All's fair in love and war….and vaccines debate. True or false? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-28-2013, 12:30 PM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,237
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)

Do the ends justify the means where vaccines are concerned?

 

Are vaccine such an important issue that it is acceptable to :

-re-inforces mths and sterotypes

-make assumption

-engage in "halo effect" or ad hominem attacks.

…etc?

 

:lurk 


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 09-28-2013, 01:06 PM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,237
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)

I will start.

 

No.

 

I do not think the ends justify the means.  I do not deliberately engage in "means justify the ends" games in the name of making "non-vaxxing" look like a good choice.  I think the case for being non-vax or very selective/delayed is strong, but if the merits of it do not speak to you, so be it.  

 

Now, I am not going to say I am never difficult.  It is not typically an "means justify ends" thing though,  It is usually borne of defensiveness, or frustration.  

 

I suspect some people (on both sides!) think the ends justify the means.  

 

I am not making a judgement call - there is a reason whether the ends justifies the means is a philosophical debate.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 09-28-2013, 01:54 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
No, & not even because it is unfair. I judge a debate on the merits, but also on tactics. So a lot of underhanded tactics make me doubt the premise, if that makes sense?
dinahx is offline  
Old 09-28-2013, 03:43 PM
 
Alenushka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: CA
Posts: 1,854
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not to the facts.

Alenushka is offline  
Old 09-28-2013, 05:51 PM
 
MichelleZB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,018
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Are vaccine such an important issue that it is acceptable to :

-re-inforces mths and sterotypes

-make assumption

-engage in "halo effect" or ad hominem attacks.

 

Why would any of those things be acceptable in any argument? As people have pointed out, facts are facts. I think people just get mad because each side is convinced the other has their facts wrong...

 

What do you mean by the ends justifying the means? What ends?

MichelleZB is offline  
Old 09-28-2013, 06:51 PM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,237
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichelleZB View Post
 

 

 

What do you mean by the ends justifying the means? What ends?

Well, there are two ends that I see:

 

1. "Winning" the discussion on the thread

 

2.  The ultimate end would be convincing people that your side is the correct side - primarily because the health of children is very important to you.   


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 09-28-2013, 06:52 PM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,237
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alenushka View Post
 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not to the facts.

 

???


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 09-28-2013, 07:04 PM
 
MichelleZB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,018
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Well, there are two ends that I see:

 

1. "Winning", if even in your eyes only, the discussion. 

 

2.  The ultimate end would be convincing people that your side is right. 

 

If those are the ends, your question doesn't quite make sense to me. Those aren't the goals of people who think an issue is important. "Are vaccines such an important issue that you would argue unfairly to win an argument on the internet?" 

 

I'd probably ask the opposite question. Are vaccines so paltry a matter to you that winning an argument on the internet is your ultimate goal?

 

I think for many people, the issue is, actually, important to them, and they get upset because we are talking about paediatric health.

MichelleZB is offline  
Old 09-28-2013, 07:33 PM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,237
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichelleZB View Post
 

 

If those are the ends, your question doesn't quite make sense to me. Those aren't the goals of people who think an issue is important. "Are vaccines such an important issue that you would argue unfairly to win an argument on the internet?" 

 

Well, point one may have been about winning on the internet.  Yes, that does occasionally seem like the goal for some people.

 

Point two was really about convincing others that your side is the correct side:  if you are pro-vax, that vaxxing is the way to go.  If you are non-vax, then caution is the way to go.  The reason they want to convince people is they care about kids and perhaps want to save people from doing something they think is dangerous.   I will re-write point 2 to be a little more clear.

 

I'd probably ask the opposite question. Are vaccines so paltry a matter to you that winning an argument on the internet is your ultimate goal?

 

I think for some people vaccines are so important an issue that winning the arguement is vital to them.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 09-28-2013, 07:45 PM
 
MichelleZB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,018
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Okay, I see what you mean now, Kathymuggle. You mean that people's end goals might be to influence people's real-life actions: if they are for vaccinations, to convince those who are doubtful to do it; if they are against, to convince others to stop vaccinating.

And yes, I do think that's most people's goal! Or it should be. To most, vaccines aren't like religions or a fashion sense where it doesn't much matter which god or hat you choose and you can have a sort of vague discussion like, "Oh, that's interesting! I'd never choose the red god/hat myself but I can see why it suits you, etc." Vaccines are created to save lives at a statistically significant level. Of course their proponents and detractors are discussing it in an attempt to persuade you.

