Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, and climate change deniers.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, and climate change deniers.

    What's the reason we've seen the rise in these types of movements? How can we further combat them?

    #2
    let them say nigga

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Snap View Post
      let them say nigga
      Banned
      Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-1133-0048-8436 (MMCulpaTTV)
      Don't forget to check out MothMageCulpa's Twitch Channel! - Join the Swarm today and Follow, subscribe, or donate!
      PSN Username- NikolaCulpa Trophy Level: 25. Platinums: 75 - Check me out on Twitch to see what I'm currently playing!

      Comment


        #4
        those types are just being reported on more

        Originally posted by Kajin_Style ;n529802
        Do you even step back and ask why a grown person is getting triggered over this? Why half the population is getting regularly triggered?

        Comment


          #5
          Generally, these ideas stem from a general distrust in science and government. I see them go hand-in-hand with Illuminati conspiracies more often than not.

          That's why we need to hurry on to stage 2, before even more of the masses catch on.

          Comment


            #6
            On an obscure forum, its 12 active members gather to discuss its battle plans against people who don't want vaccines turning their frogs gay.
            Originally posted by Kajin_Style
            I have this illness called "Having-a-Heart" and gives me this irrational sense of empathy and care for my fellow man.

            Comment


              #7
              Because some responsible parents would rather have their kids catch polio than autism

              Comment


                #8
                I've just given up hope on any of them lol

                Comment


                  #9
                  Has there been a rise, though

                  are there any polls, what figures u lookin at

                  all I can find is info on search quarries though just on flattards, and even then some of them are just people looking for a good dumpster fire to watch


                  Anyway their rise to greater degrees of visibility might just be largely due to the internet....not only are they able to find each other and coalesce, but academic youtubers give them exposure as well by making content laughing at their stupidity. since this is so easy as well as fairly entertaining, it can easily become a focal point for many content creators, which spawns more videos, which raises more awareness of these valiant fringe fighters

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Helly View Post
                    Has there been a rise, though

                    are there any polls, what figures u lookin at

                    all I can find is info on search quarries though just on flattards, and even then some of them are just people looking for a good dumpster fire to watch


                    Anyway their rise to greater degrees of visibility might just be largely due to the internet....not only are they able to find each other and coalesce, but academic youtubers give them exposure as well by making content laughing at their stupidity. since this is so easy as well as fairly entertaining, it can easily become a focal point for many content creators, which spawns more videos, which raises more awareness of these valiant fringe fighters
                    Well in the case of anti vaxxers how about the more recent measles outbreaks?

                    I know flat earthers are usually just a meme that people laugh at but I included them anyways since they basically do the same thing as the others I listed.
                    Last edited by Ladd; February 15th, 2019, 09:52 PM.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Anti-vaxxers are the worst.

                      Sooner or later, some poor parents are going to end up losing a child to a disease they were vaccinated against just because some awful parents that shouldn't be allowed to have children didn't vaccinate their kid.

                      Somebody in the US justice system needs to go ahead and rule that refusing to vaccinate your child counts as child endangerment. And then that decision needs to be passed through to SCOTUS and they need to make it national law. If parents refuse to vaccinate their children then they don't deserve to have those children.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Ladd View Post

                        Well in the case of anti vaxxers how about the more recent measles outbreaks?

                        I know flat earthers are usually just a meme that people laugh at but I included them anyways since they basically do the same thing as the others I listed.
                        ah, i see. indeed, the US has backslid considerably on the progress it has made for several consecutive years now:

                        https://www.theguardian.com/society/...have-jumped-50


                        flattards are amusing, but i think we can safely ignore them for now. NASA funding aside, i dont think they can do as much damage

                        anyway!

                        it does seem the ease of access to the internet is to blame in this situation as well - I actually recall an article I had read awhile back where actual well-intentioned parents who just wanted to educate themselves were being exposed to the anti-vax hoax more and more, now that I think about it. As for climate denial, that seems a bit more rooted in the two-party dichotomy the US has made for itself. its the same reason alot of atheist heathans typically embrace nihilismas well- it just comes with the starter package, and enough people use it so it gets reinforced in their minds. Think of it like one of the ten commandments for conservatards lol

                        as for a solution well you all know mine....democracy is empty idealism, there is no free will, just add the failure to vax a kid to the 'child neglect' list and remove any of the rule-breakers from society altogether....

