4 ms·

The same way we do with other topics: guns, alcohol, driving. We'd be in less danger if no one did anything dangerous ever, but that doesn't leave much room fo

The same way we do with other topics: guns, alcohol, driving. We'd be in less danger if no one did anything dangerous ever, but that doesn't leave much room for freedom. It's extremely frustrating to see people doing something dangerous you disagree with, but it's likely that we all do it at some point.

colemickens 8y ago
Hm, it's not a complete response to your point, but I think the comparison is possibly mismatched, given the inherent risks with anti-vaxers, herd immunity, and the larger population. The actions of a few can seriously impact large populations. The multiplier effect is, potentially, significantly greater than with guns/alcohol/driving. (And even then, those arguably border on even more divisive debates that we should leave for another thread.)
- everdev 8y ago
  Totally agree. The US has a history of protecting the rights of the individual over the rights of the group perhaps more so than other nations. There are benefits and risks to that and many other countries are experimenting with other ways of evaluating those conflicts. I think where the point gets contentious with libertarians is that forcing them to do something feels far scarier and authoritarian to them than forcing them not to do something. I agree that we're all connected though and the decisions we make impact those around us no matter how individual we think our actions might be.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
No, this take is bad. We do not need to allow things where the outcome is purely bad in the name of "freedom".
- hueving 8y ago
  Yet here we are with the ability to buy cigarettes, alcohol, and candy.
- everdev 8y ago
  If something looks "purely bad", you're probably polarized on the issue. There's usually positives and negatives to everything, even if one far outweighs the other in your mind or in the mind of the vast majority of people. When you run into stiff resistance like the anti-vaxx movement, which has little economic incentive (I can't think of who profits by a kid not taking vaccines), it helps to be able to understand where their points make sense even if you don't agree. Once you're that beyond right and wrong, then you can educate more effectively. I've had much more constructive dialogues with anti-vaxx people once they know that I understand how scary it is for a government to tell you you have to inject your kid with something you don't understand and doesn't feel necessary and might have risks. I think if you grant them the courtesy that they could be right (which science and medicine has examples of being highly confident and then being wrong), that then they are more open to at least getting the highest recommended vaccines on their own volition.
- esaym 8y ago
  You mean outcomes like a 1 in 2 autism rate? Or how about all the infants that die during the night after their vaccine shots?
mnm1 8y ago
We don't give guns to kids, we don't allow drunk people to drive, so why would we allow idiots to not vaccinate and harm everyone else? All opinions are not valid when one's opinion goes against established scientific fact. That really seems to be a point mostly lost on Americans who think their beliefs are equal to facts. If that was the case, we should let people who think they drive better drunk do so and give guns to four year olds because without a conscience, they'll have no qualms about using them. The above two scenarios are as absurd as allowing people to go around unvaccinated, infecting and killing others randomly.

colemickens 8y ago

Hm, it's not a complete response to your point, but I think the comparison is possibly mismatched, given the inherent risks with anti-vaxers, herd immunity, and the larger population. The actions of a few can seriously impact large populations. The multiplier effect is, potentially, significantly greater than with guns/alcohol/driving. (And even then, those arguably border on even more divisive debates that we should leave for another thread.)

everdev 8y ago
Totally agree. The US has a history of protecting the rights of the individual over the rights of the group perhaps more so than other nations. There are benefits and risks to that and many other countries are experimenting with other ways of evaluating those conflicts. I think where the point gets contentious with libertarians is that forcing them to do something feels far scarier and authoritarian to them than forcing them not to do something. I agree that we're all connected though and the decisions we make impact those around us no matter how individual we think our actions might be.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

No, this take is bad. We do not need to allow things where the outcome is purely bad in the name of "freedom".

hueving 8y ago
Yet here we are with the ability to buy cigarettes, alcohol, and candy.
everdev 8y ago
If something looks "purely bad", you're probably polarized on the issue. There's usually positives and negatives to everything, even if one far outweighs the other in your mind or in the mind of the vast majority of people. When you run into stiff resistance like the anti-vaxx movement, which has little economic incentive (I can't think of who profits by a kid not taking vaccines), it helps to be able to understand where their points make sense even if you don't agree. Once you're that beyond right and wrong, then you can educate more effectively. I've had much more constructive dialogues with anti-vaxx people once they know that I understand how scary it is for a government to tell you you have to inject your kid with something you don't understand and doesn't feel necessary and might have risks. I think if you grant them the courtesy that they could be right (which science and medicine has examples of being highly confident and then being wrong), that then they are more open to at least getting the highest recommended vaccines on their own volition.
esaym 8y ago
You mean outcomes like a 1 in 2 autism rate? Or how about all the infants that die during the night after their vaccine shots?

mnm1 8y ago

We don't give guns to kids, we don't allow drunk people to drive, so why would we allow idiots to not vaccinate and harm everyone else? All opinions are not valid when one's opinion goes against established scientific fact. That really seems to be a point mostly lost on Americans who think their beliefs are equal to facts. If that was the case, we should let people who think they drive better drunk do so and give guns to four year olds because without a conscience, they'll have no qualms about using them. The above two scenarios are as absurd as allowing people to go around unvaccinated, infecting and killing others randomly.