Do you think there is common ground in vax discussion? Effective communication 101. - Page 6

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

You know I agree with Bokonon...

I knew non-vaxxers in general on MDC were ticked off with the disrespect thrown at us on threads.  I did not realise (but yes, now do) that some vaxxers feel they have been treated disrespectfully as well (other than the sheeple thing - that one I knew).  

Really?  It must be that b/c you are a non-vaxer you don't see certain things as being offensive.  Like, telling someone that vaxes are full of toxins and poison and shouldn't be given to people (which I would think is pretty obviously offensive, as it would actually offend me). 

When you're on one side of an issue, it can be hard to see the other side, and to see what would offend the other side.  However, its pretty clear that most non-vaxers on this board don't want to have respectful discussions - they just want undying support for their decisions and to never be challenged or presented with any information that doesn't back up their stance.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

  However, its pretty clear that most non-vaxers on this board don't want to have respectful discussions - they just want undying support for their decisions and to never be challenged or presented with any information that doesn't back up their stance.

I am not sure that is true.  I like respectful discussion and there are some vaxxers I enjoy reading   and occasionally learn things from.

That being said, in general:

-I do not want my decision to not vax be challenged any more than vaxxers want their decision challenged.

-sometime people do want to talk among like minded for a variety of reason. That is valid. It is what the non-vax forum is for.  It is particularly grating when people infringe on that space, although even vaxxers are often welcome but they must not try to convert anyone.

In this forum, debate is fine.

[Kanna]

Originally Posted by philomom 



I've experienced the opposite. My first was born in 1993,... as far as I was concerned I invented the whole slow vax, select vax thing for my family. Great minds must think alike because I run into many more folks who think like this now... but back then, I was alone and I got lots of the "two-headed" looks. Only to come here and be attacked for "poisoning" my children.
 

My sympthies.

(slightly off topic)

My kid, DH and I must be mutants. We THRIVE on vaccines  ^_~

[MsFortune]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

I am not sure that is true.  I like respectful discussion and there are some vaxxers I enjoy reading   and occasionally learn things from.

That being said, in general:

-I do not want my decision to not vax be challenged any more than vaxxers want their decision challenged.

-sometime people do want to talk among like minded for a variety of reason. That is valid. It is what the non-vax forum is for.  It is particularly grating when people infringe on that space, although even vaxxers are often welcome but they must not try to convert anyone.

In this forum, debate is fine.

We don't need your permission and really, stop trying to control people and dictate what they can and cannot post.  

Watch me here:  HERD IMMUNITY

Originally Posted by Turquesa 

Perhaps when a scary fact confirms one's bias, it's a fact.  When a scary fact counters one's bias, it's a "scare-tactic" and "fear-mongering."   

Brilliant, funny and very true.
 

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by MsFortune 

We don't need your permission and really, stop trying to control people and dictate what they can and cannot post.  

Watch me here:  HERD IMMUNITY

Trying to make it personal and deliberating trying to provoke...hmmmm...charming
 

Say what you like.  Know tone and respect can impact whether people even listen to your POV- but if you choose to ignore that, it is on you.  

On the non-vaxxing forum it is the User agreement that says people should not go on trying to convert people.  The Selective and Delayed is also not open to people trying to sway them, so I am not sure what you are on about.  

Edited by purslaine - 8/13/11 at 12:49pm

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

Really?  It must be that b/c you are a non-vaxer you don't see certain things as being offensive.  Like, telling someone that vaxes are full of toxins and poison and shouldn't be given to people (which I would think is pretty obviously offensive, as it would actually offend me). 

But it's perfectly fine to say that adverse reactions are so rare they are a non-issue, and that not vaxxing is unnecessarily putting a child at risk?

Obviously whichever side you're not on is going to be potentially offensive.  The key is to be so confident in your decision that you don't get offended by the other side.  I can see how you might be offended by someone saying that vaccines are full of toxins and they don't think they are appropriate for humans - but if that's how someone feels about them, why can't they talk about it?  That opinion isn't intended to make you feel bad.

[purslaine]

It is interesting that vaccine debates get so heated when other debates with more at play, don't.

I have been following this debate:

http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/1325279/mine-your-own-dam-business

....and while there are differing opinions, there is little mud throwing.  It is about children being left unattended in a car.  Now, I do not have stats at my finger tips, but I bet children left unattended in cars have many more adverse outcomes than either vaxxing or not vaxxing.

