Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Flu ShotFollow

#1 Oct 09 2014 at 4:53 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
So we recently had a thread about parents choosing not to immunize their children for religious beliefs and what not. Today on Facebook, a celebrity wannabe posed a question about whether they receive the flu shot. A number of their responses indicated that there is a governmental conspiracy with shots. I've never heard such nonsense. Has this always been part of the anti-flu shot movement?
#2 Oct 09 2014 at 6:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I think that's less anti-vax pseudo-health Jenny McCarthy nonsense and more just part of the general "Government is out to get you" Jesse Ventura tinfoil hattery along with chemtrails, fluoridated water and scalar waves. Smiley: tinfoilhat

The former erroneously believes that ingredients in the vaccine cause autism or other issues. The latter insanely believes the government makes you get vaccinated so they can covertly inject tracking implants into you or similar nonsense.

Edited, Oct 9th 2014 7:10pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Oct 09 2014 at 6:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
That reminds me I should figure out where they're giving them away this year and go get one already.

Jophiel wrote:
The latter insanely believes the government makes you get vaccinated so they can covertly inject tracking implants into you or similar nonsense.
Pftt, as if they'd need to do that. Those one's that go through in the childhood injection series are good for 70 years on average, and after that point who cares what you do?

But yeah, the conspiracy theory thing has been around. Wonder if all the NSA stuff just made it more common as of late.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4 Oct 09 2014 at 8:15 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
I honestly did not realize that so many people honestly believe that the government is out to get them. I think part of it is our culture's high sense of self worth. These people are as about as average as they can get at best.
#5 Oct 10 2014 at 7:03 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
The latter insanely believes the government makes you get vaccinated so they can covertly inject tracking implants into you or similar nonsense.

The amazing part about this sensibility, and it's pretty pervasive among terrified of everything conservatives, is the idea that anyone really gives enough of a **** about Jimmy Wilson from Great Falls Idaho that they'd want to be able to track him.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#6 Oct 10 2014 at 7:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
The amazing part about this sensibility, and it's pretty pervasive among terrified of everything conservatives

You mean that the same people who make "Visit my website so I can tell you what FEMA doesn't want you to know, before they shut me down..." commercials profitable on AM talk radio also believe in government vaccine tracking implants? I just can't believe that...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Oct 10 2014 at 7:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
The latter insanely believes the government makes you get vaccinated so they can covertly inject tracking implants into you or similar nonsense.

The amazing part about this sensibility, and it's pretty pervasive among terrified of everything conservatives, is the idea that anyone really gives enough of a **** about Jimmy Wilson from Great Falls Idaho that they'd want to be able to track him.


Yeah, and they already track him via cell phone. That's just government bloat!
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#8 Oct 10 2014 at 7:47 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
If you know what Jimmy Wilson was up to, you'd want as many ways as possible to track him too.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#9 Oct 10 2014 at 6:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
The latter insanely believes the government makes you get vaccinated so they can covertly inject tracking implants into you or similar nonsense.

The amazing part about this sensibility, and it's pretty pervasive among terrified of everything conservatives, is the idea that anyone really gives enough of a **** about Jimmy Wilson from Great Falls Idaho that they'd want to be able to track him.


It's presumably pretty pervasive among terrified of everything liberals too though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#10 Oct 10 2014 at 6:54 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
It's presumably pretty pervasive among terrified of everything liberals too though.

It doesn't really skew that way. Liberals are a coalition of poor people who realize they are poor and optimists. Conservatives are a coalition of poor people who don't realize they are poor and quivering terrified cowards.

Both coalitions have weaknesses, of course. Just different ones. Liberals would insist on screening children and 90 year old's on their first flight equally with guys from Yemen who came to study flying and explosives. Which is idiotic. Conservatives are abjectly terrified of everything.

There isn't a conservative position that can't be trivially put in terms of "We are afraid of...." and there probably isn't a liberal one that can't be phrased as "We hope that..." It's the fundamental difference between the philosophies.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#11 Oct 10 2014 at 7:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
That's great, but among the subset of liberals who are terrified of everything, the idea that anyone really gives enough of a **** about Jimmy Wilson from Great Falls Idaho that they'd want to be able to track him is presumably pretty persuasive, right? I'm just pointing out that you kinda caveated yourself into irrelevance with your statement. Not that I'm not a card carrying member of the caveat club myself, mind you, but your statement was the equivalent of saying "conservatives who are afraid of animals tend not to own pets".


Um... But outside of the caveat (and following the implication instead), I'm not sure if the overall percentage of conservatives concerned about the government spying on them is significantly different than the percentage of liberals who are. There sure seemed to be a lot of "OMG the NSA is engaging in unlawful warrantless wiretaps!" by liberals when Bush was in office. Now, I'll grant you that liberals are more likely to only care about (or pretend to care about) something when it's politically advantageous to do so, but certainly some percentage of the outraged liberals really did believe that the NSA (and other data mining type operations) were a concern.


