Don’t call me an anti-vaxer

[commonsense]

I was vaccinated when I was a child as were all my classmates. I don't know of anyone who developed any serious complications from it. I certainly didn't. I'm not sure which is the bigger gamble, not vaccinating your child or vaccinating him or her, but I suppose you are right, if you don't want your child to be vaccinated, it's probably your business.

But some of the other members who’ve posted on this thread would likely be inclined to say it is indeed everyone’s business.

seems to me: if I've vaccinated and immunized my kid out the wazoo, then I probably don't have much to worry about if the other kidlets are walkin' around as incubators

Mostly yes. If there are 5 - 10% of the population who are incubators, the incubators may grow out large volumes of pathogens that may overcome immunization levels of some vaccinated individuals. This occurs when there is too little herd protection (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity).

[commonsense]

Apparently, they were having trouble a year ago with measles spreading among non-vaccinated children. If too many people refuse to vaccinate their children and an epidemic arises, it could lead to increased health care costs and hospitals could become swamped with patients. All in all, a few people may be able to get away without vaccination but if it becomes more widespread there would be hell to pay.

Yes, but an anti-vaxer mother would likely be inclined to be concerned with government actions, such as mandatory vaccinations, only as they apply to her children.

For her, autism is a clear and present danger that results from flu shots. In her estimation, the government and the scientific community are hiding the truth about this and probably other vaccines.

[henry quirk]

But some of the other members who’ve posted on this thread would likely be inclined to say it is indeed everyone’s business.

seems to me: if I've vaccinated and immunized my kid out the wazoo, then I probably don't have much to worry about if the other kidlets are walkin' around as incubators

Mostly yes. If there are 5 - 10% of the population who are incubators, the incubators may grow out large volumes of pathogens that may overcome immunization levels of some vaccinated individuals. This occurs when there is too little herd protection (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity).

then I keep him home till the bulldozers have cleared out the corpses

[commonsense]

That sounds like it would take a very long time, not to mention a considerable amount of commitment and effort.

Oh yea! It absolutely doesn't scale. And doesn't pay itself forward.

If you are going to stick it through, you must care deeply about the other person. And in the end it could still get you nowhere, or worse - you could cement them into their position (especially if you get busted proselytising).

How would you advise a scientific person to approach an anti-vaxer or other conspiracy believer?

Humanise yourself. The formal mood in which Philosophy and debate is usually carried out is way too antagonistic. It puts people on the defensive even further. Don't argue, communicate.

I could pretend that there is a universal answer here, but there really isn't. It really requires giving up your entire reference frame and putting yourself in their shoes, using their language.

Only the person whose mind you are trying to change knows what would change their mind. So you have to figure out what that is. They won't tell you.

Yes, I understand these principles already, but I was hoping to entice some practical tips out of you.

[Skepdick]

Yes, I understand these principles already, but I was hoping to entice some practical tips out of you.

The practical tips are to apply the principles

Swing with the punches and keep your eyes on the objective.

[commonsense]

You don't have a right to use your own child as a weapon of germ warfare against children with compromised immune systems who rely on the herd immunity you are destroying. If you want to keep your children unvaccinated then you have to keep them apart, they can only go to places where they cannot cause a major outbreak.


Because some of them have cancer and they will die if they try. And those kids with cancer are only safe at all if at least 95% of the kids around them are vaccinated. So that's a life and death choice for someone else's family you are demanding the right to make for yourself.

A mother is only responsible for her own children. There will still be 95% vaccinated because that’s how gullible most people are. Not all children have cancer anyway.

Your herd immunity objection is demonstrated untrue simply by the preventalbe outbreaks of measles that have occurred in Europe and North America because of people like you in the last few years.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 133918.htm

Your comments on cancer are not conducive to the respectful replies you have requested and I suggest you think about what you have done there.

You want freedom, you get responsibilty, that's the usual deal is it not? Just saying other people's children with lukaemia are not my responsiblity is not playing the game fair. You make your kids into a disease pit, maybe that is your private business. But you send them out to spread disease, that's a responsiblity shirked.

You made these points solidly in your first post in this thread. I had then, and still now, have no viable response.

[commonsense]

I think the flu one is pointless, but that's not one of the childhood ones anyway. Only idiots are against vaccinations for polio, diptheria, tetanus, whooping cough. Those have no side effects. Let me guess, you are against fluoride in the water too? Those two things usually go hand in hand.

As well as other conspiracy theories.

[Gary Childress]

Apparently, they were having trouble a year ago with measles spreading among non-vaccinated children. If too many people refuse to vaccinate their children and an epidemic arises, it could lead to increased health care costs and hospitals could become swamped with patients. All in all, a few people may be able to get away without vaccination but if it becomes more widespread there would be hell to pay.

Yes, but an anti-vaxer mother would likely be inclined to be concerned with government actions, such as mandatory vaccinations, only as they apply to her children.

For her, autism is a clear and present danger that results from flu shots. In her estimation, the government and the scientific community are hiding the truth about this and probably other vaccines.

