Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-14-2015, 12:21 AM
 
12,883 posts, read 13,879,576 times
Reputation: 18448

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne View Post
I'll answer your bolded parts by copying my earlier post below. Then I may go back to being a reader and not a poster, for the reasons I stated in this copied post:

I've been following this thread since it began, but I have posted very little. That's not because I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, and not because I have no knowledge to contribute, but mostly because I don't like wasting my time jumping into fruitless arguments, which this thread seems to be.

Just this morning, I was googling "How to deal with unfair criticism," in regard to a completely different issue in my life. After reading this article, I found myself thinking how helpful these strategies would be in this vaccination thread. I truly do wish both sides would stay on topic, reply respectfully, find common ground (some usually exists), and demonstrate that you care more about truth and health than you care about witty zingers and one-up-manship.

I am definitely tired of the argument about "pox parties" (yes, parents did intentionally expose their children to chicken pox back before a vaccination existed, because complications in young children were less frequent than in older children and adults). I don't see the relevancy of pox parties to the topic at hand. I also don't see the relevance in whether or not any particular poster would personally get the small pox vaccination. Badgering posters with that question does nothing to facilitate useful dialogue. Sarcasm and put-downs do nothing to facilitate useful dialogue.

I understand that after hundreds of posts, some of you feel like banging your head against a wall. And I can't say I've never gotten frustrated to the point of getting a bit rude or sarcastic on CD, though I try to stay on the high road.

This is an extremely important topic, and I would prefer to see even a small amount of understanding reached, instead of the vicious circles I'm reading that lead nowhere.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...fair-criticism

Sorry, I don't usually tell people how they should discuss something. I just thought this article was really good.

Edited to add: This isn't directed at anyone in particular. I'm too lazy to review the posts and see who said what.

Peace.

"Fruitless arguments"? Yeah you got us there but I'm the type of person who has a hard time letting people be wrong and get away with it. Good for you that you can sit back and just read, especially knowing all you probably know given your career, and not chime in. Seriously, no sarcasm - good for you, I sometimes wish I could.

 
Old 07-14-2015, 12:23 AM
 
Location: At the corner of happy and free
6,451 posts, read 6,605,300 times
Reputation: 16228
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
Kayanne asked previously why we have asked anti-vaxers if they would vaccinate against smallpox if it somehow came back, given the intensity and fatality rate of the disease and how serious it is, and asked how it was relevant or contributed to the conversation, if I remember correctly. Well, it's a way to test their thinking, and maybe even trap them - and it worked. We had posters admit they would rather face the risks of smallpox than vaccinate, which is associated with risks so rare, especially when compared to the disease itself, that they're barely worth mentioning. The vaccination is so much safer than the disease will ever be yet we still have people who are literally saying "I'll take my chances, thanks," or "my kids eat healthy and aren't exposed to a lot of bleach so they'll be fine." It's mind-boggling, and is actually a good way to test their logic, thinking, and facts. So there's that. And guess what? The test worked. And we still have an abstention, in MissTerri, which shows a lot more than she probably thinks it does.

It is a very relevant question to ask when discussing vaccines, especially the "risks" of vaccines versus the risks of the very diseases they protect against. The vaccines always unquestionably come out way on top compared to the diseases, yet we still have people claiming the vaccines is somehow more dangerous or deadly.

Yeah, at this point, it is the "but I want to have a choice!" attitude. Grow up.
Yes, you remember that correctly. And I don't mind saying that I didn't see the relevancy before, but now I see why you were asking.

My hunch is that, regardless of what someone says he would do in that situation (a smallpox epidemic), if friends and neighbors were dying by the dozens, I suspect even the most ardent anti-vaxxer would roll up their sleeve for a literal "shot" at life.
 
Old 07-14-2015, 12:25 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,167,257 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne View Post
I've been following this thread since it began, but I have posted very little. That's not because I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, and not because I have no knowledge to contribute, but mostly because I don't like wasting my time jumping into fruitless arguments, which this thread seems to be.

Just this morning, I was googling "How to deal with unfair criticism," in regard to a completely different issue in my life. After reading this article, I found myself thinking how helpful these strategies would be in this vaccination thread. I truly do wish both sides would stay on topic, reply respectfully, find common ground (some usually exists), and demonstrate that you care more about truth and health than you care about witty zingers and one-up-manship.

