or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Do you think there is common ground in vax discussion? Effective communication 101.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do you think there is common ground in vax discussion? Effective communication 101. - Page 2

post #21 of 146

I don't get into autism-vaccine debates too much because autism was not a fear of mine in regards to my decision.  However, I will say that the thing that does bother me about those debates is the insensitivity by posters when it comes to parents who have children who have autism and  truly believe vaccines are the cause.  Those who post who feel there is absolutely 100% no link between the two seem to disregard those parents who think vaccines caused their child's autism and write those parents off as "wrong" or "crazy" that vaccines could contribute.  I don't know if I believe vaccines are the one and only sole cause of autism but I don't doubt there is a link there.   I'm not saying one way or the other how I feel on the topic because I'm not sure and surely don't want to start debating it here again (it is tiring).  I just think when that topic is discussed, people need to remember to be sensitive to those parents who have seen their children regress and blame the vaccines on it.  Only those parents know their children well enough to state what they feel is right or wrong.

post #22 of 146

5. Not take the intellectually lazy route of dismissing an article or blog post because of its author or affiliations (e.g. Dr. Mercola or whale.to).  You actually have to READ the content and debate it on its merits (or non-merits). 


 

That is not being intellectually lazy. It is using critical thinking skills. Anyone who knows how to research knows that you do not give every source the same weight.
post #23 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 View Post

I don't get into autism-vaccine debates too much because autism was not a fear of mine in regards to my decision.  However, I will say that the thing that does bother me about those debates is the insensitivity by posters when it comes to parents who have children who have autism and  truly believe vaccines are the cause.  Those who post who feel there is absolutely 100% no link between the two seem to disregard those parents who think vaccines caused their child's autism and write those parents off as "wrong" or "crazy" that vaccines could contribute.  I don't know if I believe vaccines are the one and only sole cause of autism but I don't doubt there is a link there.   I'm not saying one way or the other how I feel on the topic because I'm not sure and surely don't want to start debating it here again (it is tiring).  I just think when that topic is discussed, people need to remember to be sensitive to those parents who have seen their children regress and blame the vaccines on it.  Only those parents know their children well enough to state what they feel is right or wrong.



Conversely, there are those of us who are tired of the insensitivity of having our kids viewed as being "damaged" or something that needs to be "fixed".

post #24 of 146

This is good, and I think the whole point of the thread, to have these things be heard.  Because I agree with both of you; both sides (and in between) should be more sensitive.  It would help IMO, if those of you who do vaccinate would stay off of the "not vaccinating" board, which clearly states that it's for those who don't vaccinate or are seriously considering it.  I actually got a private message from someone who vax's and was stalking the non-vax board, linking to a MDC bashing article trying to convince me that MDC is deceiving me into not vaxing.  I mean really?  I'm sick of being treated like I'm ignorant and they must swoop in and save me.  Thanks, but no thanks.  If I wanted to read about the pro's of vaxing in a forum, I would visit ANY OTHER forum.  The non-vax forum should be a judge-free zone, and it's not. 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jugs View Post





Conversely, there are those of us who are tired of the insensitivity of having our kids viewed as being "damaged" or something that needs to be "fixed".



 


Edited by lovebeingamomma - 8/10/11 at 10:36am
post #25 of 146

 

Quote:

5. Not take the intellectually lazy route of dismissing an article or blog post because of its author or affiliations (e.g. Dr. Mercola or whale.to).  You actually have to READ the content and debate it on its merits (or non-merits). 


 

That is not being intellectually lazy. It is using critical thinking skills. Anyone who knows how to research knows that you do not give every source the same weight.

 

 

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.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma View Post I'm sick of being treated like I'm ignorant and they must swoop in and save me.  Thanks, but no thanks.  If I wanted to read about the pro's of vaxing in a forum, I would visit ANY OTHER forum.  The non-vax forum should be a judge-free zone, and it's not.

