6 ms·

I don't think it is utterly destructive in the anti-vax movement. Dangerous and stupid, sure, but what if the government was trying to force you to put somethin

I don't think it is utterly destructive in the anti-vax movement. Dangerous and stupid, sure, but what if the government was trying to force you to put something else in your body that you thought was not in your best interests or that of your child? Isn't it an absolute good that you're able to speak up and resist?

echelon 7y ago
> force you to put something else in your body that you thought was not in your best interests or that of your child? It's not in the best interest of other children to let your children not be immunized. One of the reasons immunizations work so well is because of herd immunity. The entire population doesn't need to be inoculated against every random mutation the virus will take. Enough of the population has good enough immunity that the virus can't take a foothold. But once you dip below a certain percentage, the virus gets free rein to spread and evolve again. Effective immunization requires that we all mostly get immunized.
- cgriswald 7y ago
  You don't have to convince me. I know all this and I'm not an anti-vaxxer. > It's not in the best interest of other children to let your children not be immunized. This doesn't change my point at all. First, the idea that my child should be subjected to something harmful because it's better for other children doesn't fly with me. I doubt it flies with anyone. I vaccinated my kid for her benefit and for everyone else's, but if the choice is "everyone else" or "my kid"... I don't think you have to be a parent to see how that one shakes out. Second, that's not how anti-vaxxers see it. They see it as bad for those children as well.
  - authoritarian 7y ago
    >the idea that my child should be subjected to something harmful because it's better for other children doesn't fly with me They aren't being subjected to something harmful, they falsely believe that it's something harmful because they saw an infographic on facebook >that's not how anti-vaxxers see it. They see it as bad for those children as well. Yes, and this kind of toxic stupidity should not be tolerated as it puts everyone else at risk
    - cgriswald 7y ago
      If you want to boil this down to black-and-white you need to compare the past, present, and future deaths of the anti-vax movement against the solution of 'not tolerating' anything that doesn't meet your utilitarian ideal. And that's aside from the moral aspects.
      - katbyte 7y ago
        It is black and white. Everyone who can needs to vaccinate otherwise we loose herd immunity. Full stop. Vaccines benefit far more people then they negativity affect.
        emmelaich 7y ago
        You cannot say some people are negatively affected AND say it is black and white.
        cgriswald 7y ago
        You and authoritarian seem to be saying "anti-vaxxers are completely bad!" Well, congratulations. You're right. But no one here is arguing with you. The issue is whether allowing people voice in influencing policy in a democracy is an absolute good if it means people like anti-vaxxers can still influence policy. I argued that from the point of view of an anti-vaxxer they are doing good, and that, you might find yourself in such a position one day. That's irrespective of whether the anti-vaxxers are right or wrong and if the hypothetical you is right or wrong. And if it's not clear by now, (which it should be for anyone who read the thread): I'm not an anti-vaxxer; I'm not in favor of them; and nothing I've said here is in support of them.
    - emmelaich 7y ago
      Not an anti-vaxxer either, but it is absolutely not true that there is no potential harm from vaccination. For one thing there's a risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome. There's also an inherent risk with introducing anything at all into your body via needle -- where/how was it stored; what other quality controls were practiced?
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    There is a very small portion of individuals who will have a bad reaction to vaccination and experience negative consequences up to and including death. These negatives are much much less than would be experienced by all people if the disease was allowed to thrive. Its possible to imagine that given unlimited resources we could discover ahead of time whom might react so and avoid vaccinating them or further reduce such negatives but resources aren't unlimited so currently some die. We are already killing some kids so that others may live and the majority already supports that as do I.
    - CharlesColeman 7y ago
      > There is a very small portion of individuals who will have a bad reaction to vaccination and experience negative consequences up to and including death. These negatives are much much less than would be experienced by all people if the disease was allowed to thrive. This is very true, and there's no justifiable reason it should have been downvoted. The truth is more subtle than pro-vax or anti-vax dogma.
authoritarian 7y ago
>Isn't it an absolute good that you're able to speak up and resist? For the morons it's great, not so much for the millions of people exposed to diseases that had essentially been eradicated due to other people's stupidity
ubuntu12 7y ago
Found an anti-vax ^
robocat 7y ago
> Isn't it an absolute good that you're able to speak up and resist? And yet we have lots of areas that are taboo: where speaking up or resisting will mark you as a danger, and you will be punished. #metoo
conjectures 7y ago
Another way to look at is that children have the right to not have their health jeopardised by the fact free opinions of their parents.