Also (and more recently),I think that the reactions from Left and Right to Snowden suggests that it's not as simple as political alignment.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12 Oct 10 2014 at 8:05 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbjai wrote:
I'm not sure if the overall percentage of conservatives concerned about the government spying on them is significantly different than the percentage of liberals who are.
....
Also (and more recently),I think that the reactions from Left and Right to Snowden suggests that it's not as simple as political alignment.


While the Snowden case did cross political lines, that was more of a "personal space" violation concern. Based on the general dislike of big government from the right, I would logically argue that more conservatives fear big government take over/conspiracy nonsense than liberals. That's not to say that there aren't liberals who aren't scared either, it's just difficult to promote things like a single payer health care system from the government if you think the government is injecting you with mind control fluids.
#13 Oct 10 2014 at 8:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
There isn't a conservative position that can't be trivially put in terms of "We are afraid of...." and there probably isn't a liberal one that can't be phrased as "We hope that..." It's the fundamental difference between the philosophies.


Oh. And, just to shock you a bit, I actually agree with this. This is really just a different way of expressing the differences in practical mindset between classical and social liberalism. Conservatives (classical liberalism) assume that those with power over others will inevitably use it to their own benefit at the expense of the others liberty and thus we should minimize the degree to which power can be concentrated and install mechanisms to balance power within the system so as to minimize the negative impact on liberty. Liberals (social liberalism) assume that if they can get the right group of really smart people in a room and give them as much power as possible, those people will use the power correctly and to the benefit of everyone else, so they work to break down limits on power when they believe that such limits inhibit the ability of the "right people" to use it to benefit the whole.


So yeah. Conservatives fear power held in too few hands, while liberals hope that power in a few hands will be used wisely. I happen to think that liberals are naive fools in this regard, but that's obviously just my opinion.

Edited, Oct 10th 2014 7:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Oct 10 2014 at 8:11 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
There isn't a conservative position that can't be trivially put in terms of "We are afraid of...." and there probably isn't a liberal one that can't be phrased as "We hope that..." It's the fundamental difference between the philosophies.


Oh. And, just to shock you a bit, I actually agree with this. This is really just a different way of expressing the differences in practical mindset between classical and social liberalism. Conservatives (classical liberalism) assume that those with power over others will inevitably use it to their benefit at the expense of the others liberty and thus we should minimize the degree to which power can be concentrated and install mechanisms to balance power within the system so as to minimize the negative impact on liberty. Liberals (social liberalism) assume that if they can get the right group of really smart people in a room and give them as much power as possible, those people will use the power correctly and to the benefit of everyone else, so they work to break down limits on power when they believe that such limits inhibit the ability of the "right people" to use it to benefit the whole.


So yeah. Conservatives fear power held in too few hands, while liberals hope that power in a few hands will be used wisely. I happen to think that liberals are naive fools in this regard, but that's obviously just my opinion.


You really like looking at conservatives through rose-tinted glasses, don't you? Conservatives "small limited government" really translates into "government filled with people I agree with that hold my values". Don't try to pretend otherwise.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#15 Oct 10 2014 at 8:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Oh. And at the risk of touching on the OP, I admit to not spending a ton of time on conspiracy sites, but "government will inject you with a tracker" seems kinda fringe and not remotely what most folks advocating against taking flu shots are talking about. Most of them talk about the statistically small likelihood that a flu shot will actually prevent you from getting a flu versus the statistical odds that taking that flu shot may result in increased risks to your health in some other way. And frankly, the most common "conspiracy" component is Big Pharma making itself rich by essentially creating a guaranteed government subsidized revenue stream out of a product that is maybe effective, some times, for some people. Maybe.


And that's a conspiracy angle that tends to be more likely to come from the Left than from the Right. I just think that most conservatives who choose not to take a flu shot are acting more on a "why inject myself with something, even if the negative effects are really small and unlikely, if the positive effects are also pretty low and unlikely?" It's less "OMG! Conspiracy!!!!" as "Meh? I'll pass". I'd guess that Liberals who choose not to take a flu shot are much more likely to do so for some kind of conspiratorial reason. Maybe I'm wrong though. Never know. It's not like this is an issue that keeps me up at night or anything.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Oct 10 2014 at 8:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
TirithRR wrote:
You really like looking at conservatives through rose-tinted glasses, don't you? Conservatives "small limited government" really translates into "government filled with people I agree with that hold my values".


That's interesting (and perhaps projection?), given that the entire rationale behind "small limited government" for conservatives is based on the assumption that said government may not be filled with people they agree with and who hold their values (technically, it's the realization that it can't possibly be filled with people who agree with and hold the value of all the people, but that's more rose tinted stuff I suppose). Liberals are the ones who support or oppose government power based on whether those wielding it are like them.

Quote:
Don't try to pretend otherwise.


I'm not pretending. The point is that if you have small limited government, then it's not as harmful if said government is filled with people who don't agree with you and don't hold your values. So, logically, the side fighting for small limited government isn't as concerned about whether that government agrees with them than the side that wants big powerful government. Funny that you seem to view this the other way around.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#17 Oct 10 2014 at 8:28 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
You really like looking at conservatives through rose-tinted glasses, don't you? Conservatives "small limited government" really translates into "government filled with people I agree with that hold my values".


