to add on to the first paragraph: I think there are at least two distinct populations of anti-vaccination parents. but reducing the debate to one about autism loses explanatory power for an interesting population -- some of the highest school exemption rates in the u.s. are in extremely affluent districts in california.you're really missing the real issue. these people are really just ableist and classist, rather than stupid. they believe that their children are above routine public health measures because they feel that the unsubstantiated by science (but publicized and supported by enough people) claim that vaccines are linked to the development of autism is the correct one.
they're misguided by poorly researched, anti-scientific claims that their children will develop autism because of vaccinations that have nearly eradicated childhood illnesses that used to kill or disable children in the past. they also are fed the ableist bullshit from organizations like autism speaks that autism is something that should or can be "cured" and therefore believe that autism is worse than measles/mumps/polio/etc.
ultimately the issue isn't that these people are stupid, but that they're buying into a largely accepted belief (at least in the united states, though i'm sure the dichotomy between east and west thought regarding autism isn't as large as some may think) that autism is in fact worse than "rare" diseases. This of course ignores the fact that these diseases are perceived as rare because of the rise of vaccinations.
Can you sue that person in the USA? This is very important.The sheer audacity it takes to say "I would rather the chance my child dies or contracts a serious disease than gets autism" is in-freakin-credible. I would like to see an anti-vax moron go up to an autistic person and tell them to their face they'd rather their kid wind up dead than like them. If they are too irresponsible or unable to raise a child that's not 'mentally normal' they are too irresponsible to be in a position to have a child at ALL. What if the kid has a physical issue like paralysis?
.
Very well written, loved it.My friend shared this with me and I thought it was hilarious
http://robertmoorejr.tumblr.com/post/110101466091/im-an-anti-braker
LMAOAmy Goodchild Lauren Chiodo-Benmuvhar• 3 days ago
I read 100% of autistic kids' parents used brakes when riding in a car while pregnant. Tell me that's just a coincidence ;)
It's probably been mentioned somewhere in the thread here, but that is a terrible logical fallacy, since not taking vaccines is not equatable to dying or catching a terrible disease.(Still, I'd rather my kids, if any, to have autism than die.)
That's the vaccination schedule in the US? 20-30 vaccinations in the first 3 years? I mean, I'm pretty sure every country has it's own vaccination schedule depending on weather, climatic conditions and such, but Argentina isn't so different from the US and we get those 20-30 vaccines in a 6 year span (So you are fully vaccinated by the time you enter primary school).Relation/causation between vaccinations and diseases such as autism are based on very unreliable studies at best so far, where as globalization and heavy flight habits make societies ever more potentially exposed to the spread of disease. However, it would likely be wise to have more studies on the effects of undergoing a heavy schedule of 20-30 vaccinations in the first 2-3 years of life (since there well could be many other effects we're not yet aware of).
I don't think so. I think it has to do with worst scenario, rather than being a fallacy.It's probably been mentioned somewhere in the thread here, but that is a terrible logical fallacy, since not taking vaccines is not equatable to dying or catching a terrible disease.
Group immunity means the risk of actually catching one of the vaccinated diseases incredibly slim in a first world country where the majority are vaccinating. The odds you perceive of getting autism from vaccines versus the odds of catching a disease is what will shape your opinion on the matter. Also keep in mind that children get vaccinated for a LOT MORE than a handful of deadly diseases, and that the schedule for vaccination is far more aggressive than what existed in previous generations (even compared to parents now in their early 20's).
I think most informed people will come to the conclusion:
Relation/causation between vaccinations and diseases such as autism are based on very unreliable studies at best so far, where as globalization and heavy flight habits make societies ever more potentially exposed to the spread of disease. However, it would likely be wise to have more studies on the effects of undergoing a heavy schedule of 20-30 vaccinations in the first 2-3 years of life (since there well could be many other effects we're not yet aware of).
In most cases I've seen, the people saying they'd rather their kid get autism than die are arguing against the position that no one should vaccinate, period. In this case, group immunity isn't a factor because the position they're arguing against is saying, let's stop vaccinating everyone.It's probably been mentioned somewhere in the thread here, but that is a terrible logical fallacy, since not taking vaccines is not equatable to dying or catching a terrible disease.
How often in your life do you make important decisions only based on "the worst case scenario." If it's near all, I'd have to say you're an idiot. If that's how you make decisions for your kids, also ridiculous.I don't think so. I think it has to do with worst scenario, rather than being a fallacy.
You see, obviously at least most vaccinated population are not autistic.
That's not the case here-- nor would there be any point in making that case. djanxo is arguing about an instance of his 1, own kid-- from which standpoint his over simplification is extremely flawed.In most cases I've seen, the people saying they'd rather their kid get autism than die are arguing against the position that no one should vaccinate, period. In this case, group immunity isn't a factor because the position they're arguing against is saying, let's stop vaccinating everyone.
I'm not sure how prevalent that position is in the anti- camp but it really seems like it's nearly all of them. I could be wrong.
Selfishness is what has driven life to live, and self-interest is what will continue to shape humanity's future-- you can simply choose to see it in a good light or bad. You can choose to see people for the good that they are, or you can choose to live your life hating the world.If you dont understand how subjects might have obligations to future (or even just 'present other') life that are prior to their game-theoretical self-interest are you an evolutionary psychologist, an idiot, or a sociopath? The world view of an anti-vaccer is literally pathological, so what sort of notion of rationality is their world view predicated on?
Perhaps a notion of rationality predicated on actively repressing empathy and community directed reasoning, which makes their pre-occupation with autism all the more ironic, as autism is popularly characterized as an empathy deficient disorder (see Simon Baron Cohen), which is a precise description of the pathology they exhibit in their notion of what it means to act rationally.
Selfishness is a disease that must go before so many of the others.
I highly recommend you read The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod. Cooperation and self-interest are not diametrically opposed. Cooperation has, for most of human history, actually been the most self-interested way a person could act.Selfishness is what has driven life to live, and self-interest is what will continue to shape humanity's future-- you can simply choose to see it in a good light or bad. You can choose to see people for the good that they are, or you can choose to live your life hating the world.
Of course it's great if people can work towards a better world, and we are cooperative by nature as well. But if you think self-interest is a fault, or that I could see it as evil (or a disease), than you'd be sadly mistaken.
Human nature won't change-- but that's no reason not to love people.
Surely this is the same sort of Woke White philosophy being applied here, except in this case it's out of some sort of misguided sense of pity. The implication that somehow it's okay justification because they're wary of modern medicine as long as they're a poor little Coloured Person (and then the continued "fuck white anti-vaxxers", because only people of colour are allowed to be wary of modern medicine) not only ignores this stance's relation to wealth, but also the general ignorance that this stance comes from.5. yr a person of color (predominately black/native) that is wary of the medical industrial complex & how it has historically and continually harmed ur body and u are reckoning with intergenerational trauma that makes u cautious of certain vaccines
it always makes me skiddish when Woke White peeps are super hypercritical of ppl who aren't pro-vaccine without allowing for communities of color space to unpack their own anxieties abt a system that has failed and exploited them. yes, vaccines are good for humanity!! but we need to be mindful of reasons why some ppl would be turned off by them.
fuck white anti-vaxxers tho