                        admittedly, perhaps the government can make an attempt to reach the public as well and air informative PSA's intermittently at all hours of the day.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          A person that believes in one of the above also believes in at least one of the others, among several more conspiracy theories (illuminati, fake moon landing, 9/11 is an inside job...etc) so it's really just people who think they are "too woke" to be tricked by the evil new world government. Those people are always looking for a narrative in which they are a victim of an invisible larger force, and the internet fuels these narratives. Uneducated people are being exposed to conspiracy theories at a much higher rate with social media, and members of the lower middle class are more paranoid than ever. That's how I would explain it, at least. I think there are far too few studies on this subject, I know an uneducated person is more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, but the level of education is getting higher so you can't attribute the increase to that alone. Maybe this measles outbreak will open the world's eyes on this growing threat and we'll get a more statistically sound answer soon.



                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post
                            Generally, these ideas stem from a general distrust in science and government.
                            More or less, that's the case.

                            Toward that very end, I heavily disagree with individuals like Cid that demand the Court System/Judicial Branch of Government to intervene in minute life decisions- referring to the choice of the parent to not vaccinate their children, by the parent on their children for it being am utterly preposterous notion- that's on the degree of a thought-crime as for all intent and purposes it functions as one due to its premeditative nature, due to the fact that it declares them the sole arbitrators on a case where the sovereignty and authority of a parent must remain untouched nor disturbed.

                            If the parent(s)/caregiver doesn't want to vaccinate their children, then its within their full legal right to not offer any vaccination(s) that they believe may be detrimental to the development of the child.
                            Its as simple as that.
                            For the parent's that want to vaccinate their children, feel free to vaccinate your children.
                            Individuals like Cid have gone to such an ideological extreme that they fail to realize the consequences of declaring away your rights and power- as a sovereign individual caring for any future offspring, to a bureaucratic power that could very well abuse for its nefarious purposes.

                            In short, extreme ideologues fail to realize the slippery slope that their demands- including their expressed concessions to the Government, will cause for they are too caught up on their moral high-ground.
                            That's my take on it.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Mr.Sunshine View Post

                              More or less, that's the case.

                              Toward that very end, I heavily disagree with individuals like Cid that demand the Court System/Judicial Branch of Government to intervene in minute life decisions- referring to the choice of the parent to not vaccinate their children, by the parent on their children for it being am utterly preposterous notion- that's on the degree of a thought-crime as for all intent and purposes it functions as one due to its premeditative nature, due to the fact that it declares them the sole arbitrators on a case where the sovereignty and authority of a parent must remain untouched nor disturbed.

                              If the parent(s)/caregiver doesn't want to vaccinate their children, then its within their full legal right to not offer any vaccination(s) that they believe may be detrimental to the development of the child.
                              Its as simple as that.
                              For the parent's that want to vaccinate their children, feel free to vaccinate your children.
                              Individuals like Cid have gone to such an ideological extreme that they fail to realize the consequences of declaring away your rights and power- as a sovereign individual caring for any future offspring, to a bureaucratic power that could very well abuse for its nefarious purposes.

                              In short, extreme ideologues fail to realize the slippery slope that their demands- including their expressed concessions to the Government, will cause for they are too caught up on their moral high-ground.
                              That's my take on it.
                              normally, my libertarian leanings would have me align with this sentiment, but I must contest these points on the grounds that they involve the well-being of people other than the parents

                              For the same reason that I lean pro-life, I would definitely ask that a much more self-aware child be properly take care of so he does not meet his end prematurely, which would include being vaccinated against potentially deadly illnesses. I strongly disagree that it's such a minute decision.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Originally posted by Mr.Sunshine View Post

                                More or less, that's the case.

                                Toward that very end, I heavily disagree with individuals like Cid that demand the Court System/Judicial Branch of Government to intervene in minute life decisions- referring to the choice of the parent to not vaccinate their children, by the parent on their children for it being am utterly preposterous notion- that's on the degree of a thought-crime as for all intent and purposes it functions as one due to its premeditative nature, due to the fact that it declares them the sole arbitrators on a case where the sovereignty and authority of a parent must remain untouched nor disturbed.

                                If the parent(s)/caregiver doesn't want to vaccinate their children, then its within their full legal right to not offer any vaccination(s) that they believe may be detrimental to the development of the child.
                                Its as simple as that.
                                For the parent's that want to vaccinate their children, feel free to vaccinate your children.
                                Individuals like Cid have gone to such an ideological extreme that they fail to realize the consequences of declaring away your rights and power- as a sovereign individual caring for any future offspring, to a bureaucratic power that could very well abuse for its nefarious purposes.

