I effectively never had one, so does that make it acceptable?
> and indirectly society
I know plenty of drug takers that function fine in society[0]. I anticipate your response might be "they would function even better if they didn't", but perhaps forcibly removing choice from adults is also damaging.
[0] and some don't, to be sure.
It's not even that there's no room for compromise, there's no space even to discuss it, to try and understand their rationale. It's like being a kid again in a classroom with the teacher shouting at you that you can't do that and no they won't explain why.
But even though this loose standard can be stretched to justify literally any prohibition, in practice the only activities that get targeted in the name of community enhancement are the ones that make the group in power feel threatened or uncomfortable.
It's not in the best interest of other children to let your children not be immunized.
One of the reasons immunizations work so well is because of herd immunity. The entire population doesn't need to be inoculated against every random mutation the virus will take. Enough of the population has good enough immunity that the virus can't take a foothold. But once you dip below a certain percentage, the virus gets free rein to spread and evolve again.
Effective immunization requires that we all mostly get immunized.
> It's not in the best interest of other children to let your children not be immunized.
This doesn't change my point at all.
First, the idea that my child should be subjected to something harmful because it's better for other children doesn't fly with me. I doubt it flies with anyone. I vaccinated my kid for her benefit and for everyone else's, but if the choice is "everyone else" or "my kid"... I don't think you have to be a parent to see how that one shakes out.
Second, that's not how anti-vaxxers see it. They see it as bad for those children as well.
They aren't being subjected to something harmful, they falsely believe that it's something harmful because they saw an infographic on facebook
>that's not how anti-vaxxers see it. They see it as bad for those children as well.
Yes, and this kind of toxic stupidity should not be tolerated as it puts everyone else at risk
The issue is whether allowing people voice in influencing policy in a democracy is an absolute good if it means people like anti-vaxxers can still influence policy. I argued that from the point of view of an anti-vaxxer they are doing good, and that, you might find yourself in such a position one day. That's irrespective of whether the anti-vaxxers are right or wrong and if the hypothetical you is right or wrong.
And if it's not clear by now, (which it should be for anyone who read the thread): I'm not an anti-vaxxer; I'm not in favor of them; and nothing I've said here is in support of them.
If you wish to support your position better, you need to acknowledge the worries people have, not be deceptively dismissive of real worries.
For one thing there's a risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome.
There's also an inherent risk with introducing anything at all into your body via needle -- where/how was it stored; what other quality controls were practiced?
But that's not the question here. The question is whether someone should be forced to be vaccinated.
Not sure why this concept is so hard to get across.
The 90% can't afford to let the 10% have their own way when it would hurt everyone. In other news you aren't allowed to do all sorts of things on your own property that threaten your neighbors safety.
You're still not getting it. I don't have that position.
If you want an exception for your child, then privately educate them.
The chilling effect you're seeing on your devil's advocate arguments are because anti-vaxxers have caused so much harm with their pseudoscience. There is no room for playing nice or entertaining a middle ground.
The government has stepped in and made public health choices for us already. For instance, we chlorinated and fluoridated the public water supply. If you want to drink bottled water, that's fine. This isn't even a powerful enough analogy though, because vaccination doesn't just impact individuals. Every act of rejection lowers the fitness of the population.
Which tells me you're still not getting my point.
If some minority of children aren't vaccinated, how is that a threat to the rest who are? What's the point of the vaccinations if they aren't effective at protecting the vaccinated from the diseases carried by those who aren't?
I must be missing something, because it just looks like people meddling in the affairs of others. If a parent wants to have non-vaccinated children, I don't see how it's any different than a parent letting their children grow obese. It's their problem, live and let live.
A vaccine that only conveys, say, 20% protection to individuals can still convey ~100% protection to a group by tipping disease story from "spreads exponentially" (average_new_infects_per_person > 1.0) to "fizzles out" (average_new_infects_per_person < 1.0). That's called herd immunity. Even a modest minority of anti-vaxxers can sabotage herd immunity, leaving the rest of us with only the vaccine's individual protection margin.
