RE: The dangerous growing divide between those who vaccinate and those who don't
It's one long diatribe, without substance, if you could stop attacking the person for a change and spouting off common knowledge that has no intrepid place in this conversation begging people to research, it's sad that you missed the point of this whole post, to question everything.
The smallpox narrative aside, did you research to see how much of the population has received the smallpox vaccine and how good the immunity is, and how unlikely it is that vaccination did anything especially considering that during vaccinations numerous epidemics happened in different place where vaccination was mandatory, and it lead to far worse problems than without vaccination. Also smallpox like other disease was in vast decline in incidence of morbidity and mortality prior to vaccinations and graphs show those disease (measles/mumps, smallpox) being hardly affected by vaccines which were introduced when the rates of morbidity and mortality were so negligible that if people were, as they were, injured by the vaccines or the vaccine caused the disease it was made to stop, then it effectively negated any and all benefits. Again natural immunity is far more formidable than the artificial immunity that loses it's effectiveness after a couple years and requires booster shots, which means that at no time could there have been a full immunity to eradicate anything since the population was hardly vaccinated in such intensity. When these efforts were concentrated and manifested such as forced vaccinations, this has led to thinning of the population, like in the Philippines.
Interesting, you say I "attack", but I'm just stating an opinion without name-calling or any kind of emotional bluster.
You've replied with a dense paragraph that is difficult to parse, so I'll wait until you clarify with something a bit less bulky and awkward.
If you don't "believe" vaccines work, that's just fine with me - nature has a way of sorting out who has a good immune system. I don't need to lift a finger.
The paragraph is straightforward, and comprehensible to me. It says everything it needs to. Parsing it shouldn't be difficult to a practiced reader. Did you simply not want to attempt to refute the arguments?
"You've replied with a dense paragraph that is difficult to parse, so I'll wait until you clarify with something a bit less bulky and awkward."
I'm not sure where to put this logical fallacy, is it an appeal to stone, or perhaps an appeal to personal incredulity? Facts are sometimes 'bulky and awkward' to those who do not recognize them as such.
Trying to scare people into believing what you believe by saying 'nature will sort you out' is a transparent appeal to emotion, and appeal to threat.
Walls of text aren't conducive to parsing.
Its a pretty simple request. But seeing how emotionally invested you are, I suppose there's no point in pursuing it.
Believe what you want.
"But seeing how emotionally invested you are" You seem to keep repeating this after every cold, calculated, logical statement that I make.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
I parse walls of text all the time. It's only not conducive to parsing if the knowledge of reason isn't present to do it.
Then, finally, there is the difference between yourself and those who choose reason. You see, I don't 'believe', I think and know by using reason.
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".
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".
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.