Banjo Hangout Logo
Banjo Hangout Logo

Premier Sponsors

669
Banjo Lovers Online


Page: 1  2   Last Page (2) 

Jul 31, 2021 - 11:02:29 AM
likes this
11515 posts since 2/22/2007
Online Now

The defining of words is most interesting, as it reveals something about those doing the defining. A choice item came to my attention today from Merriam Webster. They define "anti-vaxxer" as those opposed to vaccines AND------AND---those who oppose laws requiring vaccination. So someone who supports vaccines, takes vaccines, encourages others to take vaccines is STILL an "anti-vaxxer" because they do not ALSO support laws mandating vaccines.    online dictionary    That is not accidental and is trying to sell a conceptual "package deal".  

I long ago adopted the "question authority" motto but that now expands to the authority of dictionaries to define words.  

And, yet again, this is important because we think with words.  There is a deliberate ongoing effort to define, and re-define words for the purpose of changing how we think.  Pay attention and you will see. 

Jul 31, 2021 - 11:24:52 AM

chuckv97

Canada

59112 posts since 10/5/2013

Quote : “ There is a deliberate ongoing effort to define, and re-define words for the purpose of changing how we think. ” Good grief, another conspiracy theory! Help…! devil

Edited by - chuckv97 on 07/31/2021 11:25:44

Jul 31, 2021 - 11:29:31 AM

1940 posts since 2/4/2013

Of course some people of certain persuasions claimed Merriam Webster changed the definition when in fact that was always their definition. I checked some other sources and none of them mention the second bit. It's a poor definition anyway possibly even a potential misreading of its first use. It's not dictionaries that define words it's us. Many words change meaning over time.

Jul 31, 2021 - 11:44:08 AM
like this

banjo bill-e

Tuvalu

11515 posts since 2/22/2007
Online Now

chuck, I just made an observation. There is no conspiracy theory. Calm down.

Jul 31, 2021 - 11:45:08 AM
likes this

Brian T

Canada

18580 posts since 6/5/2008

A source of 'one' never makes the general case. Do the research.
Read a dozen different dictionaries, take notes and compound an answer.

Jul 31, 2021 - 11:55:17 AM

427 posts since 5/22/2021

All I can say is this: Anyone who says anti-vaxxer in a negative connotation, they should keep on learning from the news

Jul 31, 2021 - 12:09:51 PM
like this
Players Union Member

DC5

USA

20025 posts since 6/30/2015

quote:
Originally posted by BeeEnvironment

All I can say is this: Anyone who says anti-vaxxer in a negative connotation, they should keep on learning from the news


Anyone who is an anti-vaxer should keep learning from science.

Jul 31, 2021 - 12:43:56 PM
like this

banjo bill-e

Tuvalu

11515 posts since 2/22/2007
Online Now

Graham posted---"Of course some people of certain persuasions claimed Merriam Webster changed the definition when in fact that was always their definition.--"

Since I never made that claim, just which persons did? You are, yet again, replying to only to what is in your mind and not to what was posted here.
I suppose that tendency is just a symptom of your own "certain persuasions".

Their definition conflates being against vaccines themselves with being against a policy of forced vaccination. That is confusion, not clarity, which should be the goal of any definition.

Jul 31, 2021 - 1:33:25 PM

12421 posts since 1/15/2005

So the definition of a "pro-vaxxer" would be be ..... those proponents of vaccines AND -------those who favor laws requiring vaccination.

That would make everyone here but a small handful "anti-vaxxers"!

Jul 31, 2021 - 2:14:08 PM

Owen

Canada

9402 posts since 6/5/2011

It's off onto a tangent, but, "That is confusion, not clarity, which should be the goal of any definition." reminds me of the operations manual for a school division where I worked in a previous incarnation.  Regarding making decisions w.r.t teams traveling by bus and the possibility of encountering inclement weather:   "...the bus driver and the supervising teacher are the ultimate authority."    Thankfully, I never had to put it to the test.  yes

Jul 31, 2021 - 2:40:47 PM

chuckv97

Canada

59112 posts since 10/5/2013

quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e

chuck, I just made an observation. There is no conspiracy theory. Calm down.


