"Which is better, chocolate or vanilla?"
You've got five seconds. Four seconds, three... Think about it, think about it....got your answer? Great, what is it? Well you're wrong. No matter what you said, your answer is incorrect.
"What? What? What an impertinent little wench! How dare she presume to know what I think!" Gee sparky, calm down, I don't have a clue what you think. I don't need to have a clue what your answer was to know you didn't get it right. Come with me on this, it won't hurt a bit.
Ask the next five people you meet that exact same question and my money is on the probability that they will say that either one or the other of those two things is "better". Why? Because people don't think. The question as stated above is not a question that can be answered, because it's not even a question. It seems like it's a question, but there really is no question in it. In order to answer the question, we'd need to ask our own questions just to figure out what the question is before we could even try to answer it.
The reason is obvious once you stop and look at it. Something is missing. No values have been specified for this question. We don't even know what we're talking about. What is the subject here, ice cream? Cookies? Birthday cake? Wine? Dog food? Do they mean hot or cold? Early or late? Mass produced or freshly made? Are we talking taste or smell? Is this some sort of raunchy racial slang? Are these candle scents or color choices?
In order to determine if "A" is better than "B" we have to specifically know what they are first. We also have to know what "better" means. Better how? Better at what? Better than what? Better for what? Better for whom? Better under what circumstances? An actual question has not been specified. There can't be a "right" answer when there's no question in the first place.
Folks tend to auto-assume and auto-supply things, like what "A" and "B" are and what "better" means; not based on facts but on personal relevance. When answering a question like the above one, the fact of the matter is that neither the questioner or the responder will really know what the question was or what the answer means. There is no actual information exchange going on here. It is not genuine communication where one conveys real information to another and the other can receive it with the specific intended values intact. This is not person to person, mind to mind connecting, it's a total miss. The entire exchange is based on open ended, non-specified criteria that each party assumes and supplies for himself without bothering to check if any of those assumptions match.
In the chocolate v. vanilla question it might be assumed to mean which of these tastes more pleasing to you? It's a simple little question and chances are that's exactly what was meant by the question. None the less, "which of these tastes more pleasing to you" is a completely different question than the nonspecific non-question of, "Which is better, chocolate or vanilla?"
Clearly this particular question is of no great importance but it does convey the point I'm trying to make. If it's this easy to fail to recognize the built-in fail on a non-important topic like this, consider how often this sort of standard fail exchange goes on in subjects that are critical and very important. Matters of love, justice, politics, marketing, life and death. Toss in complexity and honest factual errors, much less intentional deception and purposeful manipulation, obfuscation and lies, and wow, nobody knows what anyone's really saying or hearing or talking about because nobody's really paying attention and looking for specified/asserted values. We auto-insert the values, meanings, perspectives and framing. It's a massive fail, yet everyone walks away thinking they know exactly what just transpired and assuming everyone is on the same page.
The scary cherry on top is that this knee jerk assumption response is not done consciously. We don't even realize we've assumed anything. We think we've been asked a specific question, and would swear to it. And what was the supposed specific question asked? Whatever we auto-inserted the values to be. We'll argue it to the ground, we feel certain that a specific question was asked but the fact is, it never was.
We are not encouraged to habitually think in basic, specific, clear terms when big or small questions or value statements roll by, and they do roll by constantly. It's so easy to become habitually sloppy thinkers who don't really think at all. We believe we're thinking but we're not thinking critically. We are only responding to stimuli from a knee jerk, non-thinking self-centered core. Instead of immediately spotting the obviously missing pertinent data in a non-question, recognizing the complete lack of stated facts or defined values, and realizing there is nothing actually being said or asked, we simply fill in the blanks ourselves. We automatically supply and inject the point, context and meaning from our own subjective values.
