Weeping Sore Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 4 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said: She's not. Good to know, thx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 11 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said: She's not. Yea, she just panders to them and words things in such a way that it comes very close to being anti vaccination and allows the anti vaxxers to think their position is legitimate. Shes shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kairparavel Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 16 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said: She's not. 9 minutes ago, Weeping Sore said: Good to know, thx. 4 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said: Yea, she just panders to them and words things in such a way that it comes very close to being anti vaccination and allows the anti vaxxers to think their position is legitimate. Shes shit. http://www.salon.com/2016/08/03/jill_steins_anti_vax_game_how_and_why_the_green_party_candidate_is_pandering_to_the_anti_vaccination_crowd/ Quote “Dr. Stein uses a common anti-vaccine dodge in which she denies that she’s anti-vaccine, but then repeats anti-vaccine tropes about vaccines not being tested the same way as other drugs (if anything, they’re tested more rigorously), corruption in big pharma, etc.,” David Gorski, a surgical oncologist and pro-science blogger explained to me. “She even walked back a Tweet from saying ‘there’s no evidence’ that vaccines cause autism to ‘I’m not aware of evidence linking vaccines to autism.’ Talk about an antivaccine dog whistle!” Even LaCapria admits, in her Snopes article, that Stein’s words “echo language used by vaccination opponents”. But, for some reason, she didn’t feel this very important caveat requires a more responsible Snopes rating. Gorski issued a lengthy rebuttal to Snopes at his ScienceBlogs blog, which is recommended reading for anyone interested in the particulars of this debate. His criticism of LaCapria is that she takes “Dr. Stein’s denials at face value”, while blowing off Stein’s jabbering about the supposed corruption of the system or claims that we need “an agency that we can trust to sort through all of those concerns”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 2 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said: Yea, she just panders to them and words things in such a way that it comes very close to being anti vaccination and allows the anti vaxxers to think their position is legitimate. Shes shit. I wonder if any of your purported disagreements with Hillary Clinton (including over foreign policy, which costs lives) are large enough that you'd be willing to call her "shit." Or is that just reserved for minor candidates who you feel use the wrong language when expressing their view on vaccinations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 19 minutes ago, kairparavel said: http://www.salon.com/2016/08/03/jill_steins_anti_vax_game_how_and_why_the_green_party_candidate_is_pandering_to_the_anti_vaccination_crowd/ Yea I saw that article before along with the one that said she is not the savior the left is looking for, or something along those lines. 18 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said: I wonder if any of your purported disagreements with Hillary Clinton (including over foreign policy, which costs lives) are large enough that you'd be willing to call her "shit." Or is that just reserved for minor candidates who you feel use the wrong language when expressing their view on vaccinations? It's not just Steins language, it's her pandering and her giving anti vaxxer some sort of validation in their unscientific and dangerous view. I also think she is shit because she's a SWERF and because she has said some pretty horrible things regarding autism, ya know, like calling it an epidemic and a public health calamity. She also holds other anti science views regarding GMOs, neonicotinoids and pesticides as well as Wifi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeping Sore Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 3 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said: Yea, she just panders to them and words things in such a way that it comes very close to being anti vaccination and allows the anti vaxxers to think their position is legitimate. Shes shit. I'm just surprised by the vociferousness of the reaction. And the assumption that Stein = anti-vaxxer, so end of story, she's an idiot kook. Yep, her words left an opening for Green Party voters who are also anti-vaxxers to think she's on their side. And she tried to steer it toward the question of why people are prone to mistrust the medical establishment. I don't know, which politician doesn't pander? I guess I'm not seeing why it's an automatic death-blow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 23 minutes ago, kairparavel said: http://www.salon.com/2016/08/03/jill_steins_anti_vax_game_how_and_why_the_green_party_candidate_is_pandering_to_the_anti_vaccination_crowd/ From the snopes article: "We contacted Dr. Jill Stein's campaign for clarification on her position regarding vaccinations, and while we did not receive an immediate response, Stein shared our