                                In short, extreme ideologues fail to realize the slippery slope that their demands- including their expressed concessions to the Government, will cause for they are too caught up on their moral high-ground.
                                That's my take on it.
                                The thing is, this decision doesn't just affect one child and even if it did, I think parental rights do have limits. Obviously we don't want to go to the point where it's overreach but this isn't one of those cases. Should a parent get to decide how they raise their child? Yes generally.But I don't think that just because something could lead to a slippery slope that it means that the thing being advocated for is not a good for society or bad to do. But think of it this way, If the government can cause this overreach in power and do harm to children by breaking them up, why does this not apply to the parent(s)? You'd probably agree that if a parent is putting their child in danger then that should not be allowed. Not vaccinating their child may not be the same as absolutely beating a child but that doesn't mean it isn't putting them in danger. The parent puts their child at risk for various conditions that are preventable. We can not have the government's convictions running the show but we must also remember that the parents' convictions can not be all encompassing either. Luckily, enough people getting vaccinated mitigates the risk for even the unvaccinated a good bit.

                                tl'dr

                                The government isn't the only one who can cross the boundary of acceptable and unacceptable. The parent can too. Government tyranny may be further reaching but that doesn't mean parental tyranny is an acceptable lesser of two evils.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by Mr.Sunshine View Post
                                  If the parent(s)/caregiver doesn't want to vaccinate their children, then its within their full legal right to not offer any vaccination(s) that they believe may be detrimental to the development of the child.
                                  Fuck off with that shit, Mana.

                                  I know that might come off as really rude of me, but that's the response you deserve.

                                  A vaccination against a disease like polio does not guarantee that you can't catch polio. It makes it highly unlikely that you will. But there's still a chance.

                                  The idea of heard immunity is that every person has such a low chance of contracting the virus that you effectively drive it extinct. If ONE child catches a disease, it increases the chances that OTHER children can catch that disease. If there are multiple children, in classroom for example, that become exposed to and contract that disease then the risk of vaccinated children getting it rises exponentially.

                                  So sure Mana. A person might have every right to have a child and then risk that child's health because they're stupid as shit. However, they do not have the right to subsequently put my child's or Ladd's child or anyone else's children's health at risk.

                                  So your notion that they should be allowed to simply not vaccinate their children is bullshit. It's child endangerment, both to their own and every child they come in contact with. It should absolutely be illegal. And anyone that disagrees can go straight to hell where they belong.

                                  Comment


                                    #18

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by Helly View Post
                                      normally, my libertarian leanings would have me align with this sentiment, but I must contest these points on the grounds that they involve the well-being of people other than the parents
                                      For the same reason that I lean pro-life, I would definitely ask that a much more self-aware child be properly take care of so he does not meet his end prematurely, which would include being vaccinated against potentially deadly illnesses. I strongly disagree that it's such a minute decision.
                                      That's perfectly fine, Helly.
                                      This is an open dialogue, after all.
                                      I'll gladly play the Devil's Advocate in these conversations as I personally believe that all arguments should be accounted for in this situations, and respond with civility and politeness. ^_^

                                      In that case, I'd argue that the child should be allowed the opportunity to die prematurely, if that's how Fate determines it.
                                      The Government shall have no power to force that child's parent(s) to vaccinate them, and I shall stand by that position for this dialogue.


                                      Originally posted by Chibz View Post
                                      The thing is, this decision doesn't just affect one child and even if it did, I think parental rights do have limits. Obviously we don't want to go to the point where it's overreach but this isn't one of those cases. Should a parent get to decide how they raise their child? Yes generally.But I don't think that just because something could lead to a slippery slope that it means that the thing being advocated for is not a good for society or bad to do. But think of it this way, If the government can cause this overreach in power and do harm to children by breaking them up, why does this not apply to the parent(s)? You'd probably agree that if a parent is putting their child in danger then that should not be allowed. Not vaccinating their child may not be the same as absolutely beating a child but that doesn't mean it isn't putting them in danger. The parent puts their child at risk for various conditions that are preventable. We can not have the government's convictions running the show but we must also remember that the parents' convictions can not be all encompassing either. Luckily, enough people getting vaccinated mitigates the risk for even the unvaccinated a good bit.
                                      tl'dr
                                      The government isn't the only one who can cross the boundary of acceptable and unacceptable. The parent can too. Government tyranny may be further reaching but that doesn't mean parental tyranny is an acceptable lesser of two evils.

