Anti-Vaxxers Take Online Harassments To Real World

[The Black Forrest]

Hmmm? For a highly contagious and yet preventable disease.....How?

I don’t think you really fear any particular unvaccinated individual, and I know how to test it.

Actually more then you think.

When my kid was little; there was a hispanic family who lived a few houses down. Not much in the way for money. There were good to my kid so they played a great deal.

One day one of the girls was missing. We enquired and heard she was sick enough to go to the emergency room. The first thought? Meningitis. Luckily it wasn’t.

Obviously there isn’t a vaccine for it. It opened my eyes about medical care access and vaccines.

[Galloism]

I don’t think you really fear any particular unvaccinated individual, and I know how to test it.

Actually more then you think.

When my kid was little; there was a hispanic family who lived a few houses down. Not much in the way for money. There were good to my kid so they played a great deal.

One day one of the girls was missing. We enquired and heard she was sick enough to go to the emergency room. The first thought? Meningitis. Luckily it wasn’t.

Obviously there isn’t a vaccine for it. It opened my eyes about medical care access and vaccines.

Ok. A kid moves in next door that is immunocompromised in such a way they can’t be vaccinated. Should they be quarantined away from society?

And before you answer, they are actually more dangerous than the idiot who just chooses not to get vaccinated - both being unvaccinated and more likely to get sick anyway due to their immunocompromised state.

[The Black Forrest]

Actually more then you think.

When my kid was little; there was a hispanic family who lived a few houses down. Not much in the way for money. There were good to my kid so they played a great deal.

One day one of the girls was missing. We enquired and heard she was sick enough to go to the emergency room. The first thought? Meningitis. Luckily it wasn’t.

Obviously there isn’t a vaccine for it. It opened my eyes about medical care access and vaccines.

Ok. A kid moves in next door that is immunocompromised in such a way they can’t be vaccinated. Should they be quarantined away from society?

And before you answer, they are actually more dangerous than the idiot who just chooses not to get vaccinated - both being unvaccinated and more likely to get sick anyway due to their immunocompromised state.

As you can say in the age of Trump; idiocy is highly contagious and there isn’t a vaccine for it.

The problem is there isn’t just one case, it grows as seen in Samoa.

I vaccinate and am not afraid. I used to travel for business and wen into areas where you would be stupid not to.

The problem is your rights not to vaccinate don’t over rule those who have no choice.

Recently a woman with a child has crones disease; put out a message about vaccinating and the anti-vax crowd trolled her and gave her death threats.

Not exactly a message about why I should care about rights being violated.

[Galloism]

Ok. A kid moves in next door that is immunocompromised in such a way they can’t be vaccinated. Should they be quarantined away from society?

And before you answer, they are actually more dangerous than the idiot who just chooses not to get vaccinated - both being unvaccinated and more likely to get sick anyway due to their immunocompromised state.

As you can say in the age of Trump; idiocy is highly contagious and there isn’t a vaccine for it.

The problem is there isn’t just one case, it grows as seen in Samoa.

I vaccinate and am not afraid. I used to travel for business and wen into areas where you would be stupid not to.

The problem is your rights not to vaccinate don’t over rule those who have no choice.

Recently a woman with a child has crones disease; put out a message about vaccinating and the anti-vax crowd trolled her and gave her death threats.

Not exactly a message about why I should care about rights being violated.

That’s not really the point though is it.

You proposed quarantining (you used the term segregate) earlier those who chose not to get vaccinated to protect the public at large. If it was really about protecting the public at large, you’d also propose quarantining those who have no choice.

We do not discriminate between those who do not pass the driving test because they refuse to learn vs those who are mentally unable to learn. Because protecting the public at large means that it doesn’t matter the reasoning - only that they are a hazard and we can’t have them being a hazard.

But we don’t do that with vaccines do we?

Regarding travel, you choose to travel, just as idiots choose not to get vaccinated. You are both a disease vector. Why is your choice worthy of being permitted, but theirs not?

