Imprison anyone who refuses the vax!

[oggsmash]

"Imprison anyone who refusrs the vax'?

Meh, for decades in 'murca the system imprisoned people for refusing to just say no to marijuana. Probably a couple million people were imprisoned for smoking a farly benign drug because the rightards linked it to minorities.

So hell, if it was ok to lock up a few million people and hang felony convictions on them for life over a pretty mild drug no worse and maybe not as bad as alcohol, why not the some rightards in prison for refusing to "just oveu the law"?

And anyway, fuck the right.

  If you ever get what you are asking for here, just remember you asked for it.

[Ratman_tf]

"Imprison anyone who refusrs the vax'?

Meh, for decades in 'murca the system imprisoned people for refusing to just say no to marijuana. Probably a couple million people were imprisoned for smoking a farly benign drug because the rightards linked it to minorities.

So hell, if it was ok to lock up a few million people and hang felony convictions on them for life over a pretty mild drug no worse and maybe not as bad as alcohol, why not the some rightards in prison for refusing to "just oveu the law"?

And anyway, fuck the right.

Do you sincerely want to keep marijuana illegal in order to justify making getting vaccinated legally mandatory?

[GeekyBugle]

"Imprison anyone who refusrs the vax'?

Meh, for decades in 'murca the system imprisoned people for refusing to just say no to marijuana. Probably a couple million people were imprisoned for smoking a farly benign drug because the rightards linked it to minorities.

So hell, if it was ok to lock up a few million people and hang felony convictions on them for life over a pretty mild drug no worse and maybe not as bad as alcohol, why not the some rightards in prison for refusing to "just oveu the law"?

And anyway, fuck the right.

Do you sincerely want to keep marijuana illegal in order to justify making getting vaccinated legally mandatory?

It's your body his choice, until it becomes time to murdering unborn babies, then it's her body her choice.

It's people should be able to put whatever in their bodies until it becomes people should not put invermectine in their bodies but should put experimental treatment X.

It's people should be able to choose when and how to die, until it becomes people should be forced to take X because he believes it will save lives.

With leftards it's never about principles because they have none, it's about power.

[Pat]

  Personal question, and no judgement (I know many people of all political bent who got it), did you get the vaccine?  My position has always been if you want it get it.  I also understand the textbook definition of a vaccine, but there is also a publicly acknowledged understanding of what a vaccine does (with regards to actual efficacy) that the CDC felt a HUGE need to "clarify" when massive pharma corps decided to roll something out that was not functioning as the publicly understood standard for a vaccine on a large scale.  I ask because you seem to be semantically defending a term in a way that seems you have an investment in doing so.  Again, get the shot, dont get the shot I think people can make the best decisions for their own health and bodies and situations.   I know you like to argue and get into the details, but it seems you are reaching into the clinical full well knowing the publicly acknowledged understanding of a vaccine function is NOT what the vaccine for captain tripps has been.

I refuse to answer that question, even to my own doctor. When they start requiring medical papers and violating medical privacy, we need to resist where we can. It's fucking evil.

I'm arguing for the correct usage of a term because I believe we should defend what is correct, regardless of which side of the insanity it's been appropriated by. If you really believe that arguing in favor of the correct usage of words is a sign of investment or bias, then why are you ignoring all the people who are objecting to what I've said, and yet can't see to come up with even the facade of a reason? Their responses seem to be classic irrational partisanship. Even your response, muted as it is, seems to fall in the same rough category, because you ignored them and addressed me instead.

You're correct that a lot of people have a poor understanding of these medical terms. You're also correct that the CDC has lied a lot. That doesn't change what immunity or vaccination or infected means.

[Bobloblah]

This is a shockingly stupid exchange. The definition of "vaccine" was changed in the last few years (circa 2019). The current mRNA gene therapies, which is how Pfizer and Moderna refer to them in their own SEC filings, do not meet any prior definition of a vaccine. The CDC also changed their definition in late 2021.
Give.
Me.
A.
Fucking.
Break.
The term was changed and used for the covid "vaccines" so that:

• People would get the warm and fuzzies by associating them with prior actual vaccines people were familiar with, and...
• The regulatory burden to get these drugs approved would be much lower, and...
• Once they were added to the US childhood vaccine schedule, there would be indemnity for the manufacturers without requiring EUA.

Oh, and if you go back a bit further (circa ~2017), the term is defined by "immunity," which is, in fact, what most of the vaccines people are familiar with provide. Vaccines that do not do so are a newer thing, and they've mostly produced very poor results (e.g. HPV vaccine, new Pertussis vaccine, etc.)