                                      That's perfectly understandable, Chibi.
                                      As the Devil's Advocate for these conversations that must stand for all arguments-positions for these particular dialogues, I stand that the Government should have no authority or vested power to limit the parental rights of the legal, biological guardians and their decision to refuse vaccinating their children.
                                      I stand by the position that the Government has no place nor understanding what's the best for the children, and that it must be acted upon the discretion of the legal, biological parent's of the child or children; thusly, lacking the inherent interest or will to place safeguard the children and their parent's away from abusable loopholes in future laws passed in Congress that served to injure all affected parties.

                                      I'd purport that you're failing to grasp the full scope of such a slippery slope.
                                      Should I be sent to prison or have my child removed from me, if my hypothetical child caught leprosy from the Cafeteria Lunch Server, and I could have possibly prevented it but failed to do so, Chibi?
                                      Should I be sent to prison or have my child removed from me, if my hypothetical child caught tuberculosis from a foreign worker that was working near the playground that my child and other children were playing at, and I could have possibly prevented it but failed to do so, Chibi?


                                      Individuals like Cid tirelessly argue that I should have my children removed from me, so where do you draw the line in your position that legislation- of any kind, should be enacted and voted in Congress to force parent's to vaccinate their children?


                                      Originally posted by Cid View Post

                                      ~Snip~

                                      A vaccination against a disease like polio does not guarantee that you can't catch polio. It makes it highly unlikely that you will. But there's still a chance.

                                      The idea of heard immunity is that every person has such a low chance of contracting the virus that you effectively drive it extinct. If ONE child catches a disease, it increases the chances that OTHER children can catch that disease. If there are multiple children, in classroom for example, that become exposed to and contract that disease then the risk of vaccinated children getting it rises exponentially.

                                      So sure Mana. A person might have every right to have a child and then risk that child's health because they're stupid as shit. However, they do not have the right to subsequently put my child's or Ladd's child or anyone else's children's health at risk.
                                      If you cannot behave yourself, nor can you bare to hear all angles of this open dialogue concerning this particular issue, then I'd suggest that you remove yourself from the conversation, Cid.

                                      If you cannot handle me being a Devil's Advocate and standing for all possible positions on the issue, then I ask it of you to take breather for a couple of minutes and come back when you're ready to have a civilized conversation.

                                      For that matter, allow me to answer your questions as the Devil Advocate that I'm being to bring a multi-faceted perspective to this open dialogue.

                                      I stand by the position that if Fate determines that any child ends up prematurely dying, then that's that.

                                      A tragic case that could have been prevented, but fell short due to sanitary reason.
                                      I stand by the position that the Government has no place nor understanding what's the best for the children, and that it must be acted upon the discretion of the legal, biological parent's of the child or children; thusly, lacking the inherent interest or will to place safeguard the children and their parent's away from abusable loopholes in future laws passed in Congress that served to injure all affected parties.
                                      Last edited by Mr.Sunshine; February 16th, 2019, 02:32 AM. Reason: *Editing: Spelling Error! ^_^*

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by Mr.Sunshine View Post
                                        If you cannot behave yourself, nor can you bare to hear all angles of this open dialogue concerning this particular issue, then I'd suggest that you remove yourself from the conversation, Cid.

                                        If you cannot handle me being a Devil's Advocate and standing for all possible positions on the issue, then I ask it of you to take breather for a couple of minutes and come back when you're ready to have a civilized conversation.
                                        Quite frankly, Mana... If you can't handled being told to fuck off or being called a fucking idiot for saying something as stupid as you have in this topic, then maybe you don't need to be on the internet or perhaps you shouldn't say stupid shit.

                                        Originally posted by Mr.Sunshine View Post
                                        For that matter, allow me to answer your questions as the Devil Advocate that I'm being to bring a multi-faceted perspective to this open dialogue.

                                        I stand by the position that if Fate determines that any child ends up prematurely dying, then that's that.

                                        A tragic case that could have been prevented, but fell short due to sanitary reason.
                                        I stand by the position that the Government has no place nor understanding what's the best for the children, and that it must be acted upon the discretion of the legal, biological parent's of the child or children; thusly, lacking the inherent interest or will to place safeguard the children and their parent's away from abusable loopholes in future laws passed in Congress that served to injure all affected parties.
                                        It is not acceptable to say "whoops, my child caught a deadly disease and gave it to your child and now they're both dead. It's tragic and could have been prevented, but it must have been fate." It will never be acceptable.

                                        There's no argument to be made here. There is no conversation. You're not playing devil's advocate. You're advocating for the intentional murder of children because you think vaccines shouldn't be required by law. That is utterly ridiculous.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X