|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 3, 2015 5:30:32 GMT
I've looked all over the Internet for the past 30 minutes without finding a reference to using "at gunpoint" to describe trying to persuade someone following non-violent legal courses of action. And am concluding that I am not the one confused in my understanding of the idiom. It has nothing to do with legal action. It's an idiom. An idiom's figurative meaning is separate from the literal meaning. define it as being forced to do something due to threat of physical harm. All of them. Where did you think I was looking? |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Feb 3, 2015 5:48:02 GMT
It's been around longer than I have. And the meaning is quite literal. Governments have forced people at gunpoint to do what they wanted or else. You refuse to change your religion when we tell you to? Off with your head. You refuse to obey the law? The firing squad will deal with you shortly. Americans refuse to vaccinate their children. What exactly is the government to do to make them comply? Give families time outs? Fine them? As if that would stop the followers of Jenny McCarthy Wahlburg. The only (mostly) absolute way to gain compliance is with force. If you advocate for absolute compliance, you're going to have to face that reality. Make them financially responsible for the illness they spread. I thought that I was clear about it. Just as they are financially responsible for car accidents they cause. Without guns ever being used. Go figure. Not every social problem has to be solved with violence and guns.  You were. You still won't get everyone to comply, though. I know that's frustrating. Just for the record, @scrubologist was NOT, I repeat, was NOT intimating that violence should be used to force people to comply with getting vaccinations. Don't be mad at her. She's a good person  and certainly not one to advocate actual violence here. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 16:20:52 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 5:56:53 GMT
It's a very common idiom.Under the gunShe didn't misuse the term and there are plenty of popular sayings using gun terminology that also aren't literally referring to violence. At gunpoint. Lock, stock and barrel. Faster than a speeding bullet. Pull the trigger. Drop the hammer. Lock and load. Get the lead out. Hot as a pistol. Going off half-cocked. Rapid fire. Bullet proof. Loose cannon. With guns blazing. Shoot yourself in the foot. Shot down. Easier than shooting fish in a barrel. Shoot from the hip. A shot in the dark. No one held a gun to your head. Worth a shot. Bringing out the big guns. Take aim. Overshot the mark. Aim higher. (as in setting goals) Can't hit the broad side of a barn. Straight shooter. Gunning for someone. Point blank. He's a little trigger happy. Gun shy. Bulls eye! I've got you in my sights. Hair trigger. Shooting blanks. Gave it to him with both barrels. The whole nine yards. Smoking gun. I could go on, there's a lot of them. You did misunderstand and take offense to just one of many, very common, gun phrases that have nothing at all to do with actual violence. Gia, but "at gunpoint" always refers to being coerced to do something at the threat of physical violence. Always. Or it is being used incorrectly. I really don't care about the other list you posted. Those terms weren't used to describe me. Now, g'nite! Sweet dreams again! It's not literal, it's hyperbole, figure of speech, an idiom - An idiom's figurative meaning is separate from the literal meaning. Just like the other phrases, she did not use that figure of speech to describe our government literally holding a gun to anyone's head. I think a reasonable person, who has been alive more than a decade or two and has heard other idioms and hyperbole being used, can put that into context. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Feb 3, 2015 8:31:52 GMT
I have used (and seen used by others) variations of forcing someone to do something at the point of a gun more times than I can count, for situations that had exactly zero to do with the actual use or threat of violence.
I'm sorry, Elaine, but it is a very common figure of speech.
As for Chris Christie ... I think he's so eager to say the opposite of whatever Pres. Obama just said that he's willing to spout utter nonsense in public.
|
|
|
|
Post by gypsymama on Feb 3, 2015 11:14:36 GMT
i agree that its very common, just like when i say i want to kill my husband i don't REALLY want to kill him, just hyperbole...
|
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Feb 3, 2015 11:28:16 GMT
I'm not clear about what he means. If I understand him, he personally believes in vaccination. He also wants balance and parent choice in vaccine standards-just not measles. For measles, he is pro-vaccine.
Is this what the rest of you are getting?
