3 ms·
>After all, what we want is to discuss options without violence. One side of this debate is inherently violent. People are dying from easily preventable diseas
by minikites 8y ago
>After all, what we want is to discuss options without violence.
One side of this debate is inherently violent. People are dying from easily preventable diseases.
>What I find scary is what stcredzero points: that many ideas "win" by despicable means.
Anti-vaccination beliefs are already winning by despicable means because those with virtuous means choose to do nothing.
- stcredzero 8y agoOne side of this debate is inherently violent. People are dying from easily preventable diseases. It's dangerous to call someone having a natural biological reaction to a pathogen, "violent." That label should be reserved for people taking intentional physical action to do other people harm. Anti-vaxxers simply don't fit that category. One can argue that they are being irresponsible. Vaccines, viruses, and diseases are all tangible and physical. It's entirely reasonable to make laws and regulations around those things. If we start saying that people having ideas is "violent," then we are creating "thoughtcrime" and opening the door to incredible levels of tyranny. Anti-vaccination beliefs are already winning by despicable means because those with virtuous means choose to do nothing. As far as I can tell, anti-vax beliefs are thoroughly discredited.
- lobotryas 8y agoBut the pro-vaxx side DOES do something. Everything from debate to memes are used to either disprove or mock the anti-vaxx side. The overall point is that we need to defend our ideas through speech and not through IG/FB censoring anti-vaxx speech.