If they want free support and get irate when its explained to that that its how you may your money, they can take a flying leap.
This is probably the root of the problem. Somewhere there is likely something saying free support through the online forums community or something similar and it isn't worded clearly enough for someone not paying attention to understand it.
Most OSS software does offer free support. It is a forum that users and volunteers answer questions for or a knowledge base of known problems and solutions or a combination of the two. It's generally when you needed to interact in real time with someone that there is a charge or they refer you to a consultancy group in your area that can help for their own fee.
I've seen similar with paid software too. I almost had a cow when I found out the $5k per year service contract with one software provider wasn't going to cover telephone support when their update broke the database structure and the program would crash on start up. Of course in this case, a manager told me they had us marked on a different service level then we purchased for some reason and comped the call. But that means other are paying for service contracts and when there is a problem if they purchase the older versions.
The way to fix this is to make the support options more clear and almost in your face when downloading the software. Perhaps if there is a help tab you can click on, a popup or menu tree for the installed software could explain this also. Either way, by the time they down load the software, it should be clear as to what support is free and what isn't. If that fails, it should be clear by the time they find a way to contact the project by phone or whatever method.
I said nothing about the holocaust. The holocaust is not the only horrid thing to happen under Hitler. The holocaust was likely more palatable by the German citizens and those involved because of the generics practices. Germany had required every doctor to record every genetic impurity or defect and those people were force sterilized. Later, the T4 program started euthanizing the insane, crippled, diseased and disabled. This was all because of Social Darwinism which was a European concept that you could force the ill traits of man out of the gene pole by controlling the reproduction of people with them.
BTW, the T4 building or department was the one that coordinated the eugenics program, the euthanasia, and took control over the final solution. If the holocaust and Eugenics is connected, we know it was the same people controlling it. Outside of sharing the same building for it's command and control and the same people, I'm not sure anything outside of inflammatory remarks cause the connections.
They didn't deem it constitutional. They deemed the provision a tax not a penalty which means we have to wait until the tax kicks in before it can be challenged.
Attention to detail make a world of difference here.
Umm.. Obamacare has no provision in it to stop 45,000 Americans from dieing due to no insurance. In fact, that number is capricious and false to begin with. The only thing different with Obamacare is that instead of insurance companies determining what will be treated, the government will. The poor already had government coverage and absolutely no hospital was allowed to deny life saving care because of ability to pay.
You either have been lied to, or are generating your own lies to support your ideology.
That's a very optimistic outlook on Cuba that has little chance in reality. No other country supports the US embargo on Cuba. No country other then Russia who needed it for it's strategic importance relating to the location of the US would have invested in it because they took over all private enterprise.
Cuba would likley be little different then it is now.
The plan behind Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" was to appeal as a softer figure then Gore was stiff. He didn't cut any safety nets and even added religious outreaches to increase the effectiveness.
Actually, they say Romney's GOTV campaign fell on it's nose because the tech didn't work when it was needed. With the election as close as it was, that not happening or Obama not having a solid GOTV apparatus could have meant an entirely different outcome.
It probably isn't TV when it is the internet. I would say the biggest difference in this type of situation might be the adds are different. You pay comedy central to run an add, you won't see that add on hulu when watching Stewart or Colbert. Of course of they skip watching the adds and just watch the shows, then there is no difference because the opponent of the show's bias has no recourse.
This stuff is supposed to already be spelled out in the bills they vote for or have a accounting report processed by the GAO attached to the bill. Rules and procedures dictate that all new spending needs to be either paid for by cuts somewhere else or with raised revenue somewhere/somehow.
A system like you suggest would encourage the already lazy politicians to simple pass laws until the money is gone.
The problems we have now isn't just not knowing what we are spending. It's a convoluted process of several factors. One is that entitlement programs have automatic increases built into them and we do what is called emergency spending which bypasses those rules. There is also the problem that the government doesn't have money on hand before they spend. They spend what they anticipate to have due to reports and projections from taxes and other revenues. When the economy tanks, revenue typically goes down and the expected revenue is not realized creating a deficit. This also triggers increases in certain entitlements that are designed to help struggling families like unemployment insurance payments to states and food stamps.