[Novus America]

As you can say in the age of Trump; idiocy is highly contagious and there isn’t a vaccine for it.

The problem is there isn’t just one case, it grows as seen in Samoa.

I vaccinate and am not afraid. I used to travel for business and wen into areas where you would be stupid not to.

The problem is your rights not to vaccinate don’t over rule those who have no choice.

Recently a woman with a child has crones disease; put out a message about vaccinating and the anti-vax crowd trolled her and gave her death threats.

Not exactly a message about why I should care about rights being violated.

That’s not really the point though is it.

You proposed quarantining (you used the term segregate) earlier those who chose not to get vaccinated to protect the public at large. If it was really about protecting the public at large, you’d also propose quarantining those who have no choice.

We do not discriminate between those who do not pass the driving test because they refuse to learn vs those who are mentally unable to learn. Because protecting the public at large means that it doesn’t matter the reasoning - only that they are a hazard and we can’t have them being a hazard.

But we don’t do that with vaccines do we?

Regarding travel, you choose to travel, just as idiots choose not to get vaccinated. You are both a disease vector. Why is your choice worthy of being permitted, but theirs not?

We do attempt to give people reasonable accommodations for things outside their control. For example there are specially modified cars that can be driven without foot pedals for those with disabilities.

On travel sure everyone is a potential vector for some diseases, but if can and should have the duty to reduce the number of diseases you can be a vector for.

Anyone driving is a danger, but we still prohibit drunk driving because it poses a higher risk than sober driving.

And we have legal precedent. We already require vaccinations to get a Green Card or attend public schools.

[Galloism]

That’s not really the point though is it.

You proposed quarantining (you used the term segregate) earlier those who chose not to get vaccinated to protect the public at large. If it was really about protecting the public at large, you’d also propose quarantining those who have no choice.

We do not discriminate between those who do not pass the driving test because they refuse to learn vs those who are mentally unable to learn. Because protecting the public at large means that it doesn’t matter the reasoning - only that they are a hazard and we can’t have them being a hazard.

But we don’t do that with vaccines do we?

Regarding travel, you choose to travel, just as idiots choose not to get vaccinated. You are both a disease vector. Why is your choice worthy of being permitted, but theirs not?

We do attempt to give people reasonable accommodations for things outside their control. For example there are specially modified cars that can be driven without foot pedals for those with disabilities.

Indeed, which they use when they must demonstrate they can pass the minimum driving requirements with those accommodations. We don’t lower the driving requirements for them.

On travel sure everyone is a potential vector for some diseases, but if can and should have the duty to reduce the number of diseases you can be a vector for.

Best way? Stay home.

Anyone driving is a danger, but we still prohibit drunk driving because it poses a higher risk than sober driving.

Indeed, and we don’t make exceptions for those taking medicines they have to take to live if it produces similar impaired effects. We bar them from driving, even though the impairment is not their fault.

And we have legal precedent. We already require vaccinations to get a Green Card or attend public schools.

To use certain government functions, yes. To put in concentration camps, no.

[Novus America]

We do attempt to give people reasonable accommodations for things outside their control. For example there are specially modified cars that can be driven without foot pedals for those with disabilities.

Indeed, which they use when they must demonstrate they can pass the minimum driving requirements with those accommodations. We don’t lower the driving requirements for them.

On travel sure everyone is a potential vector for some diseases, but if can and should have the duty to reduce the number of diseases you can be a vector for.

Best way? Stay home.

Anyone driving is a danger, but we still prohibit drunk driving because it poses a higher risk than sober driving.

Indeed, and we don’t make exceptions for those taking medicines they have to take to live if it produces similar impaired effects. We bar them from driving, even though the impairment is not their fault.

And we have legal precedent. We already require vaccinations to get a Green Card or attend public schools.

To use certain government functions, yes. To put in concentration camps, no.

Although the best way may be to stay home, that would apply to driving too. It is not an all or nothing proposition. We do not require nobody drive just because all driving is risky but we do require steps be taken to reduce risk.

