RE: Vaccines Suffer from Poor Public Image

[Guest guest]

> The current anti-vaccination movement, according to , is lead by

> conspiracy types,

No! This can't be true!!!

(Sorry, guys, I couldn't resist). But there are a lot of facts in this

article that are pure baloney. The biggest one isn't a fact -- it's an

assumption that the author makes that, without vaccines, we would be

suffering from widespread diseases that would kill and maim us. Right.

Those big tetanus epidemics. -angie

[Guest guest]

Ok, I have to say this, I am so freakin' annoyed with using the whole

" conspiracy theorists " label on anyone who questions the government! It seems

that when the status quo is questioned those doing the questioning are given

some label that is supposed to diminish their credibility. Or some label that

really is a good thing is twisted all around and turned into something negative,

like the term feminist. It is as if we are being told that questioning how

things work (or don't) or are run will doom us to be looked at as loons and it

keeps others from listening to us. We all know that the government is far from

perfect and if we stopped questioning them, we would find ourselves in a

dictatorship.

Thank you, for encouraging the use of that term.

Sara

---- Totten <afaltotten@...> wrote:

=============

> The current anti-vaccination movement, according to , is lead by

> conspiracy types,

No! This can't be true!!!

(Sorry, guys, I couldn't resist). But there are a lot of facts in this

article that are pure baloney. The biggest one isn't a fact -- it's an

assumption that the author makes that, without vaccines, we would be

suffering from widespread diseases that would kill and maim us. Right.

Those big tetanus epidemics. -angie

[Guest guest]

<<Ok, I have to say this, I am so freakin' annoyed with using the whole

" conspiracy theorists " label on anyone who questions the government!>>

I have been long afraid of being tossed in this category, however, if it

openly broadcasts to anyone that I am not a sheep and do not just " do "

what I'm told or what everyone else does, then I'll take it happily.

:-)

)0(~~~)0(~~~)0(

Mom to Brittany, born 08/31/93, dx'd IDDM 05/28/01; , born

06/28/97; Shayna, born 06/01/00; and Baby #4 due 06/07.

Vaccine free since 1999.

<http://www.firstgiving.com/Brittany-DYS%20>

http://www.firstgiving.com/Brittany-DYS

[Guest guest]

That is how some people are kept quiet, they fear being labeled with a label

that our society has deemed negative, myself included, and there are the people

who feel that it is their duty to impose this label, (hmmmm...) on anyone who

doesn't want to just " go along " or who is questioning what is going on. Maybe we

need to come up with our own label...hmmm...instead of conspiracy theorists, why

don't we use something like " truth seekers " , I don't feel that has any negative

connotations. Hey, how about " intelligents " or " those with their own minds " ?

Sara

---- <OhioVaxInfo@...> wrote:

=============

<<Ok, I have to say this, I am so freakin' annoyed with using the whole

" conspiracy theorists " label on anyone who questions the government!>>

I have been long afraid of being tossed in this category, however, if it

openly broadcasts to anyone that I am not a sheep and do not just " do "

what I'm told or what everyone else does, then I'll take it happily.

:-)

)0(~~~)0(~~~)0(

Mom to Brittany, born 08/31/93, dx'd IDDM 05/28/01; , born

06/28/97; Shayna, born 06/01/00; and Baby #4 due 06/07.

Vaccine free since 1999.

<http://www.firstgiving.com/Brittany-DYS%20>

http://www.firstgiving.com/Brittany-DYS

[Guest guest]

And while we're at it, let's loose the " anti " when describing folks who don't

vaccinate. What can we replace that with? Mother was big on avoiding the

" anti's " when expressing beliefs. What a wise and wonderful woman....Anita

Sassygirl1218@... wrote:

That is how some people are kept quiet, they fear being labeled with a label

that our society has deemed negative, myself included, and there are the people

who feel that it is their duty to impose this label, (hmmmm...) on anyone who

doesn't want to just " go along " or who is questioning what is going on. Maybe we

need to come up with our own label...hmmm...instead of conspiracy theorists, why

don't we use something like " truth seekers " , I don't feel that has any negative

connotations. Hey, how about " intelligents " or " those with their own minds " ?

Sara

---- wrote:

=============

< " conspiracy theorists " label on anyone who questions the government!>>

I have been long afraid of being tossed in this category, however, if it

openly broadcasts to anyone that I am not a sheep and do not just " do "

what I'm told or what everyone else does, then I'll take it happily.

:-)

)0(~~~)0(~~~)0(

Mom to Brittany, born 08/31/93, dx'd IDDM 05/28/01; , born

06/28/97; Shayna, born 06/01/00; and Baby #4 due 06/07.

Vaccine free since 1999.

http://www.firstgiving.com/Brittany-DYS

[Guest guest]

You are right, anti is just so negative. How about " pro health " ? Ya know, pro

choice would fit in great with this, as we want a choice, but alas, that one is

already in use. Hmmm...this one to think about.

