5 ms·

What gets my goat is the kind of shouting down I get whenever I take any contrarian stance on non-GMO foods, or God forbid, vaccination. I know that vaccines a

What gets my goat is the kind of shouting down I get whenever I take any contrarian stance on non-GMO foods, or God forbid, vaccination. I know that vaccines are critical and that there is nothing wrong with them. But to not even admit the possibility that there might be a link between vaccines and some health problems is, to me, very anti-science. My understanding for science has always been to question all assumptions, even ones you think are your sacred cows.

jrs235 10y ago
If you want to see some cognitive gear grinding and confusion, if you run into anyone that believes that vaccinations should be mandated by law, ask them "if it's my body, isn't it my choice?"
- jat850 10y ago
  Maybe, but there's probably something to be said for social cost that make that argument somewhat less valid. Herd immunity. Seat belt and helmet laws, etc. Note that I am not taking a position here on vaccinations or anything else, just that it's not the best point one could make (other than for some casual amusement at cognitive gear grinding and confusion). It'd be the same as making fun of someone with anti-abortion views by saying "but death penalty lol isn't all life valuable!?" - which I am certain many have said and heard, but this type of arguing doesn't actually approach the reality behind issues and beliefs and positions.
- earthtolazlo 10y ago
  Which would make perfect sense if herd immunity wasn't a thing. I wouldn't care if you want to not vaccinate and die of some 19th century disease, but you're putting everyone else at risk as well.
- eridius 10y ago
  No it's not. It's not about your body. It's about the society you're a part of and herd immunity. If you choose not to vaccinate, you are putting everyone else at risk. So yeah, you can choose not to vaccinate, but you need to understand that if you do so, the rest of society has a right (and in many cases an obligation) to say "we don't want you here, if you're not vaccinated (for any reason other than medically unfit to be vaccinated) then you don't get to participate in our society, you don't get to put our members at risk, and you need to stay the hell away from us".
- jrs235 10y ago
  At the moment I can't reply to jat850's coment >Maybe, but there's probably something to be said for social cost that make that argument somewhat less valid. Herd immunity. Seat belt and helmet laws, etc. Note that I am not taking a position here on vaccinations or anything else, just that it's not the best point one could make (other than for some casual amusement at cognitive gear grinding and confusion). It'd be the same as making fun of someone with anti-abortion views by saying "but death penalty lol isn't all life valuable!?" - which I am certain many have said and heard, but this type of arguing doesn't actually approach the reality behind issues and beliefs and positions. The purpose isn't to be a jerk. The purpose is to cause anyone to pause and think through their position more thoroughly. What rules should apply, when and when not. Without searching more deeply for a more principled position it will come down to "because that's how I feel". But that's not how someone else feels. And what makes one person's feelings more important or superior to another's? So, when does society get more say than you over your body? Personally I don't think we should use and rely on the law to try to legislate away stupidity. We should use compassionate education. Yeah, I know, it sucks we have to be patient and not everyone will get on board. The only other option is to imprison and kill all the people that don't agree with you.
  - jat850 10y ago
    Just as a heads up: The deeper a comment chain gets, the longer HN hits the pause button on allowing a reply (to prevent flame-warring, I think). I understand that it's not maybe intended to be a jerk or has the deeper purpose of getting someone to rethink their position more carefully. But it's just a bit of a jerk-ish way to do so (in my view) - one that may be perceived as an attack on someone's intelligence and critical thinking abilities. It sets people on the defensive. I try to take a more-flies-with-honey method myself - challenge the person to go through this process positively, and having demonstrated that you have tried to understand their viewpoint. It may make them more likely to understand yours, too. As others have said and I hinted at, there are some things where societal benefit may and should outweigh individual belief. Laws are not always the most effective, or only way, to achieve these ends. Education is valuable.
    - jrs235 10y ago