Which just brings us back to worrying about the concerns of others.
What does herd immunity have to do with the lives of the vaccinated?
An increasingly large population of infected risks giving the virus a foothold first in vulnerable populations, then in everyone especially as mutations in an increasingly large reservoir provide exponentially more chances to find more effective forms that bypass existing immunity.
A minority of stupid people can put everyone at risk. Ultimately diseases continue to wipe out species. There is no particular reason to suppose we are immune to calamity just because we have better tools to respond to it than dumb animals.
Its possible to imagine that given unlimited resources we could discover ahead of time whom might react so and avoid vaccinating them or further reduce such negatives but resources aren't unlimited so currently some die.
We are already killing some kids so that others may live and the majority already supports that as do I.
This is very true, and there's no justifiable reason it should have been downvoted. The truth is more subtle than pro-vax or anti-vax dogma.
And yet we have lots of areas that are taboo: where speaking up or resisting will mark you as a danger, and you will be punished. #metoo
For the morons it's great, not so much for the millions of people exposed to diseases that had essentially been eradicated due to other people's stupidity
I would say it is, as long as they're being honest (even if you judge their honest position to be wrong).
These are also the scumbags that feed their autistic children bleach causing them to poop out their own stomach lining, and the parents think they are removing "autism worms"
TMT has fallen victim to an entirely unrelated political issue: the Hawaiian independence movement. There are people who believe that Hawaii is not legally/morally part of the United States, and they've chosen TMT as a highly visible project they can block, in order to assert sovereignty.
They make a number of claims to justify blocking TMT in particular. Their environmental claims are nonsense (nuclear-powered telescopes - imagine that!). They also claim that Mauna Kea is sacred to native Hawaiians, so that building a telescope there is desecration. That claim is actually extremely dubious, from a historical point of view. While going to the summit was taboo for most people in old Hawaii (as were many activities, such as men and women eating together), native Hawaiians also dug the largest rock quarry in all of Polynesia on Mauna Kea. There is also surprisingly little mention of Mauna Kea in extant chants from the old religion. But it's an oral tradition, so definitively proving that Mauna Kea wasn't as sacred as anti-TMT protesters claim is impossible. What's important is that the independence movement has made Mauna Kea's supposed sacredness a central part of their creed.
It's a sad situation, because TMT has the law on its side, and even with all the will in the world to accommodate opponents, TMT has no power to grant their central demand - independence from the US. The protesters fundamentally just want to block TMT entirely, as a statement about sovereignty over the mountain, and over Hawaii more broadly.
The other side of this is that there is an element of obstructionism built into the model of democracy. Too much process, back and forth, judge-intervention, lawsuits, counter-lawsuits, voting and representation, etc. It would be ideal if we simply allowed everyone to vote on it, and go with the majority outcome.
If Paris can move graveyards and cemeteries underground for progress, surely something similar can be arranged to enable progress on the one hand and afford people the ability to honor their ancestors and culture.
In this case, "I don't want another giant telescope on my culture's sacred mountain" isn't about astronomy at all, it's about the culture (and the larger perspective of indigenous interest in local resources, and respect for a pre-existing treaty that wasn't quite honored -- these folks aren't primitives or hippies, they know very well this is a political process in the real world).
That said, the idea that NIMBYs won't oppose a luxury hotel or housing development is laughable. My NextDoor is filled with people posting proposed development of our downtown, criticizing it with specious reasoning, and trying to rally people against it. The nature of the development doesn't matter. How much it will improve our property values doesn't matter. How much it will help with housing or traffic doesn't matter.
A luxury hotel... I can already hear them shrilly decrying how we don't "need to bring more people to the area," as stupid an argument as that would be for a hotel.
I don't know how to flesh it out better.
IIRC, the anti-TMT protestors would ideally like all the telescopes on Mauna Kea removed. However, obstructing the construction of the new one is the most practical present course of action for them.
Which is one of the things that makes democracy and civil rights great: different people can express different perspectives and influence the decisions made.