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

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 146 Old 08-09-2011, 09:07 AM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I am growing weary of the cyclical nature of many of these discussions.  I do not see much middle ground at the moment - and wonder how we can learn anything from each other if we do not get past some stumbling blocks.

 

Here are some obstacles I see:

 

Vaxxers should not:

 

-assume all non vaxxers are stupid.  No one is going to listen to you if you come across as condescending.

 

-play the "children in xyz or from this era are dying from this!"   Yeah, well, most of us do not live in xyz, and are trying to figure out the disease and vax risks where we live.  

 

-trot out herd immunity or "co-relation is not causation " in every.single.argument.    I suppose some newbies here have not heard it before but it does get old.  For extra bonus points - apply herd immunity to all diseases in very broad strokes - cuz you know, all diseases are the same. 

 

-claim you have seen all sorts of VPD.  Because you haven't.  Unless you live overseas or work in a major, major hospital.  To the few poeple who have seen serious VPD's: I do understand a person being swayed to a POV by what they have seen, but it does not make a great argument unless the stats back it up.  Yes, this goes for non-vaxxers as well.

 

-Assume all VPD are horrible, with horrible risks - because some are mild diseases.

 

-come into conversations for the purpose of pot stirring.  Nuf said.

 

 

 

 

Non-vaxxers should not:

 

-list crazy sites.  It just makes us look crazy.  There is plenty of fodder from things like the CDC - use it.  If you do list a crazy site, put a disclaimer on it ("I know this site is controversial but this particular article has some cool points")

 

- downplay the existence or complications from VPD.  I do think the risks are small - but they are there.  Not all VPD's or vaxxes are equal.

 

- I have not heard this one lately, but it does float around from time to time:  Vaxxers on MDC are not sheeple.  

 

On other issues it is not a communcation problem, but a genuine lack of common ground.

 

Herd immunity, how one views the body and its healing capabilities,  the validity with which one views anecdotal evidence and trust in authority are all going to come into play.  

 

A non-vaxxer who believes herd immunity is a flawed argument is not going to be able to have a fruitful discussion with someone who believes herd immunity is the reason we vaccinate.  

 

I am bravely going to hit submit.  If anyone wants to add to the list, feel free.  If anyone has any idea on how (if?) vaxxers and non-vaxxers can communicate in a way in which either party understands the other a little better, please add. Vaccination (or not) is one of the weightiest decisions parents make - it would be nice if we could talk about it more effectively.  I know the above tone in the lists is harsh, but I figure if we get it all out - we might be able to move on more effectively.

 

 

 

 

shiningpearl and Kanna like this.
purslaine is offline  
#2 of 146 Old 08-09-2011, 11:54 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,933
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)

I am also growing weary of these discussions. I will admit that I have been guilty of several of the non-vax sins, lol!  To the delight of those of you who find me annoying, I will probably step away from the forums for a while. Maybe just stick to lighthearted, easygoing sections where there aren't so many arguments. I can't seem to control my temper lately, and it's not healthy to participate in the discussions when all I do is argue.

 

 


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#3 of 146 Old 08-09-2011, 11:58 AM
 
shiningpearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: in the shadows
Posts: 360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

thank you. 

One I would like to add: 

 

Your child will get the whole world sick and how can you live with yourself.

 

 

I do like to hear both sides of the story, and appreciate the research done by others, but the personal attacks need to go.

 

 

 

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

BeckyBird likes this.

Done with diapers!!

shiningpearl is offline  
#4 of 146 Old 08-09-2011, 12:14 PM
 
SilverMoon010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

I am also growing weary of these discussions. I will admit that I have been guilty of several of the non-vax sins, lol!  To the delight of those of you who find me annoying, I will probably step away from the forums for a while. Maybe just stick to lighthearted, easygoing sections where there aren't so many arguments. I can't seem to control my temper lately, and it's not healthy to participate in the discussions when all I do is argue.

 

 


I agree.   I notice I rarely want to post anymore these days and haven't been posting much at all (on the vax forum anyway). I still post on MDC, just on the lighter, friendlier topics such as pregnancysmile.gif)  It definitely keeps my blood pressure down that's for sure!

 

I understand vaccines are a terribly controversial topic and everyone on this forum most likely has a very strong opinion one way or the other.  I honestly don't think we will ever see a middle ground on here because there are so many people from all walks of life who have seen different things during their lifetimes, and who are adament about their point of views.  That's fine because I know I stand strong on my opinions on vaccines, and there is nothing wrong with that.  It just makes for more arguments when you have so many strong-willed folks in one place. 

 

There just have been too many rude comments/insults with condescending tones either made directly to myself or others that makes me completely lose interest in this forum. 