[Pat]

This is a shockingly stupid exchange. The definition of "vaccine" was changed in the last few years (circa 2019). The current mRNA gene therapies, which is how Pfizer and Moderna refer to them in their own SEC filings, do not meet any prior definition of a vaccine. The CDC also changed their definition in late 2021.
Give.
Me.
A.
Fucking.
Break.
The term was changed and used for the covid "vaccines" so that:

• People would get the warm and fuzzies by associating them with prior actual vaccines people were familiar with, and...
• The regulatory burden to get these drugs approved would be much lower, and...
• Once they were added to the US childhood vaccine schedule, there would be indemnity for the manufacturers without requiring EUA.

Oh, and if you go back a bit further (circa ~2017), the term is defined by "immunity," which is, in fact, what most of the vaccines people are familiar with provide. Vaccines that do not do so are a newer thing, and they've mostly produced very poor results (e.g. HPV vaccine, new Pertussis vaccine, etc.)

This a shockingly stupid response.

The term "immunity" means immune response, not a magical shield that makes bullets viruses bounce off your chest. The 2019 MW definition is correct but unclear on that topic.

"[K]illed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms" is a list of the traditional types of vaccines, but that's a list of types not an attempt to define a general concept. It's a like defining a ball by listing a soccer ball, a baseball, and a basketball. Since that's just a of some examples and doesn't describe what "ball" means, introducing a football will lead to lots of stupid arguments.

So the 2019 definition is crap. That's kind of superficially acceptable but imprecise garbage you get when you refer to a non-technical source for a technical definition.

I don't doubt there were political motives for changing the definition, but the later definition, while far more verbose, is no better. It makes the same mistake of trying to define a word by listing different specific types.

Refer upthread to definitions by medical sources. Or refer to medical textbooks, of any year, for a much more comprehensive treatment.

[Ratman_tf]

We don't have to imprison anyone. We can just harass them until they kill themselves.

https://nypost.com/2022/04/27/student-died-by-suicide-after-bullying-about-his-vaccination-status-suit/

(And yes, the cherry on the shit sundae is that the kid was actually vaccinated.)

[oggsmash]

  Personal question, and no judgement (I know many people of all political bent who got it), did you get the vaccine?  My position has always been if you want it get it.  I also understand the textbook definition of a vaccine, but there is also a publicly acknowledged understanding of what a vaccine does (with regards to actual efficacy) that the CDC felt a HUGE need to "clarify" when massive pharma corps decided to roll something out that was not functioning as the publicly understood standard for a vaccine on a large scale.  I ask because you seem to be semantically defending a term in a way that seems you have an investment in doing so.  Again, get the shot, dont get the shot I think people can make the best decisions for their own health and bodies and situations.   I know you like to argue and get into the details, but it seems you are reaching into the clinical full well knowing the publicly acknowledged understanding of a vaccine function is NOT what the vaccine for captain tripps has been.

I refuse to answer that question, even to my own doctor. When they start requiring medical papers and violating medical privacy, we need to resist where we can. It's fucking evil.

I'm arguing for the correct usage of a term because I believe we should defend what is correct, regardless of which side of the insanity it's been appropriated by. If you really believe that arguing in favor of the correct usage of words is a sign of investment or bias, then why are you ignoring all the people who are objecting to what I've said, and yet can't see to come up with even the facade of a reason? Their responses seem to be classic irrational partisanship. Even your response, muted as it is, seems to fall in the same rough category, because you ignored them and addressed me instead.

You're correct that a lot of people have a poor understanding of these medical terms. You're also correct that the CDC has lied a lot. That doesn't change what immunity or vaccination or infected means.

  I didnt ask them, because I know they are biased.   I asked you, because this seems to ignore what you know the public expects of a definition, and you also know the CDC decided to play word games.   I think it is fine if you got the shot, lots of older right or center leaning people I know who were skeptical did, because they figured it was less a risk than the virus.   Saying you do not even tell your own doctor if you got the shot though....seems like a lie.  Saying you do not want to tell me or anyone else though I accept it.  I was just pointing out your position seems a little too invested, but I could also see where your specificity on terms (which I think you demonstrated before on several threads and other subjects) could be the reason.  That is why I asked.

   If the "super official definition" has to be taken from a medical textbook, and seems to be different from what is taught in biology and in the dictionary....it sure looks like bullshit and using a word the public associates with one thing to be another.   

[oggsmash]

We don't have to imprison anyone. We can just harass them until they kill themselves.

https://nypost.com/2022/04/27/student-died-by-suicide-after-bullying-about-his-vaccination-status-suit/

(And yes, the cherry on the shit sundae is that the kid was actually vaccinated.)

