84
85

The r/all front page is covered with vaccine propaganda again. There is no actual debate allowed, everything is "all vaccines" or "no vaccines". Neat, simple, black and white. This is how you can tell you're being manipulated. (self.conspiracy)

qthagun が 投稿 - stickied post

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Flytape 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (19子コメント)

The hive needs to make up its mind.

We either support people's right to make medical decisions that affect their bodies, even if the death of a child occurs. (Abortion)

Or we make choices for people in the name of protecting the children (vaccines).

You can't have it both ways. Its either rights or requirements.

[–]TheKingOfToast -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (17子コメント)

Your ignorance is showing.

The argument isn't "should you have the right to kill a child" it's "is an unborn child considered alive, and if so, at what point"

Whichever side you fall, I don't care. You're entitled to your opinion, but to think that the discussion is about killing children is just stupid.

[–]-SPIRITUAL-GANGSTER- 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (10子コメント)

I would counter that questioning whether or not a foetus is alive is intellectually dishonest. In scientific terms, life literally begins at conception. At what point that unborn child becomes a person is certainly debatable.

To be clear, I am pro choice. Whichever side you fall, I don't care. You're entitled to your opinion, but to think that the discussion isn't about killing children is just stupid.

[–]Ambiguously_Ironic[M] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Approved.

[–]AnonBTCShoppin -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Watch for /u/Flytape censoring this shit. He's an obvious vaxxer, which is typical of him. I'm sure you're aware of how he tries to sway opinion in this sub.

[–]Ambiguously_Ironic 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

We have to approve this guy's comments because he's on a new account, not because he's being censored by anyone. I appreciate your concern but I haven't seen anything to suggest that Flytape has been silencing discussion about this subject. The massive amount of downvotes for every vaccine post in the new queue are doing a pretty good job of that on their own.

[–]AnonBTCShoppin 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

He goes through and purges the submissions that don't break any rules, and are only meant to draw attention to the vaccination propaganda. Says that they are removed because "the sub doesn't like certain things". Not because any rules were broken. See my submission history for pink submissions.

:-)

[–]Ambiguously_Ironic 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Fair enough. I see the post you're referring to and I personally wouldn't have removed it but I don't think it's the "flytape is going on a censorship rampage and deleting everything I post" situation that you seem to be implying. For what it's worth, if you feel a post or comment was removed unjustly, send a modmail and we will discuss amongst ourselves. We mods don't always see eye to eye on everything and we aren't always on the same page.

[–]AnonBTCShoppin 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

based mod

[–]Ambiguously_Ironic 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Had to go to urbandictionary to confirm that you weren't insulting me, saw this definition, got happy.

[–]ShamanChemistry 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Scientists haven't even agreed upon whether viruses are technically alive or dead. cancer is scientifically alive,so your point is absolutely worthless

[–]AnonBTCShoppin -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

More enlightened entities understand that abortion is inconsequential before the soul enters the bodies. These entities understands when that happens.

You may want to look into that.

[–]AnonBTCShoppin -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You should be very suspicious of this mod.

[–]Flytape -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Your ignorance is showing.

This is a stupid comment that doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Moving on...

The argument isn't "should you have the right to kill a child" it's "is an unborn child considered alive, and if so, at what point"

The argument has nothing to do with the life status of an unborn child.

The argument on both subjects, abortion and vaccination, is about a person's right to choose for them self. Can one choose to have an abortion or not? Can one choose to have a vaccine or not?

The children dying in both scenarios are hypothetical children.

The anti-abortion fanatics are standing on hypothetical dead children.

The pro-vaccine fanatics are standing on hypothetical dead children.

In reality, being forced by law to carry a child full term (the anti-abortion dream) is forcing the mother to put her body at risk to satisfy the wishes of people who don't share her risk.

Being forced by law to have all vaccines as scheduled by the government (the pro-vaccine dream) is forcing the recipients to put their bodies at risk to satisfy the wishes of people who don't share their risk. Example is that some children can't be vaccinated because of compromised immune systems, so everyone else should be forced to vaccinate to reduce the risk of this immune-compromised child of getting ill. Without regard to the risks now being forced onto the healthy children who are forced to be vaccinated.