echelon 7y ago

> force you to put something else in your body that you thought was not in your best interests or that of your child? It's not in the best interest of other children to let your children not be immunized. One of the reasons immunizations work so well is because of herd immunity. The entire population doesn't need to be inoculated against every random mutation the virus will take. Enough of the population has good enough immunity that the virus can't take a foothold. But once you dip below a certain percentage, the virus gets free rein to spread and evolve again. Effective immunization requires that we all mostly get immunized.

cgriswald 7y ago
You don't have to convince me. I know all this and I'm not an anti-vaxxer. > It's not in the best interest of other children to let your children not be immunized. This doesn't change my point at all. First, the idea that my child should be subjected to something harmful because it's better for other children doesn't fly with me. I doubt it flies with anyone. I vaccinated my kid for her benefit and for everyone else's, but if the choice is "everyone else" or "my kid"... I don't think you have to be a parent to see how that one shakes out. Second, that's not how anti-vaxxers see it. They see it as bad for those children as well.
- authoritarian 7y ago
  >the idea that my child should be subjected to something harmful because it's better for other children doesn't fly with me They aren't being subjected to something harmful, they falsely believe that it's something harmful because they saw an infographic on facebook >that's not how anti-vaxxers see it. They see it as bad for those children as well. Yes, and this kind of toxic stupidity should not be tolerated as it puts everyone else at risk
  - cgriswald 7y ago
    If you want to boil this down to black-and-white you need to compare the past, present, and future deaths of the anti-vax movement against the solution of 'not tolerating' anything that doesn't meet your utilitarian ideal. And that's aside from the moral aspects.
    - katbyte 7y ago
      It is black and white. Everyone who can needs to vaccinate otherwise we loose herd immunity. Full stop. Vaccines benefit far more people then they negativity affect.
      - emmelaich 7y ago
        You cannot say some people are negatively affected AND say it is black and white.
      - cgriswald 7y ago
        You and authoritarian seem to be saying "anti-vaxxers are completely bad!" Well, congratulations. You're right. But no one here is arguing with you. The issue is whether allowing people voice in influencing policy in a democracy is an absolute good if it means people like anti-vaxxers can still influence policy. I argued that from the point of view of an anti-vaxxer they are doing good, and that, you might find yourself in such a position one day. That's irrespective of whether the anti-vaxxers are right or wrong and if the hypothetical you is right or wrong. And if it's not clear by now, (which it should be for anyone who read the thread): I'm not an anti-vaxxer; I'm not in favor of them; and nothing I've said here is in support of them.
  - emmelaich 7y ago
    Not an anti-vaxxer either, but it is absolutely not true that there is no potential harm from vaccination. For one thing there's a risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome. There's also an inherent risk with introducing anything at all into your body via needle -- where/how was it stored; what other quality controls were practiced?
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  There is a very small portion of individuals who will have a bad reaction to vaccination and experience negative consequences up to and including death. These negatives are much much less than would be experienced by all people if the disease was allowed to thrive. Its possible to imagine that given unlimited resources we could discover ahead of time whom might react so and avoid vaccinating them or further reduce such negatives but resources aren't unlimited so currently some die. We are already killing some kids so that others may live and the majority already supports that as do I.
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    > There is a very small portion of individuals who will have a bad reaction to vaccination and experience negative consequences up to and including death. These negatives are much much less than would be experienced by all people if the disease was allowed to thrive. This is very true, and there's no justifiable reason it should have been downvoted. The truth is more subtle than pro-vax or anti-vax dogma.

authoritarian 7y ago

>Isn't it an absolute good that you're able to speak up and resist? For the morons it's great, not so much for the millions of people exposed to diseases that had essentially been eradicated due to other people's stupidity

ubuntu12 7y ago

Found an anti-vax ^

robocat 7y ago

> Isn't it an absolute good that you're able to speak up and resist? And yet we have lots of areas that are taboo: where speaking up or resisting will mark you as a danger, and you will be punished. #metoo

conjectures 7y ago

Another way to look at is that children have the right to not have their health jeopardised by the fact free opinions of their parents.