It's more insidious than that though, much more. This kind of non-thinking response also sets up a bizarre, quite dangerous style of egocentric closed circular thinking that can be destructive. It works by making an external "thing" good or bad intrinsically, based on what we think of it. In other words, if you say vanilla is better than chocolate, then vanilla "is" good and chocolate "is" bad. You are deciding their value in the world for everyone else because of what you happen to like or dislike. It's a complete disconnect from reality.
When our own subjective values subconsciously morph into external non-debatable value judgments about some external thing, it reverses reality. It is not the chocolate or vanilla that are either good or bad just sitting there being chocolate and vanilla. They aren't good or bad and can't be good or bad without a context. Chocolate might be bad for breakfast but it's great for dessert. It can't be all bad one minute and all good the next. The only thing that can establish any value judgments of bad or good are whether they are bad or good in a specific situation and with the specific people involved in it. The chocolate and vanilla never change their intrinsic value, they just are what they are, and what they are is chocolate and vanilla. How they are valued is what's different and that depends wholly on who's looking at them.
In fact, the actual question isn't even about chocolate or vanilla, the question is about somebody's personal position in regards to chocolate or vanilla. Yet, with sloppy non-critical thinking, the question is auto morphed into whether it is the chocolate or the vanilla that is either good or bad. This judgment of worth or value, of goodness or badness puts the responder in the creepy position of self-appointed judge decider of people and things outside himself, which is goofy.
I can give you a real life example of this. I went out on a date once with a guy who absolutely hated what I ordered. He couldn't get it through his head that he wasn't the one who was going to eat it. His own value judgment was something he'd assigned as a factual universal reality to my food choice which in his mind made it horrible at all times and to all persons no matter who was eating it. He felt as if I was breaking some sort of cast in stone rule and he got offended. I wasn't breaking any rules and I wasn't being offensive. His personal rules don't apply to me. His personal rules don't exist anywhere in the universe except inside his own head. His personal rules don't apply to anyone but himself. This was his rule, not mine. If he can hate it, I can love it. There is no problem here. Everyone gets what they want. Unless they're incapable of comprehending that everyone gets to value the world for themselves, and they refuse to allow others to do so.
That was a weird date. It's this exact kind of inability to know where you end and somebody else begins that is at the heart of so much fighting, bickering, arguing and violence. Strange notions that our personal preferences and values are somehow instantly universal facts that others are obligated and required to abide by are pervasive in our society and everywhere else for that matter. Other people are not obligated to do anything we think, where do we get this notion? The fastest way I can think of to bring unhappiness and discord into your own life and into the world generally is to have the delusion that others have to do things your way. It's like lighting a stick of TNT and sitting on it. It will blow up, sooner or later, that's a guarantee.
A personal preference does not equate to a legitimate or even pertinent statement of value of something external to ourselves. Something may have no value to me personally, but that's not the same as it having no value. I may think something out there is wonderful but you might hate it. It's not that one of us is right and the other is wrong, in fact, that's a false parameter. There is no right or wrong in external objects beyond the right and wrong for us personally which means we can totally disagree on something but both be right. No matter it's value to us, that external something out there we're arguing about isn't changed or altered or affected by how we value it in relation to ourselves. It just is.
People are incredibly programmed to miss all of these things. We don't think critically and many can't tell the difference between facts and opinions, between mine and yours, public or private, a truth and an ad hominem attack. We auto-supply missing values when the people on TV commercials and news shows speak and have no awareness that we're doing it. That's how we get manipulated, brainwashed and led around by the nose.
Illegitimate questions and pre-supplied universal value judgments proclaimed by our dear leaders are powerful, deceitful tools that are in continuous use for bringing the public to accept desired parameters. These are the ranchers tools used to spark the herd to move into the desired pastures, all the while leaving the individual herdites to solemnly believe they are moving along on their own accord. They believe it is their choice and their idea and that everyone agrees with their own idea when it was never their idea or their choice nor was any specific information, context, or parameters ever given.