- Marcus316 10y ago
  Let's push the thought experiment a bit. Let's suppose you have the option to opt-out from vaccination. If the premise is that you are responsible for your own body, then shouldn't you also be responsible for any consequences that occur as a result of your choice to opt-out? As a non-vaccinated person, carrying a disease that would normally be vaccinated against, can you be held responsible in the event that the disease you carry infects, for instance, a child that is not yet old enough to be vaccinated against that particular disease, or infects someone who was unable to be vaccinated due to other medical reasons? Should you be fined or prosecuted in the event that your choice to opt-out can be directly linked to a significant health event? It's hard to talk about disease on an individual basis. A person's choices with respect to their own health has an impact on the individuals around them, and I do think that people should be mindful of the community when making lifestyle choices. I'm not saying a person shouldn't make their own choices, but should accept that those choices aren't just going to affect their own individual health in many cases.
dpark 10y ago
> I know that vaccines are critical and that there is nothing wrong with them. But to not even admit the possibility that there might be a link between vaccines and some health problems is, to me, very anti-science. The problem is that you're agreeing that there is no link but then trying to argue that maybe there really is a link and everyone should think really hard about it. This is not a logical or factual argument but you expect that people should act as if it is. If you have facts or even logical arguments to put forth, then do so. But don't claim that everyone is being anti-science when they dismiss your baseless speculation as baseless speculation.
intended 10y ago
What is there to debate on vaccines? The mechanism are known, I've studied it in basic biology classes, and all doctors have studied it in detail - you can too. The process by which our body deals with a vaccine is based on the same processes it uses to deal with any invader (and then building a repository of responses to handle such cases in future). If you don't have the time to look into it yourself, you can consider what every other doctor and medical researcher in the world has studied and supported. Otherwise this is a kind of unscientific "keeping an open mind" mantra. The point of an open mind is to not just be a weather vane With no fixed position. It is to keep an open mind in order to study the facts and draw an inference based on it. That's science. Keeping an open mind for the sake of an open mind is philosophy at best. Furthermore, you can consider the fact that anti vaccers are not making the limited case you are. The response of people to anti vaccine, is not based on your claims of possible possibilities, but to anti vaccer claims and statements
- MK999 10y ago
  Vaccines sometimes cause grave injury and the vaccine court pays out. Some people aren't so keen to press their luck.
  - nradov 10y ago
    It's more complicated than that. Sometimes people suffer grave symptoms after vaccinations but it's almost impossible to prove causation. Many cases are probably pure coincidence. I suspect the court often pays out just to help out someone in a tough situation.
  - intended 10y ago
    Statistically Planes fall out of the sky more frequently. But flight is amazingly safe. Given enough N number of an event, something weird will happen. But given that outside of America's bizarre discussion - billions of people have been vaccinated, over generations, to no known trends or losses, I'd say that vaccines are worth using. ---- This kind of debate is how Fox News and the rest of them made global warming into a debateable issue. This is how creationism became credible to the general public. You can ask these "reasonable" questions, and over fit on edge cases for anything. You can then present it to normal people and make it seem like that there is some issue. Expert positions are discredited by saying there's a vast conspiracy, and that experts have a financial stake in the matter. ------- Please stop doing this shit as a country. You'll have perfected the art of making falsehoods credible forces in public discourse. I could understand if this happened in some country where education was not widely available. But if it's happening in America, the first of the first world, and its deeply troubling. These things are designed, planned and unleashed. America ends up acting as a massive proof of concept. If you'll can't stop these kind of manufactured debates from spreading, then I don't know what the rest of the world will do.

