|
I heard part of it, just enough to hear the anti-vax lady get completely torn apart, it was glorious.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
Frank Dillinger posted:I heard part of it, just enough to hear the anti-vax lady get completely torn apart, it was glorious. But what if the stupid cow got her feelings hurt, and it made her heart hard against vaccination in the future? What have we done???  Why do we have to pretend that people's lovely opinions and beliefs deserve any degree of respect simply because their lovely brain came up with them and now holds them as fact?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
brucio posted:I don't know if anyone here in Canada listens to CBC radio, but this morning, Anna Maria Tremonti walked all over an anti-vaxxer in a way that only a truly great interviewer can. "Why is it bullying when someone tells you the truth?" This is the most glorious response ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
PT6A posted:But what if the stupid cow got her feelings hurt, and it made her heart hard against vaccination in the future? What have we done??? Because otherwise we make them more sympathetic and persuasive to undecided parties than we are. And because the people with lovely opinions have children.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Because otherwise we make them more sympathetic and persuasive to undecided parties than we are. And because the people with lovely opinions have children. Surely at some point it becomes acceptable to tell people to quit committing child abuse or endangering the lives of anyone who's a patient in a cancer ward?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Because otherwise we make them more sympathetic and persuasive to undecided parties than we are. And because the people with lovely opinions have children. Or you humiliate them and make them a laughing stock and pariah to anybody with brains enough to be saved. (I just got a vision of the afterlife and it's just you and me saying these arguments back and forth forever)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Or you humiliate them and make them a laughing stock and pariah to anybody with brains enough to be saved. There's a third solution, a final solution, if you will...
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
I'm being serious here, not self-serving. We dodged a very serious situation when that Children's hospital site was possibly exposed. Had measles actually caught on there, we would be seeing casualties. As someone who works in a dangerous manufacturing environment and is working to improve safety, these sorts of completely preventable situations are outrageous. If someone were acting that negligently at work-related they would suffer immediate and sometimes permanent consequences. With these anti-vaxxers, we're told that they mean well and they really care about their families. When do we as a society stop tolerating this dangerous behaviour? We got lucky this time, but what happens when this happens again? Before, it was a matter of time before there was a major outbreak and now it's only a matter of time before there are people who are maimed or killed. At least at work, people don't question the scientific validity of lock out, tag out procedures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I'm being serious here, not self-serving. We dodged a very serious situation when that Children's hospital site was possibly exposed. Had measles actually caught on there, we would be seeing casualties. BSL-4?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Habibi posted:What you need to know: This *new* study from 2011 compares disease rates among children in the general *German* population to *self-reported survey results* from *mostly American respondents,* allowing the writers (and posters) of the article to conclude that, "many children and adults have diseases and disorders that are vaccine induced." Well at least this independent study is self-funded and is not sponsored by a large “credible” non-profit or government health organization with political and financial conflicts of interest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 10:52
|
|
|
I think it might be helpful to differentiate between people who are actively spreading antivax beliefs and people who are misled by them. The former need to be challenged aggressively, but I think it would be great if there were some way to give the latter a way to disown their old views while saving face. People are naturally going to double down when faced with "You are dumb and crazy for believing this." Something along the lines of, "Hey, it's easy to be deceived by these people, and it's great that you are questioning conventional views, but make sure you are also questioning ones just as thoroughly." might be a good start. e: Like this! Vaccines work! Here are the facts. Vienna Circlejerk fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