[no5no5]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

Really?  It must be that b/c you are a non-vaxer you don't see certain things as being offensive.  Like, telling someone that vaxes are full of toxins and poison and shouldn't be given to people (which I would think is pretty obviously offensive, as it would actually offend me).

You know, I'm about as pro-vax as they come around here, and I don't find that example to be offensive.  I do think the "sheeple" thing is offensive; I think it is offensive when non-vaxers say that vaxers are uneducated or unintelligent.  I am pretty secure in that regard, but I still dislike reading insults.  I will say, though, that the mods have been great about removing those posts/threads whenever I've reported them. 

But I think it is totally fine for people to have differing ideas about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.  If someone thinks that vaccines contain toxins that should not be given to humans, that's fine with me.  It could even be true.  I don't think it is, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible.  It does bother me when people make these claims and then can't or won't support them, or provide sources supporting them, but if they are willing to explain their reasoning then I am willing to read it.

Hey, I thought of something else that bugs me!  The straw-man arguments are really super annoying, on both sides of the issue.  I think someone mentioned earlier in this thread that they'd been told that they were putting the whole world in danger by not vaxing.  If so, I think we can agree that that's clearly a straw-man argument.  They might be putting someone at danger, but even so it's a fairly limited danger so long as vaccination rates remain high in general and herd immunity remains in effect.  (Sorry, Kathy, I'm not bringing that up to be spiteful; it's just necessary to make my point.)  Likewise, I've seen anti-vax folks claim that the pro-vax people believe that vaccines are totally harmless.  But I think we can all agree that vaccines do have some risks.  So proving that vaccines aren't completely harmless is just knocking down a straw man.  What is the point of engaging in that kind of argument, really? 

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by no5no5 

Hey, I thought of something else that bugs me!  The straw-man arguments are really super annoying, on both sides of the issue.  I think someone mentioned earlier in this thread that they'd been told that they were putting the whole world in danger by not vaxing.  If so, I think we can agree that that's clearly a straw-man argument.  They might be putting someone at danger, but even so it's a fairly limited danger so long as vaccination rates remain high in general and herd immunity remains in effect.  (Sorry, Kathy, I'm not bringing that up to be spiteful; it's just necessary to make my point.) 

I can usually tell when someone is being spiteful, lol.  It is clear you are not.

Nice post, btw.

[purslaine]

nm

Edited by purslaine - 8/13/11 at 4:03pm

[philomom]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

nm

Huh? This is your thread, you were trying to have a dialogue with folks but when you don't feel things are swaying your way... you back out?

You asked for common ground and I think some of us were trying to figure out if there was any. Maybe there isn't any but I think there still more to be discussed here.


As a select vaxer and slow vaxer.... I want to know...

why do non-vaxers think I haven't done my reading or research?

why do non-vaxers assume that all vaccines are bad? (do you really want to see polio come back around, folks?)

I could go on but I'll stop there for now.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by philomom 



Huh? This is your thread, you were trying to have a dialogue with folks but when you don't feel things are swaying your way... you back out?
 

You are commenting because I changed my mind about posting?  I have seen it all now - blasted for something unsaid, lol.  You have no idea what I said (nothing inflammatory) or why I changed my mind.  It is quite assumptive. 

Swaying my way.....what, pray-tell, was the hypothesis?  That we are not-so-nice to each other and may not have common ground? That we are not-so-nice to each other has been proven.  Common ground - we did not get around to that.  

Edited by purslaine - 8/13/11 at 5:49pm

[Turquesa]

From Kanna's link on bias.

Sure enough, a large number of psychological studies have shown that people respond to scientific or technical evidence in ways that justify their preexisting beliefs. In a classic 1979 experiment (PDF), pro- and anti-death penalty advocates were exposed to descriptions of two fake scientific studies: one supporting and one undermining the notion that capital punishment deters violent crime and, in particular, murder. They were also shown detailed methodological critiques of the fake studies—and in a scientific sense, neither study was stronger than the other. Yet in each case, advocates more heavily criticized the study whose conclusions disagreed with their own, while describing the study that was more ideologically congenial as more "convincing."

Fascinating!!!!  And yes, it's relevant to this discussion.....

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by philomom 



As a select vaxer and slow vaxer.... I want to know...

why do non-vaxers think I haven't done my reading or research?

why do non-vaxers assume that all vaccines are bad? (do you really want to see polio come back around, folks?)  Or Smallpox (which isn't vaxed for now, but only b/c it was eradicated)

I could go on but I'll stop there for now.

