How to Challenge Conservative Superiority

[JohnH]

Who gets to decide which is the conservative position.

Conservatives do, by looking at people with less-conservative views and deciding if they like the outcomes or not.

So, for example, people who are Wenger's, or Hoovers, or whoever, might look at (for example) people in BMA or LMC or Charity and go, "Hmm, that's not an outcome I want", and will view things from BMA and LMC and Charity people - and their ideas and opinions - with suspicion.

Unfortunately, the conduct of less-conservative people has pretty much enshrined vaccine scepticism into the conservative position (I would support this personally with regard to stem cells, but don't support overall vaccine scepticism). However, the conduct of less-conservative people is one of complete contempt to conservatives on this topic, so they don't do anything to build up credibility for themselves.

This applies to many other areas. For example, BMA people are not viewed as credible when it comes to opinions on consuming media since their young people have a reputation for watching questionable movies. (Don't shoot the messenger - I'm just sharing with you what I hear from other, more conservative people.) My own group is viewed with suspicion by other groups when it comes to clothing because we are less conservative in areas of dress.

The title of "how to challenge conservative superiority" may answer the entire question without meaning to. Why would any conservative Anabaptist person want to listen to the opinions of someone whose agenda is "how to challenge conservative superiority"?

[JohnH]

It is sounding like you understand my capabilities better than what I do and know better what we should make priority than what I do. At this point I am not ready to turn the business over to you.
But, if you started a business that published articles addressing the moralities of such things as vaccines, I'm guessing there would be a lot of people interested in the topic. I would even refer people your way who are looking for information on these topics.
You are welcome to email us explaining the correct science on metabolism changes.

I don't think Soloist's agenda is to run a for-profit business by tickling people's ears with subjects they are interested in.

I didn't think that was the agenda of the Plain News, either; for whatever reason, you decided to publish one specific perspective on vaccines and then ignore all others. I don't think you can hide behind a commitment to mainstream science, since, to be frank, you have published outright pseudoscience on other topics. So the real question is why you are creating the perception that you are operating the Plain News in a manner to try to promote a view on vaccines specifically.

If you want to hide behind "It's my for profit business and I can do whatever I want with it", you are welcome to do so, but that doesn't improve the reputation of the Plain News at all.

[Ernie]

for whatever reason, you decided to publish one specific perspective on vaccines and then ignore all others. I don't think you can hide behind a commitment to mainstream science, since, to be frank, you have published outright pseudoscience on other topics. So the real question is why you are creating the perception that you are operating the Plain News in a manner to try to promote a view on vaccines specifically.

It would be nice if those making accusations would at least know what they are talking about.

[Soloist]

It is sounding like you understand my capabilities better than what I do and know better what we should make priority than what I do. At this point I am not ready to turn the business over to you.
But, if you started a business that published articles addressing the moralities of such things as vaccines, I'm guessing there would be a lot of people interested in the topic. I would even refer people your way who are looking for information on these topics.
You are welcome to email us explaining the correct science on metabolism changes.

We did. It was actually my wife who addressed it. You had post an article Mike wrote years before and Mike had responded disagreeing with the science we gave.

As I said, it’s your publication.
You’re perfectly welcome to look it up, if you’d like, it was on gluttony. Perhaps at some point, you can post something about how the metabolism works.

[JohnH]

for whatever reason, you decided to publish one specific perspective on vaccines and then ignore all others. I don't think you can hide behind a commitment to mainstream science, since, to be frank, you have published outright pseudoscience on other topics. So the real question is why you are creating the perception that you are operating the Plain News in a manner to try to promote a view on vaccines specifically.

It would be nice if those making accusations would at least know what they are talking about.

Please feel free to correct me, then.

[Southerner]

Unfortunately, the conduct of less-conservative people has pretty much enshrined vaccine scepticism into the conservative position (I would support this personally with regard to stem cells, but don't support overall vaccine scepticism).

Interestingly, the conservatives in my area are largely vaccinated including for COVID...the liberals are the anti-vaxxers and into conspiracy.

[Soloist]

Interestingly, the conservatives in my area are largely vaccinated including for COVID...the liberals are the anti-vaxxers and into conspiracy.

Yes.

Often there is some regional overlap and political on these but not always.
I dare say the liberals and conservatives generally disagree with me here and aside from John, most keep it to themselves if they agree.
I’m also not against vaccines nor into made up conspiracies. I would argue it’s not generally a conspiracy in regard to fetal cell use.

[barnhart]

Interestingly, the conservatives in my area are largely vaccinated including for COVID...the liberals are the anti-vaxxers and into conspiracy.

I see both.

[Soloist]

I should not have publicly drug up old history between myself and Ernie’s company. It wasn’t appropriate

[Soloist]

Wife: Since it was brought up on this thread, what I had addressed in that article was his push for doing whatever it took to lose weight even if it meant complete fasting for two weeks. I can’t actually pull up the article anymore, although I can pull up the email that I sent plain news, and Mike had mentioned in response that a two week fast wouldn’t hurt anyone.

My concern and follow up response was potentially fueling eating disorders, and also that it would mess up somebody’s metabolism and make it harder for them in the long run to lose weight and keep it off. I emailed some scientific evidence for that, and some of the studies following the contestants of the biggest loser.

That said, I liked a lot of Mike Atnip’s articles, and there were even parts of that article I liked.