Give us money – a con.
Think of the children! (Except when we’re aborting them).
Give us money – a con.
Think of the children! (Except when we’re aborting them).
They aren’t soft, they’re tyrants in pacifist’s clothing.
See how Fash Britannia got shut down recently.
I’m going on holiday for a week to be fresh and fancy for the referendum.
Don’t panic. Grasp your towels firmly.
Completely ignores all the vaccine reaction and damage cases but fine.
There was a study of mothers and their vaccine attitude, the rejecting mothers had higher average IQ. It was a minor point mentioned once.
The lower IQ tend to take all available medicines because they’re free or cheap and they trust the doctors.
The smarter people say “why should I risk my child for yours”?
And there is no rationally valid answer to this.
Doctors make mistakes.
It all comes down to emotional appeal.
The phrasing of ‘vaccine rejection’ implies they are the default. In medicine, there is no default treatment.
Every treatment must be tailored to the patient, and if there’s nothing wrong with them in the first place, there is no medical need for a treatment. Due to the legal protections of the companies and doctors’ kickbacks dispensing these vaccines, and the secrecy and fraud of medical research, there is a seriously imbalanced power dynamic. They’d hold down these kids screaming if they could get away with it. Would violating an adult’s body be treated so leniently by the law? Do children not have human rights?
There are many counter-indicators for vaccination, and this is what the parents reference.
For example, a history of chemical reactions and vaccine damage in the family point to a genetic vulnerability, unstudied. No amount of words is going to alter that.
Pregnancy is another one but sure, get the flu jab!
As covered previously, the ‘herd immunity’ hypothesis has been demonstrated as false. They are seriously suggesting 100% of people get them. Who TF are they protecting? Oh, but there’s a tiny asterisk to it – all who can get it.
Technically, we can all get it.
This is an is/ought problem. You can get it, but that doesn’t change the true Q: should you?
If Parent B’s kid dies, it isn’t Parent A’s fault. It is Parent A for putting them in the contaminating situation (if knowingly) and the Doctors’ faults for failing to treat it (AKA their job).
Shifting the blame makes them look impotent.
It is a parent’s obligation to protect their child. Their own. Beyond that, the responsibility ends. I am no more responsible for some random person in Africa than they are for me.
Nobody else has this duty to the individual child. Not the doctors, the manufacturers, the researchers or the lawmakers.
Naturally there will be a big T-rex size bone of contention.
Ad hominem along the lines of stupid all the way up to evil just makes the ‘professionals’ look like they don’t know what they’re doing, and confidence drops further. When they refuse to do a double-blind 50:50 split longitudinal study with placebos, who would trust them? They say it’s unethical but look at who’s talking – they’ve
bribed finagled it so they, a company, cannot be sued. They are not negligent legally and can maintain secrecy for withdrawn vaccines (the reasons), for example. The manufacture and testing procedure for vaccines does not follow the scientific method, so it is not scientific. They dodge the law and ideally, their service rendered is unnecessary.
None of these facts is accounted for in ‘soothing’ discussions.
The risk is taken onto the child using the parent’s ignorance. Because let’s face it, you’re going in blind.
There is a sin of omission argument they are trying to use.
Refusing an unnecessary chemical intervention is not a sin.
And who gets to decide who is worthy of the herd immunity protection? Who really deserves to be exempt?
Because that’s the real judgement they’re making, isn’t it?
‘Your healthy child isn’t worthy of this protection.
In my opinion, the risk of their pain and lifelong suffering is worth sparing this other, already-diseased child/adult.’
Forgive me for not killing/hurting MY (hypothetical) child so some deranged pozzed pig can fuck around at orgies a few more years before ODing.
It isn’t part-time.
It isn’t 4 hours a week.
It’s a mindset that plagues you every waking hour.
This guy should be famous in redpill self-improvement circles. (Well, I guess they want a part-time get rich quick scheme some of them but the rest of them yes).
This guy needs to be famous. He isn’t a household name because he tells the truth. It is hard. It takes decades of work. In convenience culture, this cannot be true to us, we feel. And when you GET there…
I’ve had that. Be nice to nice people, gracious to gracious people and so on, treat as you find, but the bulk of messages you get from weak connections will be chancers, the exceptions. The two main types of user are casual and malignant.
The best response to the fake nice shirty ones trying it on casually is actually;
I was working every single time you were out having fun. You got memories, I got paid. That’s the price of success and why by now you’ll never be able to catch up to me. But sure, ‘luck’, it was also luck I got better grades than you too, huh?
The reformed bullies are funniest. It’s like a script. Don’t think it’s about you, hence I’m posting the generic script.
Hey, remember me? (they’ll mention where they sat in a class) Listen I’m so sorry about (awful things I did) I was just a kid and I’m really ashamed of it now and I’d like to make amends and I saw (successful thing you’re doing) and I wanted (contact, connection, time, free stuff), it’s (compliments, often back-handed, like allusions ‘luck’) and I’d like to be friends.
The bolded phrase is the entire reason for their correspondence. If their sweet nothings are so good or you make an excuse they really mean it (that’s your vanity talking) say you forgive them but you don’t want them to contact you again. Oh, they’ll contact you again. Bullies can’t stand the victim taking control away. A sincere person would not reply, not even to snidely infer you’ll be sorry (I hope you can find it in your heart….)
It’s like, honestly? You think I’m stupid? Do I have doormat stamped on my forehead? I want you to fuck off and die you abusive piece of shit, you set the terms and chose to start on me. How dare you try and patch this over and further screw me now I’m finally out of school and your clutches. That’s a healthy response to abuse, you are not a bad person for it.
However, if you ignore them, read their messages but resist the urge to reply (reply to a designated vent friend), the mask usually comes off again. Something like…
OMG you’re so ungrateful, (what did they do?) you were always such a (spoiled brat) that’s why nobody liked you and (achieving thing) doesn’t matter because you’ll always be a loser to us.
They still think you care what they think. Just reply: Grow up.
Block them. Done.
When someone’s first impulse is to use you, and emotionally blackmail you with things they have done? That is a sociopath. 1 in 50. They are immature and the best response is to outclass them.
Because there’s a wrong way to do things and we need to defend it.
“Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade.” [DS: good]
“Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views.” [ehh, sorta]
“Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. [that’s poor reasoning and should be discounted from pure theory]
Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion … favour conclusions for which arguments can be found.”