What does "deliberate, ongoing effort " mean then?

Jul 31, 2021 - 2:55:24 PM
likes this

banjo bill-e

Tuvalu

11515 posts since 2/22/2007
Online Now

Chuck, it means a tendency that I see over and over, a trend towards nudging information to carry a bit of additional baggage. It is a social tendency in this age where accuracy is prized less than advocacy, a tendency rampant in news organizations and noticed today in an online dictionary. That does not mean that I think a group of people got together and planned anything in secret, which would be a conspiracy.

Jul 31, 2021 - 2:58:41 PM
likes this

figmo59

USA

34224 posts since 3/5/2008

quote:
Originally posted by DC5
quote:
Originally posted by BeeEnvironment

All I can say is this: Anyone who says anti-vaxxer in a negative connotation, they should keep on learning from the news


Anyone who is an anti-vaxer should keep learning from science.


I can agree on this..

 

N...it only seems ..right..just..n...fair...

That science...saves us..

From...

What Science has created.... ;0)

Jul 31, 2021 - 3:26:57 PM

6824 posts since 7/24/2013

quote:
Originally posted by BanjoLink

So the definition of a "pro-vaxxer" would be be ..... those proponents of vaccines AND -------those who favor laws requiring vaccination.

That would make everyone here but a small handful "anti-vaxxers"!


There's no such thing as pro-vaxxers so you don't have to worry about it ;) 

Jul 31, 2021 - 3:31:13 PM
like this

6824 posts since 7/24/2013

The mistake you are making is thinking that a dictionary defines language. A dictionary records the ever evolving definitions of words.

Also, I just looked it up on Merriam Webster and they say “or” not “and”.

If you are referring to the simple inclusion of it, yes people against laws are anti-vaxxers. The only people fighting against state laws mandating vaccinations for public education are anti-vaxxers. Have you at any point mounted a protest cause the kids had to get vaccinated for school? 

Edited by - South Jersey Mike on 07/31/2021 15:37:48

Jul 31, 2021 - 3:38:01 PM

12421 posts since 1/15/2005

quote:
Originally posted by South Jersey Mike
quote:
Originally posted by BanjoLink

So the definition of a "pro-vaxxer" would be be ..... those proponents of vaccines AND -------those who favor laws requiring vaccination.

That would make everyone here but a small handful "anti-vaxxers"!


There's no such thing as pro-vaxxers so you don't have to worry about it ;) 


Yes there is Mike .... I am a pro-vaxxer who is defined as an anti-vaxxer.smiley

Jul 31, 2021 - 3:42:19 PM
likes this

6824 posts since 7/24/2013

quote:
Originally posted by BanjoLink
quote:
Originally posted by South Jersey Mike
quote:
Originally posted by BanjoLink

So the definition of a "pro-vaxxer" would be be ..... those proponents of vaccines AND -------those who favor laws requiring vaccination.

That would make everyone here but a small handful "anti-vaxxers"!


There's no such thing as pro-vaxxers so you don't have to worry about it ;) 


Yes there is Mike .... I am a pro-vaxxer who is defined as an anti-vaxxer.smiley


Unless you actually openly support the return of measles to our classrooms, I'm not buying it :) I'm going to assume the new found aversion to legislation is Covid oriented and hasn't been something you've lamented your whole life :) 

Jul 31, 2021 - 3:43:22 PM
likes this

12160 posts since 6/2/2008

quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e

They define "anti-vaxxer" as those opposed to vaccines AND------AND---those who oppose laws requiring vaccination. So someone who supports vaccines, takes vaccines, encourages others to take vaccines is STILL an "anti-vaxxer" because they do not ALSO support laws mandating vaccines.