The sad part about emergency spending is that it is typically off budget but when it lasts for a while it tends to get put on budget without being accounted for. The war spending is a great example of this. Both wars were all deficit spending off budget under the emergency spending. Congress moved this to on budget so now we don't have to stop the spending when the wars end. A politician can say- we are going to pay with this bill by the savings we will see in the draw down of the Iraq war. When the Iraq war ends, the annual spending on it, even though it was all borrowed in the first place, will actually become a source of revenue to justify new spending or increase existing spending. Congress knows full well that we don't have the money, but they simply do not care. You can say it's a wet dream for them that when they wake up, find out they have to pay the prostitute.
No, you do not get it. X and Y is the product of the scientific method and rejecting either does not mean you reject the scientific method.
I'm sorry, but you simply have to give up this idea that anything science is irreproachable and if someone does not completely believe everything as stated, they are against it all. It doesn't work in reality and make you look like a religious nutcase when you attempt to push it.
And I'll preface my comment with, I find it extremely funny how unscientific your comment is and how you turn to name calling as if it allows you to make a point. I also find it extremely interesting in how everyone is essentially saying "blasphemy, if you don't believe exactly as I do, you are against all things I believe in". That's a religious argument and perhaps you should check if science hasn't become your religion. Either way, it doesn't matter, you are too ashamed of your beliefs to bother with a logged in account.
But from where I am sitting, all I'm seeing is a bunch of whiners complaining that someone follow their gospel so they are not christian- err I mean they are anti=science.
You are absolutely right that sometimes rejecting science is in fact science. That is true when you say "I disagree with your science because of my science" after both topics have been thoroughly tested using the scientific method. You are fighting a battle that has been over for years.
I'm not fighting any battles, unless you think getting people like the ones I was replying with to pick up a fucking dictionary and use words the way they were meant to be used as a battle. I got all my vaccines, my children have theirs, I personally don't care about the argument for or against them. It is this entire religion that revolves around if you do not believe every single shred of science claims put in front of you with the same intensity as some people want, somehow you now against science in general instead of for more safety and study, instead of giving way for other benefits like economical or social or philosophical and psychological.
Some insane people said, a long time ago "your science causes autism in kids" so the scientific community said "we should check this out." They did, many times, and proved that the science used to make the original idea of causing autism was TOTALLY MADE UP BY SOME KOOK.
This is meaningless. People die getting abortions, getting liposuction, getting their tonsils out. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. They are safe on the whole, but if someone weighs the risk and decides they will not participate in either procedure, it does not make them antiscience. Just do a google search for contaminated vaccines and you will find all sorts of alarming and true crap in addition to all the other crap about autism. And these idiots believing it are just that, not capable of doing the science themselves to confirm or reject so they need to believe someone else in the process of evaluating it. It is the rejection of the statements less believable, not science itself that causes this.
If you are truly a believer in the scientific method then that is where it ended.
Wow, just like those who don't believe in the trinity or creationism are no true Christians. I think the technical term here might be no true scottsman but you are presenting a fallacy that doesn't exist.
An idea (vaccines) was tested, and then through the scientific method tested and tested again, and it won. If you choose to say that vaccines cause autism then you are disagreeing with (anti) science. Simple as that.
Just like if you don't believe God made the world in 7 days you are anti-religioun even though you go to church and pray and do all the other things the religious do? Do you see how stupid that looks when the religious annotations gets pointed out? Please stop treating science as a religion.
Yeah, those you listed are basically opinions and not really anti-science or science. It is Wikipedia after all. I wouldn't have listed it if it wasn't the only thing in the Google search that didn't require combining anti- and science in the literal sense that you already rejected. But as it turns out, it does the same and has done so since 2006 or so.
And to be clear, opinions are not to mean there is no scientific backing or the rejection of science pertaining to them, it's just that their opinions are swayed by what they see as more important. It's not a rejection of science but an acceptance or denial to do anything about it based on something they deem more important. Could you imagine the state of science if no one was ever skeptical of the science put in front of them and never redid the testing or validated the numbers or whatever to see if it was accurate.
This is not semantics. This is ignorance. Yours. They do not disagree with one or two things in science, they reject scientific methodology entirely.
So they reject evolution, chemistry, electronics and everything else in science? Or are you making shit up?