fermun posted:For the record, science does use laws. Laws are a smaller subset of repeatable observations of a theory that don't usually contain the reason why the observation is true, just a repeatable observation. Most laws can be expressed as a mathematical equation. A theory incorporates that and includes a proposed reason for why it's true. Discendo Vox posted:The definition of "law", like the definition of "theory" and "research question" (and to a lesser extent, "hypothesis") actually varies quite heavily from field to field. In some disciplines it is indeed frowned upon to characterize anything as law. I really should have specified, honestly. I know law is more common in the harder science fields (physics, mathematics, etc.) but in my field which is life science (pharmaceutical science specifically, so this issue is one that's close for me) law is sort of a dirty word. I shouldn't have generalized. Hypothesis (IE: the chemical imbalance hypothesis of depression) is much more common because everything in pharmaceutical science is so fluid. You're pretty much asking for trouble if you term something a law. Even if it something has been repeatedly tested and seems valid, an experiment several years down the line can change everything and invalidate what seemed to be common knowledge. EDIT: Vienna Circlejerk posted:I think it might be helpful to differentiate between people who are actively spreading antivax beliefs and people who are misled by them. The former need to be challenged aggressively, but I think it would be great if there were some way to give the latter a way to disown their old views while saving face. People are naturally going to double down when faced with "You are dumb and crazy for believing this." Something along the lines of, "Hey, it's easy to be deceived by these people, and it's great that you are questioning conventional views, but make sure you are also questioning ones just as thoroughly." might be a good start. Your approach reminds me of Bill Nye's debate with creationists in that respect. Bill Nye took a lot of poo poo for even scheduling a debate, but it wasn't for other creationists or even to win. It was for the kids of creationists and young people to see another side. To just put the seeds of doubt in them without ridiculing them. Treating someone with respect is a good way to start. Most of these people aren't evil or bastards and they are worrying about their children. They're doing it out of love in a very wrong way that is dangerous to others and their own children, but it is still a position of love. Recognizing this and slowly diffusing their fears with respect is the way to go. You don't gain anything by calling them idiots. A lot of people, like you said, will just double down and get defensive. Treating people with respect is also disarming, since a lot of people prepare for a fight. It makes others more receptive to discussion. Obviously, this technique will not work on everyone. There are people with ideological agendas (they've got supplements or alternative medicine books to sell), irrational conspiracy theorists and people who are so far down the new age/homeopathic rabbit hole they aren't coming back. The key is recognizing and treating them differently. I admit it is so frustrating to do so, but really this behavior is going to continue unless it is addressed in a calm rational manner to those whose minds can be changed. Ignore everyone else. Dapper Dan fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Habibi posted:Having drifted this far off topic, here's some content that appeared on my FB wall today even though it was posted by someone I don't know nor am friends with (probably because FB has noticed me being active in vaccine-related threads and because a friend of mine commented on it): Most people don't actually read studies beyond the headline...if they even read that far, as opposed to just trusting the word of whatever news article they're reading that the study exists. The only person I can actually get mad at here is whoever actually wrote that "study" in the first place, since such terrible statistical quality suggests intentional dishonesty. Everyone else - the news article linking to it and the person believing it and posting it on FB - are just doing what they usually do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Brennanite posted:"Why is it bullying when someone tells you the truth?" This is the most glorious response ever. AVmom: In Canada there's no way to use the public health office to search for adverse reactions and there's a lack of transparency! Host: Adverse vax effects are tracked and available through the public health agency of Canada. I thought you did research. You didn't know that? AVMom: uh... no. But it's not one of those things that, like, people report on! FilthyImp fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
The willful ignorance and refusal to listen of these people is why I finally just started supporting making the vaccines mandatory. Pull all non-medical exemptions and let them homeschool if they don't like it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:I think it might be helpful to differentiate between people who are actively spreading antivax beliefs and people who are misled by them. The former need to be challenged aggressively, but I think it would be great if there were some way to give the latter a way to disown their old views while saving face. People are naturally going to double down when faced with "You are dumb and crazy for believing this." Something along the lines of, "Hey, it's easy to be deceived by these people, and it's great that you are questioning conventional views, but make sure you are also questioning ones just as thoroughly." might be a good start. Yup, you're not going to sway a hardcore antivaxxer, but you can sway all of the people who might be watching you debate. When doing this, it's also important to remember to address the truth, not the myth. Addressing the myth and trying to disprove it frequently backfires for psychological reasons. Instead, present evidence showing that vaccines are safe and effective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Javid posted:The willful ignorance and refusal to listen of these people is why I finally just started supporting making the vaccines mandatory. Pull all non-medical exemptions and let them homeschool if they don't like it. It still blows my mind that the two states in the US with sensible vaccine policies (no non-medical exemptions) are West Virginia and Mississippi.