BeckyBird likes this.

Loving WAHM to my two little handsome DS's, '08 and '12, and loving wife to DH, '07love.gif

SilverMoon010 is offline  
#5 of 146 Old 08-09-2011, 04:44 PM
 
amnesiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: at the end of the longest line
Posts: 4,984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I certainly appreciate any attempt to have a more clear, productive dialogue. I would just remind everyone in advance to post in a respectful manner. smile.gif
amnesiac is offline  
#6 of 146 Old 08-09-2011, 05:48 PM
 
WildKingdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

 

How's this- If pro-vax people can't talk about herd immunity, then anti-vax people can't talk about "toxins."

WildKingdom is offline  
#7 of 146 Old 08-09-2011, 06:01 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

 

 

How's this- If pro-vax people can't talk about herd immunity, then anti-vax people can't talk about "toxins."



Why not?

 

Herd immunity is a theory.  Toxins are not.


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#8 of 146 Old 08-09-2011, 06:17 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)

Awesome thread topic!!  May I add some?  I agree with a lot of Kathymuggles (e.g. neither side should be trivializing VADs OR vaccine reactions), so I'll try for some new ones.  Note the occasional cutting and pasting.  winky.gif

 

Vaxxers should:

 

1. Not label people who aren't CDC-compliant as "anti-vax."  There is a LOT of gray area in this issue.  I am a selective vaxer.  I continue to question every vaccine that I choose for my children...and question myself every time I choose against a vax.  I can't stand the lack of solid, independent research on vaccines, but I also see the genuine value of vaccines in some cases and places. 

 

I realize and respect the fact that there are definitely avowed anti-vaxers in this forum, but please don't assume we're all with them.

 

I align myself with the vaccine safety/choice movement, not the anti-vax movement.

 

2. Recognize that a conflict of interest is not a "conspiracy theory."  It is a statement of fact.  The mere existence of that conflict doesn't mean that somebody will exploit it, but keep in mind that the pharmaceutical industry has posed a veritable problem in medical research and overall trust in the nation's public health system.

 

3. Recognize that reluctance to vaccinate isn't always based on "fear."  This hyperbolic word choice doesn't reflect what some of us are more realistically feeling.  Try replacing "fear" with "caution" or "skepticism." 

 

4. Not condescend to people who disagree with them by assuming that they're "uneducated," "anti-science," or that make their medical decisions based on blind loyalty to Jenny McCarthy.

 

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). 

 

 

Non-vaxers (and delayed/selective vaxers) should:

 

1. Not condescend to vaxers by assuming that they are uneducated" and "haven't done their research."  I can tell that a lot of the pro-vax people who come to this forum love their children deeply enough to put a lot of though into their decision to comply with the CDC schedule.

 

2. Not simply link people over to Mercola or Natural News or Inside Vaccines.  At least do a little research into the sources that they're citing, and cite those once you determine that they are legit. 

 

3. Recognize that the decision to vaccinate isn't always based on "fear."  This hyperbolic word choice doesn't reflect what some of us are more realistically feeling.  Try replacing "fear" with "caution" or "skepticism." 

 

4. Avoid hyperbolic language, in general.  You may sincerely believe that vaccines are "toxins" or "poisons," but the language sounds fanatical and does little to reach "outsiders."

 

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


In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#9 of 146 Old 08-09-2011, 06:18 PM
 
Sarahfeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post





Why not?

 

Herd immunity is a theory.  Toxins are not.

 

Toxins aren't theoretical, but the idea that the minute traces of these toxins that are found in vaccines can do any kind of damage whatsoever is purely theoretical.  And has far less support than there is for herd immunity. 
 

 

Sarahfeena is offline  
#10 of 146 Old 08-09-2011, 06:43 PM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:

 



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

 

 

How's this- If pro-vax people can't talk about herd immunity, then anti-vax people can't talk about "toxins."


Interesting!  I did not know talk of toxins bother pro-vaxxers.  What bugs you, specifically?

 

The herd immunity argument has a lot of judgment attached to it - we are bad, bad bad people for not risking our children for the  good (as vaxxers see it) of society.  Toxins do not have the same judgment attached to them unless I am missing something? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#11 of 146 Old 08-09-2011, 07:28 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 


Interesting!  I did not know talk of toxins bother pro-vaxxers.  What bugs you, specifically

 

The herd immunity argument has a lot of judgment attached to it - we are bad, bad bad people for not risking our children for the  good (as vaxxers see it) of society.  Toxins do not have the same judgment attached to them unless I am missing something? 

 

 


Toxins absolutely have the same judgment attached - vaxers are filling their children with TOXINS and KILLING THEM!!!  zomg.  And then theres the, "I will NOT put TOXINS in my CHILD!  I don't want them to DIE!"  Even though fatal vax reactions are very rare.