Is it important enough to employ illogical arguments to persuade others? Well, I suppose it would be a tactic to try if you felt you didn't have logic or facts on your side. I'm sure nobody feels that way here.
MichelleZB is offline  
Old 09-28-2013, 08:36 PM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,237
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichelleZB View Post

Okay, I see what you mean now, Kathymuggle. You mean that people's end goals might be to influence people's real-life actions: if they are for vaccinations, to convince those who are doubtful to do it; if they are against, to convince others to stop vaccinating.
Correct :)
  

And yes, I do think that's most people's goal! Or it should be. 
I don't know if it should be.  That might be another philosophical debate.  I am uncomfortable with proselytizing.  And yet, at the same time, I am aware anyone who is not actively deciding what vaccine path to take is proselytizing on some level if they participate here.  What I would say is my goal is to encourage people to research, research, research…but I am hardly a neutral, unbiased person…so, yeah.  

Is it important enough to employ illogical arguments to persuade others? Well, I suppose it would be a tactic to try if you felt you didn't have logic or facts on your side. I'm sure nobody feels that way here.
I think people believe they have facts on their side, but some may still employ such tactics, as icing if it were.
Examples:  if someone pulls out  "conspiracy theory" or "sheeple" with very little provocation, is it because they really believe the person said something conspiracy theory like or sheeple-ish, or is it because they cannot pass up an opportunity to try and make the other side look bad (halo effect)?  
I don't know.  Maybe I am cynical.  About 90% of the time someone does something smear-campaigning, ad hominem attacks, etc I think they are just frustrated, defensive, have some baggage from previous discussions, etc.
A good 10% of the time I think it is more than that, though - it is deliberate attempt to make the other side seems less credible.  
Take, for example, the charming phrase "anti-vaxxer."  It does not seem to matter how often people say they are not anti-vax, they are pro parental choice, we are still classified as "anti-vax."  Now perhaps many pro-vaxxers do think all non vaxxers are anti vaxxers, but it is still odd for someone outside a group to decide upon a name for another group, a name the other group rejects, and use it anyways.  It is mildly disrespectful.  It is either done to goad or to truly an paint anyone who argues for caution, choice etc as "anti."  I do think it is done because it is OK to be disrespectful towards non-vaxxers as getting people to vax is so important!
I will also say I think the argument that pro-vaxxers do not belong on MDC is also troubling.  Is it said to create an us versus them mentality?  Is it said because it is so important to create a safe space for non-vaxxers that it is okay to hurt a vaxxer?  it could be argued that is an ends justify the means thing as well

k.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 09-29-2013, 12:31 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:I
Originally Posted by MichelleZB View Post

Okay, I see what you mean now, Kathymuggle. You mean that people's end goals might be to influence people's real-life actions: if they are for vaccinations, to convince those who are doubtful to do it; if they are against, to convince others to stop vaccinating.

And yes, I do think that's most people's goal! Or it should be. To most, vaccines aren't like religions or a fashion sense where it doesn't much matter which god or hat you choose and you can have a sort of vague discussion like, "Oh, that's interesting! I'd never choose the red god/hat myself but I can see why it suits you, etc." Vaccines are created to save lives at a statistically significant level. Of course their proponents and detractors are discussing it in an attempt to persuade you.

Is it important enough to employ illogical arguments to persuade others? Well, I suppose it would be a tactic to try if you felt you didn't have logic or facts on your side. I'm sure nobody feels that way here.

Why do you not mention those who are campaigning for safer vaccines?

 

I don't understand why you aren't disturbed that an invasive procedure that has been admitted to cause seizures, brain damage, autoimmune disorders, paralytic disorders is being mandated with no limits.

 

I can see mandating vaccines for ONLY the most devastating illnesses, or for ONLY people who have been screened for likelihood of adverse reaction, or for ONLY vaccines that have a good track record for safety/efficacy, as determined by independent sources like the Cochrane Review.  I think I'd still object to mandates, even under those circumstances, but I can see a valid argument for mandating under such circumstances.

 

But that's not what we're dealing with.  We're dealing with adults being fired for not getting a flu shot, with children to be turned away from daycare for not getting a flu shot,  with children not being allowed to attend schools for not being completely caught up on a schedule that has not yet been proven safe.  We're seeing "financial incentives" (bribes) for doctors with 100% vaccine compliance, for groups participating in group health insurance plans, for 100% vaccine compliance.

 

And it must be part of the conversation that vaccine risks, even when known, are minimized. Those suffering from severe vaccine reactions are treated very, very differently from those suffering from complications of vaccine-preventable diseases.   Why don't you find that outrageous?  Would you feel differently if your child suffered a severe, debilitating reaction to a vaccine?  Or would you say, "Oh, well.  Guess we took one for the herd.  Yay, us!"