I am definitely tired of the argument about "pox parties" (yes, parents did intentionally expose their children to chicken pox back before a vaccination existed, because complications in young children were less frequent than in older children and adults). I don't see the relevancy of pox parties to the topic at hand. I also don't see the relevance in whether or not any particular poster would personally get the small pox vaccination. Badgering posters with that question does nothing to facilitate useful dialogue. Sarcasm and put-downs do nothing to facilitate useful dialogue.

I understand that after hundreds of posts, some of you feel like banging your head against a wall. And I can't say I've never gotten frustrated to the point of getting a bit rude or sarcastic on CD, though I try to stay on the high road.

This is an extremely important topic, and I would prefer to see even a small amount of understanding reached, instead of the vicious circles I'm reading that lead nowhere.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...fair-criticism

Sorry, I don't usually tell people how they should discuss something. I just thought this article was really good.

Edited to add: This isn't directed at anyone in particular. I'm too lazy to review the posts and see who said what.

Peace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne View Post
I'd like to say that I can find some things I agree with on both sides. As a (retired) medical laboratory scientist, I do believe in the efficacy of vaccinations. But as someone who values personal liberties, I can "understand" those who feel the California law is excessively encroaching on a parent's rights. Note, I put understand in quotes, because while I do kind of understand that viewpoint, I don't completely agree with it. I'm definitely leaning toward public health concerns trumping individual liberties in this context.

Perhaps this has already been discussed (long thread!) but I'd like to know what other strategies people opposing the new law might suggest. To clarify, how could we as a society best avoid a resurgence in the diseases we're discussing here, without something like the new law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne View Post
Dear God no!!! I said a few posts back that I am a retired medical laboratory scientist. I am about as pro-vax as they come. But I had an entire post earlier about the need to be more respectful and less sarcastic if we care more about truth and health than we care about one-upmanship. Perhaps my efforts to respectfully have a dialog with the anti-vaxxers and anti-mandaters were misinterpreted by you as me being on their side. I am just trying to better understand their thinking, find common ground, and learn what they propose as possible solutions. And I might even learn a fact or two from them. Neither side has a monopoly on all the truth.

No, no, a thousand times no, I am not anti-vax. I am not opposed to the Cali law.

I also said that in this instance (mandatory vac) I lean toward public health trumping individual liberties. In other words, although I highly value individual liberties, I would prefer laws such as Cali just passed over epidemics of these diseases that used to kill and harm thousands and thousands. I do however, have some "understanding" of parents wanting choice. I don't agree with them, but I can "understand" kinda where they're coming from.

Sheesh, I'm on your side, and I'm being attacked. It doesn't feel good to feel attacked, regardless of which side you're on.

Edited to add: This just proves that it's easy to get caught up in the arguing, and not even listen to what someone else is saying. The fact that you digested so little of my posts that you thought I was an anti-vaxxer is actually quite troubling.
Well, Happy Summer to you too! (Last things first!)

I saw your first post when it was fairly new. You know, I was reading the thread during some down time at work today. Yesterday, when I said I was reading the thread in the car on the way home from a party and found it frustrating that I couldn't answer right away, the response was pure unadulterated snark from one of the anti-vaxers.

You are "appealing to moderation" something that doesn't work in vaccines.
An “un-American suppression” of antivaccine views or good reporting? – Respectful Insolence
"Science, unlike politics, is not a system where, when you have two extreme viewpoints, the answer usually lies somewhere in the middle. That’s what’s known as the “fallacy of moderation” or the “fallacy of the golden mean.” No, in science, there are right and wrong answers, and in the case of vaccines the right answers lie on the pro-vaccine side, not the antivaccine side."

I called you anti-vax, and that may not be quite true, but I've bolded some questionable stuff. Then, you thought my graphic should have contained more information. That is a classic anti-vax argument. Every bit of information the pro-vaxers post is "weak", or otherwise unacceptable. THEN, you agreed with one of the most hard-core anti-vaxers about the school quarantine policy, obviously without thinking it through at all. As you saw, two people immediately pointed out the fallacy of that policy, and another came along later with the same response. Here's another quote of yours:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne View Post
If I can't respectfully discuss a topic, there is no point in discussing it at all. I think it is safe to say that no one ever had his mind changed due to sarcasm, attacks, or condescension.

If someone is participating here because they enjoy tossing out clever zingers and insults, fine, but that's not me.

