Vaccination Forum Guidelines Reminder and Discussion - Page 3

[slmommy]

From all the recent threads I have seen and participated in, no one has ever said pertussis or tetanus vaccines shed. So I guess it was an example??

[Rrrrrachel]

Yes. I intentionally picked something I hadn't ever heard someone say and I thought we could all agree was wrong.

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

Hmm...If people believe that BigPharm is all a big conspiracy, maybe they should stick to the non-vax forum and not venture out much? People interested in not vaxing are going to peek into that forum and will see the conspiracy theory. I don't really believe in big echo chambers without any voices of dissent though. And really, if I want a place to talk about how loony non-vaxers are, I know where to go ;)

I am not a non-vaxer, although perhaps some of my views would set me at home there. The guideline also state that it is not the place for such topics, (as far as I am interpreting it anyway):

This is not a place for debate or discussions on the merits of vaccines or the dangers of not vaccinating, it is also not a place to argue against vaccines or selective and delayed vaccination schedules. Such discussions are already hosted in the main Vaccinations forum and posts in that vein are most welcome and appropriate there. 

[Mosaic]

And now you all see why MDC used to have a rule against discussing "conspiracy theories"... those words alone tend to turn threads into mush!!

I do not want to segregate pro/S&D/nonvaxers at all. We do have different sections of the boards set up for slightly different audiences, though everyone is welcome to post in any area; and I think that generally speaking, that works well, though I'm open to suggestions. That said, the "Researching the Vax decision? Start Here!" subforum is not clearly defined and, as a result, has experienced a lot of conflict. I'm talking to the admins now about clarifying that subforum's purpose to limit problems going forward.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

maybe it is an issue of placement?

Let's assume there are non-vaxxers who believe Big Pharm wants to make everyone sick.  They are entitled to that belief.

Maybe there are pro-vaxxers who think we have all been duped by the internet and the likes of Jenny McCarthy.  I think that is an insulting belief, but perhaps they are entitled to it as well?

Is entitled to a belief the same as entitled to post it?'  Obviously not, when taken to extreme, but those gray zones are killer

I think speaking about controversial beliefs may be Ok on the more exclusive forums.  Ex:  It might be Ok to talk about how Big pharm wants to make everyone sick  on the non-vax forum.  It is not going to insult pro-vaxxers, as they do not hang out there.

OTOH, I do wish the pro-vaxxers had a space where they could vent and say more controversial stuff without walking on eggshells around  non/sel/del.  Yes, I wish you had your own forum (and not just when you tick me off, lol)  Fair is fair.

I am not sure how to reconcile controversial discussion with being respectful and not insulting people.

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

 

Loony?  Trying to bait me, ssm?  And on this thread? tsk, tsk, tsk.

Just repeating what you said, in a very succinct way. Although, just like the non-vax forum, I'm sure non-vaxers would go in and try to make us all out to be elitist and what not.

[Rrrrrachel]

If someone tries to convince me that the polio vaccine doesn't work because we still have just as much polio but doctors call it something else now to make it look like it works I'm not sure how to respond to that other than to say its a conspiracy theory. Thats what it is. Otherwise I'm left with "nu-uh!"

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by slmommy 

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

Hmm...If people believe that BigPharm is all a big conspiracy, maybe they should stick to the non-vax forum and not venture out much? People interested in not vaxing are going to peek into that forum and will see the conspiracy theory. I don't really believe in big echo chambers without any voices of dissent though. And really, if I want a place to talk about how loony non-vaxers are, I know where to go ;)

I am not a non-vaxer, although perhaps some of my views would set me at home there. The guideline also state that it is not the place for such topics, (as far as I am interpreting it anyway):

This is not a place for debate or discussions on the merits of vaccines or the dangers of not vaccinating, it is also not a place to argue against vaccines or selective and delayed vaccination schedules. Such discussions are already hosted in the main Vaccinations forum and posts in that vein are most welcome and appropriate there. 

I'm not discussing the merits of vaxing/not vaxing here. Conspiracy theories don't belong in this forum, Mosaic even agrees!

[Mosaic]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

Just repeating what you said, in a very succinct way. Although, just like the non-vax forum, I'm sure non-vaxers would go in and try to make us all out to be elitist and what not.

SSM, remember what was said up-thread (bolding mine):

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

There is some burden here in not being offensive when we speak but also not being overly ready to take offense and give each other some benefit of the doubt.

ETA, and yes, I do agree that this isn't really the place to talk about which vaxes shed, etc.

[AbbyGrant]

*

Edited by AbbyGrant - 7/8/12 at 2:32pm

[erigeron]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

This is an elitist and assumptive thing to say.  You really have no idea of who you are arguing with on the internet or their ability to understand science and stats. 

