4 ms·
> To a large extent, anti-vaxxers are only willing to engage > with the issue in an emotional, irrational way and they are > almost by definition unreceptive
by bArray 7y ago
> To a large extent, anti-vaxxers are only willing to engage
> with the issue in an emotional, irrational way and they are
> almost by definition unreceptive to the kind of rational
> discourse you pretend isn't being attempted.
Maybe you are correct, but I don't think it's reason to stop trying. Something is very wrong when we decide to give up on our fellow humans.
- wtallis 7y ago> Maybe you are correct, but I don't think it's reason to stop trying. Last time I checked, all the experts are still providing the same expert advice to get vaccinated. The shaming has not displaced any of that, and most of the shaming seems to take the form of telling people that they're doing a bad thing by rejecting the advice of their doctor or encouraging others to do so.
- yters 7y agoExperts used to unanimously give the same expert advice to perform eugenics, apply leeches, identify moral character from head bumps, etc. Certainly there must be some room for reasonable disagreement even if the experts are unanimous, given the patchy history of experts.
- wtallis 7y ago> Certainly there must be some room for reasonable disagreement even if the experts are unanimous, given the patchy history of experts. The patchy history of expert advice from the days before science was routinely used in medicine is not particularly relevant here. Today's expert advice about vaccination has a far stronger foundation of evidence than any of the superstitions you named. If we were talking about dietary recommendations or even psychology then it would be a lot less ridiculous to bring up leeches or phrenology, but in the context of vaccination you're being dishonest by implying any sort of equivalency.