|
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Feb 3, 2015 11:42:28 GMT
I'm not clear about what he means. If I understand him, he personally believes in vaccination. He also wants balance and parent choice in vaccine standards-just not measles. For measles, he is pro-vaccine. Is this what the rest of you are getting? yes that's pretty much what he's saying which is a lot of air for very little actual stance on the issue ( as usual for him ) he just put together a lot of words that do not exactly come down on either side of the issue but rather right on the fence. ( is that phrase ok? ) It's a way to get media time and not be accountable to anything. So that is why this thread looks so weird and over the top he basically said a lot of wushu washy nothing and the OP is rabid about it. ( am I allowed to use that idiom? ) the whole thread is weird. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 3, 2015 11:59:40 GMT
I'm not clear about what he means. If I understand him, he personally believes in vaccination. He also wants balance and parent choice in vaccine standards-just not measles. For measles, he is pro-vaccine. Is this what the rest of you are getting? yes that's pretty much what he's saying which is a lot of air for very little actual stance on the issue ( as usual for him ) he just put together a lot of words that do not exactly come down on either side of the issue but rather right on the fence. ( is that phrase ok? ) It's a way to get media time and not be accountable to anything. So that is why this thread looks so weird and over the top he basically said a lot of wushu washy nothing and the OP is rabid about it. ( am I allowed to use that idiom? ) the whole thread is weird. I wasn't exactly rabid about Christie, but rabid about what I felt was the response to my suggesting a legal course of action that would financially hold parents responsible for their choices. If you want to poke me for foaming at the mouth, you might as well do it about what I was hopping mad about. Christie didn't say he was pro-vaccine for any disease in specific, but that we need to discuss each disease and each vaccine and then decide standards. Which is what boards of physicians have been doing all along, but politicians are much better equipped that physicians to decide these matters, in his mind, I guess. He certainly had no problem in being very decisive, loud, and didn't want to take into account health experts' assessment of actual risk in quarantining Nurse Hickox against her will in Newark. I find that to be hypocritical (more concerned with the maintaining the civil liberties of parents to choose over public safety in the former, more concerned with public safety than Nurse Hickox' civil liberties in the latter), others don't. But, as lucyg said, it probably was as much about saying the opposite of whatever the President says, rather than putting too much thought into it. Yes, this thread is weird. |
|
|
|
Post by Kymberlee on Feb 3, 2015 12:40:42 GMT
This is going to be a long election cycle if we are going to argue over the literal and figurative meaning of the phrase "point of a gun" instead of the real issue at hand which is vaccinating children against deadly and preventable diseases. CC said a lot of nothing but isnt that what most politicians do? Frustrating but true. I agree with hop2; this thread is weird. |
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Feb 3, 2015 12:53:55 GMT
I agree that the majority of the population can be vaccinated with very little risk.
However, there is a segment of the population that should not be vaccinated because for them the risks are too great. The CDC website has information on that for each vaccine. Parents along with their pediatrician should look at the risk and make the best decision for their child.
So, I agree with the President and Governor Christie.
If you let your politcal leanings influence your argument then you will find fault with the person you dislike.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 16:20:52 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 12:59:54 GMT
Make them financially responsible for the illness they spread. I thought that I was clear about it. Just as they are financially responsible for car accidents they cause. Without guns ever being used. Go figure. Not every social problem has to be solved with violence and guns. You were. You still won't get everyone to comply, though. I know that's frustrating. Just for the record, @scrubologist was NOT, I repeat, was NOT intimating that violence should be used to force people to comply with getting vaccinations. Don't be mad at her. She's a good person and certainly not one to advocate actual violence here. I was not at all wanting violence to be used to force vaccinations, which was my whole reason for disagreeing with widespread non-vax laws such as were proposed in the OP. If we make laws, and people disobey laws, ultimately only some sort of force can guarantee compliance, and we have to be willing to go there if we demand 100% compliance. Traffic laws, the bulk of which are civil, are a good example of this. You speed. You get a ticket. You don't pay. You get a summons. You don't show up and still don't pay. Eventually a warrant is issued, and the infraction is now criminal instead of civil. The police can now take you by force or threat of force and jail you. Laws are complex and hugely costly to implement, and that is my primary objection to outlawing non-vaccinators. Also, if people don't have the money in the first place, the threat of huge fines is of no consequence to them. Short of physically sticking the needle in their arm, what would we do in the face of continued non-compliance? |
|
grinningcat
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,663
Jun 26, 2014 13:06:35 GMT
|
Post by grinningcat on Feb 3, 2015 13:03:12 GMT
Honestly, unless you have a medical issue (which is far and few between from what I've been hearing/reading) then there is no reason to not be vaccinated, thus putting the public at risk. I agree with Elaine, if you're going to put people at risk by not vaccinating because of some junk "science", you should be responsible for the outcome.