Sara

And while we're at it, let's loose the " anti " when describing folks who don't

vaccinate. What can we replace that with? Mother was big on avoiding the

" anti's " when expressing beliefs. What a wise and wonderful woman....Anita

[Guest guest]

Just to clarify, people who question the government or cultural

assumptions are not conspiracy theorists. Only conspiracy theorists are

conspiracy theorists. -angie

On Thursday, February 15, 2007, at 12:31 PM,

<Sassygirl1218@...> wrote:

>

> That is how some people are kept quiet, they fear being labeled with a

> label that our society has deemed negative, myself included, and there

> are the people who feel that it is their duty to impose this label,

> (hmmmm...) on anyone who doesn't want to just " go along " or who is

> questioning what is going on. Maybe we need to come up with our own

> label...hmmm...instead of conspiracy theorists, why don't we use

> something like " truth seekers " , I don't feel that has any negative

> connotations. Hey, how about " intelligents " or " those with their own

> minds " ?

> Sara

>

[Guest guest]

So, what praytell, constitutes a conspiracy theorist? I am curious about how you

would operationally define it.

---- Totten <afaltotten@...> wrote:

=============

Just to clarify, people who question the government or cultural

assumptions are not conspiracy theorists. Only conspiracy theorists are

conspiracy theorists. -angie

On Thursday, February 15, 2007, at 12:31 PM,

<Sassygirl1218@...> wrote:

>

> That is how some people are kept quiet, they fear being labeled with a

> label that our society has deemed negative, myself included, and there

> are the people who feel that it is their duty to impose this label,

> (hmmmm...) on anyone who doesn't want to just " go along " or who is

> questioning what is going on. Maybe we need to come up with our own

> label...hmmm...instead of conspiracy theorists, why don't we use

> something like " truth seekers " , I don't feel that has any negative

> connotations. Hey, how about " intelligents " or " those with their own

> minds " ?

> Sara

>

[Guest guest]

(sigh) I know this is going to get me nowhere, but here's a couple of

definitions I found online.

From Wikipedia:

A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event

or chain of events (usually political ,social , or historical events)

as a secret , and often deceptive , plot by a covert alliance of

powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy

theories claim that major events in history have been dominated by

conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the

scenes. (Angie: example: the JFK assassination conspiracy theories)

and also this interesting thing from " a brief introduction to

conspiracy theory "

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/Conspiracy_theory/Intro_to_CT.html

What conspiracy theories offer their practitioners

    Very briefly stated, conspiracy theories offer their practitioners

at least these several advantages:

The safety of knowing that your idea can never be disproven . How

can anyone prove that " the hidden hand " didn't do such-and-such?

When you appeal to unknowable forces, you're safe.

A neat, tidy explanation . You can impute any powers you want to

" the hidden hand, " and no one can prove that you're wrong. You can

tailor the conspiracy any way you have to in order to fit your

evidence. The bigger and more complex the conspiracy is, the more

important it must be.

The simple way out . Life's numerous complexities, which even

distinguished scholars may never totally plumb, can be brushed aside

when returning to a simpler age where " they " can be the cause.

The easy way out . Appealing to conspiracy saves you having to

struggle with the difficulties, contradictions, and uncertainties of

real evidence.

The security of knowing that you will never have to fix the situation .

You can't contend with any forces you can't get to, right?

On Thursday, February 15, 2007, at 05:20 PM,

<Sassygirl1218@...> wrote:

>

> So, what praytell, constitutes a conspiracy theorist? I am curious

> about how you would operationally define it.

>

> ---- Totten <afaltotten@...> wrote:

>

> =============

> Just to clarify, people who question the government or cultural

> assumptions are not conspiracy theorists. Only conspiracy theorists are

> conspiracy theorists. -angie

>

> On Thursday, February 15, 2007, at 12:31 PM,

> <Sassygirl1218@...> wrote:

>

> >

> > That is how some people are kept quiet, they fear being labeled with

> a

> > label that our society has deemed negative, myself included, and

> there

> > are the people who feel that it is their duty to impose this label,

> > (hmmmm...) on anyone who doesn't want to just " go along " or who is

> > questioning what is going on. Maybe we need to come up with our own

> > label...hmmm...instead of conspiracy theorists, why don't we use

> > something like " truth seekers " , I don't feel that has any negative

> > connotations. Hey, how about " intelligents " or " those with their own

> > minds " ?

> > Sara

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

I have moved this thread to the OT4VAX list under Conspiracy Theorists. Please

continue it there...Anita

Totten <afaltotten@...> wrote: (sigh) I know this is going to

get me nowhere, but here's a couple of

definitions I found online.

---------------------------------

Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast

with the Search weather shortcut.

[Guest guest]

I agree. Thanks, Anita. -a

On Thursday, February 15, 2007, at 06:02 PM, Anita Durney wrote:

> I have moved this thread to the OT4VAX list under Conspiracy

> Theorists. Please continue it there...Anita

>

> Totten <afaltotten@...> wrote: (sigh) I know this is

> going to get me nowhere, but here's a couple of

> definitions I found online.

>

> ---------------------------------

> Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast

> with the Search weather shortcut.

>

>