Anyone can be wrong.
But this hypothetical doesn't mean that anti-vaxers cannot
be clever in their advocacy against vaxing & masking.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Another Anti-Vax Radio Talk Show Host Dies from Covid
- Thread starter Wandering Monk
- Start date
But this hypothetical doesn't mean that anti-vaxers cannot
be clever in their advocacy against vaxing & masking.
One might think that your post is to distract from the claim....
"...many vaxxers are quite religious about it, even most Atheist vaxxers."
That is indeed a claim to run from in deep regret.
Especially after my mocking it.
Last edited:
Moonjuice
In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey
This isn't the conversation I was having. I didn't know we are trying to come up with the most practical, desirable and realistic solutions to not catching Covid. I was simply making it a point that we are all responsible for protecting ourselves. To say that you cannot be protected without the compliance of everyone else is just not a true statement. If you catch Covid, you didn't protect yourself as well as you could have. That's it. I actually thought this wasn't debatable.
I'll say it again. You do not have to be in complete isolation in order to be 100% protected from Covid. If you get vaccinated, wear a properly fitted respirator mask, and socially distance 12ft from anyone else, you won't catch Covid. Shopping is going to be pretty inconvenient, but you can keep yourself safe if you thought the inconvenience was worth it.
**MOVED TO COVID-19**
Moonjuice
In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey
Ahhh... but it IS your responsibility to take action for yourself. When you saw that guy get in line without a mask on, yes you could have gotten out of line and stayed 12 ft away from him, waited until the coast is clear and you could remain socially distanced and safe. I don't like this solution any more than you do, and it would be nice if Covid infected people weren't running around with no masks on coughing on people. I'm just pointing out that you could have kept yourself safe even without the compliance of anyone else.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
I can understand that when someone is drunk driving and gets killed. In my head it's more that was the consequence of his actions not he is an idiot or he deserved it. My sentiments are different but I get not having sympathy just not the sentiment behind it.
It all depends. If this drunk driver drove drunk on a regular basis and had a radio show where he advocated for his right to drive drunk and encouraged others to drive drunk as well, I think I just might call him an idiot who deserved it when he died in a drunk driving accident.
I can't compare the common examples of seatbelts with not taking the vaccine. Its like apples and oranges. Its better to compare seatbelt analogy with masks because seatbelts and masks aren't something you put in your body. There are no recorded adverse side effects and its not still being tested to improve its efficiency. People can fight about seatbelts and masks but at the end its just a piece of material.
I prefer the people who think it's their right to ignore red stop lights analogy. You have every right to hold that opinion, but don't be surprised or act as if you're being persecuted when society refuses to issue you a driver's license.
Likewise, if someone doesn't vaccinate and get COVID I honestly do not know if it's because they are not vaccinated because vaccinated people can get COVID too. I don't know if they caught it and it got worse because of pre-existing illnesses or say age. I don't know if there are hidden variables that make the vaccine work in some people more than others. I don't even know if someone unvaccinated made the decision because they went to the CDC site or a biased site. I just don't know.
But the OP cited an example of someone who we do know quite clearly what his stance on the issue was. He was equivalent to the drunk driver who advocated for drunk driving on his radio show. You're acting as if the lack of sympathy some people show for this individual indicates that they have a lack of sympathy for everyone who dies unvaccinated. I have great sympathy for the poor soul lamenting on his deathbed having listened to the idiot on the radio telling him he shouldn't get vaccinated. Not so much sympathy for the idiot on the radio that actively manipulated poor ignorant souls into making such a lethal error in judgement.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
What would benefit anti-vaxxers to be clever and advocate against vaxing and masking?
What would that solve?
Disagreeing with vaccines and masking doesn't equal to advocacy and giving information to support one's argument is not doing anything more. It's ideally giving both sides an equal opportunity to present their arguments, support it, counter it if one wishes, and learn something from it.
A lot of social media sites, and just media in general, are designed towards provaxxers. So, it's somewhat like being the majority you can't see your own flaws. Then when a minority says something that challenges the harmony of the group, its taken as an insult or other reactions like cognitive dissonance.
Even if anti-vaxxers Wanted to convince the majority, they'll just be silenced. That's the whole problem with these debates off and online, in the media and in one's head.
Never heard of him. I never heard of any of these people pro-vaxxers post to gloat about.
Without addressing any particular posts or posters, &
speaking generally about my observations....
People can expect strong pushback from overt advocacy against
vaxing & masking. This would also be counter to the RF rule
against misinformation regarding the pandemic. But one can
influence other people by stating some factual info, while omitting
other facts. This would have the effect of advancing an anti-vax
or anti-mask agenda with plausible deniability. The same tool
can be used to advocate for faux Covid cures & treatments,
eg, Ivermectin, BioCharger, Shut Out, chloroquine.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I did not say that you were such vaxxer being "religious" about it, but I have seen/heard some being very harsh to those that have not taken the vaccine for whatever reason they choose to do so. I just tell the truth how things happened the past year on RF
Most atheists are not religious.
I am indeed harsh towards people who proffer
opinions & misinformation that pose a danger.
But it's a secular harshness. Totally godless.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Not forgetting the 5G masts.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Yes I could spend plenty of my time leaving queues and rejoining and leaving again because of thoughtless people. I'm done here.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
It sounds like whoever this was was just speaking from observation and personal opinion not convincing anyone. I would really need context though.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Not gloating.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
But that doesn't compare. Many unvaccinated go to work, come home, fix meal for the family, and wake up to do it all over again. If anything it's more like accusing people not wearing a seatbelt for possibly hitting a person in an accident. The consequence of "not" doing something. But the fact is seatbelts don't cause accidents so the decision and action are from the person not just the law (or pandemic data) and not the seatbelt (the vaccine). The person driving drunk is "doing something" to put others in danger. People who arent vaccinating aren't doing anything to increase their risk. They're leaving themselves open not increasing the risk of transmission.
Its both sides. You guys aren't the Law.
If you're on a high way doing the speed limit, you'd practically get ran over. If you go with traffic, VA law lets a driver go over the speed limit to flow with the traffic. If you are going by the law, you can get into an accident. If you go by the flow of traffic, you're safer.
Take walking across the street. In my area you have to watch the cars not just the light. When I thought I was going blind, the department of the blind showed me how to go across the street by the car pattern since I couldn't see the cross signal.
This would mean that if the crossing light wasn't on (since cars don't go by pedestrian cross signals) and the cars move, I side with the cars not the light. It's "thinking for yourself" in some respects to keep yourself safe.
That's the counter examples of the seatbelt analogies often used.
I couldn't follow the story. It wasn't getting to the point other than him saying he didn't want to take the vaccine.
Shrugs. I dislike people's behavior but if they are ill and die, I do feel something for them. In other words, I can't relate to your sentiment but what can I say.
I don't see any of that implied in @Wandering Monk's post. Where did that come from?
I couldn't give this a "conditional Like," since there's no such animal. I like the thought, but can never quite say "I like it," when somebody dies. I'm kind of a "no-fault" guy on that.
Of course, since you don't know where the virus is, what you're suggesting is "never get anywhere at all near another human being -- or any other animal that might also be carrying it."
Is that really what you mean to say?
I've read hundreds and hundreds of your posts, and I honestly cannot make much sense out of what you think, why you think it. But what does seem clear is that you have decided that the medical profession -- on the subject of vaccination -- is clearly decades behind your wisdom.