Beyond true medical issues that are actually diagnosed by a medical professional, I really see no reason that legitimizes not vaccinating. So I agree with Elaine, and think that Chris Christie is doing more damage than good with this stupid choice concept. Especially with a tried and true vaccine like the MMR. That actually eradicated measles in North America. There is no reason why it should be coming back. None. Except junk "science" and the idiots peddling this junk "science" did so much damage with their bullshit fearmongering has brought it back. Idiots. There is no excuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Feb 3, 2015 13:10:48 GMT
The vaccine debate is all over the news today. Besides Chris Christie's comments, they are replaying Rand Paul's comments over and over where he is talking about knowing "many" people who had "walking and talking" children who then had "mental disorders" after receiving the vaccine. He, a doctor, is perpetuating the myth and giving more credence to the anti-vaccine crowd. It is irresponsible.  Rand Paul adding fuel to the fire |
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Feb 3, 2015 13:13:23 GMT
MSNBC has already dug out the tape of then Senator Obama on the campaign trail saying that there is a study supporting not vaccinating (which had already been debunked as junk science) that was inconclusive. Thank goodness he's updated his talking points.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 16:20:52 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 13:16:24 GMT
MSNBC has already dug out the tape of then Senator Obama on the campaign trail saying that there is a study supporting not vaccinating (which had already been debunked as junk science) that was inconclusive. Thank goodness he's updated his talking points. What do you mean updated his talking points? Do you think he does or does not believe people should be vaccinated? |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Feb 3, 2015 13:17:08 GMT
I don't understand the part about parent choice in vaccine standards.. What does that mean? Doesn't sound like he is talking about those who for whatever reason, cannot be vaccinated. What would parent choice in vaccine standards look like?
|
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Feb 3, 2015 13:19:04 GMT
MSNBC has already dug out the tape of then Senator Obama on the campaign trail saying that there is a study supporting not vaccinating (which had already been debunked as junk science) that was inconclusive. Thank goodness he's updated his talking points. What do you mean updated his talking points? Do you think he does or does not believe people should be vaccinated? What day is it? Christie & Obama are both politicians. Who cares what they actually believe? It's the laws they enforce and promote that matter. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Feb 3, 2015 13:20:54 GMT
I don't understand the part about parent choice in vaccine standards.. What does that mean? Doesn't sound like he is talking about those who for whatever reason, cannot be vaccinated. What would parent choice in vaccine standards look like? Stop and think about who Christie's constituents are. There are some very wealthy, and some very crazy people who VOTE him in or out of office. What good will it do anyone if they turn on him en masse and vote in someone who truly does think vaccines are of the devil? |
|
|
|
Post by Kymberlee on Feb 3, 2015 13:26:21 GMT
Here is my take, FWIW. I think CC said something off the cuff when a reporter asked him something that he wasn't prepared to answer. He put together some answer that we/the media are now picking part word by word. He will now come out with a more PC answer that is worded better and will not say anything at all that can be construed as controversial. Does that make sense? Its what politicians do. They say a lot of pretty stuff that has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. It gets old.
|
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Feb 3, 2015 13:29:14 GMT
I find it hard to believe that NJ has that many anti-fax nutters. I know that politicians pander, but on this particular issue, I would feel much better about one who was unequivocal in his position. <but they're all as oily and slippery as hell.>.
|
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Feb 3, 2015 13:30:56 GMT
I find it hard to believe that NJ has that many anti-fax nutters. I know that politicians pander, but on this particular issue, I would feel much better about one who was unequivocal in his position. <but they're all as oily and slippery as hell.>. Have you ever been to NJ? There might not be that many of them (I have no idea), but the ones that are there might be very influential. That's how politicians have to think, any way. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 3, 2015 13:38:53 GMT
You were. You still won't get everyone to comply, though. I know that's frustrating. Just for the record, @scrubologist was NOT, I repeat, was NOT intimating that violence should be used to force people to comply with getting vaccinations. Don't be mad at her. She's a good person and certainly not one to advocate actual violence here. I was not at all wanting violence to be used to force vaccinations, which was my whole reason for disagreeing with widespread non-vax laws such as were proposed in the OP. If we make laws, and people disobey laws, ultimately only some sort of force can guarantee compliance, and we have to be willing to go there if we demand 100% compliance. Traffic laws, the bulk of which are civil, are a good example of this. You speed. You get a ticket. You don't pay. You get a summons. You don't show up and still don't pay. Eventually a warrant is issued, and the infraction is now criminal instead of civil. The police can now take you by force or threat of force and jail you. Laws are complex and hugely costly to implement, and that is my primary objection to outlawing non-vaccinators. Also, if people don't have the money in the first place, the threat of huge fines is of no consequence to them. Short of physically sticking the needle in their arm, what would we do in the face of continued non-compliance? See, scrubologist, part of my issue is that you still don't understand what I am saying and then presenting it as if I am saying something else. I did not EVER say that I want to OUTLAW