 


It has a lot to do with the new "minimal moderation" policy, but I think you can block people or at least flag the person who messaged you.  I just posted the same point--worded differently--in the homebirth forum:

 

Quote:

The Homebirth Forum on MDC used to be a place where women found refuge in the non-judgmental company of like-minded moms.  They would come here to support each other and answer each others' questions (e.g. birthing pool or no?  What to do with older siblings?)  This was not the place where people questioned or debated their decision to have their babies at home.   Frankly--and I know I'm in the minority here--I miss that format.  That's not to say that I'm against debating the home birth issue; I do it all of the time, especially on websites with the right context for it. 

 

But some of the frustration coming from other posters could be over how this forum has gotten so debate-dominated when that didn't use to be the case.  A number of anti-homebirthers have migrated over here.  That's nothing new.  I've also seen pro-vax doctors post on the vaccination board, for example.  I don't know what it is about this site or the Natural Family Living lifestyle...perhaps it threatens those who don't espouse it.  Whatever the reason, there seems to be a missionary-like drive among some individuals to preach to us, convert us, change us, fix us....

 

 

 

post #26 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma View Post

It would help IMO, if those of you who do vaccinate would stay off of the "not vaccinating" board, which clearly states that it's for those who don't vaccinate or are seriously considering it.



I completely agree. Both the "I'm Not Vaccinating" and the "Selective & Delayed Vaccination" boards should be respected as safe places for like-minded posters, yet both boards are occasionally "hi-jacked" by dissenting opinions. 

 

post #27 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiningpearl View Post

Also, this is the the vaccination forum, the "I am not vaccinating" forum is for people who have made the choice or are looking into not vaccinating.  If people who are pro vax want to lurk there, can't stop them, but it is not the place to try to convince others how wrong their beliefs and ideas are.  the "I'm not vaccinating" forum has guidelines posted at the top of the page.  http://www.mothering.com/community/wiki/not-vaccinating-forum-guidelines


Those guidelines (or rather the link to them) don't exactly jump out at you when you're a newbie and just browsing.

And "I'm not vaccinating" can be taken as a conversation starter (I know I did).

 

I'm wondering if, since there seem to be a lot of "new" people around, maybe it'd make sense to change the Forum's name, so the purpose is a bit more clearer from the start?

 

Granted, something like "Pro-Vax only please", doesn't sound really cool....but it's a clearer statement of purpose.

 

post #28 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

 

 

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 has a lot to do with the new "minimal moderation" policy, but I think you can block people or at least flag the person who messaged you.  I just posted the same point--worded differently--in the homebirth forum:

 

Quote:

 

 

 


I'm sorry, but writing off information because it's on whale.to is not an ad hominem attack.  Dismissing a source because it is written by a paranoid nutcase is OK, it really is.  It's not like out of hand dismissing something because it was written by the CDC or AAP.  I mean, this is like saying that it's OK to look to Mein Kampf as a reliable source on how Jews fit into society.  Or saying that the writings of Ted Kaczynski are a reliable source of information on government organization.

 

post #29 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post


I'm sorry, but writing off information because it's on whale.to is not an ad hominem attack.  Dismissing a source because it is written by a paranoid nutcase is OK, it really is.  It's not like out of hand dismissing something because it was written by the CDC or AAP.  I mean, this is like saying that it's OK to look to Mein Kampf as a reliable source on how Jews fit into society.  Or saying that the writings of Ted Kaczynski are a reliable source of information on government organization.

 

 

I don't agree. Surprisingly, it is possible for total nutcases to have a point on occasion. That's what makes them so dangerous.People see "hey, he was right about that....so he's probably right about the other stuff too"

 

See e.g. Hitler. If he hadn't had a point or two about what was bugging people and what kind of problems they faced, people wouldn't have followed him so readily.

Only if we're able to say "Yeah, he /she was right about that....but that doesn't make the other stuff he said or the conclusions he drew from it right". can we really distance us from people when they're actually in the wrong.

 

*and now goes off to cook supper*

post #30 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanna View Post



 

I

 

See e.g. Hitler. If he hadn't had a point or two about what was bugging people and what kind of problems they faced, people wouldn't have followed him so readily.

