OK, I know you have to be hard of thinking to fail to understand the benefits of herd immunisation etc., but does that really justify removing all discussion of the benefits or concerns over vaccination from the interweb under the forthcoming "anti-fake news" censorship rules?
Also, you know,... Darwin.
0
0
Yes. It's about the most worthwhile possible use of those rules.
0
0
That was my first inclination, Cakers.
But won't that feed into these loons' narrative of state control inhibiting freedoms?
Isn't it better to debate these things in the open?
0
0
No, there is no debate. It's like trying to "debate" people who believe in chemtrails.
All that does is validate the nonsense. Whatever quirk of human psychology causes shit like this to arise and perpetuate itself is fundamentally unreasonable and cannot be talked round.
This particular issue just needs to be stamped on for the good of our entire species.
0
0
As with Brexit, where one side was obviously talking sense and the other side obviously talking complete bollocks, the danger with giving the absolute bolloskc the credibility of a platform and airtime is that the absolute bollocks will prevail.
0
0
The best way to shut down the anti-vaxxers is to ban people from accessing public services or claiming child benefit if they refuse to vaccinate their children (in the absence of a certificate signed by the child's GP indicating a valid medical reason why the child cannot be vaccinated).
0
0
What Lady P said.
0
0
We should have a referendum on it.
0
0
Only problem with that is that half of all voters have below average intelligence.
0
0
Only if you take the median average.
0
0
People with less than average intelligence should probably have 2 votes, then, to balance out the inherent privileges of the metropolitan liberal elite.
0
0
Thanks to the Russians, they did.
0
0
They already breed more than smart people, so how about no.
0
0
If that's the case, you have to wonder who the smart people actually are in that scenario.
0
0
Not really.
Join the discussion