The absurdity is that they only apply the rejection to a select set of scientific fields,
Actually, from what I have been able to gain from them, they only apply it to a portion of the field. They aren't claiming vaccinations to not work, they are claiming they do harm to children and are putting the well being of their children above the good vaccines could do.
There is no such things as "I accept the methodology as it applies to sub-atomic physics but reject it as it applies to organic chemistry".
Really? So someone who rejects quarks cannot accept evolution or molecular bonds? Interesting how you put it. Because that seems to be completely different then what I can find on these things. You are delusional and attempting to apply a term that doesn't fit because you think it is somehow derogatory to them. Instead, it makes you look like an idiot.
Accepting scientific methodology is a binary thing, either you do or you don't.
No it is not. There is no- you have to support X if you support Y in science. The entire scientific principle is built around this ability.
The anti-vxxers and the intelligent designers reject scientific methodology as such, but they argue their rejection from different view points.
No they do not. They reject certain products of scientific methodology- not the science or process itself.
Your next task is to find out what "scientific methodology" actually entails. You seem not to know.
Well, I could play you and just start making things up to fit my little world because I said so even though reality, definitions, and everything else contradicts it. I know what "scientific methodology" actually entails and it precisely because of this I can confidently say you are completely wrong.
Science is more than just a subject. It is an outlook. It is a way of life. A bush hunter, who reads tracks and spoor is more of a scientist than any of these anti-vaxxers, because he observes the environment and tests his hypothesese by being either successful or not successful.
lol.. You wish it was close to a bush hunter reading tracks. You are over romanticizing the entire concept.
So here is some facts you are ignoring. I did a couple checks on the people you claim are antiscience. First, they do not claim vaccine do no good or dispute the evidence on them, they claim that they can cause harm to children and one person claims they harmed their kid. This is not even antiscience in the least because they aren't arguing against science, just that the damage potential or perceived is more important then the benefits.
So you have completely lost there without even getting into the definition of anti-science. Face it, they are not antiscience in the definition or the practice- they are antivaccine
My argument was always semantics. They are not anti-science because they disagree with one or two things in science. I have lost nothing and your admission here proves my point. science is not one or two things.
lol.. why do you try to get into arguments you cannot win then cry and try to insult people for? Things in this world are not just because you say so. There are meanings to words and definitions that make communication productive. You should try following them.
But anybody who takes one case, particularly as adjuged by an actor or public figure, as "credible science" is not qualified to judged the credibility of science.
So the problem is that, in the same way that I wouldn't buy meat from a butcher who took cleanleness advice from a twelth century book on procedures for health as published in paris of the time, I don't tend to beleive people who MISTtake ANECDOTES as SCIENCE.
I agree, but does that make you anti meat? No it does not. I'm not saying these people aren't idiots, I'm saying don't be an idiot trying to point them out.
In short, anybody who beleives Jenny DESPITE the Evidence that PROVES JENNY UTTERLY WRONG, is yes, automatically anti science.
They are no more anti-science as you would be anti-meat or anti-butchering in your butcher example above.
lol.. No, science covers a lot of stuff and to be anti-science you have to be against all science.
Here, lets break it down for you.
Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural word.
Anti: A person opposed to a particular policy, activity, or idea.
When you put them together, you get A person apposed to the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural word. Now is that true of the people you claim are anti-science? I think not.
Immunology is a science. If you are anti-vaccine, you have to discount all of immunology as a science. Disclaiming the fact that vaccines work is as bad as disclaiming gravity.
Anti-vaccine, at its core, is anti-science. It is not ad-hominem.
umm... No. perhaps the problem actually is your ignorance. Immunology deals with the entire immune system and the immune system of everything. People like McCarthy claim that the vaccines do harm and cause autism in children not that they aren't effective at preventing whatever disease we don't get commonly now.. Whether that is true or not, that vaccines cause damage in children, it doesn't matter because she is no anti immunology. Your statement is a flat out ad hominem and incorrect.
Well, you tell me. Is science more then evolution? Or is it only evolution? Anti-science by definition would be against science and that is not that case at all with the vast majority of these people.
If you want to call someone a moron, perhaps you can explain why science is only evolution or vaccines?
lol.. the Jesus anti-science crowd. That's cute. are you bigoted all by yourself or is there some course we can attend to be just like you?
