4 ms·

> Vaccinated people (because a vaccine is never 100% safe). s/safe/effective Also, I think you should rewrite your post without the insulting words in it. Wri

> Vaccinated people (because a vaccine is never 100% safe). s/safe/effective Also, I think you should rewrite your post without the insulting words in it. Writing it as such may be cathartic, but it is ineffective in convincing anyone.

zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
You're right, effective is more accurate. I picked my wording very carefully. I'm not one to use insults lightly but this topic enrages me. It's one thing to make choices that are detrimental to yourself, it's worse to make such choices that impact your children (who are helpless) but I think it's the ultimate disgrace to make choices that endanger the entire population.
- DougN7 12y ago
  So that means you're also against smoking and drinking...? Not trying to be snarky - but there are LOTS of activities that are socially acceptable that endanger others. And they are probably a whole lot more dangerous overall than lack of vaccination. (For the record, my children and I are vaccinated).
  - alphakappa 12y ago
    Smoking and drinking do not necessarily endanger others. You can smoke by yourself, or drink without driving etc. Vaccination is not the same, unless you intend to quarantine your kids forever.
  - MBCook 12y ago
    Smoking and drinking aren't highly contagious and usually don't kill in days/weeks.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - mjevans 12y ago
    I choose not to smoke or drink my self. What others decide to do to themselves within a safe context that does not endanger my self or others is the business of the consenting adults involved as long as it is only them involved. I fully support legalizing, regulating, and taxing everything. Some things might be too dangerous to allow outside of carefully setup environments. There will of course be things that someone could come up with which shouldn't be allowed and obvious reasons for that. However there are vastly many things which are safe, or dangerous mostly because they are not legal, and may be interesting that are not presently legal in many places.
- cam_l 12y ago
  ignoring the whole vax/anti-vax thing* i am really curious about people who are enraged about such things and why a particular topic like this enrages them? are you enraged about all things which endanger the population? or just some? a lot of the time i see this sort of rage surface most assuredly (in myself and other people) for topics which: a.i am definitely not guilty b.someone else definitely is guilty c.a lot of other people agree with me.. but not everyone your argument as put forward satisfies these three points. as to your stated arguments, do you really think anti-vaxers want to make bad choices for their children? or are you saying you should be judged according the outcomes of actions, whether you had the correct foresight or not? the first is demonising them to make yourself feel superior / the second is demonising all parents for the myriad of things they do everyday to damage their children. which is it? "I think it's the ultimate disgrace to make choices that endanger the entire population." once again here, is the prior knowledge / intent important? here if you are suggesting, foresight or not, it is bad to endanger the human race - as a logical test of sorts, what if it turns out that overpopulation is the biggest danger to the human race? would that change your stance? likewise, if intent is important, do you stop driving your suv? or is it just about scale? do you stop using fossil fuels? the thing that gets me about the vax/antivax, is that neither side really understand the complexity of the argument. i actually know as many people whose children have had serious reactions to vaccinations as i do parents who children have had serious preventable illnesses. now, i know statistically this is due to vaccines preventing a whole lot more illnesses, and that for certain illnesses there is a minimum threshold of vaccinated people below which the effectiveness is seriously compromised. but at this very point what does it matter to the parents if they have just as much chance to hurt their child either way? most anti-vaxers i have run into actually want to pick and choose the vaccinations and the timing, rather than the couple of hundred they are forced to get by the state (in three or four different injections). is it better to get all or none? is it better to force them into a position of getting all or none? if you don't understand your own arguments, or the people you are trying to convince otherwise, how do you know you are not just reacting emotionally? who does it serve for you to get enraged? *(because clearly it is just a stats vs economics thing, hardly something to get riled up about)
  - zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
    > ignoring the whole vax/anti-vax thing* i am really curious about people who are enraged about such things and why a particular topic like this enrages them? are you enraged about all things which endanger the population? or just some? I am selfishly enraged by the actions of people who put my children's health at risk (especially since they were premature and they are prone to catching a lot of bad stuff) because these people choose to ignore facts (most of the time for religious reasons). I am selflessly enraged at anyone who endangers other people because I have empathy for these people and very low tolerance for irrationality.
snarfy 12y ago
There is absolutely no convincing these people. None. You are as likely to convince a devote islamic extremist to convert to christianity. I'm not saying you should insult people - just saying it won't change their mind.
mc32 12y ago
I don't know. I mean, I know civility and all that. But those people are putting other people's lives at risk --not their own, so much. I think that kind of egregiously selfish behavior pretty much deserves harsh repudiation.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Using the word "retard" has no effect on your targets. But it does effect people with a learning disability who are a group that is marginalised, stigmatised, and discriminated against. There are a bunch of other words you could use: "idiots" fits nicely.

zak_mc_kracken 12y ago

You're right, effective is more accurate. I picked my wording very carefully. I'm not one to use insults lightly but this topic enrages me. It's one thing to make choices that are detrimental to yourself, it's worse to make such choices that impact your children (who are helpless) but I think it's the ultimate disgrace to make choices that endanger the entire population.