But yes. I agree it is not grounds to put people in camps, but it is grounds to limit their access to certain government facilities, benefits and privileges. And we can use that.

[Gormwood]

It’s interesting to note there appear to be large gender effects to this movement.

The OP mentioned a group of women in the incident in question, but it’s even true more generally:

https://www.sciencealert.com/anti-vaxxe ... y-theories

The pages analysed were Fans of the AVN, Dr. Tenpenny on Vaccines, Great Mothers (and Others) Questioning Vaccines, No Vaccines Australia, Age of Autism, and Rage Against the Vaccines.

In total, these pages had 231,491 Likes at the time the study was carried out (December 2015).

By scraping three years' worth of data, the researchers found that most of the page followers had only liked posts once or twice – the vast majority of the online activity was generated by a smaller group of people. Commenting activity also suggested most users were transient or just occasionally passing through the pages.

Using first names as a rough guide to gender, the study found an average of a 1:3 male to female ratio in terms of users following these pages. In terms of the most active users, men were even more outnumbered.

Meanwhile, using a maths modelling approach known as the Latent Dirichlet allocation, the researchers also picked out the most common topics on these boards: activism, governance, media and censorship, and vaccination as genocide all scored highly.

So what's exactly the point of highlighting the gender composition of audience for the anti-vaxxer websites? I could swear you're implying feminism contributed to the resurgence of measles.

[Senkaku]

As you can say in the age of Trump; idiocy is highly contagious and there isn’t a vaccine for it.

The problem is there isn’t just one case, it grows as seen in Samoa.

I vaccinate and am not afraid. I used to travel for business and wen into areas where you would be stupid not to.

The problem is your rights not to vaccinate don’t over rule those who have no choice.

Recently a woman with a child has crones disease; put out a message about vaccinating and the anti-vax crowd trolled her and gave her death threats.

Not exactly a message about why I should care about rights being violated.

That’s not really the point though is it.

You proposed quarantining (you used the term segregate) earlier those who chose not to get vaccinated to protect the public at large. If it was really about protecting the public at large, you’d also propose quarantining those who have no choice.

This is nonsense- the point of suppressing anti-vaxxers (quarantine, jail, fines, forced injections, whatever method) is to protect immunocompromised people who can't be vaccinated and therefore need the rest of us to protect them and provide them with herd immunity. Suggesting that people who are against anti-vaxxers are also against them is completely wrong-headed nonsense that enables their ignorant, deadly criminality. We're trying to protect them from antivaxxers.

We do not discriminate between those who do not pass the driving test because they refuse to learn vs those who are mentally unable to learn. Because protecting the public at large means that it doesn’t matter the reasoning - only that they are a hazard and we can’t have them being a hazard.

Immunocompromised people are the public we're trying to protect. Healthy people should all be vaccinated so they don't need any protection from immunocompromised people, because those people will benefit from the herd immunity the rest of us provide.

But we don’t do that with vaccines do we?

No, because the two situations are entirely different and it's a fucking retarded analogy, as I've illustrated.

[Senkaku]

It’s interesting to note there appear to be large gender effects to this movement.

The OP mentioned a group of women in the incident in question, but it’s even true more generally:

https://www.sciencealert.com/anti-vaxxe ... y-theories

So what's exactly the point of highlighting the gender composition of audience for the anti-vaxxer websites? I could swear you're implying feminism contributed to the resurgence of measles.

Women are dumber/more superstitious than men and thus causing the plague but word it so you can say it's ridiculous anyone would suggest that's what you're saying and you're just noting it bc it's """interesting""" and then wait as they go read more explicit/radical takes by more extremist posters and go progressively further down the metaphorical YouTube autoplay feed of extremist anti-feminism, every forum needs its own innocuous taster/intro to the process

[Totenborg]

It’s interesting to note there appear to be large gender effects to this movement.