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:It still blows my mind that the two states in the US with sensible vaccine policies (no non-medical exemptions) are West Virginia and Mississippi. It's West Virginia, everyone wants to keep their Wife and Sister safe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:It still blows my mind that the two states in the US with sensible vaccine policies (no non-medical exemptions) are West Virginia and Mississippi. If I had to guess, the cause is a lack of direct democratic involvement on those issues, and a conservative base that's more paleo than libertarian. Basically, the issue hasn't been useful to get votes for politicians, so it hasn't been revisited since the polio days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Hey Actus, can people who purposefully hold or have their children attend Measles Parties be enough to cross some sort of legal line?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Jesus lord christ almighty loving mary. Did anyone listen to the whole interview? The loving anti-vaxxer moron is an "energy medicine" practitioner that substitutes new-age bullshit for actual healthcare. All you really need to do is go listen to the short audio clip with the article to get most of the really Though you do miss a couple of gems, like the terrible terrible replies and attempts to make 'having a discussion' the important part.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:It's West Virginia, everyone wants to keep their Wife and Sister safe. That's pretty narrow-minded of you. West Virginians can care about more than one person at a time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Jesus, Bill Maher doubling down on the "just asking questions" thing. You can ask questions you dummy but after years and years is it too much to ask you to pay attention to the answers?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Hey Actus, can people who purposefully hold or have their children attend Measles Parties be enough to cross some sort of legal line? Hopefully, but it's become a harder row to hoe from a legal realist standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Most people don't actually read studies beyond the headline...if they even read that far, as opposed to just trusting the word of whatever news article they're reading that the study exists. The only person I can actually get mad at here is whoever actually wrote that "study" in the first place, since such terrible statistical quality suggests intentional dishonesty. Everyone else - the news article linking to it and the person believing it and posting it on FB - are just doing what they usually do. The person who posted this? He's a naturopath. "Tread lightly here if you think Im not a real doctor ." Actual quote. My response? "A real witchdoctor, maybe."
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Hey Actus, can people who purposefully hold or have their children attend Measles Parties be enough to cross some sort of legal line? There are plenty of laws someone could try to bring against such a parent, but any prosecutor would be stuck trying to convince a jury to convict them. Most states have case laws against knowingly infecting someone with an infectious disease, usually STDs. That said, it would probably be a pain in the rear end to convict someone for child endangerment for refusing to vaccinate. Even with a strict Anti-Measles Party law, there's still the option of jury nullification. Basically, if even one person sympathetic to the anti-vaxx refuses to convict, then the lovely parent walks free. There's usually a much lower burden of proof in civil courts than in criminal courts. That said, It's still an untapped potential goldmine for thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:Thanks for all this. For what its worth, my wife's not crazy. I love her and she has my full support in every other facet of life, as she has me. Did you ever get your kids vaccinated?