[ SECRET POST #2718 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2718 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Mayim Bialik]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.
[Pacific Rim]











Notes:

Might be another 12 am day. Response time will be slow, sorry.

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 016 secrets from Secret Submission Post #388.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - this is getting spammy now ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[diet_poison]

Right, but publicly supporting anti-vaccination without doing your research? That's a bit different.

I don't know if that's what happened with the person OP is writing this about, but if a person is known as an anti-vaxxer, it stands to reason they've said something about it publicly.

[(Anonymous)]

Everyone knows because there IS no credible research that supports the anti-vaxx movement. I get you're trying to be nice and fair, but the anti-vaxx movement has two main reasons for believing what they believe:

1) a discredited study from 1998
2) feelings and anecdotal evidence, which is not actually evidence

So basically it's like saying, hey, how do we know those Flat Earth people aren't onto something? Maybe they've done their research and they know something we don't... No. Sorry, but no.

[ariakas]

You forgot "fuck you all I got mine" - the anti-vax rationale that, just in case there is something wrong with vaccines (though there's no evidence for that) they'd rather not risk it for their child and will rely on everyone else doing it to create the herd immunity they need for their kid not to die of preventable diseases.

That one's the noblest and most intelligent of all!

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, that mindset is just disgusting. Not to mention irrational, because like most "fuck you all I got mine" situations, if a significant number of people thought that way, well, there goes your precious herd immunity.

[darkmanifest]

I hate that rationale so violently, I can't even describe it.

[evewithanapple]

Not to mention the "I'd rather have a dead child than an autistic one" mildset that these people seem to have.

[(Anonymous)]

Ah, yes. As long as nothing bad happens to their precious child, it's all fine. But you know, really, that is how we survived as a species, taking care of our own.

(I especially like those parents who will drive their children to school by car, even though it's in walking distance, because it's not safe for their children to walk to school because of all the traffic.)

[feotakahari]

There's a pretty big difference between believing in something unprovable and believing in something that's been proven false. Especially in cases where the proven false belief is getting people killed. The only way you could really compare them would be to compare religious practices that get people killed (like snake-handling), and even that's a bit of a stretch.

[diet_poison]

There's a pretty big difference between believing in something unprovable and believing in something that's been proven false.

/thread

[(Anonymous)]

There's a pretty big difference between believing in something unprovable and believing in something that's been proven false.

+1 You said that much more concisely than I could've!

[(Anonymous)]

There's a pretty big difference between believing in something unprovable and believing in something that's been proven false.

I just want to repeat this again, because it's so true and succinct.

[(Anonymous)]

There's a pretty big difference between believing in something unprovable and believing in something that's been proven false.

Yes, I agree with that. Especially when it comes to a subject like science.

Having said that, there are scientists who believe in something so vehemently they will ignore everything that goes against their belief. And especially in this case with that large part of scaremongering, I can see why a parent would make that decision.

It's not rational, no. But really, if a lot of people were being rational about it, they wouldn't have children in the first place.

[sarillia]

Are people calling her a moron over this? I thought they were just saying that she's wrong about this one thing. I agree, being wrong about one thing doesn't make you stupid. Everyone is wrong about some things. But it is a matter of facts and not one of beliefs like you're trying to make it out to be.

[(Anonymous)]

there's no credible research that supports the idea of a supreme being

there's your difference - there's no way to prove or disprove the existence of god, but there is a ton of evidence supporting the use of vaccines. if something can ONLY be discussed via feelings and anecdotal evidence, then have what beliefs you want. that doesn't fly for something that has its grounds in science.

[(Anonymous)]

That's a really good point.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

i totes understand being distracted and not thinking enough before posting! no need for excoriation. :)

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know if you should be excoriated but I think the reasons people are coming after you is that your initial response seemed to be saying that her position was valid and defensible in a way that you don't think it is.

You also kind of just picked a bad issue to make this your test case on b/c it's one where there is a side that's demonstrably right and demonstrably wrong. Also kind of a hot button issue on the Internet right now.

It happens to us all. :)

[nyxelestia]

I said some stuff that was really terrible in hindsight due to thinking that responding to certain comments when I'm running on too much sleep deprivation is a good idea. :P

The reason why people are miffed is this: most political debates boil down to a disagreement of priorities, and which facts are important. We generally don't debate about the facts themselves. But the vaccine movement is a debate about the facts themselves, not which facts are relevant or about a moral issue/an issue where facts are irrelevant. In other words, it is a genuinely scientific debate that is being treated like a moral one, when it isn't and we have proof.

[(Anonymous)]

No, but people generally acknowledge that religion and matters of spiritual faith are not appropriate matters for application of scientific method.

"Is God real?" is not a testable question.
"Are vaccines safe in such and such way?" IS a testable question, and HAS been tested, and evaluated, and subject to scrutiny, and there is NO credible evidence whatsoever supporting anti-vaxxers as to the general population (i.e., barring allergies, etc.).

Basically, you're mixing apples and oranges in order to throw some kind of moral support behind a woman who knows better as demonstrated by having a freaking doctorate degree in a medical science field. Someone with those kind of credentials will get zero patience from me if they're anti-vaccination. There's no excuse for it.

[diet_poison]

In this case? Yes, because the pro-vaccination stance is a stance that is demonstrably superior to the anti stance. It's scientific fact. It has been demonstrated, tested, and supported and the anti stance has been scientifically discredited. So no, this isn't about me being soooo right, it's about the issue itself. With an issue that's more gray, where it's harder to see what is and isn't true, you'd have a point. As it is, I feel like you're word-twisting. It's like if I were making the statement that the earth revolves around the sun, and you said "but people who disagree with you are wrong because you said they are? how arrogant!"