I don't personally care if people are killing children or not. Claiming they are anti-science because they do not trust or believe a claim is ignorant. Vaccines or the beginning of the universe is not all that science is. The wording "anti-science" is nothing but a fallacy so people can perpetuate incorrect stereotypes..
lol.. If you say so. I'm not going to argue something as simple as vaccines are not the entirety of science. If you don't get it, then you are anti-intellect. See what I did there, I created the same ad hominem that you are perpetuating by claiming you refute intelligence because you are ignorant of the fact that vaccines are not all of science.
We can play this game all day long. In the end neither of us would be correct in those claims. Anti-vaccine is not anti-science, it is anti-vaccine.
so anyone who believe Jenny McCarthy automagically disbelieves everything else with science? They are actively working to thwart science, how does this work for you in this imaginary world?
This is not an anti-science situation. You cannot possibly claim that these people reject evolution, electrons, chemicals, or anything else that is covered by science. You can say they are anti vaccine, anti-something specific, but not anti-science with any confidence at all.
Slashdot Mirror
This is probably the root of the problem. Somewhere there is likely something saying free support through the online forums community or something similar and it isn't worded clearly enough for someone not paying attention to understand it.
Most OSS software does offer free support. It is a forum that users and volunteers answer questions for or a knowledge base of known problems and solutions or a combination of the two. It's generally when you needed to interact in real time with someone that there is a charge or they refer you to a consultancy group in your area that can help for their own fee.
I've seen similar with paid software too. I almost had a cow when I found out the $5k per year service contract with one software provider wasn't going to cover telephone support when their update broke the database structure and the program would crash on start up. Of course in this case, a manager told me they had us marked on a different service level then we purchased for some reason and comped the call. But that means other are paying for service contracts and when there is a problem if they purchase the older versions.
The way to fix this is to make the support options more clear and almost in your face when downloading the software. Perhaps if there is a help tab you can click on, a popup or menu tree for the installed software could explain this also. Either way, by the time they down load the software, it should be clear as to what support is free and what isn't. If that fails, it should be clear by the time they find a way to contact the project by phone or whatever method.
You should spend a little time looking into the master race. Hitler and Germany specifically set out in practice of Eugenics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4
I said nothing about the holocaust. The holocaust is not the only horrid thing to happen under Hitler. The holocaust was likely more palatable by the German citizens and those involved because of the generics practices. Germany had required every doctor to record every genetic impurity or defect and those people were force sterilized. Later, the T4 program started euthanizing the insane, crippled, diseased and disabled. This was all because of Social Darwinism which was a European concept that you could force the ill traits of man out of the gene pole by controlling the reproduction of people with them.
BTW, the T4 building or department was the one that coordinated the eugenics program, the euthanasia, and took control over the final solution. If the holocaust and Eugenics is connected, we know it was the same people controlling it. Outside of sharing the same building for it's command and control and the same people, I'm not sure anything outside of inflammatory remarks cause the connections.
They didn't deem it constitutional. They deemed the provision a tax not a penalty which means we have to wait until the tax kicks in before it can be challenged.
Attention to detail make a world of difference here.
Umm.. Obamacare has no provision in it to stop 45,000 Americans from dieing due to no insurance. In fact, that number is capricious and false to begin with. The only thing different with Obamacare is that instead of insurance companies determining what will be treated, the government will. The poor already had government coverage and absolutely no hospital was allowed to deny life saving care because of ability to pay.
You either have been lied to, or are generating your own lies to support your ideology.
That's a very optimistic outlook on Cuba that has little chance in reality. No other country supports the US embargo on Cuba. No country other then Russia who needed it for it's strategic importance relating to the location of the US would have invested in it because they took over all private enterprise.
Cuba would likley be little different then it is now.
The plan behind Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" was to appeal as a softer figure then Gore was stiff. He didn't cut any safety nets and even added religious outreaches to increase the effectiveness.
Actually, they say Romney's GOTV campaign fell on it's nose because the tech didn't work when it was needed. With the election as close as it was, that not happening or Obama not having a solid GOTV apparatus could have meant an entirely different outcome.
It probably isn't TV when it is the internet. I would say the biggest difference in this type of situation might be the adds are different. You pay comedy central to run an add, you won't see that add on hulu when watching Stewart or Colbert. Of course of they skip watching the adds and just watch the shows, then there is no difference because the opponent of the show's bias has no recourse.
