NEED A TRANSPLANT? BETTER GET VACCINATED

[Jersey Girl]

One of my Facebook friends is friends with someone we went to a singles ward together with. This guy has basically said he can't get vaccinated now cause he was politically in the anti-side and he can't admit we were right. It is our fault for making fun of him or insulting him. Which is funny cause the mutual friend is actually super conservative, he just didn't follow Trump. This anti-vaxx guy has gone just short of saying that if anything bad happens to him it is now our fault. This is a man who has non-ironically complained many times about liberal snowflakes. Though I guess in no true Scotsman fashion, it is impossible for an alpha male like himself to be a snowflake.

Just tell him to get it on the down low and not tell anyone.

- Doc

Yes, exactly. It's not like the world has eyes on him.

[Jersey Girl]

e]

The internet. I am including broadcast media, because that is all online too.

You are not doing original research on Laundrie, you are not doing original research on the virus. You are getting it all second, third, fourth..... nth hand, through online and media sources. Exactly like the rest of us.

Frankly, your most independent and possible contribution to this topic was the Pandemic on the ground thread, which you shat on when the information on the ground was outside your acceptable narrative.

Who in the hell is doing original research on this discussion board and where have I myself claimed to do so? It's a discussion board.

[Jersey Girl]

And not one person on this board has claimed that.

That is kind of a big deal.

For what it is worth, vaccinated patients have died of covid, again. And, people have had adverse reactions to the vaccine, again.

As long as we push people over the edge based on a narrative, and not the facts, we will get a reaction based on the narrative and the push and not a response to the facts. This is really not that hard. It is rather primitive and basic, frankly.

As long as a poster or posters push a false narrative regarding the claims made on this board, there can be no good faith discussion. The rest of us and read and think at the same time.

[Chap]

e]
...
You are not doing original research on Laundrie, you are not doing original research on the virus. You are getting it all second, third, fourth..... nth hand, through online and media sources. Exactly like the rest of us.
...

Who in the hell is doing original research on this discussion board and where have I myself claimed to do so? It's a discussion board.

It is not unknown for original peer-reviewed scientific papers to be cited on this board. I do it myself from time to time. These give the first hand reports of researchers on their methods and results. Cultellus is of course welcome to cite any peer-reviewed scientific papers that support his point of view - whatever that may be. If he does, and it gets noticed by another poster, I may take him off ignore.

[Jersey Girl]

Who in the hell is doing original research on this discussion board and where have I myself claimed to do so? It's a discussion board.

It is not unknown for original peer-reviewed scientific papers to be cited on this board. I do it myself from time to time. These give the first hand reports of researchers on their methods and results. Cultellus is of course welcome to cite any peer-reviewed scientific papers that support his point of view - whatever that may be. If he does, and it gets noticed by another poster, I may take him off ignore.

Yup. Since he's raising the issue of original research he's further welcome to cite any peer reviewed scientific paper that he himself has authored

[Xenophon]

You flipped the script didn't you? You flipped it all around and all over, right?

I did not say I disagree with you about getting vaccinated. I did not say that. I did not say you are not on solid ground. In your suggestion about pushing people over the edge, you even included work mandates. Family pressure was unique in your list. Clearly, your list of pressures that you recommend to push someone over the edge, is not exclusive to family and friends.

I did not suggest that you are kicking down strangers doors or injecting them. Nor do I act as if you are doing that. I do not live in a world where you can't talk to people about your perspective. In fact, we are interacting in a space where you and others talk freely about personal perspectives. We are interacting and conversing about multiple topics and we have different perspectives. There is no tragedy.

I was clear on the words that I reworded, for clarity. I am shocked by the words you said, not my edits.

You did not address the point of my post, which is that when you push someone over the edge, you are doing so to get a reaction. That reaction may not be the one you want. I am sure that if the pushing was flipped, and someone was pushing you over the edge to do what they wanted for you, that you would choose your own reaction to that level of pushing. If the efforts included your safety and well being, including your standing at work and within your family, you would not automatically acquiesce and you may have some resentment. Your reaction may be mild or extreme.

Nudging and cooperating with a father to do something that is beneficial is normal, just as it is for parents to nudge or push their children. Pushing them to the perimeter or outer limits, over the edge, is not always the right move. Perhaps, this vaccine topic is a charged one these days, and the reactions we see from these limitless or outer-limit pushes is one people are willing to exploit or tolerate - until they don't. Until they won't.

