4 ms·

I think there needs to be a distinction between people who oppose forced/obligated vaccination and people who don't trust current vaccine combinates. Both are

• artimaeis 10y ago
  > "not believing in giving a government enough power to make universal health decisions for toddlers is not exactly comparable to someone insisting that the world is flat" You're correct about them not being comparable - people who insist the world is flat won't have any effect on the physical health those around them. As opposed to children who are not vaccinated, who pose a major health risk to all those around them. I hope that my reply doesn't come across as belittling - but there's no safe way to not vaccinate a child. There are, as you've pointed out in other replies, potential risks involved. This is part of life. Trying to shield someone from all risk would be impossible. Vaccines are a necessary risk right alongside letting your children out of your sight. Parents are the sole stewards of their children - and they have every right and reason to be concerned for their safety. But arguing against vaccination because of the side effects which are proven to exist when weighed against the effects of the diseases we vaccinate for seems like you'd have to be drawing an incorrect conclusion.
• Nursie 10y ago
  The person I'm replying to was not opposing forced vaccination, it is clear they have neither been forced nor gone voluntarily. I'm not sure someone who has gone so far in rejecting medical knowledge can be convinced by reason - the facts and good arguments are already out there within easy reach and have presumably been discounted. FYI my comments on tone and bias were drawn from years of seeing people interpret tone to suit themselves online, either knowingly through tone-trolling or simply through bias.
• epistasis 10y ago
  >who don't trust current vaccine combinates. These are not so different, though. There's no reason to not trust the current schedule and combinations, other than as a reactionary position to be so utterly wrong and shut down about the risks of vaccines. It's precisely the same stupidity, based on nebulous distrust and ignorance. > But: In general I'd guess that no human is ever convinced by being belittled. Spraying hate (not you personally) and incomprehension only helps the own moral compass, not the cause nor the conversation. In public discussions, there are many people to convince, not just the person advocating a viewpoint. If somebody has argued themselves into being anti-vax, changing their minds is not usually possible. They are 99% of the time a lost cause. I say this as somebody who has tried, tried so hard, on many approaches. In my experience, the ridicule is borne from two directions: 1) fatigue of dealing with people that should be reasonable but are being fundamentally dishonest and tribalistic, and 2) preventing others from thinking that anti-vaxxers' "arguments" are worth anything except belittlement. If a person doesn't like vaccines, I may try to convince them, but it's far more important to stop the lies from being perpetuated to more people than it is to convince just that single person. One of these goals is possible. Public discussion counts tremendously in these matters. I don't have to accept racist views without calling them out with force, and I certainly don't need to accept anti-vaxxer views without calling them out with force. There are times to convince and gently guide an individual, and a time to prevent them from poisoning the world. The way I talk about racism on a public forum is going to be different when dealing with a racist Uncle; different audiences and different approaches.