Taximom5 is online now  
Old 09-29-2013, 02:30 PM
 
MichelleZB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,018
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
That's what I'm talking about. Taximom cares very much about this issue--she's not in this just to win Internet arguments. She genuinely wants to change minds and policies in real life.

Her kind of sincere passion I think describes moms on both sides of the issue. I have always assumed that people who are debating here really do want to change minds. I don't often participate in the debate forums (as you may have noticed) but when I do, I do so with a similar sincerity.

I think when tempers flare, they are really, truly because people are worried about kids and their health. I don't think people are attacking each other just to discredit the other side's character. Perhaps I'm just a bit more optimistic than you are in this respect, Kathymuggle.
MichelleZB is offline  
Old 09-29-2013, 09:05 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichelleZB View Post

That's what I'm talking about. Taximom cares very much about this issue--she's not in this just to win Internet arguments. She genuinely wants to change minds and policies in real life.

Her kind of sincere passion I think describes moms on both sides of the issue. I have always assumed that people who are debating here really do want to change minds. I don't often participate in the debate forums (as you may have noticed) but when I do, I do so with a similar sincerity.

I think when tempers flare, they are really, truly because people are worried about kids and their health. I don't think people are attacking each other just to discredit the other side's character. Perhaps I'm just a bit more optimistic than you are in this respect, Kathymuggle.

Sometimes tempers flare because questions are asked that never get answered, or even taken seriously. 

I'm not trying to get you to change your mind about vaccinating your own children.  I would, however, like it very much if you would answer the questions in my previous post, as they were directed to you.

Taximom5 is online now  
Old 09-29-2013, 11:32 PM
 
Jennyanydots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have to say, I dislike the characterization of posters here as prosteletizers for one agenda or the other. I don't care if others choose whatever medical options they want for themselves and their families. I just don't want to be afraid that by abstaining from or delaying some or all vaccinations for my kids, I'll make us the target of a marketing-driven witch hunt, and the way things have been escalating in the US makes that fear seem legitimate.

I don't post here to persuade others to share my opinion, I post because I think there is a valid reason for concern about the childhood vaccine schedule and I'm tired of seeing the same emotional and simplistic attacks against people who are worried about it. And because if more voices chime in requesting respect for abstinence/select/delayed instead of ridicule and slander perhaps we can help normalize the idea so the heat will turn down a bit and when it comes to minding the cdc schedule, it won't seem like "everybody's doing it"

chicken3.gif mama to two teens and two tots partners.gif madly in love with DP guitar.gif

Jennyanydots is offline  
Old 09-29-2013, 11:55 PM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
This is really interesting. I have seen such nastiness in this debate forum from
BOTH sides. It's clear some are just "in it to win it" and honestly doesn't seem to be about kids at all to them. I also despise the term "anti-vaxxer". I think it's used simply to make non-vaxxers look bad. When someone uses this term it is an indication to me where they are coming from. It's more about making me wrong than anything else.

And I got really disturbed at the notion that folks who vaccinate their kids should have no place on this forum for support. Really? That really bothered me. Do some of us really believe that those who vax don't love their kids and want to practice attachment parenting as much as anyone else?

I have to take this debate forum in doses (single, not combination doses LOL), otherwise I have a very severe reaction!!!!

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 05:34 AM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,237
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)

advocate:

 

ad·vo·cate  (abreve.gifdprime.gifvschwa.gif-kamacr.giftlprime.gif)
tr.v. ad·vo·cat·edad·vo·cat·ingad·vo·cates
To speak, plead, or argue in favor of. See Synonyms at support.
n. (-kibreve.gift, -kamacr.giftlprime.gif)
1. One that argues for a cause; a supporter or defender: an advocate of civil rights.
2. One that pleads in another's behalf; an intercessor: advocates for abused children and spouses.
3. A lawyer.

 

proselytise - 

proselytising  present participle ofpros·e·lyt·ize (Verb)

Verb
  1. Convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
  2. Advocate or promote (a belief or course of action): "Davis wanted to proselytize his ideas".

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 09-30-2013, 07:49 AM
 
Jennyanydots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You can find a thin connection in the denotative meaning of the words. The connotative meanings, however, are more relevant. JMO.

chicken3.gif mama to two teens and two tots partners.gif madly in love with DP guitar.gif

Jennyanydots is offline  
Old 10-01-2013, 01:40 PM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichelleZB View Post
 

 

Why would any of those things be acceptable in any argument? As people have pointed out, facts are facts. I think people just get mad because each side is convinced the other has their facts wrong...

 

What do you mean by the ends justifying the means? What ends?

except when they are not


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not 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