  If I have to be honest, I see that much more as a problem with letting your kid use social media.  I think there is a good deal more to problems the kid may have had outside of vax rumors as well.  I am all for having issues with dickheads running their mouth about what a person decides to do with their own body...but I think this would not be the hill I would take to make that point.  I think it is likely a sad case of a kid who was having problems, and I really hate to say this, but his parents failed him as well as the school.

[Pat]

  Personal question, and no judgement (I know many people of all political bent who got it), did you get the vaccine?  My position has always been if you want it get it.  I also understand the textbook definition of a vaccine, but there is also a publicly acknowledged understanding of what a vaccine does (with regards to actual efficacy) that the CDC felt a HUGE need to "clarify" when massive pharma corps decided to roll something out that was not functioning as the publicly understood standard for a vaccine on a large scale.  I ask because you seem to be semantically defending a term in a way that seems you have an investment in doing so.  Again, get the shot, dont get the shot I think people can make the best decisions for their own health and bodies and situations.   I know you like to argue and get into the details, but it seems you are reaching into the clinical full well knowing the publicly acknowledged understanding of a vaccine function is NOT what the vaccine for captain tripps has been.

I refuse to answer that question, even to my own doctor. When they start requiring medical papers and violating medical privacy, we need to resist where we can. It's fucking evil.

I'm arguing for the correct usage of a term because I believe we should defend what is correct, regardless of which side of the insanity it's been appropriated by. If you really believe that arguing in favor of the correct usage of words is a sign of investment or bias, then why are you ignoring all the people who are objecting to what I've said, and yet can't see to come up with even the facade of a reason? Their responses seem to be classic irrational partisanship. Even your response, muted as it is, seems to fall in the same rough category, because you ignored them and addressed me instead.

You're correct that a lot of people have a poor understanding of these medical terms. You're also correct that the CDC has lied a lot. That doesn't change what immunity or vaccination or infected means.

  I didnt ask them, because I know they are biased.   I asked you, because this seems to ignore what you know the public expects of a definition, and you also know the CDC decided to play word games.   I think it is fine if you got the shot, lots of older right or center leaning people I know who were skeptical did, because they figured it was less a risk than the virus.   Saying you do not even tell your own doctor if you got the shot though....seems like a lie.  Saying you do not want to tell me or anyone else though I accept it.  I was just pointing out your position seems a little too invested, but I could also see where your specificity on terms (which I think you demonstrated before on several threads and other subjects) could be the reason.  That is why I asked.

   If the "super official definition" has to be taken from a medical textbook, and seems to be different from what is taught in biology and in the dictionary....it sure looks like bullshit and using a word the public associates with one thing to be another.

Fuck you. My doctor aggressively asked if I had the vaccine, and I refused to tell her. If they're going to turn people's medical records into open books they can inspect at will, I'm going to resist at every step. You don't have to believe me, but since you're calling me a liar, I'm calling you a piece of shit.

And it's a technical term. You can't refer to a general dictionary for the authoritative definition of a technical term. That's how it works in every field. If you want to understand what "socialism" means, you have to read Kropotkin, Marx, Mises, and so on. Not Merriam-Webster.

[oggsmash]

  Personal question, and no judgement (I know many people of all political bent who got it), did you get the vaccine?  My position has always been if you want it get it.  I also understand the textbook definition of a vaccine, but there is also a publicly acknowledged understanding of what a vaccine does (with regards to actual efficacy) that the CDC felt a HUGE need to "clarify" when massive pharma corps decided to roll something out that was not functioning as the publicly understood standard for a vaccine on a large scale.  I ask because you seem to be semantically defending a term in a way that seems you have an investment in doing so.  Again, get the shot, dont get the shot I think people can make the best decisions for their own health and bodies and situations.   I know you like to argue and get into the details, but it seems you are reaching into the clinical full well knowing the publicly acknowledged understanding of a vaccine function is NOT what the vaccine for captain tripps has been.

I refuse to answer that question, even to my own doctor. When they start requiring medical papers and violating medical privacy, we need to resist where we can. It's fucking evil.

I'm arguing for the correct usage of a term because I believe we should defend what is correct, regardless of which side of the insanity it's been appropriated by. If you really believe that arguing in favor of the correct usage of words is a sign of investment or bias, then why are you ignoring all the people who are objecting to what I've said, and yet can't see to come up with even the facade of a reason? Their responses seem to be classic irrational partisanship. Even your response, muted as it is, seems to fall in the same rough category, because you ignored them and addressed me instead.

You're correct that a lot of people have a poor understanding of these medical terms. You're also correct that the CDC has lied a lot. That doesn't change what immunity or vaccination or infected means.