I actually think this is a very important topic, worthy of respectful dialogue. Some here have been very respectful and fact oriented. Others seem to be here for the sport of it.
Care to name names? The pro-vaccine posters have been called all sorts of names, with blanket assertions. We're "shills" for the pharmaceutical industry (I wish); we have no compassion for vaccine-injured children (this from people who argue that a tiny baby who got pertussis from an unvaccinated kid in a doctor's office should have had parents who protected him/her better), bullies (below):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48 View Post
Who wants to be a teacher today? I can tell you that teachers go around today telling young people do NOT go into teaching. Force vaccinations on them, well, that will drive even more away.

Of course you would not understand that because you think ADULTS don't refuse vaccinations. It is only anti-vaxer parents of young children.

Want to know how many school staff refuse Hep B. vaccinations? Been there, done that. Pointless to even tell you that one. You would not believe it.

So what is that status on that on California SB 792? La, la, la. Hint. Many adults, who want childhood vaccinations, will oppose the same mandatory vaccinations on themselves. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Take you Tdap, Shingles, Flu shots, or any other ones the CDC says adults need (including catch up) you can put them where your sun doesn't shine. Forcing vaccinations on adults themselves is going to create big time backlash. You ain't seen nothing in comparison to the backlash for forced childhood vaccinations.

You people are bullies who think you can pick on little children. Try doing the same on adults. I have heard the comment on that National Adult Vaccination Plan, "Come after me, and you will be met with my cold hard steel."

Do not even THINK about that. You WILL regret it.
Note that post contains a gun threat!

I agree with JerseyGirl415, below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
I appreciate the effort... but no. Have you read some of the posts? Some of the blatant lies and misinformation coming from the anti-side, or the "pro-choice" side (I feel like I'm suddenly talking about abortion with all this "choice" talk)? How are we supposed to react? "Oh I respect your total BS post but here's why you're wrong and perhaps I can concede a simple point or two just for the sake of trying to not argue..." when people have already rehashed the same stuff over and over again and others still ignore it or insist they are right when their information is undoubtedly false or misunderstood?

If you can remain totally neutral and 100% respectful and un-frustrated, more power to you.
I will add, kayanne, you're quite new to the thread, even if you have been following it. You haven't been posting. As you said "It doesn't feel good to feel attacked",

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 07-14-2015 at 12:41 AM..
 
Old 07-14-2015, 12:29 AM
 
Location: BC, Arizona
1,170 posts, read 1,013,182 times
Reputation: 2378
Although it's all the people that haven't spoken up about vaccinating, the regular folks who by staying silent let irrelevant celebrities become "famous" by pushing untested, unsupported (fraudulent) opinions as if they were facts. These ideas have created a real danger of illnesses making a comeback and SHOULD be challenged. I think we have a responsibility to ensure people have real data to make "choices".
 
Old 07-14-2015, 12:32 AM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,068 posts, read 6,416,881 times
Reputation: 7729
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Because in every state I'm aware of the primary place that laws are enacted is in the state legislature. This is because our system is a republic and not a democracy.

I did live in California quite a while though and I can tell you that they a great initiative and referendum process. If any anti-vax people desire, they have every right to collect signatures and try to get the voters to vote on repealing the law. The signature requirements aren't overwhelming and, in any given election year, its not surprising for voters to have to sift through ten or more initiatives. The problem you have though is about eighty percent of people are in favor of compulsory vaccination laws. So, my word to the wise is don't waste a lot of effort trying to get the law repealed this way.

If you lost there, I don't doubt anti-vaxers would keep whining. Than the argument would be: "You can't legislate away our rights!"

The problem there is the courts don't recognize a constitutional right to avoid vaccination.

You can talk in circles for the next ten years, your position is a loser and its really up to the states whether we have these laws or not.

For whatever reasoning/logic a sweeping state vaccine law can't/shouldn't be voted on by the people, given our current state of $/influence in our political system these days, for those who trust that politicians are there to make the best decisions just for the people, well..........if people really believe that, I have some great ocean front property in Iowa for you that I know they will be very excited about.
 
Old 07-14-2015, 12:33 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,167,257 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne View Post
Yes, you remember that correctly. And I don't mind saying that I didn't see the relevancy before, but now I see why you were asking.

My hunch is that, regardless of what someone says he would do in that situation (a smallpox epidemic), if friends and neighbors were dying by the dozens, I suspect even the most ardent anti-vaxxer would roll up their sleeve for a literal "shot" at life.
Yes, I agree. I think most would. In the office where I work, we had quite a few people bring kids in to get MMR who had previously refused the vaccine. It is true that many anti-vaxers don't remember the diseases, or in many cases, have never known them.
 
