Ok why use the term “anti vaxxer”? It’s a tad provocative don’t you think? So if you use inflammatory prose in your post did you believe that would somehow not receive the same response in kind?
DariusBane wrote: “Ok why use the term “anti vaxxer”? It’s a tad provocative don’t you think? So if you use inflammatory prose in your post did you believe that would somehow not receive the same response in kind?”
The term anti-vaxxer accurately describes the vast majority of the posts to these threads that are overwhelmingly critical of the vaccines. For example where they use provocative terminology like ‘clot shot’, ‘poison’, etc. Where they insist that those who favor the vaccines are guilty of crimes against humanity, that they should be executed under the terms of the Nuremburg Convention. Claims that everyone who is vaccinated will be dead in a short number of years. Do you consider that rhetoric to be provocotive too?
Also of importance is this. Ever since the introduction of vaccination in the 1790s, there has been a vocal minority who peddle fear-mongering arguments against the vaccines. For example, in the 1790s, the smallpox vaccine would turn one into a cow. The vaccines contained bat feces. Now, the claims are the same. The vaccines change your DNA. The vaccines are poison.
If the person spouts anti-vaccine propaganda it is correct to call them an anti-vaxxer.