6 ms·

>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 some

>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?
- authoritarian 7y ago
  Do you think there is more potential harm, both to an individual and to the people they come in contact with, from getting vaccinated or not getting vaccinated?
  - emmelaich 7y ago
    Of course getting vaccinated is the better option. But that's not the question here. The question is whether someone should be forced to be vaccinated. Not sure why this concept is so hard to get across.
    - echelon 7y ago
      If children wish to go to a publicly-funded school and come into close contact with other children, then they should be vaccinated. Period. If you want an exception for your child, then privately educate them. The chilling effect you're seeing on your devil's advocate arguments are because anti-vaxxers have caused so much harm with their pseudoscience. There is no room for playing nice or entertaining a middle ground. The government has stepped in and made public health choices for us already. For instance, we chlorinated and fluoridated the public water supply. If you want to drink bottled water, that's fine. This isn't even a powerful enough analogy though, because vaccination doesn't just impact individuals. Every act of rejection lowers the fitness of the population.
      - emmelaich 7y ago
        echelon, I agree with everything you write here. Which tells me you're still not getting my point.
spaginal 7y ago
That is flat out wrong that vaccines aren't harmful. We have programs at the federal level in place that track and document the harmful effects of vaccines, including deaths caused by them. If you wish to support your position better, you need to acknowledge the worries people have, not be deceptively dismissive of real worries.

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?

authoritarian 7y ago
Do you think there is more potential harm, both to an individual and to the people they come in contact with, from getting vaccinated or not getting vaccinated?
- emmelaich 7y ago
  Of course getting vaccinated is the better option. But that's not the question here. The question is whether someone should be forced to be vaccinated. Not sure why this concept is so hard to get across.
  - echelon 7y ago
    If children wish to go to a publicly-funded school and come into close contact with other children, then they should be vaccinated. Period. If you want an exception for your child, then privately educate them. The chilling effect you're seeing on your devil's advocate arguments are because anti-vaxxers have caused so much harm with their pseudoscience. There is no room for playing nice or entertaining a middle ground. The government has stepped in and made public health choices for us already. For instance, we chlorinated and fluoridated the public water supply. If you want to drink bottled water, that's fine. This isn't even a powerful enough analogy though, because vaccination doesn't just impact individuals. Every act of rejection lowers the fitness of the population.
    - emmelaich 7y ago
      echelon, I agree with everything you write here. Which tells me you're still not getting my point.

spaginal 7y ago

That is flat out wrong that vaccines aren't harmful. We have programs at the federal level in place that track and document the harmful effects of vaccines, including deaths caused by them. If you wish to support your position better, you need to acknowledge the worries people have, not be deceptively dismissive of real worries.