article and tweeted to proclaim that "of course I support vaccinations": On 30 July 2016, we received a response to our query from Press Director Meleiza Figueroa, who provided a statement from Dr. Stein to clarify her stance on vaccines: "I think there's no question that vaccines have been absolutely critical in ridding us of the scourge of many diseases — smallpox, polio, etc. So vaccines are an invaluable medication ... We have a real compelling need for vaccinations."" That's pretty unequivocal. On the other hand, she makes some arguments that anti-vaxxers also make (namely about regulation and the "medical-industrial complex"). You can call that a pandering to anti-vaxxers (I even agree, I linked an article which says as much), but it doesn't make her one. 10 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said: Yea I saw that article before. It's not just Steins language, it's her pandering and her giving anti vaxxer some sort of validation in their unscientific and dangerous view. I also think she is shit because she's a SWERF and because she has said some pretty horrible things regarding autism, ya know, like calling it an epidemic and a public health calamity. She also holds other anti science views regarding GMOs, neonicotinoids and pesticides as well as Wifi. So that's a no. Clinton, whose foreign policy positions you purportedly disagree with, positions which are real life-and-death matters for thousands, do not rise to the level of the above stances you say (I'll look into them) Stein has taken. The vitriol is reserved for Stein and her stances, not Clinton and her actual actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 4 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said: From the snopes article: So that's a no. Clinton, whose foreign policy positions you purportedly disagree with, positions which are real life-and-death matters for thousands, do not rise to the level of the above stances you say (I'll look into them) Stein has taken. The vitriol is reserved for Stein and her stances, not Clinton and her actual actions. Yes, because giving validity to anti vaxxers through pandering and vagueness doesn't help create an environment that can't become dangerous and a life and death matter. And totally treating people with autism like they are a fucking burden and medical problem and not treating them like people totally isn't problematic either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 39 minutes ago, butterbumps! said: Well I think he's arguing that pandering for votes doesn't mean Hillary is not racist. Further, he's trying to argue that Hillary is part of a long tradition of enduring Democrat racism in this country, which has not evolved at all over the course of history, such that Hillary holds personal as well as collective guilt. Beyond this, Trump is not doing or saying anything more egregious than, say, Andrew Jackson's systematic genocides, ergo his "racism" is normal, just business as usual. t's really the most fantastically audacious attempt at drawing equivalency and normalizing Trymp I think I've witnessed this election cycle. Trump's racism is normal, as its certainly not beyond the extremes of our 200 year history, and since Hillary is inheriting this past, some of which is on the Dem party, she is guilty of those historical crimes and positions too. They are the same and racism is no more present in Trump's campaign than hers. I mean, this is pretty remarkable. I think it's cute when white Republican guys learn about the history of racism in the Democratic Party in their mid-40s. It's good to see that monthly payment to Glenn Beck U is paying off. Anyway, did ya know that the Democractic Party is for the Gold Standard cause, well, you know Grover Cleveland was for it back in the 1890s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeping Sore Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 26 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said: She also holds other anti science views regarding GMOs, neonicotinoids and pesticides as well as Wifi. I'm sure that Rachel Carson the author of Silent Spring (1962) was regarded as being anti-science when she wrote about the effects of indiscriminate use of pesticides on wild-life and water sources. Because all the new chemicals created after WWII were obviously super great and no one should have been worried about them. Following the precautionary principle may lead to taking unwarranted positions, and might slow down progress in some areas, agreed. Vaccinations are a particular mis-fit for the principle to be applied because the societal benefit (millions not dying from horrible diseases) vastly outweighs the risks (very rare side-effects like seizures, fevers etc.) Hypothetically you can see the benefit of acting according to the precautionary principle w/r/to smoking before studies showed that it caused lung cancer. ETA: briefly my own opinion on GMOs is that they are not an inherent danger but the most prevalent modification is Round-up Ready crops which withstand higher glyphosate loads and allow no-till farming (i.e. you don't have to till the weeds because they all die from the spray). Glyphosate has been directly linked to lymphatic cancer in agricultural workers so