4 ms·
>There's a third option of actually engaging in the discussion. You know, actually investing the efforts of silencing anti-vaxers into explaining the truth inst
by jasonlaramburu 5y ago
>There's a third option of actually engaging in the discussion. You know, actually investing the efforts of silencing anti-vaxers into explaining the truth instead
A good faith discussion between opposing parties requires establishment of some common ground and a set of rules of engagement (eg 'claims must be supported with facts/data'). Cult leaders foster a sense of paranoia among their followers which makes a good faith debate virtually impossible.
- mythrwy 5y agoYes but who are the cult followers and bad faith arguers? In this case you may think you know. Maybe you are even correct. But maybe you won't be next time.
- jasonlaramburu 5y ago>who are the cult followers Anyone who won’t accept that vaccines save lives
- mythrwy 5y agoIt's not a great idea to suggest everyone who has come to a different conclusion then you is a cult follower and a bad faith arguer. That is itself both cult like and in bad faith. There are probably better ways to structure your arguments for whatever it's worth.
- jasonlaramburu 5y agoOk, it's not possible to have a good faith discussion about covid with someone who does not accept that vaccines save lives.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mythrwy 5y agoYou aren't after a good faith discussion and the vast majority of people with reasonable knowledge, myself included, accept that in general, vaccines save lives. Please stop with the cult like behavior.
- jasonlaramburu 5y ago>the vast majority of people with reasonable knowledge, myself included, accept that in general, vaccines save lives That really depends where you are located. There are US states where <50% of the eligible population is vaccinated. Why the qualifier, 'in general?' In what cases does one of the major US COVID vaccines reduce a healthy adult's life expectancy?