 

Hitler??!! Using an example of a guy who used fear and intimidation to command the respect of his people...by shooting innocent people in the head point blank to get his point across..they followed  him out of fear, not respect.  Kinda like Saddam Hussein..

post #31 of 146


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post




I'm sorry, but writing off information because it's on whale.to is not an ad hominem attack.  Dismissing a source because it is written by a paranoid nutcase is OK, it really is.  It's not like out of hand dismissing something because it was written by the CDC or AAP.  I mean, this is like saying that it's OK to look to Mein Kampf as a reliable source on how Jews fit into society.  Or saying that the writings of Ted Kaczynski are a reliable source of information on government organization.

 


Whale.to does not just carry articles by the site owner (whomever he may be), it provides information from many, many people and sources, for example Dr Robert Mendelsohn whom I am sure could not be described as a paranoid, anti-semitic nutjob. In most cases you can find the articles and information elsewhere on the internet so you don't need to link to the site anyway. On the rare occasion you cannot find the information anywhere else, you are out of luck if you want to post it here.

 

You are making a strawman argument and it just won't fly, at least with me.

 

post #32 of 146

 

Quote:
I don't know what it is about this site or the Natural Family Living lifestyle...perhaps it threatens those who don't espouse it.  Whatever the reason, there seems to be a missionary-like drive among some individuals to preach to us, convert us, change us, fix us....

Isn't this the truth.

post #33 of 146

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post


Hitler??!! Using an example of a guy who used fear and intimidation to command the respect of his people...by shooting innocent people in the head point blank to get his point across..they followed  him out of fear, not respect.  Kinda like Saddam Hussein..



Uhm no. Hitler was EXTREMLY good at marketing his ideas.

 

After losing WWI, the german population was pretty low on self-esteem.

Hitler told them that they were "the superior aric race", destined to rule wide parts of Europe, and that the past defeats were due to a conspiracy by the ebil, ebil Jews.

 

He bolstered the germans' ego and promised them a bright future.

They loved him for it

 

(And believe me, I should know. My father still kept his edition of "Mein Kampf" around and when asked would talk at length about how Hitler had built lots of "Autobahn" (Highway) throughout Germany, thus facilitating traffic and bolstering the economy.)

 

For a good look at the psychological mechanisms at work, "The Wave", by Morton Rhue gives a good insight.

post #34 of 146

To the original question:

 

No. I actually don't think there is much middle ground. I think the best that we can hope for is that people here at times can respectfully agree to disagree. In my opinion part of the problem lies in the fact that people's realities maybe very different. An allopathically trained medical person (there are several on this forum) or a person that has been indoctrinated with Western medicine will have a very different point of view about disease and health than a person who has been trained in or studied alternative medicine. Take the Germ theory of disease (ripped off by Pasteur)  for instance that believe that fixed species of microbes from an external source invade the body and are the first cause of infectious disease - case closed. There are alternatives points of view such as that the presence of germs does not constitute the presence of a disease. Bacteria are scavengers of nature. They reduce dead tissue to its smallest element. Germs or bacteria have no influence, whatsoever, on live cells. They are not the cause of the disease, any more than flies and maggots cause garbage. Flies and  maggots do not cause garbage but rather feed on it. So with viewpoints being so drastically different and creating different realities for people, Im not so sure a middle ground is possible and is why, quite often, these threads turn arguementative. Such is life.

post #35 of 146

Marnica, I agree with you. I can't see how there can be common ground, for me personally anyway. I probably hold the most radical views on health and medical science of anyone posting here, and there is nothing a trained allopath or someone indoctrinated in western medical science could say that would ever convince me that vaccines are anything more than nonsense. For me, the best I can hope for is live and let live.

post #36 of 146

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

To the original question:

 

No. I actually don't think there is much middle ground. I think the best that we can hope for is that people here at times can respectfully agree to disagree.

