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not that term is regularly used in a derogatory context.

 

No one has to this point and I pointed that out in a previous post. I am just pointing out that if someone did and the mods want to maintain equal standards the person would be banned. I am not even saying I would call for the person to be banned because I have a thick skin and I can take it but I do view it as being an offensive term in the sense that it is meant to offend.

I dont understand how if someone is anti vaccination,  calling them anti vaccination can be offensive.  I am pro vaccination,  and frankly know of know other way to describe it .

7 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

I don't like being called fat, but I am called fat, and indeed I am fat   not liking the term does not change the fact I am fat.

 

There are two sides to the vaccine question, you are for it and indulge or against it and abstain, pro or anti ... 

Its ok to be fat since G and D left 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

Because as I explained before I am not anti vaccine. The science behind vaccines is sound. I just don't approve of how they are administered and the lack of conclusive studies showing they are in their current form safe and effective. Most people I talk to by the way who choose not to vaccinate share that view. The term "anti-vaxxer" in my opinion is a derogatory term created by the big pharma funded corporate media to demonize those who choose not to vaccinate for whatever reason. Yes there are crazies out there that don't believe there is any science behind vaccines but I am not one of them. I think if we can be banned for using the term TDS because someone is offended by it we should have equal standards across the board. But at the end of the day that isn't my decision to make.

Before we start, I respect you and hope we can disagree on this issue and still respect one another.

 

1. Your statement  above are two contradicting positions . If the science is sound then they next statement, that there is no studies to prove them effective cant be true. Science is not sound until hypothesis are proven, and certainly many studies are done sometimes to a fault  until a drug is approved

 

2. When my mothers age range (Born 1929) friends, were still alive and kicking, several people in her circle had paralysis from childhood polio. She also knew several people that had died in childhood because of it. Around 1955 a vaccine became available, and due to that fact I dont know one single person from my generation that had polio. Smallpox mysteriously went away also. Is the flu vaccine 100% effective..no. but even if it is 50% effective I still want it. If you had a chemo that had 50% chance would you take it? Many vaccines success is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt

 

3. The Autism debate. Once again total hyperbole generated by many bogus people many of who are Hollywood stars with no education, much like the collusion narrative. There is more Autism today because we understand what it is and the spectrum is so inclusive. Same amount as always just more diagnosis. Heck we treated it as a mental disease for a long time

 

4. I support your rights to draw your own conclusions. I am at heart a libertarian. However not vaccinating kids for common childhood illnesses puts the child at risk in he same way a Jehovah witness not letting a child get live saving blood products puts them at risk Not only does it risk that child it risk the broad population. I guess you have that right until judge tells you dont, but that should also usurp your right to put your child in any school that requires vaccinations

 

Wow I typed way too much

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  TDS unfortunately includes the term "deranged" which is derogatory by definition, and thus in violation of the TOS when applied to an individual member or a broad demographic. You are hard pressed to make such a case for anti vaccination as a term, but since you have stated your personal position and asked people not to label you as such individually, you probably should report it based on the existing TOS provisions should people use the term against you personally. I don't think anyone has labeled you specifically though. The use of the term itself I think is broadly accepted.

You be wrong about TDS but we will not interrupt this important debate to ponder it 😁

[spookyturtle 9,465]

5 hours ago, jg121783 said:

Something I want to bring to the attention of the mods here. If people can be banned for saying someone has TDS because it is offensive can you start banning people for calling others "anti-vaxxers" because I personally find the term to be ignorant and offensive. Not accusing anyone of calling me personally an anti-vaxxer but if they did I would take offense to it.

But you have no worries about offending people you disagree with. How ironic. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

You be wrong about TDS but we will not interrupt this important debate to ponder it 😁

 

  I may indeed be wrong, but that was the position given with calling people TDS, or several of the other terms that have been used here. Deranged technically means insane, at least temporarily. It is inherently derogatory, even if true. Sometimes the truth doesn't fit under the TOS here, as Randy said. Anti vaccination is just a description of ones position. It's not inherently an insult or offensive. Most people I know who are against vaccinations actually describe themselves as being "anti vaccination". Most people who react to Trump don't go around describing themselves as "deranged". 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

I agree they are in different ball parks. I am anti-Hate, Anti-Illegal Immigration,  Anti-Sex Trafficking . etc

[Steeleballz 7,550]

11 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I agree they are in different ball parks. I am anti-Hate, Anti-Illegal Immigration,  Anti-Sex Trafficking . etc

 

    Right, so lets say I call you anti vaccination. You would probably correct me. Then if I keep saying it over and over, I am just trying to annoy you or troll you. Then you could report that if you wanted. It's not the term itself, but the behavior.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

26 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Right, so lets say I call you anti vaccination. You would probably correct me. Then if I keep saying it over and over, I am just trying to annoy you or troll you. Then you could report that if you wanted. It's not the term itself, but the behavior.

I know where I think you are headed and I am not going there in this thread. I politely told you I agreed they were very different in the way one a law suit may be decided by a lower court and affirmed by all appeals it's so cut and dried and one law suit could go up several steps and is open to way more debate and is not  as easily cut and dried. Start another thread or hit me up on the black phone but lets not derail the thread please. You still my boy 

 

Now what I am trying to figure out is JG offended by the term anti vaxxer or by the fact we think he is anti-vaccine and  and that offends him.  He said he does not vaccinate his kids or believes in there safety,  so in my humble opinion that pretty much makes you anti Vaccine (at least for you). If I believe abortion is wrong for me, but still support it, I am still Pro Choice. If I am against abortion then Anti Abortion pretty much describes my position with no derogs in it at all. 

 

What am I missing here?

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

57 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

But you have no worries about offending people you disagree with. How ironic.