We can all look around and see what results from millions of people functioning under this kind of amorphous assumptive sloppy non-critical thinking where what we think we hear is exactly that, what we personally think we hear. We don't hear what is actually being said because nothing is actually being said. The establishment mass media engages in non-informative data distribution utilizing methods specifically designed to feed into and encourage our non-critically thinking mind loops. They take extreme advantage of people every single day because they know what we don't know about the way we think. Advertising and social engineering traps issue forth from big media 24/7 proliferating an endless storm of inane nonspecific ideas. Our politicians make nonstop nonspecific fact-free statements that allow them to evade truths and assert less than truthful things without technically becoming big fat liars, and the people listening and receiving these non-actual messages automatically make them mean whatever their own personal criteria is about.
One example of this is something that made my skin crawl during the second bush campaign. My skin was crawling throughout his entire stolen residency, but this was a classic case of letting people make themselves happy by letting them assume whatever they wanted to assume and then also assume it meant they were on the same page with their beloved candidate or not on the same page as the case may be. The example I'm talking about is the "family values" spew his marketing staff came up with.
Who knows what family values means? It's so obvious that different families have different values that it's almost inane to point it out. But it never appeared to occur to bush licking worshippers that no actual values were being specified. What did happen though was that everyone transferred their assumptions onto the candidate and valued the candidate to be "good". Everyone was running around saying, "I'm very strong on family values", "Me too!", assuming they all meant the same things, when very likely they didn't mean the same exact things at all. But now the candidate is the no-brainer physical embodiment of "good", when of course he's not, he's just a guy and not a very good guy at that. It should be clear to those betrayed assumers of everything about their candidate, by now, in deep retrospect, that what meant "values" to monkey boy was not what meant "values" to Joe and Jane Average Citizen. How could us peasant folk even dream we have a values match when the multimillionaire oil company executive warmonger greed bag number 1 power guy has nothing remotely in common with Joe and Jane Average Citizen? Hello? People have to think.
What it takes to achieve a desired response in another is to formulate a non-question in a way that you know people will agree with. For instance, take the issue of vaccines. The questions asked to stampede the herd into bringing in their children and rolling up the whole family's sleeves is, "Don't you love your children? Don't you want them to be protected from horrible diseases? Then give them every vaccine that comes down the pike or they might get sick. Only bad parents wouldn't do that for their children". The implication is strikingly clear. People who don't vaccinate their children don't love their children or care about their children's health. I.E. they are irresponsible. They are "bad" parents.
Now I ask you, who doesn't want their children to be healthy? Who doesn't love their children? It's a stupid question. What's the point of asking it other than to cattle prod the herd into wanting to feel like they love their children because they vaccinate them. This is a classic, filthy sales manipulation. It should make alarm bells go off in anyone's head because no one comes to talk to us about whether or not we love our children. Regardless of any situation or circumstance, how we feel about our kids is not a subject. This is private business. It's not up for public discourse. To put it bluntly, it's nobody's business how we feel about anything, especially in something so obviously personal. How we feel about anything doesn't have anything to do with somebody standing in our face that we never asked to be there. How we feel is not what they've come to talk about. What they've come to do is get something from us that we don't want to give them because if we did want to give it to them we already would have.
Hooking into people at this ultra personal level which is always an emotional level by the way, is disrespectful and belittling to us. It's a standard ploy though because if they can get you to forget what belongs to you, your feelings and your children, then they can take control over your life away from you. They can assert control over both your feelings and your children. There is no justifiable reason for anyone to do that. For anyone to want to do that is already a five alarm warning.
When this sort of thing is suddenly thrust in our faces the correct response would be to stop the speaker in their tracks and lay them out. "Whether or not I love my children or care about their health is not your place to bring up to me. It is not relevant to you and it's none of your business how I feel about anything regarding my family. I'm not interested in your opinion on my personal life and didn't ask for one. If you have a point to make, make it, otherwise please leave. What is your business here?"