Old 07-14-2015, 12:34 AM
 
Location: At the corner of happy and free
6,451 posts, read 6,605,300 times
Reputation: 16228
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
"Fruitless arguments"? Yeah you got us there but I'm the type of person who has a hard time letting people be wrong and get away with it. Good for you that you can sit back and just read, especially knowing all you probably know given your career, and not chime in. Seriously, no sarcasm - good for you, I sometimes wish I could.
I understand that, and I can admire that. God knows the last thing we need is for misinformation to take a stronger foothold by letting it go unchallenged.

And that's exactly why I posted the link I did (which as I mentioned, I was reading for a completely different situation). If you genuinely want to make headway in a disagreement, there are ways to improve your chances, as discussed in my link. When people believe what they believe, regardless of how misinformed they may be, they still want to be heard and respected, or they will never hear and respect what you have to say. Of course, some minds will never be changed, but even people who are wrong on a topic (that's pretty much all of us) have value and talents and something to contribute to this world. Sorry, I'm starting to sound rather Kum-Ba-Yah-ish.

Anyway, suzy has been doing such a great job calmly presenting facts that I just let her be my spokeswoman.
 
Old 07-14-2015, 12:41 AM
 
12,883 posts, read 13,879,576 times
Reputation: 18448
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne View Post
Yes, you remember that correctly. And I don't mind saying that I didn't see the relevancy before, but now I see why you were asking.

My hunch is that, regardless of what someone says he would do in that situation (a smallpox epidemic), if friends and neighbors were dying by the dozens, I suspect even the most ardent anti-vaxxer would roll up their sleeve for a literal "shot" at life.
I absolutely agree. When it comes down to it, how could they not? We have to remember, smallpox isn't something anyone has seen in decades. Some doctors today probably could not recognize the symptoms of smallpox because it has been eradicated and they simply don't need to. People have not witnessed the panic and horror of the disease, what it does to you, how it can scar you, and kill you at its (not so rare) worst. I am aware because as I stated much earlier here, I have an intense interest in microbiology and nearly chose it as my major (I wanted to work for the CDC... still think it would be cool) so I took many college classes related to microbiology (and I am a recent graduate so it was not long ago at all, it's all still fresh in my mind), including one called Plagues, Outbreaks, and Biological Warfare in which we dedicated multiple individual classes to smallpox alone. It is a terrible disease but luckily people today don't have to face it, never have seen it, don't have to worry about it. So it's easy to say "oh yeah I'll take my chances with smallpox, I have a good immune system, the vaccine is dangerous and I want a choice in the manner" - or any combination of those statements - but when faced with it, I do think most people would vaccinate even if they protest now.

An outbreak of something like smallpox would be very scary to people today. People aren't used to friends or family dying off in high numbers because we simply don't see it anymore - and hopefully never will again with any disease. Like I've said many times before, there was a time when it was normal to lose a kid or two to these childhood diseases. It's the main reason people used to have so many kids. Can you imagine that now? Thanks to vaccines we don't have to.
 
Old 07-14-2015, 12:43 AM
 
12,883 posts, read 13,879,576 times
Reputation: 18448
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne View Post
I understand that, and I can admire that. God knows the last thing we need is for misinformation to take a stronger foothold by letting it go unchallenged.

And that's exactly why I posted the link I did (which as I mentioned, I was reading for a completely different situation). If you genuinely want to make headway in a disagreement, there are ways to improve your chances, as discussed in my link. When people believe what they believe, regardless of how misinformed they may be, they still want to be heard and respected, or they will never hear and respect what you have to say. Of course, some minds will never be changed, but even people who are wrong on a topic (that's pretty much all of us) have value and talents and something to contribute to this world. Sorry, I'm starting to sound rather Kum-Ba-Yah-ish.

Anyway, suzy has been doing such a great job calmly presenting facts that I just let her be my spokeswoman.
That's honestly a fear I sometimes have with this stuff.

I will check out your link, sounds like it would be good in general.
 
Old 07-14-2015, 12:48 AM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,068 posts, read 6,416,881 times
Reputation: 7729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Yes, I agree. I think most would. In the office where I work, we had quite a few people bring kids in to get MMR who had previously refused the vaccine. It is true that many anti-vaxers don't remember the diseases, or in many cases, have never known them.
And that's great!

Some of us(me!) aren't pro/con vaccines, just pro "let me make my own choice" and don't ban people's kids from a public place(in this case, school) if they decide no.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top