5 ms·

I get all this, but I really think the only way to sort this out will be to heavily stigmatize it. It needs to be shameful not to vaccinate your child. I thin

• api 12y ago
  A post of mine from another thread on this general topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985668 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985668
• jgallag8 12y ago
  I would prefer to live in a world where, as much as possible, rationality guides decisions instead of emotivist social pressure.
  • Qwertious 12y ago
    I would like the former too, but I'll accept the latter if the former isn't feasible.
  • blt 12y ago
    Keep waiting.
  • john_b 12y ago
    Unfortunately you don't, and you never will. You'll have to get used to the fact that "emotivist social pressure" is usually a more effective way to change peoples minds than reason. If people can't be convinced by reason that their dangerous and unreasonable behavior is in fact dangerous and unreasonable, then little is left besides social pressures.
    • jgallag8 12y ago
      Even if something is effective at promoting a good cause, it isn't necessarily an unqualified good, even if one takes a utilitarian view of things. I don't disagree with the use of social pressure in general. Many people have mentioned the idea of refusing to allow children without vaccinations to attend public schools, which might be reasonable, and might be effective. That is social pressure, and I am not in principle opposed to it. However, I am opposed to the idea of stigmatizing anyone who disagrees with one's point of view, even if they are wrong, and even if it will promote a good cause. The problem with public shaming is that it works equally well for both good and bad arguments. A lot of sarcasm just implies that the object has already been established as absurd, the writer doesn't actually have to do anything to establish the fact. Since he doesn't have to make any argument that the object is absurd, it works just as well against any object at all. It can be very distorting, and emotionally twisting, and can be easily used to hide the truth in any discussion. This is what I mean by 'emotivism', the idea that rationality is useless, and therefore the best way to establish one's moral beliefs is by use of assertion and emotional manipulation. Even if it is effective, and even if it can never be fully avoided, I don't feel comfortable using it, because as soon as it becomes an acceptable weapon in any sort of public debate, any hope of rationality is destroyed. And ultimately, that is more important even than the very serious issue of vaccinations. For what it's worth, I don't think the blog post in question falls squarely into this description. He was making an argument by analogy rather than using sarcasm to imply that an argument already exists. This was just by way of response to the sentiment that social shaming is a tool that ought to be used.
  • LLWM 12y ago
    That sounds dreadful.
• vetinari 12y ago
  I don't think you can stigmatize such a large group. Trying to do so will polarize the society, not stigmatize few members of it. Not exactly a result you want.
• bentcorner 12y ago
  Plain old shame should work. Think of the littering campaigns and "earth day" movements in the 80's/90's. This is the sort of thing that needs to be won over on facebook, The View, and supermarket headlines.