This stuff is supposed to already be spelled out in the bills they vote for or have a accounting report processed by the GAO attached to the bill. Rules and procedures dictate that all new spending needs to be either paid for by cuts somewhere else or with raised revenue somewhere/somehow.
A system like you suggest would encourage the already lazy politicians to simple pass laws until the money is gone.
The problems we have now isn't just not knowing what we are spending. It's a convoluted process of several factors. One is that entitlement programs have automatic increases built into them and we do what is called emergency spending which bypasses those rules. There is also the problem that the government doesn't have money on hand before they spend. They spend what they anticipate to have due to reports and projections from taxes and other revenues. When the economy tanks, revenue typically goes down and the expected revenue is not realized creating a deficit. This also triggers increases in certain entitlements that are designed to help struggling families like unemployment insurance payments to states and food stamps.
The sad part about emergency spending is that it is typically off budget but when it lasts for a while it tends to get put on budget without being accounted for. The war spending is a great example of this. Both wars were all deficit spending off budget under the emergency spending. Congress moved this to on budget so now we don't have to stop the spending when the wars end. A politician can say- we are going to pay with this bill by the savings we will see in the draw down of the Iraq war. When the Iraq war ends, the annual spending on it, even though it was all borrowed in the first place, will actually become a source of revenue to justify new spending or increase existing spending. Congress knows full well that we don't have the money, but they simply do not care. You can say it's a wet dream for them that when they wake up, find out they have to pay the prostitute.
No, you do not get it. X and Y is the product of the scientific method and rejecting either does not mean you reject the scientific method.
I'm sorry, but you simply have to give up this idea that anything science is irreproachable and if someone does not completely believe everything as stated, they are against it all. It doesn't work in reality and make you look like a religious nutcase when you attempt to push it.
And I'll preface my comment with, I find it extremely funny how unscientific your comment is and how you turn to name calling as if it allows you to make a point. I also find it extremely interesting in how everyone is essentially saying "blasphemy, if you don't believe exactly as I do, you are against all things I believe in". That's a religious argument and perhaps you should check if science hasn't become your religion. Either way, it doesn't matter, you are too ashamed of your beliefs to bother with a logged in account.
But from where I am sitting, all I'm seeing is a bunch of whiners complaining that someone follow their gospel so they are not christian- err I mean they are anti=science.
I'm not fighting any battles, unless you think getting people like the ones I was replying with to pick up a fucking dictionary and use words the way they were meant to be used as a battle. I got all my vaccines, my children have theirs, I personally don't care about the argument for or against them. It is this entire religion that revolves around if you do not believe every single shred of science claims put in front of you with the same intensity as some people want, somehow you now against science in general instead of for more safety and study, instead of giving way for other benefits like economical or social or philosophical and psychological.
This is meaningless. People die getting abortions, getting liposuction, getting their tonsils out. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. They are safe on the whole, but if someone weighs the risk and decides they will not participate in either procedure, it does not make them antiscience. Just do a google search for contaminated vaccines and you will find all sorts of alarming and true crap in addition to all the other crap about autism. And these idiots believing it are just that, not capable of doing the science themselves to confirm or reject so they need to believe someone else in the process of evaluating it. It is the rejection of the statements less believable, not science itself that causes this.
Wow, just like those who don't believe in the trinity or creationism are no true Christians. I think the technical term here might be no true scottsman but you are presenting a fallacy that doesn't exist.
Just like if you don't believe God made the world in 7 days you are anti-religioun even though you go to church and pray and do all the other things the religious do? Do you see how stupid that looks when the religious annotations gets pointed out? Please stop treating science as a religion.
Yeah, those you listed are basically opinions and not really anti-science or science. It is Wikipedia after all. I wouldn't have listed it if it wasn't the only thing in the Google search that didn't require combining anti- and science in the literal sense that you already rejected. But as it turns out, it does the same and has done so since 2006 or so.
And to be clear, opinions are not to mean there is no scientific backing or the rejection of science pertaining to them, it's just that their opinions are swayed by what they see as more important. It's not a rejection of science but an acceptance or denial to do anything about it based on something they deem more important. Could you imagine the state of science if no one was ever skeptical of the science put in front of them and never redid the testing or validated the numbers or whatever to see if it was accurate.