The OP mentioned a group of women in the incident in question, but it’s even true more generally:

https://www.sciencealert.com/anti-vaxxe ... y-theories

So what's exactly the point of highlighting the gender composition of audience for the anti-vaxxer websites? I could swear you're implying feminism contributed to the resurgence of measles.

Of course he is. As far as I can tell, he thinks feminism is the source of all the world's woes.

[Kowani]

Ah, scientific ignorance.

[American Pere Housh]

I'm a conservative here and I think they are a bunch of dumbasses but they can say whatever they want as long they keep it peaceful. Best thing to do is ignore them and they will go away.

[Galloism]

Indeed, which they use when they must demonstrate they can pass the minimum driving requirements with those accommodations. We don’t lower the driving requirements for them.



Best way? Stay home.



Indeed, and we don’t make exceptions for those taking medicines they have to take to live if it produces similar impaired effects. We bar them from driving, even though the impairment is not their fault.



To use certain government functions, yes. To put in concentration camps, no.

Although the best way may be to stay home, that would apply to driving too. It is not an all or nothing proposition. We do not require nobody drive just because all driving is risky but we do require steps be taken to reduce risk.

Indeed, but that metric has nothing to do with the person’s control over that risk, just the level of it.

But yes. I agree it is not grounds to put people in camps, but it is grounds to limit their access to certain government facilities, benefits and privileges. And we can use that.

That’s plausible.

[Galloism]

That’s not really the point though is it.

You proposed quarantining (you used the term segregate) earlier those who chose not to get vaccinated to protect the public at large. If it was really about protecting the public at large, you’d also propose quarantining those who have no choice.

This is nonsense- the point of suppressing anti-vaxxers (quarantine, jail, fines, forced injections, whatever method) is to protect immunocompromised people who can't be vaccinated and therefore need the rest of us to protect them and provide them with herd immunity. Suggesting that people who are against anti-vaxxers are also against them is completely wrong-headed nonsense that enables their ignorant, deadly criminality. We're trying to protect them from antivaxxers.

So it has nothing to do with protecting the public at large, but only a very small percentage that is immunocompromised? Sure that’s the route you want to go?

[Galloism]

It’s interesting to note there appear to be large gender effects to this movement.

The OP mentioned a group of women in the incident in question, but it’s even true more generally:

https://www.sciencealert.com/anti-vaxxe ... y-theories

So what's exactly the point of highlighting the gender composition of audience for the anti-vaxxer websites? I could swear you're implying feminism contributed to the resurgence of measles.

Not really. Just pointing out the OP isn’t really an anomaly.

You against science?

So what's exactly the point of highlighting the gender composition of audience for the anti-vaxxer websites? I could swear you're implying feminism contributed to the resurgence of measles.

Women are dumber/more superstitious than men and thus causing the plague but word it so you can say it's ridiculous anyone would suggest that's what you're saying and you're just noting it bc it's """interesting""" and then wait as they go read more explicit/radical takes by more extremist posters and go progressively further down the metaphorical YouTube autoplay feed of extremist anti-feminism, every forum needs its own innocuous taster/intro to the process

Strangely, not a reaction you see when people assert confidently that men commit the majority of the crime and stuff like that.

Always interesting to run tests on NS.

[Gormwood]

So what's exactly the point of highlighting the gender composition of audience for the anti-vaxxer websites? I could swear you're implying feminism contributed to the resurgence of measles.

Not really. Just pointing out the OP isn’t really an anomaly.

You against science?

"More women than men are members of anti-vaxx websites." What's the science involved here?

[Galloism]

Not really. Just pointing out the OP isn’t really an anomaly.

You against science?

"More women than men are members of anti-vaxx websites." What's the science involved here?

It’s always interesting to see the composition of various movements.

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

What kind of religion is anti-vax?
Anti-vaxxism I guess?

Not really so much entire religions as are just certain sects of some religions.