I'm also interested in these 2 questions.

[pers]

Originally Posted by Turquesa 

When you completely discredit a point that somebody is making based on who they are or what their circumstances are, it is a fallacy:    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

An industry-funded study could, technically speaking, have a solid design and valid conclusions, and even the most wretchedly bigoted anti-Semite could make a true point about vaccine safety.  Of course you consider bias and funding.  But you have to go deeper and evaluate the actual points that somebody is making.  

It's true that just because someone is an anti-Semite or something else awful like a child molester or a serial killer doesn't mean they couldn't have useful information on other subjects, but it is entirely reasonable to avoid linking to sites promoting anti-Semitism, serial killing, molesting children whenever possible. Surely most information worth linking to from a site like that could be found elsewhere in less offensive surroundings.  In the rare case that it is difficult to find it elsewhere to link to, one should ask oneself if it is really worth bringing more traffic to such a horrific site just to share opinion pieces which may be based on outdated information considering they were written nearly thirty years ago.  I though that linking to whale.to from here was against the rules anyway - did I just imagine that?  Or maybe it changed when the rules were relaxed?

In any case, while saying that general information on vaccines must be false because it happens to come from a racist source would be a fallacy, the fact that the particular site is known for posting a huge number of wild conspiracy theories as facts such as the idea that it was actually the US government that killed students at Columbine, that HIV does not cause AIDS, that the government is deliberately using vaccines as a from of genocide to lower world population, that the Holocaust either didn't happen or was caused by Jews,  that mercury fillings contain little radios which receive signals from the government for mind control purposes, proof" that Anne Frank's diary was a hoax, and that the Jews are actually alien lizards is very much relevant to how reliable a source it is.  It is not at all a fallacy to say that a site that posts all this nonsense as fact should not be trusted to provide accurate information. 

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

I'm also interested in these 2 questions.

I could just as easily say "Why do all vaxxers think all vaccines are good?"

Absolutes have no place in this discussion.

Why did you bring up smallpox?  Would you like for us to start vaccinating for it again, just in case?

[emmy526]

.


As a select vaxer and slow vaxer.... I want to know...

why do non-vaxers assume that all vaccines are bad? (do you really want to see polio come back around, folks?)

 

 i dont assume anything until i have done my research on it.   Polio?? Isn't there a better argument for vaxes than beating that dead horse....(OPV is causing polio in africa)

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

I could just as easily say "Why do all vaxxers think all vaccines are good?"

Absolutes have no place in this discussion.

Why did you bring up smallpox?  Would you like for us to start vaccinating for it again, just in case?

Well, Smallpox was eradicated b/c of the vaccine.  No, I don't need the vax - its gone and not a concern, but the vax is responsible for it being eradicated. 
 

Originally Posted by emmy526 


 i dont assume anything until i have done my research on it.   Polio?? Isn't there a better argument for vaxes than beating that dead horse....(OPV is causing polio in africa)

Oh come on!  Yes, the OPV is not the greatest, but there is also the IPV - correct?  And the IPV is what is used in the US (and should be what is used everywhere else, IMO).

Philomom isn't beating a dead horse - she's asking if non-vaxers want Polio to come back to the first world.  Do you?  Or don't you?  Without the IPV vax (so the one that does NOT cause polio, but vaxes for it), we would be at a higher risk of it coming back and being a serious concern here.

[emmy526]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

Well, Smallpox was eradicated b/c of the vaccine.  No, I don't need the vax - its gone and not a concern, but the vax is responsible for it being eradicated. 
 

Oh come on!  Yes, the OPV is not the greatest, but there is also the IPV - correct?  And the IPV is what is used in the US (and should be what is used everywhere else, IMO).

Philomom isn't beating a dead horse - she's asking if non-vaxers want Polio to come back to the first world.  Do you?  Or don't you?  Without the IPV vax (so the one that does NOT cause polio, but vaxes for it), we would be at a higher risk of it coming back and being a serious concern here.

i guess i just dont' believe polio would make a comeback.    Just as i dont believe vaccines are the cause of the falling disease rates. 

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by emmy526 

i guess i just dont' believe polio would make a comeback.    Just as i dont believe vaccines are the cause of the falling disease rates. 

Even in the case of Smallpox?  I can see that when it comes to certain diseases, but smallpox has been completely eradicated from the globe - no other disease has as far as I know.