The reason for this is not small. If we allow others to assert opinions over the most important personal things in our lives, things that are none of their business, it's not long before they'll assert their opinions as "better" than our own, and their ideas about what's right or wrong for us as being more "correct" than our own. And the minute we let that happen, the minute we buy into their manipulation or begin to doubt ourselves, they've taken control of what we value most. There are some things that we should never allow anyone to get near. It takes one time, just one time for someone to assert false authority over what belongs to us. If they do it one time, I guarantee you, they'll do it again. They'll keep doing it. The pattern is established and soon you're obligated to jump through their hoops.
That's exactly what's happening in the herd-think pro-vaccine sector. People's kids are being taken away from them on false assertions of endangering the health of a child for refusing to comply with obnoxious vaccination demands made by schools on parents who are no longer allowed to say no, not under any circumstances. Their entire job has been taken away from them along with the only natural rights that exist regarding the parenting of their own children. The hypocrisy is that the parent is still saddled with all of the responsibility but does not get to make the decisions that go with that responsibility. This means extraneous self appointed others decide what's best for us without having to bear the consequences or take any responsibility for when they are wrong or for any harm they do.
This is just wrong. It's insanity. The risk of serious damage to a child who is wrongly seized by false authorities under bullshit assertions of child endangerment so far exceeds the damage free choice to not vaccinate a child it's not even funny. The punishment does NOT fit the crime, it's exponentially worse than the supposed crime and does real and irreversible harm. The damage is real and present, not some theory or unsupported rhetoric. This entire situation is nuts.
I don't understand why anyone thinks that "the state" can touch anybody's children for any reason. The arrogance to assert that they know better than you what's best for your child is the height of fallacious tripe. This goes back to what I was saying before, that our own personal opinions are not an instant and sudden universal fact; that nobody is obligated to do things somebody else's way. When it comes to parenting, no external person has the slightest "right" to get involved or supersede our personal parental authority. On what grounds? There are no grounds. It's such emotional territory that people definitely can't think critically and are easily pulled along and into the Erroneous Zone where they are robbed and diminished by false assertions of higher good and authority that seeks only what's best for the child. Well how would they know? Where's the proof of that?
In this day and age consensus invalidity is perceived as the same thing as being right. It's not. And it never can be. It's still wrong no matter how many people say it's right. It boils down to your irrelevant opinion against my relevant one. There's no contest here. But people let themselves be sucked in emotionally and choose to believe that if authority asserts it is better than parents at parenting, then it must be so.
Show me the data. Where are facts? I also need to know who got the data, who they are affiliated with, who they work for, who paid them? Who compiled the facts? Are they actual facts? Because if they don't have anything to back up their claims, they don't have anything. The end run around that is to get inside people's personal lives and set up a strong hold in their most private areas with the aim of settling our heads like Israel "settles" Palestine. The aim is not to help, the goal is not justice or peace, it is not to protect our children, it is to destroy the right to ownership of our own lives and our children's lives and to take control and ownership of it away for their own personal gain.
The single most profound human attachment is mother and child, parents and children. That's blood attachment, it doesn't get any more meaningful or valuable or real or intense. You don't mess with blood. No mother could be blamed for doing whatever it took to protect her child, and that includes killing someone who threatens the safety or well-being of her children. How do you blame her for that when it's her highest duty and her whole world? You don't. No one with any morals or ethics or brains would dare presume to interfere in the family business of others. The state doesn't seem to have any qualms about that though which says a lot about the state. In spite of the child protection rhetoric, the violent attack on parent's God given rights to raise and protect their own children is not protective of children, it is not protective of rights or dignity or truth, it is protective of the states false assertions of power to treat human beings like less than livestock. It's outrageous.
It is only by trespassing into the most private aspects of our lives and our allowing them to do it, our knee-jerk fear of and childlike trust in authority, our auto-responsive non-critical thinking when they speak, that has literally opened a door to outside interference that heretofore has always been a sacred place that none dared trespass against. High tech brain imaging has determined that when someone we think of as an authority speaks, our minds literally shut off. Areas of the brain literally go dark and stop functioning the moment an authority figure enters the room. If that's not scary I don't know what is because it's definitely not normal human behavior. That is not how free, autonomous, independent, critically thinking people act. The fact that this is so pervasive and rapidly becoming an established "good' way to be does not bode well for the future of this country or humanity in general.