jrs235 10y ago

If you want to see some cognitive gear grinding and confusion, if you run into anyone that believes that vaccinations should be mandated by law, ask them "if it's my body, isn't it my choice?"

jat850 10y ago
Maybe, but there's probably something to be said for social cost that make that argument somewhat less valid. Herd immunity. Seat belt and helmet laws, etc. Note that I am not taking a position here on vaccinations or anything else, just that it's not the best point one could make (other than for some casual amusement at cognitive gear grinding and confusion). It'd be the same as making fun of someone with anti-abortion views by saying "but death penalty lol isn't all life valuable!?" - which I am certain many have said and heard, but this type of arguing doesn't actually approach the reality behind issues and beliefs and positions.
earthtolazlo 10y ago
Which would make perfect sense if herd immunity wasn't a thing. I wouldn't care if you want to not vaccinate and die of some 19th century disease, but you're putting everyone else at risk as well.
eridius 10y ago
No it's not. It's not about your body. It's about the society you're a part of and herd immunity. If you choose not to vaccinate, you are putting everyone else at risk. So yeah, you can choose not to vaccinate, but you need to understand that if you do so, the rest of society has a right (and in many cases an obligation) to say "we don't want you here, if you're not vaccinated (for any reason other than medically unfit to be vaccinated) then you don't get to participate in our society, you don't get to put our members at risk, and you need to stay the hell away from us".
jrs235 10y ago
At the moment I can't reply to jat850's coment >Maybe, but there's probably something to be said for social cost that make that argument somewhat less valid. Herd immunity. Seat belt and helmet laws, etc. Note that I am not taking a position here on vaccinations or anything else, just that it's not the best point one could make (other than for some casual amusement at cognitive gear grinding and confusion). It'd be the same as making fun of someone with anti-abortion views by saying "but death penalty lol isn't all life valuable!?" - which I am certain many have said and heard, but this type of arguing doesn't actually approach the reality behind issues and beliefs and positions. The purpose isn't to be a jerk. The purpose is to cause anyone to pause and think through their position more thoroughly. What rules should apply, when and when not. Without searching more deeply for a more principled position it will come down to "because that's how I feel". But that's not how someone else feels. And what makes one person's feelings more important or superior to another's? So, when does society get more say than you over your body? Personally I don't think we should use and rely on the law to try to legislate away stupidity. We should use compassionate education. Yeah, I know, it sucks we have to be patient and not everyone will get on board. The only other option is to imprison and kill all the people that don't agree with you.
- jat850 10y ago
  Just as a heads up: The deeper a comment chain gets, the longer HN hits the pause button on allowing a reply (to prevent flame-warring, I think). I understand that it's not maybe intended to be a jerk or has the deeper purpose of getting someone to rethink their position more carefully. But it's just a bit of a jerk-ish way to do so (in my view) - one that may be perceived as an attack on someone's intelligence and critical thinking abilities. It sets people on the defensive. I try to take a more-flies-with-honey method myself - challenge the person to go through this process positively, and having demonstrated that you have tried to understand their viewpoint. It may make them more likely to understand yours, too. As others have said and I hinted at, there are some things where societal benefit may and should outweigh individual belief. Laws are not always the most effective, or only way, to achieve these ends. Education is valuable.
  - jrs235 10y ago
Marcus316 10y ago
Let's push the thought experiment a bit. Let's suppose you have the option to opt-out from vaccination. If the premise is that you are responsible for your own body, then shouldn't you also be responsible for any consequences that occur as a result of your choice to opt-out? As a non-vaccinated person, carrying a disease that would normally be vaccinated against, can you be held responsible in the event that the disease you carry infects, for instance, a child that is not yet old enough to be vaccinated against that particular disease, or infects someone who was unable to be vaccinated due to other medical reasons? Should you be fined or prosecuted in the event that your choice to opt-out can be directly linked to a significant health event? It's hard to talk about disease on an individual basis. A person's choices with respect to their own health has an impact on the individuals around them, and I do think that people should be mindful of the community when making lifestyle choices. I'm not saying a person shouldn't make their own choices, but should accept that those choices aren't just going to affect their own individual health in many cases.

dpark 10y ago

> I know that vaccines are critical and that there is nothing wrong with them. But to not even admit the possibility that there might be a link between vaccines and some health problems is, to me, very anti-science. The problem is that you're agreeing that there is no link but then trying to argue that maybe there really is a link and everyone should think really hard about it. This is not a logical or factual argument but you expect that people should act as if it is. If you have facts or even logical arguments to put forth, then do so. But don't claim that everyone is being anti-science when they dismiss your baseless speculation as baseless speculation.

intended 10y ago

What is there to debate on vaccines? The mechanism are known, I've studied it in basic biology classes, and all doctors have studied it in detail - you can too. The process by which our body deals with a vaccine is based on the same processes it uses to deal with any invader (and then building a repository of responses to handle such cases in future). If you don't have the time to look into it yourself, you can consider what every other doctor and medical researcher in the world has studied and supported. Otherwise this is a kind of unscientific "keeping an open mind" mantra. The point of an open mind is to not just be a weather vane With no fixed position. It is to keep an open mind in order to study the facts and draw an inference based on it. That's science. Keeping an open mind for the sake of an open mind is philosophy at best. Furthermore, you can consider the fact that anti vaccers are not making the limited case you are. The response of people to anti vaccine, is not based on your claims of possible possibilities, but to anti vaccer claims and statements

MK999 10y ago
Vaccines sometimes cause grave injury and the vaccine court pays out. Some people aren't so keen to press their luck.
- nradov 10y ago
  It's more complicated than that. Sometimes people suffer grave symptoms after vaccinations but it's almost impossible to prove causation. Many cases are probably pure coincidence. I suspect the court often pays out just to help out someone in a tough situation.
- intended 10y ago
  Statistically Planes fall out of the sky more frequently. But flight is amazingly safe. Given enough N number of an event, something weird will happen. But given that outside of America's bizarre discussion - billions of people have been vaccinated, over generations, to no known trends or losses, I'd say that vaccines are worth using. ---- This kind of debate is how Fox News and the rest of them made global warming into a debateable issue. This is how creationism became credible to the general public. You can ask these "reasonable" questions, and over fit on edge cases for anything. You can then present it to normal people and make it seem like that there is some issue. Expert positions are discredited by saying there's a vast conspiracy, and that experts have a financial stake in the matter. ------- Please stop doing this shit as a country. You'll have perfected the art of making falsehoods credible forces in public discourse. I could understand if this happened in some country where education was not widely available. But if it's happening in America, the first of the first world, and its deeply troubling. These things are designed, planned and unleashed. America ends up acting as a massive proof of concept. If you'll can't stop these kind of manufactured debates from spreading, then I don't know what the rest of the world will do.