So they reject evolution, chemistry, electronics and everything else in science? Or are you making shit up?
Actually, from what I have been able to gain from them, they only apply it to a portion of the field. They aren't claiming vaccinations to not work, they are claiming they do harm to children and are putting the well being of their children above the good vaccines could do.
Really? So someone who rejects quarks cannot accept evolution or molecular bonds? Interesting how you put it. Because that seems to be completely different then what I can find on these things. You are delusional and attempting to apply a term that doesn't fit because you think it is somehow derogatory to them. Instead, it makes you look like an idiot.
No it is not. There is no- you have to support X if you support Y in science. The entire scientific principle is built around this ability.
No they do not. They reject certain products of scientific methodology- not the science or process itself.
Well, I could play you and just start making things up to fit my little world because I said so even though reality, definitions, and everything else contradicts it. I know what "scientific methodology" actually entails and it precisely because of this I can confidently say you are completely wrong.
lol.. You wish it was close to a bush hunter reading tracks. You are over romanticizing the entire concept.
So here is some facts you are ignoring. I did a couple checks on the people you claim are antiscience. First, they do not claim vaccine do no good or dispute the evidence on them, they claim that they can cause harm to children and one person claims they harmed their kid. This is not even antiscience in the least because they aren't arguing against science, just that the damage potential or perceived is more important then the benefits.
So you have completely lost there without even getting into the definition of anti-science. Face it, they are not antiscience in the definition or the practice- they are antivaccine
Actually, you probably should have looked up what the definition of antiscience was before you tried to redefine it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience
You see, there is already a defined term and it is the same as combining two words together as the term is.
My argument was always semantics. They are not anti-science because they disagree with one or two things in science. I have lost nothing and your admission here proves my point. science is not one or two things.
lol.. why do you try to get into arguments you cannot win then cry and try to insult people for? Things in this world are not just because you say so. There are meanings to words and definitions that make communication productive. You should try following them.
I agree, but does that make you anti meat? No it does not. I'm not saying these people aren't idiots, I'm saying don't be an idiot trying to point them out.
They are no more anti-science as you would be anti-meat or anti-butchering in your butcher example above.
lol.. No, science covers a lot of stuff and to be anti-science you have to be against all science.
Here, lets break it down for you.
Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural word.
Anti: A person opposed to a particular policy, activity, or idea.
When you put them together, you get A person apposed to the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural word. Now is that true of the people you claim are anti-science? I think not.
umm... No. perhaps the problem actually is your ignorance. Immunology deals with the entire immune system and the immune system of everything. People like McCarthy claim that the vaccines do harm and cause autism in children not that they aren't effective at preventing whatever disease we don't get commonly now.. Whether that is true or not, that vaccines cause damage in children, it doesn't matter because she is no anti immunology. Your statement is a flat out ad hominem and incorrect.
Well, you tell me. Is science more then evolution? Or is it only evolution? Anti-science by definition would be against science and that is not that case at all with the vast majority of these people.
If you want to call someone a moron, perhaps you can explain why science is only evolution or vaccines?
lol.. the Jesus anti-science crowd. That's cute. are you bigoted all by yourself or is there some course we can attend to be just like you?
I don't personally care if people are killing children or not. Claiming they are anti-science because they do not trust or believe a claim is ignorant. Vaccines or the beginning of the universe is not all that science is. The wording "anti-science" is nothing but a fallacy so people can perpetuate incorrect stereotypes..
lol.. If you say so. I'm not going to argue something as simple as vaccines are not the entirety of science. If you don't get it, then you are anti-intellect. See what I did there, I created the same ad hominem that you are perpetuating by claiming you refute intelligence because you are ignorant of the fact that vaccines are not all of science.
We can play this game all day long. In the end neither of us would be correct in those claims. Anti-vaccine is not anti-science, it is anti-vaccine.
so anyone who believe Jenny McCarthy automagically disbelieves everything else with science? They are actively working to thwart science, how does this work for you in this imaginary world?
This is not an anti-science situation. You cannot possibly claim that these people reject evolution, electrons, chemicals, or anything else that is covered by science. You can say they are anti vaccine, anti-something specific, but not anti-science with any confidence at all.