Where we ever got the idea that anyone outside ourselves and those we personally know and interact with and live with, "must" be trusted and obeyed with mindless immediacy is beyond me. It doesn't make sense at the most primary level. It's idiotic. But this process has occurred and now people are systematically handing over authority to official others and giving away direct authority over their own health decisions and children's lives just because officialdom asserts it knows best. As I've already stated, nobody's personal opinions create an external reality. This new worship of 21st century techno-scientific authority is ludicrous and deeply disturbing.
No one else has any natural authority over us or over our children or over our health choices or any other basic, personal, private matter. It's not up to others, it's up to us. That's what our lives are at the most fundamental level. Others can only try to assert authority but they can't claim to have any rights of authority. It's only to the extent we believe their assertions and hand our authority over to them that they can have any authority at all.
The thing that makes it confusing is the stated claim of protecting us. People think being protected is good, and they auto connect being protected with officialdom of all kinds. They fail to notice that no officialdom or authority out there has any legal obligation to protect anyone. It eludes them that this is not a warm and fuzzy country where everyone gets a hug and enough to eat and if you ever have any problems you just pick up the phone and call the state or the CDC or whoever, and they'll rush right over and help you get all better again. We don't have that. We have people with guns and power telling lies and selling us everything from suicide to embracing our new dominated kind of freedom. Officials don't rush in to help you with a fricking thing, do they? No.
But, what about abused children and all that? Who will help them?
This is the precise mechanism I'm talking about. Who will help them is a false question because it presumes there is an answer. There isn't an answer, it's not that simple. It's an escape from facing a truth you cannot do anything about. Some children live horrible lives. The government can't change that. Sorry. There are many things that we, human beings, can do to change it, but neither you or I or the government can make it go away by giving over our parental rights to an impersonal machine.
The question of should we give up some of our rights to help protect abused children is the ultimate false question. It would seem that people of good conscience should rapidly agree to the exchange but it is a trap. If we hand over our rightful authority, our god given freedom, to anyone, we don't have anything left to protect. And those children will still be getting abused, probably worse than ever.
I am so sorry for the parents whose lives are being destroyed by bogus, brutally delivered assertions of impossible authority made by the state claiming jurisdiction over their private lives, their children's lives. Imagine being an informed single mother who has educated herself about vaccines and in good conscience will not allow her child to be vaccinated. The uninformed parents outnumber her and auto-respond with hatred and accusations. The child feels confusion and shame and doesn't know what's right or wrong. Then the state comes to her door and takes her child away at gunpoint and throws her into prison on charges of child endangerment. The situation is an obscenity. The situation should never exist. But it does.
It is power gone insane because people do not think. It couldn't happen if we simply understood what's ours and what no one else has a right to touch and we made damn sure to make clear and protect our private boundaries. They belong to us and only to us. We don't have to do that in any way that somebody else says we do. "Mine" really means mine in the truest sense. No one else gets an opinion about what's mine. Only I do.
When we don't understand that, when we don't support that, we give away what's ours and we suffer terribly for it. Like anything we lose in life, once it's gone it's next to impossible to get back. I can't stress enough the importance of people putting their foot down when slimy false authority tries to commandeer their private lives. The importance of standing by others who have the courage to do it cannot be understated. One person alone will be crushed by the machine, but a whole room of people saying, "Back off or else" is a whole 'nother story.
