4 ms·
>But you're not occupying it when you're calling them, in effect, "so-called vaccines". Can I ask why you're using quotes for something I never said? Follow u
by yucky 4y ago
>But you're not occupying it when you're calling them, in effect, "so-called vaccines".
Can I ask why you're using quotes for something I never said?
Follow up question, why do you suppose this sort of dishonesty is needed to make your point if the truth is on your side?
- tptacek 4y agoI'm not quoting anybody ("in effect"), and, in particular, wasn't talking about anything you said. I'm talking about the article author (the "you" in my sentence above). Dial it back. You asked me a question, and I answered it. This is in the guidelines: assume good faith.
- yucky 4y agoOK, maybe I read your response wrong. But then the response doesn't really follow. The main argument against the mRNA vaccine was in fact the lack of long term testing. Now we know they were right because Pfizer has acknowledged never having tested against transmission, which was really the stated goal of mandates. So the people you're calling antivax aren't actually antivax. They were anti-mandate, and with good reason as it turns out.
- tptacek 4y agoNo, that's not the main argument here. You're responding to me, not the other way around, and the point I made is that this post implies that the mRNA vaccines aren't even vaccines. That's a pure anti-vax talking point. It isn't part of the middle ground.