Just so EVERYONE understands this:
-
@yesh Tthat's a very longwinded way of confirming that as I suspected, there is no evidence that RFK wants to kill grannies.
You seem to have retreated from @mcnado's claims, to a charge of reckless endangerment. That is a very different matter to an active desire to kill.
The failure to respect such distinctions is part of the hyperbolic propaganda which has spewed from both sides of the vaccine debates nearly for two centuries. This is a good illustration of how little has changed.
@2legged
Your answer, basically
1) 'You used too many words and retreated from @mcnado's position',
2) 'reckless endangerment isn't as bad as murder', and
3) 'both sides are bad'
Short answer? 'As if that makes it okay!?!'Long answers:
1) I replied to a post and made my own claim. The 'change' to my position was to make it known. That is not a retreat.
RFK has been shown evidence that more grannies are likely to die if we disallow MRNA vaccine approval going through a scientific process.
Assuming RFK wants to do what he does… with no hyperbole we see: RFK's desire not to endanger grannies is weaker than his desire to kill MRNA vaccines' approval.2) Heads of HHS shouldn't kill at a population level by way of reckless endangerment either.
3)@mcnado at _worst_ exaggerated, and the effect is RFK could hear about it and feel bad.
Can you show me an anti-vax position which does as little harm? Can you show me you publicly criticizing anti-vax beyond 'both sides' critiques?
'Both sides are bad' <thbbptttttt> -
@mcnado probably has access to an evidenced case that RFK's policy is dangerous, misguided, and wicked. (Whether mcnado can articulate that case in another matter.)
But I see no evidence that RFK actively wants to kill anyone's granny.
This sort of hyperbolic falsehood is used by both sides of the #vaccine wars. So I disengage
-
@mcnado probably has access to an evidenced case that RFK's policy is dangerous, misguided, and wicked. (Whether mcnado can articulate that case in another matter.)
But I see no evidence that RFK actively wants to kill anyone's granny.
This sort of hyperbolic falsehood is used by both sides of the #vaccine wars. So I disengage
-
@mcnado probably has access to an evidenced case that RFK's policy is dangerous, misguided, and wicked. (Whether mcnado can articulate that case in another matter.)
But I see no evidence that RFK actively wants to kill anyone's granny.
This sort of hyperbolic falsehood is used by both sides of the #vaccine wars. So I disengage
@2legged that’s some semantic dumbfuckery bothsidesing. Get wrecked.
-
@mcnado Do you think it would do any good to write our congress people about this?
@freyjfreyj won’t hurt
-
@2legged that’s some semantic dumbfuckery bothsidesing. Get wrecked.
-
@2legged
Your answer, basically
1) 'You used too many words and retreated from @mcnado's position',
2) 'reckless endangerment isn't as bad as murder', and
3) 'both sides are bad'
Short answer? 'As if that makes it okay!?!'Long answers:
1) I replied to a post and made my own claim. The 'change' to my position was to make it known. That is not a retreat.
RFK has been shown evidence that more grannies are likely to die if we disallow MRNA vaccine approval going through a scientific process.
Assuming RFK wants to do what he does… with no hyperbole we see: RFK's desire not to endanger grannies is weaker than his desire to kill MRNA vaccines' approval.2) Heads of HHS shouldn't kill at a population level by way of reckless endangerment either.
3)@mcnado at _worst_ exaggerated, and the effect is RFK could hear about it and feel bad.
Can you show me an anti-vax position which does as little harm? Can you show me you publicly criticizing anti-vax beyond 'both sides' critiques?
'Both sides are bad' <thbbptttttt> -
@riley @mcnado@mstdn.social Most political actions have a range of objectives and a range of consequences. Political actions require weighing a basket of objectives and consequences.
Reducing everything to a simple binary choice on one point is a lie about the nature of the decision.
-
@tonwood You and McNado assome that
1/ the consequences are understood as you understand them, and
2/ that the adverse consequence you identify are an actual goal rather than a side-effect.This is a precise mirror of the simplistic binary logic of the extremist anti-vaxxer logic that administering a vaccine with known possible side effects is evidence of a desire to kill people.
The world is more complex and nuanced than either tribe wants to acknowledge.
.
@mcnado@mstdn.social -
@riley @mcnado@mstdn.social Most political actions have a range of objectives and a range of consequences. Political actions require weighing a basket of objectives and consequences.
Reducing everything to a simple binary choice on one point is a lie about the nature of the decision.
@2legged Hey, if the right-wing politicians are completely willing to impute intent on criminal defendants on the basis of allowing crimes to happen, why shouldn't we hold them to this same standard?
-
@2legged Hey, if the right-wing politicians are completely willing to impute intent on criminal defendants on the basis of allowing crimes to happen, why shouldn't we hold them to this same standard?
@riley If you really want a race to the bottom, that's a great plan.
But I don't actually aspire to life in the sewer.
-
@mcnado probably has access to an evidenced case that RFK's policy is dangerous, misguided, and wicked. (Whether mcnado can articulate that case in another matter.)
But I see no evidence that RFK actively wants to kill anyone's granny.
This sort of hyperbolic falsehood is used by both sides of the #vaccine wars. So I disengage
-
@mcnado Do you think it would do any good to write our congress people about this?
@freyjfreyj @mcnado
Fuck yes, especially if they’re RepublicansTell them that many thousands of elderly people will die because of their support for Donald Trump and his appointees
And tell them you will work like hell to tell everyone you know to hold them accountable
They would not be working so damn hard to make it difficult to vote if it didn’t matter
-
@yesh Tthat's a very longwinded way of confirming that as I suspected, there is no evidence that RFK wants to kill grannies.
You seem to have retreated from @mcnado's claims, to a charge of reckless endangerment. That is a very different matter to an active desire to kill.
The failure to respect such distinctions is part of the hyperbolic propaganda which has spewed from both sides of the vaccine debates nearly for two centuries. This is a good illustration of how little has changed.
@2legged @yesh @mcnado
The vaccine debate is not complicatedYou reveal yourself by saying it is
Anti-vaccine “questions” about vaccines for decades are what has got these politicians in power so that my father who’s in the fucking hospital with kidney failure will now, this year not be able to access the flu vaccine and will likely die next flu season
Fuck both-sidesing the “vaccine debate”
You want to kill our grannies
-
Just so EVERYONE understands this:
Moderna has a flu shot. It works. It works well. It is safe. It is safe in people with compromised immune systems (like cancer patients!).
Trump’s nutjob at FDA, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., appears to have ordered FDA to refuse to even accept the application to review the shot for approval.
RFK wants to kill your grandma. Fuck RFK.
@mcnado I'm that grandma that needs an mRNA flu vaccine.
-
@riley If you really want a race to the bottom, that's a great plan.
But I don't actually aspire to life in the sewer.
@2legged You think you can avoid sewers by assuming that powerful people are doing things in good faith and powerless people in bad faith?
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