Do you think it's even possible to tell a mother grizzly bear that she's an unqualified mother and we'll just be taking her cub into protective custody? Do you think she cares what anyone thinks of her mothering skills? She will not recognize the foreign complainant. There will be no discussion. She will tear you in half on the spot because you made the stupid mistake of presuming you had any business interfering with her private life. Do you think any courtroom order for her to cease and desist and turn over her cub would matter in the least to her? They can make all the laws they like under any pretenses they want but the bottom line is they're wasting their time if they try it with grizzly bears. That's why they don't bother. They don't delude themselves that their bad badges and phony authority matters a whit in somebody else's territory. Because grizzly bears don't recognize their authority or care what they think. Laws don't mean squat unless people go along with them. The state can't change reality, it can only change your head by getting into it and laying their sticky scientific imperialist slave eggs in your brain. Pardon me, but I'll pass.
Our 'dumb' animals have much to teach us, if we pay attention. They seem to understand the real rules and know that when any human is in their face uninvited and moving his lips, he wants something that's not his to have. That's common sense. No grizzly bear will ever be impressed by slick talk or court orders or snotty unqualified school employees diagnosing our children's supposed mental illnesses and prescribing mandatory drugging for them. Not in any school where the mothers know who's boss. Not in any situation where parents don't righteously give a shit what anyone else thinks of their parenting because what they think is irrelevant. And that's all there is to it. If you don't respect yourself, trust me, nobody else will.
The basic hook, the sales gimmick that has taken this country's self authority is the ongoing trespass straight into people's private business. Loving your children and wanting them healthy is a given, but people don't think, they respond from fear and insecurity because they don't know the facts. To them, loving your children means vaccinating them, it's irrational and illogical but that is the truth of it. That is the reason people are militant supporters of hundreds of vaccinations getting pumped into every child in the country. It is not at all about health, it is about loving your children, and to not vaccinate them is to be a bad parent who does not love their children. It makes no sense at any level. There is no connection between the two things. There is also nothing in this equation that has anything to do with highly profitable pharmaceutical products being dispensed to children. No information. No facts. No studies with data of any kind. It is a 100% marketing ploy that pulls people into going for it with a contrived, dishonest, self-serving deceitful sales gimmick.
What also doesn't get noticed is the automatic self supplied value between I love my children and vaccines are a good thing. There's no connect there. Simply by inserting the suggestion at the end of no-brainer emotion packed questions, the responder auto inserts the connection and then assumes it to be true.
If you've ever had a conversation with anyone who's been sucked into the belief that injecting extraneous mystery potions into their children is not only the best thing in the whole wide world for them but that it's also perfectly safe across the board for every single child and adult, then you know that it's next to impossible to get people to check their inane assumptions. They don't realize they've made any assumptions. But the sad fact is, most of what they believe is nothing but assumptions they've made without realizing it. This is sloppy thinking. It's truly terrifying to see how wide spread it is. The habit of sloppy thinking is what controllers want most to encourage, and boy do they.
If you really got to the bottom of what people think they know about vaccines, they would tell you they've been told everything they believe by qualified authorities. But I guarantee you, they rarely have. They've never once been in the presence of an autonomous, qualified independent authority that has covered the history of vaccines, specified the difference between a vaccine and being inoculated, explained what is in the vaccines and where those things come from and what their effect on the human body, brain and organs is known to be. They will not have been given data on studies that prove vaccines are effective at preventing disease, because there are no such studies. This is all assumed. They will not have been given data on studies that prove vaccines are not always safe. This information is also assumed. The assumption is that since no external criteria seems to matter regarding vaccines, that they are as safe as water. No one in responsible legal authority ever said that. Whatever information people do get will not be tailored to them specifically, much less to their children. No supposed information in the general 'out there' mentions taking into consideration existing health conditions like asthma or diabetes, or a current state of mild or serious infection with a bug or virus of some kind.
The well-meaning but not helpful people who propagate the widely spread herd stampeded fallacious misinformation are the assuming true believers. Assumers encouraging others to assume and make the same erroneous value judgments and project them on an external object. The object is now "good", and the assumers are in agreement that it is now "good". They've totally lost track of how 'good' is subjective and personal and not the state or condition of some other thing they perceive. Many people would have to really struggle just to get that much untangled and understood.