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:It still blows my mind that the two states in the US with sensible vaccine policies (no non-medical exemptions) are West Virginia and Mississippi. You know, I was thinking about this thread, the previous derail, and my own experiences being poor as gently caress and I noticed something; how many anti-vaxxers are upper middle class and higher? This class, the same ones that directly or indirectly gently caress up opportunities the poor otherwise have, claw and scrape for any advantage they can grasp at for their own offspring. Considering that "vaccines are poison and cause autism" is an increasingly common belief they're not willing to risk something going wrong with the vaccine. Now, there is a very interesting statistic that also occurred to me when I was debating this with myself. After 9/11 there was a significant spike in the number of middle class and higher Americans coming down with depression and anxiety. The poor had no such spike. While we could possibly argue it's because the poor can't afford help there are actually a poo poo load of free to dirt rear end cheap psychological help things available. The other thing is that the middle class and higher are largely insulated from the bad poo poo of the world. The poor do not have such luxuries. Now notice that poor countries tend to be really gung ho about vaccines. Poor countries have way better vaccination rates than America and places where nasty diseases are still running rampant are like "hell yes, let's do this!" If you take ten thousand people that are dying to some plague and say "hey we have this cure for the plague that will make it go away forever but statistically speaking like five of you will die from the cure" and they're likely to jump at it because hey five people reacting badly to the vaccine is way better than thousands dying to what it cures. But to the middle class and higher in the States many of them have not seen such things. Disease is something that only poor people deal with. Meanwhile the Just World bullshit and other such nonsense that tends to run rampant in the non-poor of America couples in with it. "I am special, bad things do not happen to me" is another thing. Positive thinking comes up. There is an increasingly common belief that negative things happen to people that think negatively. It's why the poor are so cranky all the time. They believe it's literally impossible that a lovely, awful life leads to negative thoughts. No! Self-esteem and thinking right leads to good life, not the other way around you dummies. So we have this perfect poo poo storm. Suburbia is insular by design. It is specifically tailored to keep Those Things out. It's an artificial, perfect little world where bad things can't reach so now you have people that have never experienced something bad happening personally. They have never met somebody crippled by polio and if they see pictures it's always of somebody in Africa or India and well those places are backwards and dirty and the people are stupid so of course they have diseases. This, however, is America and we are the future. In fact we're discovering things that are better than vaccines because we're just that awesome and special! The fact that nobody in my cul de sac has come down with polio is just proof of how amazing we are. The non-poor also have an abundance of whatever medical care they could possibly desire. The poor have not been afforded that luxury. To a poor person any treatment at all you can get is the best loving thing. The snake oil salesmen only really go after people with money and dress it up in flowery words that the non-poor love to hear. "You're special. You know what's best for you, right? Buy our overpriced miracle cures!" It's too expensive for Bluecollar McCarriesboxes. He is not the target demographic. He also experiences unpleasant things all day so getting blood work done is "meh, whatever...I sliced my thumb to the bone and took care of it myself, a few vials of blood getting sucked out through a little tube is whatever. Oh hey I need to get another shot to boost my vaccine? Cool, whatever, let's get it over with I need to be to work at 5." So I wonder; is it a mix of these classes of people not only isolating themselves from the problems of the world and believing themselves to be magic? That's what I seem to be seeing, though I might just be reading too much into it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
I think part of it is just that richer people can afford better healthcare. If your kid has a serious case of the flu you can put them in the loving hospital or get them all the health care they need; you can pay for drugs easily. Someone who's broke won't be able to do that and a vaccine is a hell of a lot cheaper than medicine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:I think part of it is just that richer people can afford better healthcare. If your kid has a serious case of the flu you can put them in the loving hospital or get them all the health care they need; you can pay for drugs easily. Someone who's broke won't be able to do that and a vaccine is a hell of a lot cheaper than medicine. People who choose not to get the flu shot perplex me. Like, if I get the flu, chances are I'll be fine and my life won't be impacted in a lasting way. But I'll still have had the loving flu! I've had it before, I don't care for it at all -- in fact, I quite dislike being sick for any reason, and will gladly take any and all preventative steps to stop myself from becoming ill from anything. gently caress, the flu shot is cheap as borscht and takes 20 minutes out of your day to get. I get it as soon as I can every single year. I don't give a poo poo if it's only 50% effective or even 20% effective in any given year -- any reduction in my chances of getting the flu is quite welcome. I also wash my hands frequently and do my best to not associate with sick people -- do anti-vaxxers also eschew that sort of thing? (Fake Edit: Given the existence of Measles Parties, yes... yes they do...)
