I'm not defending the prior poster's statement, but the first part of their statement specifically mentions high-profile anti-vax deaths. There are interpretati

I'm not defending the prior poster's statement, but the first part of their statement specifically mentions high-profile anti-vax deaths. There are interpretations of that argument that have nothing to do with de-humanizing, but do raise legitimate ethical questions. For example, one might argue that a prominent anti-vaxxer's lies convincing many people not to get the vaccine is extremely harmful; meanwhile the injection of reality by way of that anti-vaxxer's death could reverse some of that harm; and therefore hoping for high-profile anti-vaxxers to die in a high-profile way from the disease whose vaccine they decry is an ethical act. Squinting a bit, we've just stumbled on something that looks a heck of a lot like a trolley problem! which of course is a famously difficult ethical dilemma with seemingly no good answer---or, at least, no one answer that satisfies everyone. Consequentialists might agree with the grandparent; deontologists would likely agree with you. The point is: your "shame on you" response is not really engaging with the grandparent's argument, and is presupposing a not-entirely-uncontroversial view of ethics. Again, I'm not claiming right or wrong. The issue is that a "shame on you" argument has the effect, intentional or not, of obscuring your assumptions about the world and demonizing those who disagree with you. So: perhaps you can do better, too?