It’s easy to judge the unvaccinated....

[JonC]

Good article

"Let’s tone down the rhetoric and create opportunities whose purpose isn’t to convince people with contrary opinions that they’re behaving irresponsibly, but to invite them into our lives and appreciate why each of us might feel morally injured."

It's easy to judge the unvaccinated. As a doctor, I see a better alternative

 

[rlvaughn]

I guess he toned down the rhetoric and stopped judging the unvaccinated...

...after he compared them to those drive drunk, light matches near flammable oxygen, eat foods they know might kill them, and accused them of being the people who drove the avoidable surge in Covid cases by not being vaccinated.

 

[Revmitchell]

I guess he toned down the rhetoric and stopped judging the unvaccinated...

...after he compared them to those drive drunk, light matches near flammable oxygen, eat foods they know might kill them, and accused them of being the people who drove the avoidable surge in Covid cases by not being vaccinated.

No he didn’t that post is dripping with disdain and judgement.

 

[JonC]

I guess he toned down the rhetoric and stopped judging the unvaccinated...

...after he compared them to those drive drunk, light matches near flammable oxygen, eat foods they know might kill them, and accused them of being the people who drove the avoidable surge in Covid cases by not being vaccinated.

Re-read the article. He was not comparing those who decline the vaccination to those who drive drunk, light matches near flammable oxygen, eat foods they know might kill them.

He included himself in the bad food category.

He was explaining how he does not ask why.

Does the doc think raking the vaccine is the responsible thing to do? Yes. But that does not discount his view.

I am not sure why some think anyone who believes the vaccines save lives should remain silent while those who believe it is worthless has a right to share their views.

As a doctor his conclusion is many of the deaths he has dealt with is preventable. Rather than taking your path he believes an honest and open dialogue is better.

I agree with him.

 

[JonC]

No he didn’t that post is dripping with disdain and judgement.

You are reading your disdain and judgmentalism I to the article.

Does the doctor believe many of the deaths he has seen were preventable? Yes. Does that affect his opinion? Yes.

But you are confusing "distain and judgmental" with "he disagrees with my opinion".

 

[Benjamin]

"Let’s tone down the rhetoric...

Example:

 

[JonC]

Example:

Yep. For some reason if you know somebody who died of covid you are "pro-vax", if you know of somebody who died of the vaccine you are "anti-vax".

It isn't the politicians keeping the virus political anymore.

It is sad that we - as a nation and as Christians- have placed agendas and opinions over people.

I don't care if someone dies of the virus or the vaccine. They are people and their lives matter. They have grieving families and friends.

 

[rlvaughn]

Re-read the article. He was not comparing those who decline the vaccination to those who drive drunk, light matches near flammable oxygen, eat foods they know might kill them.

He included himself in the bad food category.

Yes, he does include himself, and yes, he is making a comparison. These are all categories that he finds frustrating and compares them in his explaining why he does not ask why.

He was explaining how he does not ask why.

The author clearly shows he is not unbiased in what he thinks about people who do not get vaccinated, and does not try to hide or gloss over it.

I’m not free of the frustration and anger about unvaccinated people...

The anger I feel toward vaccine-hesitant people...

Yes, he does indicate he is trying to go beyond those feelings, but he does have them. I cannot relate to either side. I feel no anger toward either vaccine-compliant or vaccine-resistant people. I do not see anything there (i.e., toward the people) about which to be angry.

I am not sure why some think anyone who believes the vaccines save lives should remain silent while those who believe it is worthless has a right to share their views.

Someone may have said that, but I have not. Sharing our views is what we do here. It is why we post. I sometimes respond to something you post; I don't tell you to remain silent. It works both ways. When you disagree with what I post, I don't think that you think I should remain silent (whether or not you do, I do not know, but I don't think that). Rather, I think that you simply disagreed with what I posted.

As a doctor his conclusion is many of the deaths he has dealt with is preventable. Rather than taking your path he believes an honest and open dialogue is better.

What path is that?

 

[JonC]

Yes, he does include himself, and yes, he is making a comparison. These are all categories that he finds frustrating and compares them in his explaining why he does not ask why. The author clearly shows he is not unbiased in what he thinks about people who do not get vaccinated, and does not try to hide or gloss over it. Yes, he does indicate he is trying to go beyond those feelings, but he does have them. I cannot relate to either side. I feel no anger toward either vaccine-compliant or vaccine-resistant people. I do not see anything there (i.e., toward the people) about which to be angry. Someone may have said that, but I have not. Sharing our views is what we do here. It is why we post. I sometimes respond to something you post; I don't tell you to remain silent. It works both ways. When you disagree with what I post, I don't think that you think I should remain silent (whether or not you do, I do not know, but I don't think that). Rather, I think that you simply disagreed with what I posted. What path is that?

I agree he is not unbiased. He has experience with covid patients.

I am not unbiased as I have known people who have died of covid.

I would expect people who have lost others to the vaccine not to be unbiased as well.

Do I believe people should be forced to take any vaccination? No. That is their right. But I also believe when we exercise these rights we have to accept responsibility and even consequences.

If I do not want vaccinations then I cannot do several things. I could not have joined the military, for one. I can't go on a cruise (which would be fine). I can't attend some concerts.


The point of the article is there is no need to browbeat people into being vaccinated. People are afraid. Some are afraid of the virus, others are afraid of the vaccine. Some discount those who have died as the natural progression of things (let nature take its course). Some do this as they take asthma or blood pressure medication.

The point is to listen to one another. As more people die more people will change their minds....one way or another.

 

[xlsdraw]

Yes, he does include himself, and yes, he is making a comparison. These are all categories that he finds frustrating and compares them in his explaining why he does not ask why. The author clearly shows he is not unbiased in what he thinks about people who do not get vaccinated, and does not try to hide or gloss over it. Yes, he does indicate he is trying to go beyond those feelings, but he does have them. I cannot relate to either side. I feel no anger toward either vaccine-compliant or vaccine-resistant people. I do not see anything there (i.e., toward the people) about which to be angry. Someone may have said that, but I have not. Sharing our views is what we do here. It is why we post. I sometimes respond to something you post; I don't tell you to remain silent. It works both ways. When you disagree with what I post, I don't think that you think I should remain silent (whether or not you do, I do not know, but I don't think that). Rather, I think that you simply disagreed with what I posted. What path is that?

Amen

 

[rlvaughn]

Rather than taking your path he believes an honest and open dialogue is better.

What path is that?

You did not answer this question, and I am curious to know what you meant.

 

[JonC]

You did not answer this question, and I am curious to know what you meant.

What I mean is an honest path (not bring critical of other people's decision......checking your biasses at the door, so to speak) is the best path.

We all have opinions as evidenced by our choice to be vaccinated or not.

Given the studies specifically linking varients to the unvaccinated who have contracted tge virus I have opinions about people who do not get vaccinated. BUT, like with theology, those are mine and I have no right to dictate my view to another.

So given we have biases, our job is to empathize even as we see people suffering from their decisions (regardless of the decision).

The father who asked for the vacvine too late and died of covid is in the same boat as the boy who died of an allergic reaction to the vacvine. People are trying to make the best decisions for their health.

The "path" I am talking about is being less than empathetic (I don't mean you. ..I did not word my post well). I have seen people acting as if those dying now without being vaccinated acted irresponsibly. Perhaps they made the wrong decision but they did not know. Likewise, those who had a reaction to the vaccine did not know beforehand the result.