Poll: Anti-Vax content on AvCanada

[Ruddervator]

There have been a number of anti lockdown, and anti mask threads on this forum. Going forward, should we continue to allow anti vax content here?

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

I cast my vote for yes. Not because I'm an anti-vaxxer, but because I'm a pretty militant free speech advocate.

I don't think we should be deciding whether or not they are correct. It would make the moderators here the de facto Arbiters Of Truth. I wholeheartedly disagree with that approach. In many cases, whether or not a thread is actually an "anti-vax" thread is very much debateable. Who then decides which threads are, and which are not?

Rather, I would suggest that all covid threads be banned, regardless of the subject matter, their veracity, or the merits of the argument. It would vastly improve the quality of discussion lately, without wading into the realm of policing the truth. I could live with that, but even this idea has drawbacks, considering the profound impact Covid-19 has had on the aviation sector.

[digits_]

I cast my vote for yes. Not because I'm an anti-vaxxer, but because I'm a pretty militant free speech advocate.

I don't think we should be deciding whether or not they are correct. It would make the moderators here the de facto Arbiters Of Truth. I wholeheartedly disagree with that approach. In many cases, whether or not a thread is actually an "anti-vax" thread is very much debateable. Who then decides which threads are, and which are not?

+1

But to add: keep it within one topic.

[ReserveTank]

The main problem with this poll is that it conflates real anti-vaxxers with the ones who are against the COVID injections. This is a disingenuous sleight of hand meant to socially pressure and ostracize people that do not want/are waiting longer for COVID injections.

Real anti-vaxxers are against the basic vaccines (i.e., polio, tetanus, etc.). The people that are wary of the COVID injections have concerns related to testing, approval, and the overall rushed, political nature of the COVID-19 measures. Not the same thing at all.

Let's not bend the language to get desired results.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

The main problem with this poll is that it conflates real anti-vaxxers with the ones who are against the COVID injections. This is a disingenuous sleight of hand meant to socially pressure and ostracize people that do not want/are waiting longer for COVID injections.

Real anti-vaxxers are against the basic vaccines (i.e., polio, tetanus, etc.). The people that are wary of the COVID injections have concerns related to testing, approval, and the overall rushed, political nature of the COVID-19 measures. Not the same thing at all.

Let's not bend the language to get desired results.

In many cases, whether or not a thread is actually an "anti-vax" thread is very much debateable. Who then decides which threads are, and which are not?

I rest my case.

[Inverted2]

I think whether someone gets the vaccine or not is a personal choice. Just because someone doesn’t agree with something they’re reading doesn’t mean that content should be banned. If you want to be told what to think and do, I recommend moving to China or North Korea.

[montado]

Oh look... a liberal on their soapbox who shouts out equality, equity, inclusivity, civil rights etc, all of a sudden doesn’t believe in these things when someone doesn’t share the same beliefs.

Should we let someone say something that I disagree with? Poll time.. vote no everyone so we don’t have to listen to what other people say. We can just make them sound like bad people... we will take all the people who question vaccines, are hesitant about vaccines... we will just call them all antivax... you know! Make them all sound like quacks and silence them.

[digits_]

I'd love to see posts removed that label people as a liberal or conservative based on their opinion on one single subject though.

[rookiepilot]

Oh look... a liberal on their soapbox who shouts out equality, equity, inclusivity, civil rights etc, all of a sudden doesn’t believe in these things when someone doesn’t share the same beliefs.

This is why I voted No.

These aren't scientific medical threads, they all, each and every one, quickly become toxic political threads.

[montado]

Oh look... a liberal on their soapbox who shouts out equality, equity, inclusivity, civil rights etc, all of a sudden doesn’t believe in these things when someone doesn’t share the same beliefs.

This is why I voted No.

These aren't scientific medical threads, they all, each and every one, become toxic political threads.

Not interested.

So because I am toxic and political, you think we need to silence certain topics and no one else’s opinion should be heard? You don’t think a pro mandatory vaccine topic can become political and toxic? Isn’t this what the block feature is for? If you don’t like what someone says most of the time you can hide what they post.

I think your post is illogical and a cop-out. Every topic can become political.