I'm not talking about any specific person. And you're right, I don't know the background of every person I interact with. But I stand by what I said. In the population in general, most people do not have a scientific education. This is not a criticism of them. It's simply a fact. There are things that may make total sense to someone who doesn't have a scientific education, but are in fact wrong, yet if someone does not have a scientific education they don't even have the basis to understand why it is wrong. I see statements made on the Internet all the time that make it clear to me that the poster does not understand science or statistics.

This is common to many fields. I'm sure people with PhDs in say, economics, get mighty sick of all the random things they hear people say on Facebook about what the country should do to fix its financial problems. And so forth.

I am not sure anyone mentioned tetanus and shedding?????  Or are you simply creating an example?

Someone mentioned it upthread and I think it was a hypothetical for them, but I have seen people on MDC worrying about shedding from inactivated vaccines, and someone else (I thought it was you, but now I can't seem to find the post) stated that tetanus doesn't shed but gave an inaccurate reason why.

[purslaine]

Erigeron:  Nope.  Wasn't me.  I said the following, and it is here in all its unedited glory. 

I don't mind being corrected though, as long as it is respectful.  Everyone goofs.

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

Agreed.  It is fine to correct someone when they are truly wrong if you do it respectfully:  "Tetanus is not contagious - so we do not have to worry about people spreading it."

It is the greyer areas that get messy..and one should not jump to "you do not understand" without proof that is the case.  Often they have looked at the same info you have and come to a different conclusion.

Edited by purslaine - 5/22/12 at 3:04pm

[BeckyBird]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

 And really, if I want a place to talk about how loony non-vaxers are, I know where to go ;)

This is uncalled for, and demonstrates how NOT to speak to others in the forums. 

[erigeron]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

Agreed.  It is fine to correct someone when they are truly wrong if you do it respectfully:  "Tetanus is not contagious - so we do not have to worry about people spreading it."

It is the greyer areas that get messy..and one should not jump to "you do not understand" without proof that is the case.  Often they have looked at the same info you have and come to a different conclusion.

Okay, I see what happened here. I thought you were riffing off of Rrrrachel's comment about dtap shedding, but you'd shifted over to the example of tetanus transmission in general and I missed that bit. Carry on.

[AbbyGrant]

     Quote:

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

This is uncalled for, and demonstrates how NOT to speak to others in the forums. 

I thought SSM was just giving a cheeky little example of something "controversial" one might say on the I'm Vaccinating type forum Kathy proposed hence the little wink. I thought it was funny, but apparently I think a lot of things are funny around here that no one else does.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by AbbyGrant 

     Quote:

I thought SSM was just giving a cheeky little example of something "controversial" one might say on the I'm Vaccinating type forum Kathy proposed hence the little wink. I thought it was funny, but apparently I think a lot of things are funny around here that no one else does.

I was offended.

I wouldn't say all vaxxers are idiots, and put a little wink after it.  Even if she meant it is a joke, she got in a little dig at non-vaxxers, didn't she?  I am not sure that is appropriate given the current climate on the MDC vax boards, and how raw many of us are feeling.  

I am pretty sure that when she said if she wants to talk about how loony non-vaxxers are she knows where to go, she was referring to TWWS, but maybe it is another pro-vax site.

She can clarify if I am wrong.

Edited by purslaine - 5/22/12 at 7:12pm

[AbbyGrant]

I guess it just comes down to having different ideas about the intent behind the comment which is probably the case a lot of times around here.
 

[slmommy]

yeah, people posting on TWWS wouldn't really aid to the good feelings around here... although I'm not a member there so I don't know firsthand...

[purslaine]

nm  

[stik]

Once it was also part of the MDC UA that we didn't discuss other boards on this board.  You know those boards are out there.  You know this board is huge and public.  And now you know what you need to know.  If you want to talk about TWWS, you can go there and talk about it there.  It is also public.  I don't think talking about it here is going to help make the board more civil.  

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by stik 

Once it was also part of the MDC UA that we didn't discuss other boards on this board.  You know those boards are out there.  You know this board is huge and public.  And now you know what you need to know.  If you want to talk about TWWS, you can go there and talk about it there.  It is also public.  I don't think talking about it here is going to help make the board more civil.  

This is priceless.

 

So after all the talking TWWS does about MDC (and non vaccinators  are some of their favourite cut/paste/mock fodder), I am not supposed to talk about them?  Whatev.  

 

I have been a member here since 2006.  From 2006 - 2010 or 2011, I did not know about trolls with wooden spoons.  So for years people cut, pasted and mocked numerous posts of mine - and no one had the decency to tell me.  I am quite sure you are on TWWS.  Am I incorrect?  And now you want me to not talk about TWWS on this thread?    Mosaic does.  
 

I know other places cut/paste and mock…but TWWS is the worst, as member there are often members here.  You think you are having a conversation in good faith, but really, they are mocking you behind your back.  

 

I bring up TWWS often.  Maybe I send a few people there through referencing it, but I do not care.

 

Posters have a right to know trolls walk among us, and they cut, paste and mock our threads elsewhere.

Edited by purslaine - 5/23/12 at 4:55am