DougN7 12y ago
So that means you're also against smoking and drinking...? Not trying to be snarky - but there are LOTS of activities that are socially acceptable that endanger others. And they are probably a whole lot more dangerous overall than lack of vaccination. (For the record, my children and I are vaccinated).
- alphakappa 12y ago
  Smoking and drinking do not necessarily endanger others. You can smoke by yourself, or drink without driving etc. Vaccination is not the same, unless you intend to quarantine your kids forever.
- MBCook 12y ago
  Smoking and drinking aren't highly contagious and usually don't kill in days/weeks.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- mjevans 12y ago
  I choose not to smoke or drink my self. What others decide to do to themselves within a safe context that does not endanger my self or others is the business of the consenting adults involved as long as it is only them involved. I fully support legalizing, regulating, and taxing everything. Some things might be too dangerous to allow outside of carefully setup environments. There will of course be things that someone could come up with which shouldn't be allowed and obvious reasons for that. However there are vastly many things which are safe, or dangerous mostly because they are not legal, and may be interesting that are not presently legal in many places.
cam_l 12y ago
ignoring the whole vax/anti-vax thing* i am really curious about people who are enraged about such things and why a particular topic like this enrages them? are you enraged about all things which endanger the population? or just some? a lot of the time i see this sort of rage surface most assuredly (in myself and other people) for topics which: a.i am definitely not guilty b.someone else definitely is guilty c.a lot of other people agree with me.. but not everyone your argument as put forward satisfies these three points. as to your stated arguments, do you really think anti-vaxers want to make bad choices for their children? or are you saying you should be judged according the outcomes of actions, whether you had the correct foresight or not? the first is demonising them to make yourself feel superior / the second is demonising all parents for the myriad of things they do everyday to damage their children. which is it? "I think it's the ultimate disgrace to make choices that endanger the entire population." once again here, is the prior knowledge / intent important? here if you are suggesting, foresight or not, it is bad to endanger the human race - as a logical test of sorts, what if it turns out that overpopulation is the biggest danger to the human race? would that change your stance? likewise, if intent is important, do you stop driving your suv? or is it just about scale? do you stop using fossil fuels? the thing that gets me about the vax/antivax, is that neither side really understand the complexity of the argument. i actually know as many people whose children have had serious reactions to vaccinations as i do parents who children have had serious preventable illnesses. now, i know statistically this is due to vaccines preventing a whole lot more illnesses, and that for certain illnesses there is a minimum threshold of vaccinated people below which the effectiveness is seriously compromised. but at this very point what does it matter to the parents if they have just as much chance to hurt their child either way? most anti-vaxers i have run into actually want to pick and choose the vaccinations and the timing, rather than the couple of hundred they are forced to get by the state (in three or four different injections). is it better to get all or none? is it better to force them into a position of getting all or none? if you don't understand your own arguments, or the people you are trying to convince otherwise, how do you know you are not just reacting emotionally? who does it serve for you to get enraged? *(because clearly it is just a stats vs economics thing, hardly something to get riled up about)
- zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
  > ignoring the whole vax/anti-vax thing* i am really curious about people who are enraged about such things and why a particular topic like this enrages them? are you enraged about all things which endanger the population? or just some? I am selfishly enraged by the actions of people who put my children's health at risk (especially since they were premature and they are prone to catching a lot of bad stuff) because these people choose to ignore facts (most of the time for religious reasons). I am selflessly enraged at anyone who endangers other people because I have empathy for these people and very low tolerance for irrationality.

snarfy 12y ago

There is absolutely no convincing these people. None. You are as likely to convince a devote islamic extremist to convert to christianity. I'm not saying you should insult people - just saying it won't change their mind.

mc32 12y ago

I don't know. I mean, I know civility and all that. But those people are putting other people's lives at risk --not their own, so much. I think that kind of egregiously selfish behavior pretty much deserves harsh repudiation.

DanBC 12y ago
Using the word "retard" has no effect on your targets. But it does effect people with a learning disability who are a group that is marginalised, stigmatised, and discriminated against. There are a bunch of other words you could use: "idiots" fits nicely.