[rookiepilot]

Oh look... a liberal on their soapbox who shouts out equality, equity, inclusivity, civil rights etc, all of a sudden doesn’t believe in these things when someone doesn’t share the same beliefs.

This is why I voted No.

These aren't scientific medical threads, they all, each and every one, become toxic political threads.

Not interested.

So because I am toxic and political, you think we need to silence certain topics and no one else’s opinion should be heard? You don’t think a pro mandatory vaccine topic can become political and toxic? Isn’t this what the block feature is for? If you don’t like what someone says most of the time you can hide what they post.

I think your post is illogical and a cop-out. Every topic can become political.

[ReserveTank]

I think whether someone gets the vaccine or not is a personal choice. Just because someone doesn’t agree with something they’re reading doesn’t mean that content should be banned. If you want to be told what to think and do, I recommend moving to China or North Korea.

Or just stay in the West, we're already doing it here. Just fine tuning it, really.

[ReserveTank]

Oh look... a liberal on their soapbox who shouts out equality, equity, inclusivity, civil rights etc, all of a sudden doesn’t believe in these things when someone doesn’t share the same beliefs.

This is why I voted No.

These aren't scientific medical threads, they all, each and every one, quickly become toxic political threads.

If it's a qualification issue, lets ban all aviation speech from those that haven't got a diploma and a set amount of experience in the industry. Let's make a special forum section called "Ramp to Right Seat" for the non-educated. I think it's toxic, offensive, and dangerous when the unlearned are allowed to fly passengers.

[photofly]

I think no content should be allowed. In any thread. About anything at all. AvCanada would be a much more pleasant place.

[Old fella]

Personally, I declined the offer to participate as not interested. In the interim carry on with the commentary as no doubt it will be entertaining.

[montado]

This post has been silenced be the albertdesalvo babble alert

[albertdesalvo]

Babble alert going off continuously.

[Rockie]

I wonder if immunologists have a forum where they debate the merits of an approach ban and bitch about how incompetent pilots are.

[montado]

I wonder if immunologists have a forum where they debate the advisability of an approach ban and bitch about how incompetent pilots are.

No one would ever tell them its mandatory to get on an airplane. And no one would question them if they said they don't accept the risks of flying. See how people are usually given choices without scrutiny.

[AirFrame]

I think no content should be allowed. In any thread. About anything at all. AvCanada would be a much more pleasant place.

When was the last time there was any real content on AvCanada?

[Rockie]

I wonder if immunologists have a forum where they debate the advisability of an approach ban and bitch about how incompetent pilots are.

No one would ever tell them its mandatory to get on an airplane. And no one would question them if they said they don't accept the risks of flying. See how people are usually given choices without scrutiny.

Are you one of those guys who "chooses" to go to work if you have the flu Montado?

[Hot Wings]

I wonder if immunologists have a forum where they debate the advisability of an approach ban and bitch about how incompetent pilots are.

No one would ever tell them its mandatory to get on an airplane. And no one would question them if they said they don't accept the risks of flying. See how people are usually given choices without scrutiny.

No one’s forcing you to be vaccinated.

[Inverted2]

I wonder if immunologists have a forum where they debate the advisability of an approach ban and bitch about how incompetent pilots are.

No one would ever tell them its mandatory to get on an airplane. And no one would question them if they said they don't accept the risks of flying. See how people are usually given choices without scrutiny.

No one’s forcing you to be vaccinated.

Not yet but they’ll make your life so difficult you’ll be forced one way or another.

[mmm..bacon]

Well, day 1 post vaccine (pfizer) and apart from feeling that I've been punched in the arm, and a bit of stiffness (Thanks again Pfizer! ) there are no new voices in my head joining the chorus already there, and neither Bill Gates, nor the Bilderbergs have come knocking at my door. So far, so good..

Baaa..

[lhalliday]

I don't care either way but would prefer to err on the side of free speech. We've gotten to the point where merely waiting one's turn and not breaking down the door for a vaccine somehow makes one a skeptic or a denier.

Under B.C.'s "plan" I'm in the last Everybody Else group, not eligible until at least July. With no health or lifestyle flags I'm in "Shrug. Whenever." mode. This appears to make me a card-carrying denier. So be it, I suppose.

...laura