non-vaccination. Nowhere. That is where you are completely missing the boat. I do not, repeat, do not want to pass laws outlawing non-vaccination. Can I be any more clear about that? What I am saying is that I am for passing legislation for making people financially responsible for the consequences of their choices to not vaccinate their children. Sadly, in our society, you can't make a segment of the population care about the rest of the community, and those people also tend to care a lot about their bank accounts. You might not agree with that course of action too, but that is very different from my wanting to "outlaw non-vaccination." Should we we stop holding people financially responsible for car accidents they cause because some can't pay? That is a weak argument for not holding people responsible for their actions. Their are countless of civil suits where people and corporations ARE held financially responsible to remedy damages they have caused in a wide range of areas from faulty cribs, to deaths due to asbestos, to even libel and slander where the damages aren't physical in nature, and on and on. If I choose not to correctly install my window air conditioner and it falls out of my window and leaves your child brain-damaged, are you saying that I shouldn't be held financially responsible? How is that different from choosing to not-vaccinate your child who doesn't have medical reasons to skip vaccines and then your child passes measles to another child resulting in brain damage for life? When people don't pay in civil suits, they don't necessarily go to prison. They have their wages garnished. Not that it should matter, but research has shown that the majority of non-vaxers are well-educated and not poor. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Feb 3, 2015 13:45:00 GMT
Here is my take, FWIW. I think CC said something off the cuff when a reporter asked him something that he wasn't prepared to answer. He put together some answer that we/the media are now picking part word by word. He will now come out with a more PC answer that is worded better and will not say anything at all that can be construed as controversial. Does that make sense? Its what politicians do. They say a lot of pretty stuff that has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. It gets old. Well, he was touring a biomedical research facility in Cambridge that makes vaccines when asked the question. If it was a surprise question, he really really stinks as a politician... |
|
|
|
Post by katieanna on Feb 3, 2015 13:45:07 GMT
Vaccines were invented to protect us from a variety of serious, if not deadly, diseases. Why anyone would not have themselves and their children vaccinated (except for medical reasons) is beyond me.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,979 
|
Post by Sarah*H on Feb 3, 2015 13:48:40 GMT
The problem with this is it's too late. Do you think the anti-vaxxers go around quoting Jenny McCarthy saying last year that she never told anyone not to vaccinate? Christie said it and those looking for justification for their choice will seize on his words as proof they are right. The anti-government crowd will say "see, freedom!" and the vaccine/autism crowd will quote Rand Paul and say "see, serious mental disorders!" and it will all just become more and more political.
It all goes back to the social contract. If you don't like your responsibilities under the contract, don't avail yourself of its benefits. And if you decide to send your send your unnecessarily unvaccinated child out into the world and that causes other people harm, then yes, there should be civil penalties for your negligence.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 16:20:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 13:54:08 GMT
I have never, and will never be a Christie fan. He's got a big mouth.
I saw this on FB a day or two ago and thought it was perfect.
I strongly believe that vaccines should be MANDATORY to attend public school unless you have a valid, medical reason, that a licensed doctor will confirm (and perhaps even be able to recertify every few years...hell I have to provide documentation that I live where I say I do when my kid changes schools) |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 16:20:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 13:54:36 GMT
I saw a sign on facebook that said "Vaccinating is NOT a "personal choice"; it's a social obligation. Love this! |
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Feb 3, 2015 14:02:46 GMT
I find it hard to believe that NJ has that many anti-fax nutters. I know that politicians pander, but on this particular issue, I would feel much better about one who was unequivocal in his position. <but they're all as oily and slippery as hell.>. There are 2 reasons you can opt out of vaccines in NJ and still send a child to public school 1 medical reasons 2 eatablushed religious reason 'I just don't want to doesn't cut it' |
|
|
|
Post by missfrenchjessica on Feb 3, 2015 14:09:37 GMT
I have never, and will never be a Christie fan. He's got a big mouth.
I saw this on FB a day or two ago and thought it was perfect.
I strongly believe that vaccines should be MANDATORY to attend public school unless you have a valid, medical reason, that a licensed doctor will confirm (and perhaps even be able to recertify every few years...hell I have to provide documentation that I live where I say I do when my kid changes schools) While I totally get the sentiment, this implies that those with food-allergic kids are also anti-vaxxers. I have a food-allergic kid, who thankfully has only had allergic reactions ingesting the allergen so the no pb sandwiches, for us, is a non-issue. But, I am firmly in the camp of "vaccinate your kid!". I just wish it had been worded slightly differently so it didn't seem like parents of food allergic kids = anti-vaxxers. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Feb 3, 2015 14:13:32 GMT
Exactly. From what I can glean, most parents seem to have a good understanding of the importance of vaccines. That is my opinion, based on what I've been reading. Has anyone seen something different?
I am sick of all of the smarminess that goes on(on BOTH) sides in politics. This is a crucial issue for so many. They should, I think, as serious people, be willing to clearly state their opinion.
|
|
You were.
and certainly not one to advocate actual violence here. 