 

I think non-vaxers should also stop pushing the whole, autism is caused by vax, agenda.  It's tiring.

 

Honestly though, I think this list will get so long that there will be no debate anymore - just a bunch of people who disagree but can't actually talk about it.

 

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
#12 of 146 Old 08-09-2011, 08:20 PM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post




 

 

I think non-vaxers should also stop pushing the whole, autism is caused by vax, agenda.  It's tiring.

 

I don't think they do in great numbers.  Someone upthread mentionned that not all non-vaxxers think alike and this is absolutley true.  Some do worry about autism but many don't.   It is actually an annoyance of mine that pro-vaxxers assume most vax objections come down to autism.

 

 

Honestly though, I think this list will get so long that there will be no debate anymore - just a bunch of people who disagree but can't actually talk about it.

 

Why do you think this?

 

I have enjoyed getting a few things off my chest.  I do not know if anything positive will come of it.  Maybe not - or maybe not in this thread.  

 

 

 


 

 

purslaine is offline  
#13 of 146 Old 08-09-2011, 08:37 PM
Banned
 
SneakyPie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Somewhere around here . . .
Posts: 1,272
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Meh.  I'll say what I want, and I don't need a tutorial about what non-vaccinators might not like to hear.  If people can't handle the reality of herd immunity and the non-connection btw autism and vaccines, they don't have to read what I write.

SneakyPie is offline  
#14 of 146 Old 08-09-2011, 08:48 PM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyPie View Post

Meh.  I'll say what I want, and I don't need a tutorial about what non-vaccinators might not like to hear.  If people can't handle the reality of herd immunity and the non-connection btw autism and vaccines, they don't have to read what I write.


 

Bolding mine.  Well.... we don't know what you are going to write before you write it. mischievous.gif

 

You can say what you want.  If you are genuinely interested in discussion though (and not just, yk, bickering) you might want to listen when people say something shuts down conversation.

 

There are pro-vaxxers here I respect and will listen to, but I can tell you they are not the aggressive ones (such as "can't handle the reality of..." eyesroll.gif statement above).  I am sure this works both ways - there are non-vaxxer here who are pretty good at discussing things in a respectful ways. 

 

purslaine is offline  
#15 of 146 Old 08-10-2011, 04:21 AM
 
WildKingdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Sorry, I still can't get past this idea of "don't talk about herd immunity."

 

I mean, that's like saying "Debate the use of antibiotics.  But don't talk about germs!  After all, it's just a theory!"

Ammaarah likes this.
WildKingdom is offline  
#16 of 146 Old 08-10-2011, 04:23 AM
 
WildKingdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Awesome thread topic!!  May I add some?  I agree with a lot of Kathymuggles (e.g. neither side should be trivializing VADs OR vaccine reactions), so I'll try for some new ones.  Note the occasional cutting and pasting.  winky.gif

 

Vaxxers should:

 

1. Not label people who aren't CDC-compliant as "anti-vax."  There is a LOT of gray area in this issue.  I am a selective vaxer.  I continue to question every vaccine that I choose for my children...and question myself every time I choose against a vax.  I can't stand the lack of solid, independent research on vaccines, but I also see the genuine value of vaccines in some cases and places. 

 

I realize and respect the fact that there are definitely avowed anti-vaxers in this forum, but please don't assume we're all with them.

 

I align myself with the vaccine safety/choice movement, not the anti-vax movement.

 

2. Recognize that a conflict of interest is not a "conspiracy theory."  It is a statement of fact.  The mere existence of that conflict doesn't mean that somebody will exploit it, but keep in mind that the pharmaceutical industry has posed a veritable problem in medical research and overall trust in the nation's public health system.

 

3. Recognize that reluctance to vaccinate isn't always based on "fear."  This hyperbolic word choice doesn't reflect what some of us are more realistically feeling.  Try replacing "fear" with "caution" or "skepticism." 

 

4. Not condescend to people who disagree with them by assuming that they're "uneducated," "anti-science," or that make their medical decisions based on blind loyalty to Jenny McCarthy.

 

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). 

 

 

Non-vaxers (and delayed/selective vaxers) should:

 

1. Not condescend to vaxers by assuming that they are uneducated" and "haven't done their research."  I can tell that a lot of the pro-vax people who come to this forum love their children deeply enough to put a lot of though into their decision to comply with the CDC schedule.

 

2. Not simply link people over to Mercola or Natural News or Inside Vaccines.  At least do a little research into the sources that they're citing, and cite those once you determine that they are legit. 