Is that what you believe or is this all about a hypothetical person who doesn't want to get her children vaccinated? I mean, people can believe all kinds of crazy stuff. It's sad. I guess you would have to try to talk her "down from the ledge", so to speak, ask her why she thinks people are hiding the truth from her, why does she think another person would be doing that, what do they have to gain from it and what tangible evidence is she basing her belief on, etc. If not then there's not a whole lot that can be done legally I suppose.

[Gary Childress]

I object to being called an anti-vaxer and being put down for it.

It isn’t anti anything. It’s really pro-choice, but it’s a choice that’s already protected by the right of self determination. No one should have to defend themselves over a right that everyone already has.

On the subject of "self-determination" and medicine, I've been Baker Acted before and when you are committed involuntarily into a mental hospital, you have no right not to take the medicine they prescribe for you. They will literally have some very large men pin you to the floor and administer a shot. I almost had that happen to me but when they cornered me I decided to cooperate and let them give me the shot without a struggle.

It's an interesting experience. But when you're delusional and anxious, I guess they deem it medically and ethically necessary to get your delusions and anxiety under control. Otherwise, they could face lawsuits if anything serious were to happen to you under their care in those circumstances. So, there are cases where you don't have a "right" to "self-determination" in medicine. Of course, under those circumstances, they deem you of unsound mind and body and not legally competent to represent yourself. Rights can be taken away when a person is deemed psychologically insane. But I wouldn't think it applies to someone who doesn't want to get their kids vaccinated.

[FlashDangerpants]

That sounds like it would take a very long time, not to mention a considerable amount of commitment and effort.

Oh yea! It absolutely doesn't scale. And doesn't pay itself forward.

If you are going to stick it through, you must care deeply about the other person. And in the end it could still get you nowhere, or worse - you could cement them into their position (especially if you get busted proselytising).

How would you advise a scientific person to approach an anti-vaxer or other conspiracy believer?

Humanise yourself. The formal mood in which Philosophy and debate is usually carried out is way too antagonistic. It puts people on the defensive even further. Don't argue, communicate.

I could pretend that there is a universal answer here, but there really isn't. It really requires giving up your entire reference frame and putting yourself in their shoes, using their language.

Only the person whose mind you are trying to change knows what would change their mind. So you have to figure out what that is. They won't tell you.

Yes, I understand these principles already, but I was hoping to entice some practical tips out of you.

Apparently your chances of getting through depend a lot on the audience. If they're full red-pill then they won't trust you and that's the end of it. Otherwsie it's supposedly a matter of addressing doubts and fears without calling them a fucking idiot in the process.

[Gary Childress]

Oh yea! It absolutely doesn't scale. And doesn't pay itself forward.

If you are going to stick it through, you must care deeply about the other person. And in the end it could still get you nowhere, or worse - you could cement them into their position (especially if you get busted proselytising).


Humanise yourself. The formal mood in which Philosophy and debate is usually carried out is way too antagonistic. It puts people on the defensive even further. Don't argue, communicate.

I could pretend that there is a universal answer here, but there really isn't. It really requires giving up your entire reference frame and putting yourself in their shoes, using their language.

Only the person whose mind you are trying to change knows what would change their mind. So you have to figure out what that is. They won't tell you.

Yes, I understand these principles already, but I was hoping to entice some practical tips out of you.

Apparently your chances of getting through depend a lot on the audience. If they're full red-pill then they won't trust you and that's the end of it. Otherwsie it's supposedly a matter of addressing doubts and fears without calling them a fucking idiot in the process.

So if it's your wife or significant other, commonsense, just be thoughtful and considerate while addressing her fears and be sure not to have Flash explain it to her!

EDIT: Just kidding, Flash.

[FlashDangerpants]

Yes, I understand these principles already, but I was hoping to entice some practical tips out of you.

Apparently your chances of getting through depend a lot on the audience. If they're full red-pill then they won't trust you and that's the end of it. Otherwsie it's supposedly a matter of addressing doubts and fears without calling them a fucking idiot in the process.

So if it's your wife or significant other, commonsense, just be thoughtful and considerate while addressing her fears and be sure not to have Flash explain it to her!

EDIT: Just kidding, Flash.

Nope, fair comment. If you set me on your wife you will definitely get divorced.

[Gary Childress]

Apparently your chances of getting through depend a lot on the audience. If they're full red-pill then they won't trust you and that's the end of it. Otherwsie it's supposedly a matter of addressing doubts and fears without calling them a fucking idiot in the process.

So if it's your wife or significant other, commonsense, just be thoughtful and considerate while addressing her fears and be sure not to have Flash explain it to her!

EDIT: Just kidding, Flash.

Nope, fair comment. If you set me on your wife you will definitely get divorced.

Yeah. I hear you, though. It's difficult to work with people who aren't being reasonable. And I'm probably an expert on not being reasonable sometimes, but I'm working on it, albeit slowly.

[commonsense]

Thank you all y’all. This has been enlightening.

[A_Seagull]

If a government can, 'for the good of the people' ban drugs, ban abortion and ban euthanasia they can certainly insist that all newborns are vaccinated, and I would support them on that. The benefit being that eventually, hopefully, the harmful virus will die out and people won't need to be vaccinated anymore.