Vacci-Nation [CLOSED DUE TO DISRESPECTFUL, INSULTING, POLITICAL POSTS

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by wbradley

Administrator or Moderator-

Don't forget the value of a site with paid advertising is it's users.

Actions such as deleting non offensive threads due to expletives will drive away people.

Probably not as much as a forum filled with flame wars.

I'm sure there is a balancing act to managing the environment enough for those that would leave because the environment is too hostile from one leaving because of censorship. Constructive arguments that don't divulge too much into ad hominem attacks seem to be fine, and it also seems to be fine to discuss conspiracy theories or baseless ideas as long as the threads don't turn into a repository for conspiracy statements and propaganda ads. If someone wants to blog nonsense and post conspiracy theory memes then there are other platforms for spam. Genuine inquiry and constructive debates seem to be fine. These threads seem to cycle in a new conspiracy theorist every few months, and that is when the conversation seems to go off topic and divulge into old debates that have been long resolved, or regresses to regurgitated conspiracy theories and propaganda that no one really wants to hear again and again. I don't mind educating people again and again. Teachers do this every year when they teach the same thing to a batch of new students. Same thing. Unfortunately, some people just aren't exposed to the science or correct information. It can be frustrating when it appears like someone has their head in the sand, and sometimes this is the case, but the evidence can speak for itself. Eventually the person will see for themselves that their arguments are fallacious or unsubstantiated, and they will move on or reconsider their position. Isn't that what we have seen so far?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Ultramaroon

fuck fuck fuck..... it's fine.

If I remember correctly, the f-bomb was directed at someone or at what they were saying. It sounded harsh. I don't know who reported it, or if the mods just saw it. I report spam--not flaming--but I recall reading it and thinking the tone was directed at the person and not the argument (ad hominem), and I recall feeling as if there was anger or hostility in the words, as if they were said out of frustration, as if someone was saying because you didn't know x, y or z, anyone who thinks to the contrary or the person in question is f-ing stupid, or something like that. Just saying. It started off good with a conversation about how masks have been used for centuries to prevent the spread of disease, but then it devolved from a rebuttal to an argument to an attack on the person.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I don't know but I am pissed that my whole post on the history of mask use appears to be gone.
The other stuff was possibly pushing the limit I agree but that mask one was not directed at anybody and the content is historic fact.
If we are just going to have any actual facts presented wiped out then it is a waste of time to even try and counter the flow of crap.

I'm paraphrasing a bit but you said:

OH FOR FUdge SAKE!

They figured out that face coverings, distancing, and hand washing HELPED avoid the plague in 1350.
One of the main ways they beat the Spanish flu in 1918 was the use of masks.
Do masks stop everything ? NO but <people> don't have to stop everything just reduce it beyond the infectious threshold.
There is no "they don't know if it is effective" bullshit. They have know it works for over 600 years.
Masks do not work by blocking out the virus but by reducing the particles that carry them. Even a damned Kleenex held against <one's> face will be more effective than nothing.
Masks alone will not stop it but reducing contact, proper handwashing and vaccination of enough people to break the chain COMBINED with masks will.
It is a simple front line measure that anybody can do and if any doctor said "they don't do anything" I would wonder what Cracker Jack box they got their degree from.

Morons with conspiracy theories and twisted science can go fudge themselves.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by blackhawkdown

Gulf war Syndrome is real and the real reason why I refuse to get the vaccine in the military.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gulf War Syndrome likely wasn't from vaccines. All evidence suggests it was from other mechanisms, and the vaccines fall under the "less likely causes":

Iraq had loaded anthrax, botulinum toxin, and aflatoxin into missiles and artillery shells in preparing for the Gulf War and these munitions were deployed to four locations in Iraq.[41] During Operation Desert Storm, 41% of U.S. combat soldiers and 75% of UK combat soldiers were vaccinated against anthrax.[14](p73) Reactions included local skin irritation, some lasting for weeks or months.[42] While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the vaccine, it never went through large-scale clinical trials.[43]

While recent studies have demonstrated the vaccine is highly reactogenic,[44] and causes motor neuron death in mice,[45] there is no clear evidence or epidemiological studies on Gulf War veterans linking the vaccine to Gulf War illness. Combining this with the lack of symptoms from current deployments of individuals who have received the vaccine led the Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses to conclude that the vaccine is not a likely cause of Gulf War illness for most ill veterans.[9] However, the committee report does point out that veterans who received a larger number of various vaccines in advance of deployment have shown higher rates of persistent symptoms since the war.

I would have to see the report for myself, but that final notation could be explained by several confounding variables, the most significant correlation could be that veterans who were in the worst areas for exposure to compounds known to cause Gulf War Syndrome were vaccinated the most. This could be an unrelated correlation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_W...tential_causes

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

If I remember correctly, the f-bomb was directed at someone or at what they were saying. It sounded harsh. I don't know who reported it, or if the mods just saw it. I report spam--not flaming--but I recall reading it and thinking the tone was directed at the person and not the argument (ad hominem), and I recall feeling as if there was anger or hostility in the words, as if they were said out of frustration, as if someone was saying because you didn't know x, y or z, anyone who thinks to the contrary or the person in question is f-ing stupid, or something like that. Just saying. It started off good with a conversation about how masks have been used for centuries to prevent the spread of disease, but then it devolved from a rebuttal to an argument to an attack on the person.

There... sanitized. I argue that the use of "you" and "your" in this case was not directed at a single person. Harsh? Meh. We can all agree that the other party who will remain unmentioned isn't playing fairly. ...at all.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Ultramaroon

I'm paraphrasing a bit but you said:

Yes, some of the end of that was not necessary. It just furthers a tit-for-tat type of back-and-forth that ends in full on flame wars.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

If I remember correctly, the f-bomb was directed at someone or at what they were saying. It sounded harsh. I don't know who reported it, or if the mods just saw it. I report spam--not flaming--but I recall reading it and thinking the tone was directed at the person and not the argument (ad hominem), and I recall feeling as if there was anger or hostility in the words, as if they were said out of frustration, as if someone was saying because you didn't know x, y or z, anyone who thinks to the contrary or the person in question is f-ing stupid, or something like that. Just saying. It started off good with a conversation about how masks have been used for centuries to prevent the spread of disease, but then it devolved from a rebuttal to an argument to an attack on the person.

And yet you still thanked the post.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Yes, some of the end of that was not necessary. It just furthers a tit-for-tat type of back-and-forth that ends in full on flame wars.

Thanks Professor.
We don't all have to answer everything with reams of regurgitated internet materials.
You can chose to ignore the insults and demeaning comments but that does not mean I need to as well.

[Captain Snooze]

.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Yes, some of the end of that was not necessary. It just furthers a tit-for-tat type of back-and-forth that ends in full on flame wars.

full-on

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

And yet you still thanked the post.

For the informative part. I’ve thanked people who I am debating with too. The thanks isn’t a confirmation that I like or agree with everything they say. Sometimes I thank people for adding a point I would have made, which is what I did in your case with your history lesson on mask usage.

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Thanks Professor.
We don't all have to answer everything with reams of regurgitated internet materials.
You can chose to ignore the insults and demeaning comments but that does not mean I need to as well.

Right, but apparently if your responses devolve into insults then they may get deleted as well. Maybe PM the ad hominems to avoid getting your posts deleted. No guarantee that won’t result in problems too.

[Ultramaroon]

ad hominems must include a photo with a sign containing username, date, and "ft86club.com"

[Clipdat]

As well as the last 4 of your social, and your mother's maiden name.

For record keeping purposes.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Clipdat

For record keeping purposes.

.