That's interesting (and perhaps projection?), given that the entire rationale behind "small limited government" for conservatives is based on the assumption that said government may not be filled with people they agree with and who hold their values.


Exactly my point. The "Small limited government" shtick is a lie.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#18 Oct 10 2014 at 8:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
You really like looking at conservatives through rose-tinted glasses, don't you? Conservatives "small limited government" really translates into "government filled with people I agree with that hold my values".


That's interesting (and perhaps projection?), given that the entire rationale behind "small limited government" for conservatives is based on the assumption that said government may not be filled with people they agree with and who hold their values.


Exactly my point. The "Small limited government" shtick is a lie.


I'm not sure where you think there's a lie in there. If I want to live in a society that is not run by a government that does things I don't like, the best way to accomplish this is to minimize the size and power of the government. Period. What you seem to be missing is that this doesn't just benefit one group of people at the expense of another. It benefits all of us. If there are 10 different groups of people, representing 10 different sets of values, and we assume that the government will only ever act in a way that perfectly corresponds to the values of one of those groups, then 90% of the people in the society are suffering with a government that is doing things they don't agree with. All the time. There are only two ways to resolve this problem:


1. Force the other 9 groups to all adopt your own values and ensure that the government acts in alignment with those values, usually by granting the government vast amounts of power while your "side" has control of the reins so it can cause that forced social change. This is more or less the route that the Left is taking. Another word for this is authoritarianism.

2. Minimize the amount of power the government has all of the time. This way, you can maximize the amount of different viewpoints and value sets that can exist in your society while minimizing the degree of suffering by those whose values may not be shared by those in power. This is more or less the route that the Right is taking. Another word for this is liberalism (or, I suppose libertarianism, but that tends to get associated with the modern political party of the same name).


Obviously, there are more degrees and axis to the issue than this. But that is a very broad basic view of the most significant difference between left and right. What's interesting though is that liberals tend to assume that conservatives are also attempting to do option 1 (projection). They know that they are fighting to gain political power so they can force society to change in accordance with their views and ideals and assume that's what conservatives are doing when we oppose them. But we're not. We don't want either side to have that kind of power.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Oct 10 2014 at 8:59 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Well, you have to first admit that there is no perfect model. There are flaws with the "small government" approach just as there are flaws with the "big government" approach. There's nothing wrong with advocating one over another, but you can't pretend that "small government" is THE answer.
#20 Oct 10 2014 at 10:16 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
1. Force the other 9 groups to all adopt your own values and ensure that the government acts in alignment with those values, usually by granting the government vast amounts of power while your "side" has control of the reins so it can cause that forced social change. This is more or less the route that the Left is taking. Another word for this is authoritarianism.

2. Minimize the amount of power the government has all of the time. This way, you can maximize the amount of different viewpoints and value sets that can exist in your society while minimizing the degree of suffering by those whose values may not be shared by those in power. This is more or less the route that the Right is taking. Another word for this is liberalism (or, I suppose libertarianism, but that tends to get associated with the modern political party of the same name).

You have these in the wrong paragraphs.


ALSO: "Small, limited government" would by design mean "small, limited military" which you may note is NOT in the Conservative platform. Sorry, lil' buddy, you can't have it both ways.Smiley: frown
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#21 Oct 11 2014 at 3:30 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts


Oh. And, just to shock you a bit, I actually agree with this. This is really just a different way of expressing the differences in practical mindset between classical and social liberalism. Conservatives (classical liberalism) assume that those with power over others will inevitably use it to their own benefit at the expense of the others liberty and thus we should minimize the degree to which power can be concentrated and install mechanisms to balance power within the system so as to minimize the negative impact on liberty.


Hahahaha, ahhh. Jesus. No. No, they don't. Nothing the modern conservative movement does even remotely could be seen as increasing liberty.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#22 Oct 11 2014 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
Smash wrote:
Nothing the modern conservative movement does even remotely could be seen as increasing liberty.


To be fair, the whole "lowering taxes" thing sort of increases liberty for the wealthy few who benefit from it.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#23 Oct 11 2014 at 7:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
And frankly, the most common "conspiracy" component is Big Pharma making itself rich by essentially creating a guaranteed government subsidized revenue stream out of a product that is maybe effective, some times, for some people. Maybe.

Wait, you're talking about how Bush and Congress passed legislation prohibiting the government from negotiating lower prices on pharmaceuticals and thus guaranteed them huge Medicare payouts, right?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Oct 11 2014 at 10:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
My only problem with flu shots is that some of them are less well tested than others. I'll usually get one, but not out of the first batch.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#25 Oct 12 2014 at 12:31 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I got one last week.

It was the first time. I was peer-pressured, but it got me out of the office for 20mins.

I've not had the flu in years.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#26 Oct 12 2014 at 11:49 PM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Last time I got a vaccine, I almost died a few weeks later due to an infection. The two things may or may not be related(hell, they probably aren't even if my doctor gave me too many vaccines at once like another doctor said he did), but it has made me a bit wary. Thinking about it, I'm probably overdue for my booster by a year or so.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 178 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (178)