  I didnt ask them, because I know they are biased.   I asked you, because this seems to ignore what you know the public expects of a definition, and you also know the CDC decided to play word games.   I think it is fine if you got the shot, lots of older right or center leaning people I know who were skeptical did, because they figured it was less a risk than the virus.   Saying you do not even tell your own doctor if you got the shot though....seems like a lie.  Saying you do not want to tell me or anyone else though I accept it.  I was just pointing out your position seems a little too invested, but I could also see where your specificity on terms (which I think you demonstrated before on several threads and other subjects) could be the reason.  That is why I asked.

   If the "super official definition" has to be taken from a medical textbook, and seems to be different from what is taught in biology and in the dictionary....it sure looks like bullshit and using a word the public associates with one thing to be another.

Fuck you. My doctor aggressively asked if I had the vaccine, and I refused to tell her. If they're going to turn people's medical records into open books they can inspect at will, I'm going to resist at every step. You don't have to believe me, but since you're calling me a liar, I'm calling you a piece of shit.

And it's a technical term. You can't refer to a general dictionary for the authoritative definition of a technical term. That's how it works in every field. If you want to understand what "socialism" means, you have to read Kropotkin, Marx, Mises, and so on. Not Merriam-Webster.

  Sounds to me like you need a new doctor, if you are not willing to share medical information with her....since that is sort of her job, to know your medical history.  Call me what you like, and keep that appeal to authority nit pick rolling.

[Pat]

  Sounds to me like you need a new doctor, if you are not willing to share medical information with her....since that is sort of her job, to know your medical history.  Call me what you like, and keep that appeal to authority nit pick rolling.

Your opinion about my personal decisions and relationships is completely unwelcome, you vile little creep.

And if your definition of appeal to authority is that textbooks and specialized knowledge shouldn't exist, that's pretty stupid.

[oggsmash]

  Sounds to me like you need a new doctor, if you are not willing to share medical information with her....since that is sort of her job, to know your medical history.  Call me what you like, and keep that appeal to authority nit pick rolling.

Your opinion about my personal decisions and relationships is completely unwelcome, you vile little creep.

And if your definition of appeal to authority is that textbooks and specialized knowledge shouldn't exist, that's pretty stupid.

  It is not that it shouldn't exist, but that is was invoked to pretend something they always meant one way "REALLY" always was meant "THIS" way.    I am sure everyone here thinks a dude who doesn't tell his personal doctor his medical history and decisions is 100 percent normal.  So you might be projecting a bit with a creep label.

[Pat]

  Sounds to me like you need a new doctor, if you are not willing to share medical information with her....since that is sort of her job, to know your medical history.  Call me what you like, and keep that appeal to authority nit pick rolling.

Your opinion about my personal decisions and relationships is completely unwelcome, you vile little creep.

And if your definition of appeal to authority is that textbooks and specialized knowledge shouldn't exist, that's pretty stupid.

  It is not that it shouldn't exist, but that is was invoked to pretend something they always meant one way "REALLY" always was meant "THIS" way.    I am sure everyone here thinks a dude who doesn't tell his personal doctor his medical history and decisions is 100 percent normal.  So you might be projecting a bit with a creep label.

It always was that way.

You're disgusting piece of smegma, who asked for a bit of personal information I did not volunteer, but which I reluctantly shared in the spirit of good faith, and then you called me a liar and you're continuing to use it to attack me at a personal level, along with making wild suppositions and assumptions about who I am and what I believe that are just false. You're a worthless excuse for a human being.

[oggsmash]

  Sounds to me like you need a new doctor, if you are not willing to share medical information with her....since that is sort of her job, to know your medical history.  Call me what you like, and keep that appeal to authority nit pick rolling.

Your opinion about my personal decisions and relationships is completely unwelcome, you vile little creep.

And if your definition of appeal to authority is that textbooks and specialized knowledge shouldn't exist, that's pretty stupid.

  It is not that it shouldn't exist, but that is was invoked to pretend something they always meant one way "REALLY" always was meant "THIS" way.    I am sure everyone here thinks a dude who doesn't tell his personal doctor his medical history and decisions is 100 percent normal.  So you might be projecting a bit with a creep label.

It always was that way.

You're disgusting piece of smegma, who asked for a bit of personal information I did not volunteer, but which I reluctantly shared in the spirit of good faith, and then you called me a liar and you're continuing to use it to attack me at a personal level, along with making wild suppositions and assumptions about who I am and what I believe that are just false. You're a worthless excuse for a human being.

  It was not the definition used to promote vaccines in the public sphere.  I am not attacking you, saying you would not tell your personal doctor your personal medical history sounds like bullshit to every reasonable person.  You explained how it was a true story, and I think it is weird as hell to not share personal medical history with your personal doctor (the person who has, keeps, and updates your medical records), but hey, maybe I am the odd man out and everyone does that.  If this sort of thing puts me as a worthless human being, I feel a little sorry for you.