I'm not sure that's an accurate interpretation of the definition at the link. First, it doesn't say "AND."  It says "OR":  "a person who opposes vaccination or laws that mandate vaccination"

I agree i'ts ambiguous.  I certainly think a person who believes in and supports voluntary vaccination -- and may have even been vaccinated -- cannot be fairly called an anti-vaxxer if all they object to is legally mandated vaccination.

It's not clear to me that Merriam-Webster is saying they should be.

On the other hand -- It's also not clear to me there are many people who believe in vaccination, support vaccination, and have been vaccinated but who also happen to oppose government mandated vaccination. Or phrased the other way: How many people who oppose government-mandated vaccination otherwise believe in and support vaccination?

For what it's worth, mandated vaccination is Constitutional, according the US Supreme Court in Jacobson v Massachusetts, a 1905 case involving mandatory smallpox vaccination. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Harlan wrote: "the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand."  As far as I know, this is still the law of the land.

Jul 31, 2021 - 3:58:45 PM

1277 posts since 9/6/2019

quote:
Originally posted by Old Hickory
quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e

They define "anti-vaxxer" as those opposed to vaccines AND------AND---those who oppose laws requiring vaccination. So someone who supports vaccines, takes vaccines, encourages others to take vaccines is STILL an "anti-vaxxer" because they do not ALSO support laws mandating vaccines.


I'm not sure that's an accurate interpretation of the definition at the link. First, it doesn't say "AND."  It says "OR":  "a person who opposes vaccination or laws that mandate vaccination"

I agree i'ts ambiguous.  I certainly think a person who believes in and supports voluntary vaccination -- and may have even been vaccinated -- cannot be fairly called an anti-vaxxer if all they object to is legally mandated vaccination.

It's not clear to me that Merriam-Webster is saying they should be.

On the other hand -- It's also not clear to me there are many people who believe in vaccination, support vaccination, and have been vaccinated but who also happen to oppose government mandated vaccination. Or phrased the other way: How many people who oppose government-mandated vaccination otherwise believe in and support vaccination?

For what it's worth, mandated vaccination is Constitutional, according the US Supreme Court in Jacobson v Massachusetts, a 1905 case involving mandatory smallpox vaccination. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Harlan wrote: "the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand."  As far as I know, this is still the law of the land.


You say it's not clear that there are people who support vaccination but reject government mandates, but from what I have seen right here on BHO that represents the majority. Very few are actually favoring mandated vaccination. My objection, as it applies to the covid vaccine, is I see mandates for an unapproved vaccine as a manndate to subject to medical experimentation. I got the vaccination as did everyone in my family other than my son, but I don't agree with mandating it while it is still under an EUA. 

Jul 31, 2021 - 5:17:54 PM

754 posts since 10/4/2018

quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e

Graham posted---"Of course some people of certain persuasions claimed Merriam Webster changed the definition when in fact that was always their definition.--"

Since I never made that claim, just which persons did? You are, yet again, replying to only to what is in your mind and not to what was posted here.
I suppose that tendency is just a symptom of your own "certain persuasions".

Their definition conflates being against vaccines themselves with being against a policy of forced vaccination. That is confusion, not clarity, which should be the goal of any definition.


If you didn't make the claim that Webster didn't change their definition, then why did you claim at the end of your post: "There is a deliberate ongoing effort to define, and re-define words for the purpose of changing how we think.  Pay attention and you will see."?

It seems to me that this is exactly what your are saying.

Jul 31, 2021 - 5:23:04 PM

chuckv97

Canada

59112 posts since 10/5/2013

C’mon, Bill, admit it - you’re dangling a conspiracy in front of us…..

Aug 1, 2021 - 1:30:57 AM

3807 posts since 4/29/2012

quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e

 

....There is a deliberate ongoing effort to define, and re-define words for the purpose of changing how we think.  Pay attention and you will see. 


