Dick trumps brain, nothing surprising there.
:)
I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one
11–20 of 111 posts
Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one
#12I'm curious how far the label "anti-vaxxer" extends. Does it also include people who accept the science behind vaccination, but who as a political principle are opposed to it being made compulsory?
AFAIK it's mostly used to describe people who don't vaccinate themselves or their children.
Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one
#13How come there aren't any "anti-civil engineers" who go around claiming bridges aren't safe or "anti-aeronautical-engineers" who "believe" through common sense that planes can't fly? Electricity is reading our brainwaves. Vacuum cleaners suck out our souls. If there are they are rightly recognized as crackpots in need of psychiatric help.
Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one
#14The author tries to make some fair points based on anecdotal evidence, but at its core, the article simply states that "I had a strong opinion about X that i imposed upon others. After being influenced by a romantic interest, I biased in another direction. Now I have a (new) strong opinion that i wish to impose upon others.".
In other words, the fundamental act is still same, it is just opinion that has changed.
Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one
#15The author comes across as a bit of an idiot too in the article. Basing his opinions on blogs and a particular internet community. Rather than acquiring an understanding from the scientific source material on these issues.
Confirmation bias works both ways. In one way or another everybody is influenced by it, whether you're on the right side, or the wrong side of facts.
Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one
#16You're missing a big part of the argument here:
>Go tell arachnophobic parents that you must put spiders on their child because society depends on it, and see how that goes
When children don't receive vaccines it is not just seen that they are endangering themselves, but other children aswell because of the possibility of spread/mutation (whether this is true or not it doesn't really matter, that's just a majority of public view at the moment).
So unlike the spider example, a direct vaccination example from a pro-vaxor's standpoint would be that NOT vaccinating everyone will put children in harm's way.
Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one
#17I'm so not surprised by the comments here, so far.
The core points here are good ones:
- In a fundamentally emotional argument, you 'win' with empathy, not by beating people over the head with the same (very reasonable) arguments they've heard a hundred times.
- Vaccines are certainly effective, they are the correct choice, but there are also absolutely legitimate reasons to distrust the medical and scientific arguments (as pointed out in the article, both medicine and the science behind drugs have been spectacularly wrong more than once). That's something that has to be addressed and overcome, and not just with numbers.
Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one
#18How do you convince your wife when her kid got sick and went into a seizure after a vaccination. Especially when the CDC recommends against it for your child: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/should-not-vacc.htm then what do you do about the other child?
Well, most people in the pro-vaxx community won't deny that vaccinating has risks. The risks of not vaccinating, however, are bigger in a lot of cases. I think that's the most important message in the article, that their concern might be justified, but that the coin has another side.
Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one
#19The author comes across as a bit of an idiot too in the article. Basing his opinions on blogs and a particular internet community. Rather than acquiring an understanding from the scientific source material on these issues.
Confirmation bias works both ways. In one way or another everybody is influenced by it, whether you're on the right side, or the wrong side of facts.
> In one way or another everybody is influenced by it, whether you're on the right side, or the wrong side of facts.
I disagree. I'm always on the right side and am never influenced by confirmation bias - at least that's what the comments I approve on my blog say!