I don't want more of it on my food, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 I'm watching last night's Last Week Tonight, and John Oliver is doing a pretty good job illustrating why Jill Stein has been a huge disappointment for the ultra progressive Green Party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 6 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said: Yes, because giving validity to anti vaxxers through pandering and vagueness doesn't help create an environment that can't become dangerous and a life and death matter. And totally treating people with autism like they are a fucking burden and medical problem and not treating them like people totally isn't problematic either. No, in fact I do not believe that a minor party candidate unequivocally stating she supports vaccines while also vaguely pandering by using certain anti-vaxx arguments has any meaningful real world impact on vaccination rates. Even if I grant it does have some impact, certainly it doesn't compare to the lives lost as a result of US foreign policy which Clinton has supported and in many cases been been directly involved in, positions which you purportedly disagree with. But you clearly want to evade that question. I can't find anything to support your claim that Stein doesn't want to treat people with autism as people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 5 minutes ago, Weeping Sore said: I'm sure that Rachel Carson the author of Silent Spring (1962) was regarded as being anti-science when she wrote about the effects of indiscriminate use of pesticides on wild-life and water sources. Because all the new chemicals created after WWII were obviously super great and no one should have been worried about them. Stein called to ban neonicotinoids and other pesticides because they threaten the survival of bees, butterflies, and other pollinators. That is based on a discredited theory that some pesticides are driving the collapse of honeybee populations, ya know, something that is not actually collapsing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: I'm watching last night's Last Week Tonight, and John Oliver is doing a pretty good job illustrating why Jill Stein has been a huge disappointment for the ultra progressive Green Party. How about Joe Exotic? He won't wear a suit and he is broke as shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Just now, Daniel Plainview said: How about Joe Exotic? He won't wear a suit and he is broke as shit. Yup, I'd give up soberhood for a beer with Joe Exotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 12 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: Yup, I'd give up soberhood for a beer with Joe Exotic. That guy is something else haha 15 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said: No, in fact I do not believe that a minor party candidate unequivocally stating she supports vaccines while also vaguely pandering by using certain anti-vaxx arguments has any meaningful real world impact on vaccination rates. Even if I grant it does have some impact, certainly it doesn't compare to the lives lost as a result of US foreign policy which Clinton has supported and in many cases been been directly involved in, positions which you purportedly disagree with. But you clearly want to evade that question. I can't find anything to support your claim that Stein doesn't want to treat people with autism as people. Calling fucking autism an epidemic and a medical calamity doesn't sound problematic to you and dehumanizing to people that have autism? Because all you have to do is talk to people with autism to find out how upset that wording and those views makes them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 16 hours ago, James Arryn said: 7 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said: Stein called to ban neonicotinoids and other pesticides because they threaten the survival of bees, butterflies, and other pollinators. That is based on a discredited theory that some pesticides are driving the collapse of honeybee populations, ya know, something that is not actually collapsing. Source that honeybee populations haven't been collapsing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 I remember some BBC documentary about Joe Exotic a few years back. The man is absolutely crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 1 minute ago, larrytheimp said: Source that honeybee populations haven't been collapsing? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/23/call-off-the-bee-pocalypse-u-s-honeybee-colonies-hit-a-20-year-high/ BTW, since we are talking about John Oliver, I don't think there is anything better than the segment the most patient man on television. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 But Joe Exotic has Tigers and Lions. I mean forget about international guests having a barbecue at the Bush family ranch. Think about International guests as barbecued food for the kittens. Boy, Jill Stein is really thick, when it comes to politic(ie)s. Say what you will about Nader, at least he knew what he was talking about. And Johnson; that guy was really a governor? Was Jesse Ventura busy or why is he on top of that ticket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.