4 ms·

Everyone is selfish but being selfish in a way that could, if enough people also followed that movement, cause an epidemic is worth labeling as such. Selfish i

Everyone is selfish but being selfish in a way that could, if enough people also followed that movement, cause an epidemic is worth labeling as such. Selfish is not a broad term. It is an adjective used to describe a person, usually in conjunction with some action they are taking. Your anecdotal experience with both pro- and anti-vaccination supporters has no real backing beyond ignoring the above and generalizing the term selfish to something it is not. The purpose of moralizing is to shame those that ignore our struggle as living organisms. It would be tragic if a ton of people died because of the movement. If it goes unchecked, it could happen given enough unvaccinated people. Maybe there is more to be said about how these vaccines are scheduled but that warrants some scientific data I don't have.

BeetleB 10y ago
>The purpose of moralizing is to shame those that ignore our struggle as living organisms. So how is that working out? Think of all the campaigns that have effected change. How often did shaming work? Sure, you have a few cases like the fight against Apartheid, but in general? Not effective. Here's the thing. I'm as pro-science as they come. However, I've been blessed to come from communities that fall prey to anti-vaccine and other "nonsense". And one thing I know is that fact based ridicule and moralizing has a low success rate. As someone who somewhat understands both communities, I am already not on your side. If a pro-vacciner like me is turned off by such rhetoric, imagine it from an anti-vacciner's side. Think I'm an outlier? I'll hazard a guess that most pro-vacciners are close to someone who is not (family connections, etc). There is comfort in being "right". But being "right" does not in itself translate to right outcomes. The Righteous Mind (https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1488953761&sr=8-1&keywords=the+righteous+mind https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Relig...) is a very worthy read. A few things it points out: 1. On a polarized issue, facts will increase the polarization (and I'm guessing justifying shame with facts will exacerbate the issue) 2. To persuade someone, you will have a lot more success appealing to emotions than to the rational mind. This does not mean playing games where you manipulate people.
- akvadrako 10y ago
  Shaming doesn't seem to have a high success rate. It may have worked within a small community, but now you can pick and choose who you surround yourself with and mostly avoid daily attacks on your choices. However, I do think it's important to try to get into the minds of how others think, to be able to come up with a strategy. Before reading this thread, I always thought anti-vaxxers were just bad at science. But now another possibility has been shown - they understand the odds well enough, but simply prefer a very small advantage for their children over a large advantage for society. It doesn't mean pro-vaxxers should tell them that.
- invisible 10y ago
  I'm not trying to defend my side or persuade anyone. I have no clue where you got that idea. I agree that shaming people isn't a good way to argue but they're still selfish by definition and morally in the wrong. Your original conjecture wasn't even about what you are talking about now. You kept complaining about the terms used by someone else. Your previous assertions were all based on bad definitions and anecdotes.

BeetleB 10y ago

>The purpose of moralizing is to shame those that ignore our struggle as living organisms. So how is that working out? Think of all the campaigns that have effected change. How often did shaming work? Sure, you have a few cases like the fight against Apartheid, but in general? Not effective. Here's the thing. I'm as pro-science as they come. However, I've been blessed to come from communities that fall prey to anti-vaccine and other "nonsense". And one thing I know is that fact based ridicule and moralizing has a low success rate. As someone who somewhat understands both communities, I am already not on your side. If a pro-vacciner like me is turned off by such rhetoric, imagine it from an anti-vacciner's side. Think I'm an outlier? I'll hazard a guess that most pro-vacciners are close to someone who is not (family connections, etc). There is comfort in being "right". But being "right" does not in itself translate to right outcomes. The Righteous Mind (https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1488953761&sr=8-1&keywords=the+righteous+mind https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Relig...) is a very worthy read. A few things it points out: 1. On a polarized issue, facts will increase the polarization (and I'm guessing justifying shame with facts will exacerbate the issue) 2. To persuade someone, you will have a lot more success appealing to emotions than to the rational mind. This does not mean playing games where you manipulate people.

akvadrako 10y ago
Shaming doesn't seem to have a high success rate. It may have worked within a small community, but now you can pick and choose who you surround yourself with and mostly avoid daily attacks on your choices. However, I do think it's important to try to get into the minds of how others think, to be able to come up with a strategy. Before reading this thread, I always thought anti-vaxxers were just bad at science. But now another possibility has been shown - they understand the odds well enough, but simply prefer a very small advantage for their children over a large advantage for society. It doesn't mean pro-vaxxers should tell them that.
invisible 10y ago
I'm not trying to defend my side or persuade anyone. I have no clue where you got that idea. I agree that shaming people isn't a good way to argue but they're still selfish by definition and morally in the wrong. Your original conjecture wasn't even about what you are talking about now. You kept complaining about the terms used by someone else. Your previous assertions were all based on bad definitions and anecdotes.