How to Challenge Conservative Superiority

[Soloist]

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

Okay, this is old and doesn’t overly matter. We hashed it out before and you didn’t agree with my assessment nor see it as your goal to explain fetal cells connection with vaccines. You stated to me several dismissive things about it. This isn’t an argument about not knowing but a difference in opinion. And it’s a little bit unfair to say I don’t know what I’m talking about since it was about a discussion between you and me. By that logic, I could say you don’t know what you’re talking about or we can agree that we have different opinions about it.

We did not encourage people to get vaccinated. We acknowledged that there are moral considerations associated with these matters that are valid. We published a list of the available vaccines showing which vaccines used fetal cell lines in manufacturing and in trials and in research. This way readers could make an educated decision about whether or not they wanted to get vaccinated.
Soloist wished we would have published more than this. I somewhat understand his position on vaccines and why he wished we would have published more.

Our news organization does not publish articles that our subscribers think are credible.

Ah so you didn’t agree that the doctor writing the article knew what he wrote about?

We research things and then write our own articles. Going deeper into the vaccine debate, and researching and writing on this particular topic is not something we've made a priority at this point.

As I said before, it was a priority to publish multiple articles or news on vaccines and only a little blip about the ethics

I

could supply all the data and articles and conversations that Soloist and I have had on this topic. I don't think that would be profitable.
The only reason I am writing about it here is because Soloist brought up Plain News in this thread.

I’m thinking the majority of our discussion was actually on the phone and was fairly dissatisfying. That being said, you are a pleasant person to have a conversation with and you listened to what I have to say even if we came away with disagreement.
I would request that if you actually chose to post anything between our private conversation that you leave the email I forwarded you out of it as it was not to you and misses the context of our lengthy discussion anyway.

I'm sure JohnH and Soloist will have more things to say. I doubt I will have more to say.

I suppose that if you wanted, I could write the article for you, but it wouldn’t be nearly as good as the doctor’s. It would be well wrote, well researched and supported with factual data. Although I would suspect your answer would be no.
I’m not actually that incredible of a writer anyway.

I will continue to hold that your group is distorting conservative values while still respecting you as an individual.

[Judas Maccabeus]

There are a diversity of options in the conservative movement on this issue. I don’t think EITHER of you can claim to represent the movement on that issue. As far as I know, there are a variety of views and none of them represent an “official “position. If you all want to be more “conservative “ feel free to. But both of you lack the standing to represent your opinion as THE conservative opinion.

[Soloist]

There are a diversity of options in the conservative movement on this issue. I don’t think EITHER of you can claim to represent the movement on that issue. As far as I know, there are a variety of views and none of them represent an “official “position. If you all want to be more “conservative “ feel free to. But both of you lack the standing to represent your opinion as THE conservative opinion.

That’s why I said “a conservative position”

[Ernie]

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

Okay, this is old and doesn’t overly matter. We hashed it out before and you didn’t agree with my assessment nor see it as your goal to explain fetal cells connection with vaccines. You stated to me several dismissive things about it. This isn’t an argument about not knowing but a difference in opinion. And it’s a little bit unfair to say I don’t know what I’m talking about since it was about a discussion between you and me. By that logic, I could say you don’t know what you’re talking about or we can agree that we have different opinions about it.

For the record...
If you look at the quote, I was responding to JohnH. Not to you. I wasn't saying that you do not know what you are talking about.

Our news organization does not publish articles that our subscribers think are credible.

Ah so you didn’t agree that the doctor writing the article knew what he wrote about?

We don't know whether we agree or not since we didn't research the premises and claims in the article(s) you referenced.

I will continue to hold that your group is distorting conservative values while still respecting you as an individual.

We live in an era whenever many people will not allow others to not take a stance on things. In many work settings, a person cannot say, "I'm not interested in taking a stance on this. Can I just be silent?" They are pressured to speak out on things that are deemed important moral or social issues.
So to say that we are distorting conservative values by not prioritizing publications about the morals of vaccines really seems like a stretch. There are thousands of moral issues that could be written about and we've only chosen to write about a few. We are not an unabridged news source.

Again, we may disagree on what topics our news organization should make priority. But it is not that I think that such publications should not be done.

[Ernie]

It seems common for people to view a person or organization less conservative than they are with deep suspicion. I've done that myself at times; perhaps less frequently now than in the past. I've been trying to cultivate shallow suspicion, if any at all, rather than deep suspicion.

How can we avoid practicing and promoting this shameful behavior?

It does seem that this thread has become another example of what the OP is addressing.

[barnhart]

Who gets to decide which is the conservative position.

[AnthonyMartin]

Who gets to decide which is the conservative position.

I do

[barnhart]

Who gets to decide which is the conservative position.

I do

That makes about as much sense as what I see happening.

[Soloist]

For the record...
If you look at the quote, I was responding to JohnH. Not to you. I wasn't saying that you do not know what you are talking about.

Apparently I didn’t know what I was reading

We live in an era whenever many people will not allow others to not take a stance on things. In many work settings, a person cannot say, "I'm not interested in taking a stance on this. Can I just be silent?" They are pressured to speak out on things that are deemed important moral or social issues.

I can agree but the constant news and few articles present a side so your group was not silent.

So to say that we are distorting conservative values by not prioritizing publications about the morals of vaccines really seems like a stretch. There are thousands of moral issues that could be written about and we've only chosen to write about a few. We are not an unabridged news source.

Your organization isn’t limited to 1 or 2 publications a week and by your words, you have to research it. Do you agree with everything your article writers say? Did you research Mike A’s article on weight loss before you published it? His article didn’t line up with science on metabolism changes.

Again, we may disagree on what topics our news organization should make priority. But it is not that I think that such publications should not be done.

The limited factor is trust and belief. You have in your congregation someone who shares my views, do you trust them? Have them review the article since you don’t have time. You certainly are able to outsource work unless maintaining publication control is more important.

[Ernie]

For the record...
If you look at the quote, I was responding to JohnH. Not to you. I wasn't saying that you do not know what you are talking about.

Apparently I didn’t know what I was reading

We live in an era whenever many people will not allow others to not take a stance on things. In many work settings, a person cannot say, "I'm not interested in taking a stance on this. Can I just be silent?" They are pressured to speak out on things that are deemed important moral or social issues.

I can agree but the constant news and few articles present a side so your group was not silent.

So to say that we are distorting conservative values by not prioritizing publications about the morals of vaccines really seems like a stretch. There are thousands of moral issues that could be written about and we've only chosen to write about a few. We are not an unabridged news source.

Your organization isn’t limited to 1 or 2 publications a week and by your words, you have to research it. Do you agree with everything your article writers say? Did you research Mike A’s article on weight loss before you published it? His article didn’t line up with science on metabolism changes.

Again, we may disagree on what topics our news organization should make priority. But it is not that I think that such publications should not be done.

The limited factor is trust and belief. You have in your congregation someone who shares my views, do you trust them? Have them review the article since you don’t have time. You certainly are able to outsource work unless maintaining publication control is more important.

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.