Strong agree on the vaccines and all, but yelling at people to not act on their heartfelt beliefs about whats best for society and instead act on your heartfelt beliefs about what's best for society solely on the assumption that your beliefs are clearly right and theirs are clearly wrong isn't exactly effective rhetoric 😂
They're doing the things you believe are bad for society because they believe that they're good for society, and just yelling at them to disregard their beliefs and act on yours instead isn't going to change that.
It's kind of like, when the libs were telling us to stop going to BLM protests because of covid and we were tellin them to fuck of. To the libs covid was a real and present danger and whatever we were yelling about didn't really matter, but to us, while we knew covid was dangerous police abolition and in general people not being killed and tortured for being black or not licking cop boots on demand mattered a hell of a lot too, so we managed the risk as best we could but took to the streets anyway because the potential reward was worth it.
It's the same deal with anti-vaxxers. They almost all have a (wrongly) lessened view of the risk of not vaccinating and almost all (wrongly) think vaccines do horrible things to children so have a heightened view of the reward of not vaccinating, so they try to manage the risk to the extent they need to but don't vaccinate and try to convince others not to vaccinate because they believe whatever they think vaccinations do to children is worth stopping despite the cost. If they didn't believe that they wouldn't be anti-vaxxers.
The argument kind of makes sense as an appeal to a group that agrees with you to enforce our way of doing things on people who disagree with us, but even then, it's a generic appeal that would work the same way for any group of people and any shared belief because it's just saying "we know what we believe is right and what others believe is harmfully wrong, so lets force the others who believe harmfully wrong things to stop taking harmfully wrong actions based on their beliefs!". It only gets you anywhere if the people who share your beliefs that what the people you want to force to conform to your way of doing things is harmfully wrong but have concerns about whether the cost of enforcing those people to conform outweighs the good done by stopping those people doing the harmful things.
If that is the case "we should always enforce our way of doing things on others, the benefit always outweighs the cost" isn't a convincing argument because that's clearly not true by the belief system of the people you're trying to convince or they would have forced the harmfully wrong people to conform already. A more convincing argument to make is "the harm these people are doing by not conforming outweighs the cost of forcing them to conform", because it only requires presenting the situation differently so they act differently based on their own beliefs, rather than attempting the much harder task of trying to change peoples beliefs so they react to the situation the same way you would.
tl;dr: Vaccinating kids good, but "Your individual beliefs are not more important than the health/safety of society" isn't an effective argument for convincing brainwormed anti-vaxxers or their lib enablers.
To anti-vaxxers it's just saying "the actions your beliefs are causing you to take are harmful, don't act on your beliefs act on my beliefs instead" which won't get you anywhere because by their beliefs, which they, y'know, believe, not vaccinating and convincing people not to vaccinate is less harmful than vaccinating., so it ust comes off as saying "I'm right you're wrong, surely you see that" which is super alienating and patronising and won't get you anywhere.
To the lib enablers it's saying "if we see people doing things we think are harmful we should always stop them and force them to do things our way", which gets you further than with the anti-vaxxers, but not by much, because if they believe that not vaccinating kids is harmful they're either wanking themselves off about individual freedoms, in which case you want to make arguments that target the contradictions in that nonsense, so talking about the rights of children or majority consensus or the tragedy of the commons, or they think the harm done by stopping the anti-vaxxers would be worse than the harm the anti-vaxxers do, in which case you want to shove heartbreaking pictures and stories of kids with measles and polio in their faces until they agree its worth it.
tldr;tldr: agree vaccinations should be mandatory, here's some reasons people disagree and ways to convince them.
Strong agree on the vaccines and all, but yelling at people to not act on their heartfelt beliefs about whats best for society and instead act on your heartfelt beliefs about what's best for society solely on the assumption that your beliefs are clearly right and theirs are clearly wrong isn't exactly effective rhetoric 😂
They're doing the things you believe are bad for society because they believe that they're good for society, and just yelling at them to disregard their beliefs and act on yours instead isn't going to change that.
It's kind of like, when the libs were telling us to stop going to BLM protests because of covid and we were tellin them to fuck of. To the libs covid was a real and present danger and whatever we were yelling about didn't really matter, but to us, while we knew covid was dangerous police abolition and in general people not being killed and tortured for being black or not licking cop boots on demand mattered a hell of a lot too, so we managed the risk as best we could but took to the streets anyway because the potential reward was worth it.
It's the same deal with anti-vaxxers. They almost all have a (wrongly) lessened view of the risk of not vaccinating and almost all (wrongly) think vaccines do horrible things to children so have a heightened view of the reward of not vaccinating, so they try to manage the risk to the extent they need to but don't vaccinate and try to convince others not to vaccinate because they believe whatever they think vaccinations do to children is worth stopping despite the cost. If they didn't believe that they wouldn't be anti-vaxxers.
The argument kind of makes sense as an appeal to a group that agrees with you to enforce our way of doing things on people who disagree with us, but even then, it's a generic appeal that would work the same way for any group of people and any shared belief because it's just saying "we know what we believe is right and what others believe is harmfully wrong, so lets force the others who believe harmfully wrong things to stop taking harmfully wrong actions based on their beliefs!". It only gets you anywhere if the people who share your beliefs that what the people you want to force to conform to your way of doing things is harmfully wrong but have concerns about whether the cost of enforcing those people to conform outweighs the good done by stopping those people doing the harmful things.
If that is the case "we should always enforce our way of doing things on others, the benefit always outweighs the cost" isn't a convincing argument because that's clearly not true by the belief system of the people you're trying to convince or they would have forced the harmfully wrong people to conform already. A more convincing argument to make is "the harm these people are doing by not conforming outweighs the cost of forcing them to conform", because it only requires presenting the situation differently so they act differently based on their own beliefs, rather than attempting the much harder task of trying to change peoples beliefs so they react to the situation the same way you would.
Bruh there’s no way I’m reading all of that
tl;dr: Vaccinating kids good, but "Your individual beliefs are not more important than the health/safety of society" isn't an effective argument for convincing brainwormed anti-vaxxers or their lib enablers.
To anti-vaxxers it's just saying "the actions your beliefs are causing you to take are harmful, don't act on your beliefs act on my beliefs instead" which won't get you anywhere because by their beliefs, which they, y'know, believe, not vaccinating and convincing people not to vaccinate is less harmful than vaccinating., so it ust comes off as saying "I'm right you're wrong, surely you see that" which is super alienating and patronising and won't get you anywhere.
To the lib enablers it's saying "if we see people doing things we think are harmful we should always stop them and force them to do things our way", which gets you further than with the anti-vaxxers, but not by much, because if they believe that not vaccinating kids is harmful they're either wanking themselves off about individual freedoms, in which case you want to make arguments that target the contradictions in that nonsense, so talking about the rights of children or majority consensus or the tragedy of the commons, or they think the harm done by stopping the anti-vaxxers would be worse than the harm the anti-vaxxers do, in which case you want to shove heartbreaking pictures and stories of kids with measles and polio in their faces until they agree its worth it.
tldr;tldr: agree vaccinations should be mandatory, here's some reasons people disagree and ways to convince them.