Some Christian sects think that vaccines are like playing God, or don't do vaccines because of the usage of fetal tissue in vaccine development. I think there's a couple of Muslim and Orthodox Jewish sects who have the same views. Then there's some weird New-Agey types who believe diseases are caused by chakra imbalances or something

You can read more here on Wikipedia.

The natural end to that is everyone ditching tools and becoming hunter gatherers

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

The alternative is segragating anti-vaxxers from the general population. Is that better ?

Well we do not have to force it per se. Not jail people or hold them down while we stick them. We we can and should do is make it a requirement to use certain government services, benefits and privileges.

We already mandate them to attend public schools and to get a green card. We should also mandate them to get a driver’s license, any ID legal to used for air travel or other interstate transportation, to get a passport, to work any government job, to use polling places. Require the transportation, hotel, food service and retail industries to require their employees who deal with the public be vaccinated. Things like that.

And eliminate non health related exemptions.

That way if the real loons want to avoid vaccines fine, but we have limited their ability to spread their diseases.

Polling might not be a great idea ...


“Suppression”

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

As you can say in the age of Trump; idiocy is highly contagious and there isn’t a vaccine for it.

The problem is there isn’t just one case, it grows as seen in Samoa.

I vaccinate and am not afraid. I used to travel for business and wen into areas where you would be stupid not to.

The problem is your rights not to vaccinate don’t over rule those who have no choice.

Recently a woman with a child has crones disease; put out a message about vaccinating and the anti-vax crowd trolled her and gave her death threats.

Not exactly a message about why I should care about rights being violated.

That’s not really the point though is it.

You proposed quarantining (you used the term segregate) earlier those who chose not to get vaccinated to protect the public at large. If it was really about protecting the public at large, you’d also propose quarantining those who have no choice.

We do not discriminate between those who do not pass the driving test because they refuse to learn vs those who are mentally unable to learn. Because protecting the public at large means that it doesn’t matter the reasoning - only that they are a hazard and we can’t have them being a hazard.

But we don’t do that with vaccines do we?

Regarding travel, you choose to travel, just as idiots choose not to get vaccinated. You are both a disease vector. Why is your choice worthy of being permitted, but theirs not?

Some are forced into being unable to get vaccinated, others choose so.

[Galloism]

That’s not really the point though is it.

You proposed quarantining (you used the term segregate) earlier those who chose not to get vaccinated to protect the public at large. If it was really about protecting the public at large, you’d also propose quarantining those who have no choice.

We do not discriminate between those who do not pass the driving test because they refuse to learn vs those who are mentally unable to learn. Because protecting the public at large means that it doesn’t matter the reasoning - only that they are a hazard and we can’t have them being a hazard.

But we don’t do that with vaccines do we?

Regarding travel, you choose to travel, just as idiots choose not to get vaccinated. You are both a disease vector. Why is your choice worthy of being permitted, but theirs not?

Some are forced into being unable to get vaccinated, others choose so.

Yes. So?

If it’s about risk, so what?

[The Black Forrest]

Some are forced into being unable to get vaccinated, others choose so.

Yes. So?

If it’s about risk, so what?

For your freedom; we have the return of an eradicated disease. For your freedom we are seeing the growth of other diseases. For your freedom we have seen the death of some who couldn’t get treatment. For your freedom, we see the effects on medical and insurance costs.

[Galloism]

Yes. So?

If it’s about risk, so what?

For your freedom; we have the return of an eradicated disease. For your freedom we are seeing the growth of other diseases. For your freedom we have seen the death of some who couldn’t get treatment. For your freedom, we see the effects on medical and insurance costs.

Yes.

Many of these are also true of your freedom to eat Burger King, or not hit the gym. Or freedom to fly overseas.

Freedom always comes with a blood price. The question is how much are we willing to pay for it. Sometimes the price is low, as is here, sometimes it’s high, as in prohibiting drunken driving.

[Sapporo Hyperspace Riftgate Laboratory]

This is the very reason I am an authoritarian. I don't want those cyka-blyats no-goodniks spreading their falsehoods.