The only one worried about a script here is you. I didn't say you disagreed, I said "if you did that is your prerogative". Frankly I don't know what your stance is on it and I think you like it that way. I think you prefer to live in the ambiguous and not make definitive statements that aren't of the "f*** you" variety.

Perhaps it is my choice of "over the edge" that has you so worked up? If so then allow me to rescind it. It was not intended as a dramatic a word choice as you are suggesting. I merely hold that the facts are on the side of vaccinating vs not in the vast majority of cases. And that for the longevity of your loved ones is it generally in the best interest to get vaccinated. That is my only concern.

We've covered this in a few threads before but I guess I need to repeat it here:

I don't make policies, I'm not in charge of the government, I don't determine when mandates should or shouldn't happen either at my place of work or my county/city and I frankly don't sweat too much what any other corner of the world is doing. I worry about my neighbors, my coworkers, my family and the small part I play in their lives. When I say that I talk to people in a candid, direct but respectable fashion on the topic, bringing up the points I've already discussed. That is exactly what I mean. I don't approach it in nearly as dramatic a fashion as your last few posts have presented, and frankly they don't either. I know we like to watch videos of people losing their crap in front of a cell phone over masks or shots or social distancing but lets get real, those represent a tiny fraction of the population. The vast majority of people I've met that are still vaccine resistant are not rabid or raving, they are just regular folks that often haven't given the topic that much thought. All I aim to do is present the case as I understand. You can continue to paint it in such aggressive tones if you want, but I know that isn't how it is going down.

[canpakes]

The reality is that Jersey's source of information on the whereabouts of Brian Laundrie is exactly the same as her source of information about vaccines. EXACTLY the same. With the exception of what I see and do in actual hospitals with actual people, my information about the vaccines is similarly sourced.

Consider a world with no Internet, and substitute ‘books’ … your argument would read the same, would it not?

Confusing the medium for the content obtained from it does not necessarily make for a good argument.

Do I need to repeat myself all over again and say if to you again? We are all on equal ground here, we all use the same source. Nobody here is doing original research, for Chrissakes. Nobody. This is just a self-selected silo of confirmation with google searches of confirmation and confirming sources. Nothing here is original.

Repeat it all that you want. Your argument still fails.

[canpakes]

Just tell him to get it on the down low and not tell anyone.

- Doc

Yes, exactly. It's not like the world has eyes on him.

Wrong. The Bill Gates nano-transmitters in the vaccine will broadcast his betrayal to the Zionist Occupational Government, which will flash his face and identity on giant digital display screens at NASCAR events.

[Xenophon]

The change in word choice is a change to the script or conversation. Thank you for the clarification.

I am not worked up. This is just a discussion board.

I do not disagree with any other points you are making here. I will go even further and say that I agree with them.

I am not painting tones. Consider how you are responding, as much as you are judging my words on a screen. I am addressing a very basic reality. In fact, I would say it is the reality that is more relevant to these conversations than anything else. It is this - if you push someone over the edge, you do not get to choose their reaction to that push. That is the personal application for this conversation. The general application is that when people are pushed to the edge and beyond, including threats to their safety and belonging, they will react however the hell they choose to react. We do not get to dictate the reaction.

This is a concept that goes way beyond the vaccine or the pandemic. If we make someone feel threatened, even if we think it is the right thing to do, they will react and sometimes their reaction will be unwelcome and irrational. Call it math or physics or just plain real life. This is not an aggressive tone. If anything, it is a surrendered tone.

I'll just go back and ask you re-read my initial few specific suggestions on how to talk to people about vaccines. If you find what I've said in those posts as "threatening" then I don't really know how to talk to you about it. This is what I mean when it looks to me as if you want to suggest a tone to my posts that just isn't there. I do really apologize if you're just intending to agree with what I'm saying and I've totally misjudged your posts, but that was not the message I picked up from you at all and I'd be willing to bet I wasn't alone in that regard. Keep in mind, I'm not even suggesting you have to agree with me but when I see what I perceive as someone pushing my words into a context I wasn't even hinting at, I'm going to respond accordingly.

And c'mon, I do more than say F you. C'mon man.

That wasn't what I said at all. What I said is that I see you being purposefully ambiguous particularly on this topic.

[Jersey Girl]

That wasn't what I said at all. What I said is that I see you being purposefully ambiguous particularly on this topic.

Yes, he is.