 

3. Recognize that the decision to vaccinate isn't always based on "fear."  This hyperbolic word choice doesn't reflect what some of us are more realistically feeling.  Try replacing "fear" with "caution" or "skepticism." 

 

4. Avoid hyperbolic language, in general.  You may sincerely believe that vaccines are "toxins" or "poisons," but the language sounds fanatical and does little to reach "outsiders."

 

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



Dismissing an "article" because it is on whale.to is not intellectual laziness.  Personally, I refuse to give that anti-Semitic nutcase any clicks.  If there is any information worth reading on that site, it will be somewhere else on the web that is not as offensive.

 

 

WildKingdom is offline  
#17 of 146 Old 08-10-2011, 05:15 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarahfeena View Post



 

Toxins aren't theoretical, but the idea that the minute traces of these toxins that are found in vaccines can do any kind of damage whatsoever is purely theoretical.  

 


tell that to a vaccine injured child's parents...

 

emmy526 is offline  
#18 of 146 Old 08-10-2011, 06:06 AM
 
lovebeingamomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: RI
Posts: 1,549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

good idea in theory OP but every reason to vax or non-vax has to be on the table to talk about otherwise it will offend at least one person..as we can see this very thread is turning into an argument.

Marnica likes this.

Christian SAHM & birth doula.
lovebeingamomma is offline  
#19 of 146 Old 08-10-2011, 06:07 AM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

Sorry, I still can't get past this idea of "don't talk about herd immunity."

 

I mean, that's like saying "Debate the use of antibiotics.  But don't talk about germs!  After all, it's just a theory!"



There may not be a common ground on this point.

 

briefly, here are issues on herd immunity, as I see them.

 

1.  Some people do not think it works

2.  Some people acknowledge it might work, but do not think it is appropriate to ask a family to risk their childs health for a societal gain

3.  Some people are weary in how it is trotted out in every argument -without any sort of display of understanding on the different diseases.

 

It also seems to me to be a conversation stopper.  People trot it out in a discussion and the discussion ends, or changes to discussing herd immunity.  

 

I relate to # 2 and 3 in the above list.  I don't know how to have a discussion with someone for whom herd immunity is the foundation of vaccination.  I can ( and do ) point out it does not work for all diseases - but that is about it.  I can't accept the premise that we should vax for the masses - so where does that leave us?

 

Some things are easy (you don't call me stupid, I won't call you a sheeple).  It is possible stuff like herd immunity has no common ground.

 

 

 

 

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#20 of 146 Old 08-10-2011, 06:10 AM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma View Post

good idea in theory OP but every reason to vax or non-vax has to be on the table to talk about otherwise it will offend at least one person..as we can see this very thread is turning into an argument.



Yeah - I think I was just getting stuff off my chest in the OP.  

 

I am tired of some of the cyclical nature of some of these debates - but maybe the reason they get so cyclical is because people do not feel heard.

 

I do not know if this is remediable - is there common ground on some of the big ideas?

purslaine is offline  
#21 of 146 Old 08-10-2011, 06:40 AM
 
SilverMoon010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.


Loving WAHM to my two little handsome DS's, '08 and '12, and loving wife to DH, '07love.gif

SilverMoon010 is offline  
#22 of 146 Old 08-10-2011, 08:39 AM
 
the_lissa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Posts: 13,248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.
raelize likes this.

Jam 7, Peanut Butter 5, and Bread 2.

the_lissa is offline  
#23 of 146 Old 08-10-2011, 09:39 AM
 
Jugs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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".



 

 

Jugs is offline  
#24 of 146 Old 08-10-2011, 10:26 AM
 
lovebeingamomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: RI
Posts: 1,549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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".



 


Christian SAHM & birth doula.
lovebeingamomma is offline  
#25 of 146 Old 08-10-2011, 03:59 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)

 

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....

 

 

 


In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#26 of 146 Old 08-10-2011, 07:03 PM
 
Jugs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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. 

 



 

 

Jugs is offline  
#27 of 146 Old 08-11-2011, 08:53 AM
 
Kanna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.

 


fly-by-nursing1.giffamilybed1.gifteapot2.GIFfemalesling.GIFfuzmalesling.giflearning.gifgeek.gif

Kanna is offline  
#28 of 146 Old 08-11-2011, 09:12 AM
 
WildKingdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.

 

the_lissa, raelize, Mamja and 1 others like this.
WildKingdom is offline  
#29 of 146 Old 08-11-2011, 09:23 AM
 
Kanna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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*


fly-by-nursing1.giffamilybed1.gifteapot2.GIFfemalesling.GIFfuzmalesling.giflearning.gifgeek.gif

Kanna is offline  
#30 of 146 Old 08-11-2011, 09:41 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)


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..

emmy526 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off