All of that unhinged, encouraged assuming going on is exactly what the engineers of this hideous fraud on the public want. It's about money, yes it is. Grow up, that's what almost everything is about because money is power and money is freedom and money is getting away with it. Don't doubt for a minute the profit motive part of all this. There are other parts worth considering that are even more frightening than avarice and greed. Those parts are easy enough to find out and educate yourself about. Not knowing them is nobody's fault but your own. And it is exactly because that is true that it frees the authorities from all responsibility when something goes wrong with you or your child after a vaccine is administered. After all, they can't be responsible for what you erroneously assume to be true or for what you do because of that erroneous assumption.
If you don't at the very least avail yourself of the official information that is directly available to the public, which is regulated by law meaning it mandates a level of critical disclosure that you need to know in order to make any kind of an informed decision on this subject; then in their eyes it is your stupid error. It is not their fault, because the information is there and the legal disclosures have been made. If you didn't go get the information, it is not their fault it is your bad parenting. If you choose to get your life and death related data from people who have strong uninformed opinions but do not have an honest to goodness clue, if that's good enough for you, then your information will be whatever they say about it. And they are free to make any claims and say anything at all about it and are not required by law to give you hard facts. It is your choice, that's your option.
The people who benefit from your assumptions won't be bending over backward to clarify your misinformed mind. In fact, as many of us understand now, they want you to make those wrong assumptions because there is a bald faced agenda to push vaccines on every child in this country. Why that is can only be guessed at but the fact is that is what's happening. And children are being disabled and going into comas and dying, and all of that is swept under the rug. Information control and manipulation is, I'm sorry but this is reality, what the authorities do. Who else would do it? Who else would be interested in doing it? A general state of uninformed assumptive closed circular emotion based sloppy thinking is what they count on to further their own agendas. That may be done in the honest belief it's what's best for everyone, or it may not. Regardless, they have no business or right manipulating the public at all, but they do it anyway. The fact that we are conditioned to sloppy thinking, herd think and assuming things instead of getting up off our butts and finding facts and checking statements and beliefs seals our fate and makes their future look very secure. They will never face responsibility for anything they do. It's not their fault if you're stupid, is it?
I'm not saying anyone's stupid or a bad parent, I'm saying that is their legal position. It covers their butt, not yours. That is how they think, not how I see any of this. Their position is utterly disingenuous and deceitful. It's disgusting. They do everything in their power to let people's imaginations run wild. They help to stoke up the ignorance because it serves them. They don't however hide the truth about any of this. It is a few mouse clicks away from any home computer. It says it all right there at the CDC website. It says it in plain English. Vaccines are not guaranteed to work. Vaccines don't protect you from getting sick. Vaccines don't mean you won't catch the very diseases you've been vaccinated with. Children do get sick and have life threatening reactions and die. They'll down play it, but they won't omit the critical data because you can take them to court over that and that would get them put away for life. They know the game far better than we do, believe me. They invented the game. The problem is, most of us don't realize there even is a game.
On this issue alone, far too many people literally don't have the first factual clue. They don't know anything about alleged vaccine effectiveness or safety. They don't have a clue what's in these concoctions. They will fight you to the ground saying the solutions are safe and clean and life saving, and this will not be because they know it to be true, but because they self-inserted the acceptable and desirable assumed criteria of their choice, made the auto-connection to the exterior thing, and melded them. They themselves deemed and judged this external solution to be "good". It is not good. It just is what it is, that's all.
People miss the whole reality of "good" being a state of personal perception. The "good" that matters is what's good for them, personally. Danger is embodied in the totally erroneous belief that something out there is "good" or "bad" because you perceive it to be one or the other. It isn't. And it can't be. It can only either be good or bad for you, based on your actual reality and that is something you have to know for yourself. Nobody else could have a clue about your personal reality. How could they?
So, if I've done my work here and have achieved any modicum of success, then how you answer the following question might be a tad different than the first time I asked it:
"Which is better, chocolate or vanilla?"