Yes - My friends in the Illuminati, the Bilderberg group and the Elders of Zion do this via their 'International Dictionary Committee', which controls global lexicography via a secret  network of underground philologist lizard people. I very much doubt that anybody could change the way you think (that was not a compliment). 

Aug 1, 2021 - 11:26:07 AM
like this

6824 posts since 7/24/2013

quote:
Originally posted by Banjonewguy
quote:
Originally posted by Old Hickory
quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e

They define "anti-vaxxer" as those opposed to vaccines AND------AND---those who oppose laws requiring vaccination. So someone who supports vaccines, takes vaccines, encourages others to take vaccines is STILL an "anti-vaxxer" because they do not ALSO support laws mandating vaccines.


I'm not sure that's an accurate interpretation of the definition at the link. First, it doesn't say "AND."  It says "OR":  "a person who opposes vaccination or laws that mandate vaccination"

I agree i'ts ambiguous.  I certainly think a person who believes in and supports voluntary vaccination -- and may have even been vaccinated -- cannot be fairly called an anti-vaxxer if all they object to is legally mandated vaccination.

It's not clear to me that Merriam-Webster is saying they should be.

On the other hand -- It's also not clear to me there are many people who believe in vaccination, support vaccination, and have been vaccinated but who also happen to oppose government mandated vaccination. Or phrased the other way: How many people who oppose government-mandated vaccination otherwise believe in and support vaccination?

For what it's worth, mandated vaccination is Constitutional, according the US Supreme Court in Jacobson v Massachusetts, a 1905 case involving mandatory smallpox vaccination. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Harlan wrote: "the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand."  As far as I know, this is still the law of the land.


You say it's not clear that there are people who support vaccination but reject government mandates, but from what I have seen right here on BHO that represents the majority. Very few are actually favoring mandated vaccination. My objection, as it applies to the covid vaccine, is I see mandates for an unapproved vaccine as a manndate to subject to medical experimentation. I got the vaccination as did everyone in my family other than my son, but I don't agree with mandating it while it is still under an EUA. 


I wouldn't use the BHO as a representation of the majority. It's a bunch of old white dudes who play the banjo. We're a niche' sample group at best :) 

Aug 1, 2021 - 11:42:27 AM
likes this

58106 posts since 12/14/2005

I quote myself:
"WORDS are sometimes our greatest gift to one another; at other times they are cheap toys."

-M. Gregory, Poet LowRate, Banjo HangOut-

(DARN me like and old sock, or DAM me like a beaver pond, but that's a Genius-Level opinion!)

Aug 1, 2021 - 11:55:23 AM
likes this

Tommy5

USA

3875 posts since 2/22/2009

I think Webster was trying to have an all inclusive definition for the word anti- vaxxer. Bill is correct that you can be pro vaccine but anti mandates to require one, just as you could support the war effort in WW2 yet be against the draft. Bill is also correct in how important words and definitions are and what words are used and not used. I for one was stunned when the headline on the evening news blared, “Vaccinated people can spread Co- Vid says CDC.” I knew there was speculation about this but little proof. Watching the news, I calmed down when it was revealed that the headline was a half truth, a lie, CDC actually said that in rare breakthrough cases about 1% of those vaccinated, the infected folks have enough viral load to spread the disease. Well duh, this was no news at all of course if the vaccine isn’t 100% some folks aren’t going to be protected, get sick and spread the disease, the vaccine is still the best and perhaps only way to end the pandemic. As a successful politician once said, “ Politics is the art of defining your opponent.” Bill Clinton.

Aug 1, 2021 - 1:09:16 PM
likes this
Players Union Member

DC5

USA

20025 posts since 6/30/2015

quote:
Originally posted by chuckv97

C’mon, Bill, admit it - you’re dangling a conspiracy in front of us…..


Is that anything like a dangling participle?

Page: 1  2   Last Page (2) 

Hangout Network Help

View All Topics  |  View Categories

0.234375