3 ms·
Thanks for trying to explain, but I don't think you're right. I think the downvotes are a reflexive action for a lot of people. (I'm guilty of this, too. - Mayb
by pzxc 12y ago
Thanks for trying to explain, but I don't think you're right. I think the downvotes are a reflexive action for a lot of people. (I'm guilty of this, too. - Maybe we all should take a few more seconds before downvoting something we disagree with if it's meaningfully contributing to the discussion)
Specifically, (1) I am comparing them, but I am not conflating them. I never said they were all the same thing, I just said they were all viewed as protected religious actions by some people. And (2), as I mentioned in my other reply, nonvaccination does not have a direct negative impact on those around you. It does have an indirect negative impact, but so does secondhand smoke, wood smoke from a wood fireplace, smog from living in an urban area, or just the risk from driving a car. You can't really declare nonvaccination to be indisputable evil without comparing the probabilities to actions and circumstances that may be just as harmful but which we allow.
- bronson 12y ago> You can't really declare nonvaccination to be indisputable evil without comparing the probabilities to actions and circumstances that may be just as harmful but which we allow. Sure I can. That's just another version of the "we shouldn't go into space before we solve world hunger" argument. Even though smog is a larger and more pernicious problem, we should still try to solve the smaller problems that come behind it. (and, of course, I don't think anybody is saying nonvaccination is indisputable evil. I assume that's hyperbole)