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
It's tough to say "suburbs" because there are so many families living in suburbs... I can't find the percentage with a quick google but it's high. It's probably part of it, though. I don't have a unified theory and I only can generalize about people I've been around a lot (so I don't know the rural southerner version of an anti-vaxxer), but even then it's hard to disentangle the affluence itself from the subculture. I do think being clear of most "real" problems helps one start worrying about GMOs and toxins and whatever else and to take time and resources to do your "research" and to socialize with other like-minded folks. Maybe you know about Guillain-Barre and thalidomide and Vioxx and whatever else and you distrust big Pharma more than you are worried about disease. You tend to thing nature/natural is good and business/synthetic is harmful. You unconsciously consider most choices to be matters of personal preference, not right/wrong, and YOU CHOOSE what is right for you/your family, which ironically is a narcissism that business/marketing has really exacerbated. Your doctor has a lot of patients like you and thus is wishy-washy about vaccines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:It still blows my mind that the two states in the US with sensible vaccine policies (no non-medical exemptions) are West Virginia and Mississippi. I don't imagine there's a big natural/organic stuff culture there, at least not in the sense of strolling down the aisle at Whole Foods looking for vegan foods.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:It still blows my mind that the two states in the US with sensible vaccine policies (no non-medical exemptions) are West Virginia and Mississippi. a lot of these NATURAL ORGANIC PALEO things are actually associated with richer people in cities (for example, see portland voting to remove flouride from their water supply), so states like Mississippi are actually the least likely to try and ban that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
I'm pretty pessimistic about this whole thing, I don't think there will be any convincing of significant numbers of the population before we get several dead children. Only after we see some desperate mother screaming her head out in front of her antivaxxer neighbors house because they killed her newborn will we get enough public outrage for making vaccines mandatory and serious penalties for antivaxxer parents a reality. This poo poo will only go away when antivaxxers become as publicly reviled as racist-smoker-homophobes. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:I'm pretty pessimistic about this whole thing, I don't think there will be any convincing of significant numbers of the population before we get several dead children. Only after we see some desperate mother screaming her head out in front of her antivaxxer neighbors house because they killed her newborn will we get enough public outrage for making vaccines mandatory and serious penalties for antivaxxer parents a reality. This is why I think the drunk driving model should be applied here. Decades ago, no one gave a poo poo about it and drivers were let off with minor fines. Now it's a huge social taboo, carries significant financial and criminal penalties and is actually an enforcement priority.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:I'm pretty pessimistic about this whole thing, I don't think there will be any convincing of significant numbers of the population before we get several dead children. Only after we see some desperate mother screaming her head out in front of her antivaxxer neighbors house because they killed her newborn will we get enough public outrage for making vaccines mandatory and serious penalties for antivaxxer parents a reality. If 30 dead kids didn't cause an uproar about guns, vaccines sure won't. It will take a good percentage of the population to die before the rest get around to thinking that they are a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:If 30 dead kids didn't cause an uproar about guns, vaccines sure won't. The reasoning with guns is that "it can't happen to me, my guns are always* securely locked", get enough dead kids and the reasoning with vaccines will become "those fuckers want to send their filthy diseased groin gremlins to my kid's school?" * ok, almost always
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
I think it's already getting a lot better, though yeah the measles thing is helping. There will always be a membrane of hold-outs willing to put their back into their denialism but the sort of mindless adoption of anti-vax stuff from people is going to get harder for people even half-paying attention. The trial balloons Christie and Paul landed with thuds and were reeled back in immediately, Maher's latest foray has had a similar reception, your rudderless friend who doesn't have anything to say but likes to post no-poo poo things on social media is posting pro-vaccine stuff, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:If 30 dead kids didn't cause an uproar about guns, vaccines sure won't. I don't think antivax has the same amount of money and political support behind it that the pro-gun movement has. At least not yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
MeLKoR posted:I'm pretty pessimistic about this whole thing, I don't think there will be any convincing of significant numbers of the population before we get several dead children. Only after we see some desperate mother screaming her head out in front of her antivaxxer neighbors house because they killed her newborn will we get enough public outrage for making vaccines mandatory and serious penalties for antivaxxer parents a reality. That's more or less the argument I made in a recent FB discussion on how to convince these people to do an about turn. The Backfire Effect is particularly strong with antivaxers, not least because that demographic overlaps significantly with conspiracy theorists, and one of the most efficacious methods of defeating it is to make the benefit to changing their minds personal. Sadly, the best (only?) way for the benefit of vaccines to bexome personal to antivaxers is if they end up suffering (or having their kids suffer) from an illness they refuse to vaccinate against. So, yes, unfortunate though it is, that's probably the only way it will happen in a lot of cases (if it happens at all).
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 17:42
|
|