 

I totally agree.  I think that those of us who are firmly pro-vax and those who are firmly anti-vax often have such different perspectives on life that there is no way we will ever agree.  I, for instance, don't believe anything I read on whale.to, but I recognize that others view statements made by the CDC in the same way (i.e., they don't trust that the CDC makes factually true statements and they also don't agree with the CDC's philosophy).  And IMO it doesn't make any sense for people to critique what they believe to be fiction as if it were factual.  I believe that in general doctors know more about diseases than parents, but I recognize that others believe that parents know more about their own children than doctors do.  And that is a matter of whether one believes more in scientific knowledge or in spiritual connectedness (or perhaps there is a better phrase for this?), which is not something that will change based on even the most well-written of internet posts.  Et cetera.

 

So when I do post on the vax forum in response to someone making an anti-vax argument, it is mostly for the lurkers who have not yet decided where they stand.  I don't expect the anti-vax crowd to change their minds, and they're certainly not going to change mine.  But I also don't want this site to be full of threads that only support one side of the issue. 

 

If I had to pick something that bugs me, it'd be the "scare tactics" argument.  Clearly both pro-vaxers and anti-vaxers weigh what they perceive to be the risks and choose accordingly.  So I don't think it's fair to say that pro-vaxers are using scare tactics when they talk about the risks of VPDs any more than I think it makes sense to hurl that accusation at anti-vaxers when they talk about the risks of vaccines.  Likewise, I've seen a double standard wherein accounts of children being hurt by VPDs are met with hostility, whereas accounts of children being hurt by vaccines are welcomed.  I think both or neither (and I don't particularly care which) should be welcome here. 

 

Oh, and I also do agree that it doesn't make sense for the pro-vax folks to post on the I'm Not Vaccinating forum (which is why I don't).  But I think that all's fair in the main Vax forum.  thumb.gif 

post #37 of 146

I think when it comes down to it, everyone needs to recognize that regardless of where we stand on vaccinating or not vaccinating our children, we all are doing what's best for our particular families, under our particular circumstances, with what information is available to us.  That's not going to look the same for everyone, but when it comes down to it, we're all raising our children the best we know how.  It's something I try to remember when I encounter people who do not share my particular (usually non-mainstream) approach to parenting. 

post #38 of 146

How about starting a "Vaccination Debate Forum"?   that way, people can debate there, and leave the discussions where they belong in their rightful place. 

post #39 of 146

 

Quote:

 

An allopathically trained medical person (there are several on this forum) or a person that has been indoctrinated with Western medicine will have a very different point of view about disease and health than a person who has been trained in or studied alternative medicine.

 

 

I don't visit this forum much because frankly it actually helped convince me that vaxing my kid was the right way to go and that horse has long since left the stable.

 

If you chose not to accept western medicine, or to dismiss that brand of expertise so be it. But don't be surprised when using words like indoctrination to describe the years of training and dedication it takes to be a doctor are not met with any respect on the other side. I am guessing you don't like it being said that alternative doctors are indoctrinated in unproven silliness like homeopathy.

 

 

Quote:

 

Hitler was EXTREMLY (sic) good at marketing his ideas.

 

Meh-his ideas were simply a retread of nationalism and xenophobia that have existed in Europe for centuries. Hitler didn't market anything-he exploited people's basest desires and innate ability to seek out and blame a scapegoat for their problems.

post #40 of 146
Nope, not much common ground.

I slow vax and select vax and when I stick a toe into these forums suddenly folks tell me how awful I am that I vax at all.
You aren't in my marriage, you aren't in my life and you don't know me. Each vax has been researched and weighed carefully. Vaxes for my kids have been spread out and some have been dissed altogether. I don't want vaxes required by the government. I'm personally kinda live and let live on this issue.

This whole thing reminds me of the rapid LLL's telling people that any drop of formula you give your kid ruins their "virgin gut". I was able to successfully breastfeed my kids till nearly two but I have friends that didn't make it that far. Their kids don't look "poisoned" to me.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Do you think there is common ground in vax discussion? Effective communication 101.