Next time you wish to blurt out about someone being ignorant you may want to double check that you comprehend the comparison.

I haven't even attempted to discuss the "when is a baby really alive" debate. Its unimportant in the context of this discussion, which is about living, walking people being able to decide for themselves if they want a medical procedure such as an abortion or a vaccine.

Toodles.

[–]TheKingOfToast -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Toodles.

Be a little more pompous, I don't think I'm and to grasp just how big your head is yet.

forcing the mother to put her body at risk to satisfy the wishes of people who don't share her risk.

John has a mental disorder. When he gets upset, he harms himself. John should murder people who upset him so that his body is not at risk.

forcing the recipients to put their bodies at risk to satisfy the wishes of people who don't share their risk.

John has a mental disorder. He murders people who upset him. John should be killed.

They are literally opposite thought processes. Anti-abortion is sacrificing the health of one for the life of one. Pro-abortion is sacrificing potential life for the health of one. Anti-vaccines are sacrificing the potential health of many for the potential health of one, and pro-vaccines are sacrificing the potential health of one for the potential health of many.

Your bias is so painfully obvious because of how you portray the opposing side. You want to believe that the opposing side is so obviously wrong that you have created a straw man to attack.

[–]Flytape 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is this real life?

[–]Flytape -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

John has a mental disorder. When he gets upset, he harms himself. John should murder people who upset him so that his body is not at risk.

That would be a crime.

John has a mental disorder. He murders people who upset him. John should be killed.

That would be justice as defined by capital punishment.

These things have nothing to do with making medical decisions for yourself.

[–]TheKingOfToast 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because you didn't seem to understand the analogies;

John has a mental disorder.

John is analogous with a woman and the mental disorder is analogous with being fertile.

A woman is fertile.

When he gets upset

In this sentence, upset is analogous with unintentionally pregnant.

when she gets unintentionally pregnant

he harms himself.

Here, we are using self-harm to represent the negative affects associated with pregnancy.

She suffers from unwanted pregnancy symptoms.

John should murder people who upset him

Here is where we get into the bias of the argument. (I am using a biased argument because my argument is not for either side of the argument, but simply to show that the two arguments you are comparing are not the same)

Here, "murder people who upset him" compares to the act of terminating (murder) the pregnancy (people) that causes pregnancy symptoms (upset).

A woman should terminate a pregnancy that causes pregnancy symptoms.

Bringing us to

A woman is fertile. When the woman gets unintentionally pregnant, she suffers unwanted pregnancy symptoms. She should terminate the pregnancy that causes unwanted pregnancy symptoms.

As for the second:

John has a mental disorder

Here, John is any person, and the "mental disorder" is analogous with the ability to transmit diseases.

A person can transmit diseases.

He murders people who upset him

Here is the bias of this sides argument; "murders people" represents transmitting the diseases, and "people who upset him" are people susceptible to the disease. (Which anyone pro-vaccine will say includes people with the vaccine because of "herd immunity and other reasons. (Again, I'm not stating my opinions, I'm stating the opinions of people with the views I'm describing))

They spread diseases to people

John should be killed.

In this case "killed" is analogous with vaccinated. Which may make it sound anti-vaccine, but it isn't.

They should be vaccinated.

This brings us to the statement

A person can transmit disease. The spread diseases to other people. They should be vaccinated.

I'm not trying to say "HAHA you got tricked into supporting vaccines," or "HAHA I got you to support abortion," because you may not agree with the postulates.

However, Anti-abortion people view their opinion in the same way that you viewed our first scenario with John murdering people. Pro vaccine people view the situation the same was as you viewed our second scenario.

Anti-abortion thinks abortion is a crime

That would be a crime.

and pro-vaccine thinks it would be justice

That would be justice

They are as opposite of opinions as the first two scenarios.

[–]AnonBTCShoppin -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hey look at this, it's another mod who is subtly supporting the bullshit propaganda that is all over the front page. Subtly suggesting that if you are anti-vaccine you are killing children.

Hopefully the critical thinkers don't fall for this bullshit.