RE: The dangerous growing divide between those who vaccinate and those who don't
You were lucky.
You have no way of knowing that or validating that, that's why they aren't lucky, in a post that is begging you to research, you instead tell us that "you were lucky, it was vaccines".
Its sad when science takes a back seat to feelings, especially when the person you are deciding for has no say in the prospect of potentially getting ill and suffering because of your decision.
Again, this isn't validated or can be validated, this is another masked attack on the person that wrote the article, and their "luck" and "not so luck".
Its very trendy right now to flaunt an anti-science philosophy, but I think that is misguided. However, you could say that this is Nature's way of thinning the population -- where those that refuse to embrace protection from disease will ultimately succumb to it.
Another character attack.
I'm pointing out the irony in the opinion of the original poster.
If you think that counter-arguments are "attacks", then I suppose you are too emotionally invested to have a logical conversation about the material.
As to your point about "luck", you can invoke any mystery force you'd like. The point is that survivorship bias is very real, and by only focusing on positive outcomes ignores all the potentially bad ones.
If I've never used a seatbelt while in a car, and never have been harmed, it doesn't mean that I'll never be injured. It means that for those cumulative trips I was lucky that there wasn't an accident.
But again, it seems this whole topic is just a tempest in a teacup, so if you can't see my point -- that's fine. Reality will intrude eventually with or without my input.
You're making character attacks, there is no counter argument in "You're lucky".
There is no point in You're lucky. It's simply stating that it was in spite of their belief they survived. Can you back this up, do you have a way to demonstrate that? No, if it was an argument it's a moot point.
You're comparing seat belt use with mandatory vaccinations. That's a false analogy, because you have yet to demonstrate any efficiency of vaccines and implying it won't change things.
That's a counter argument. You called this person Anti-Science, can you demonstrate that, can you even make it an argument? There's about 3 false narratives going on in here:
What is trendy right now, what is trendy right now is flaunting anti-science philosophy, and refusing to embrace protection. You couldn't demonstrate any of those, period, especially how you come to talk about anti-science philosophy, what it means and why and how it is so. It's one attack after another, I can break it down all, but it's not necessary.
I see the event horizon of the emotionally-fueled black hole has consumed you.
Believe whatever you want.
Character attacks yet again, which you cannot demonstrate.
If you want to insult me do it to my face, you could have as easily bit your tongue and let me be a fool, but instead you're predicting my future and speaking of my person, you don't get to dismiss the numerous character attacks with another jab at my character. Come again.