I think we've now observed a tendency to dismiss this by making not-too-faint suggestions that the person who raised the issue harbors racist and anti-semitic genocidal tendencies.
The suggestion is not that you have racist or anti-semitic tendencies; it is that these are instances of a class, and that polarization on issues like vaccination, abortion, and environmental policies easily leads to other instances of the same class; where "we" are having a dialogue, the exchange of useful information is possible. Once it becomes "us versus them", it tends to become more of an exchange of
blows than an exchange of information. I'm not attempting to dismiss you as belonging to any kind of a "them"; if anything, I'd have to accept you as one of "us" even though we do not yet agree on some details of policy.
I think this can be extended further. As Beth points out, the most rabid anti-vaxers -- those who are completely opposed to vaccination for anyone (whether they openly admit that this is their position or not) -- actually represent only a small minority, just as those who would outlaw the eating of animals represent a small minority of all vegetarians. Though there is no corresponding opposite extreme (no one advocates vaccination for everyone all the time), there is a gradient, one which includes many people who may be receptive to arguments in favor of immunization. If you want to close their ears to whatever you might have to say, then start with an emotional appeal, and make it one that emphasizes how ignorant and irresponsible they are for having made certain choices regarding their own health care. Then implement measures that will force them into a class of citizens they might not otherwise have joined, one which will provide them with strong communal reinforcement.
I wonder why it is, if fanatical political expressions are so harmful, fanatical expressions are used by those who oppose fanatical expressions?
I think the substantive difference is that while Beth and I were attempting to point out the flaws in your suggestion through the use of a
reductio ad absurdum argument, you appear to have actually meant what you said.
It seems to me that either such tactics work (and that's why Beth and Dynamic employ them), or they don't.
Again ignoring the specific aspects of the message being communicated. Like dichotomies, do you? Here's one then: we're either going to try to solve the problem through communication and dialogue, or we're not. If you're going to simply segregate the non-vaxers, you don't need to communicate the message; at that point, you've given up on that. I'm involved in a discussion on another board with a fellow whose position is similar to what Ivor's seems to be: vaccines are probably mostly safe and effective, and what he primarily objects to is that their use is "forced". He has admitted to having the same problem with seatbelts, and if the government mandated that he sit up straight and eat his vegetables, I'll bet he'd object to that too, and I'd have to admit that he'd have a point.
Immunization strategies allow for the fact that there will always be some percentage of people who will not be vaccinated. This includes some who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons, and it can even allow for a few fanatics of various political or religious persuasion. I wish I could be optimistic about the prospects for "marginalizing" such viewpoints, but my take on things is that the very reason that evidence-based science exists, along with its underlying disciplines: formal logic, mathematics, statistics, etc. -- and the very reason that these require so much effort to master is that they run contrary to human nature; that human cognition is hard-wired to favor speed over accuracy in decision-making. Furthermore, the "tragedy of the commons" phenomenon comes into play once a certain level of herd immunity has been reached. No vaccine is completely without risk, and there is a point at which the risk of exposure to a disease is so small that the risk from the vaccine may actually outweigh it
from an individual perspective even though maintaining a high level of herd immunity through continued immunization remains the most effective strategy
from a public health perspective.
Either way there should be some evidence to inform the choice of deploying this kind of highly inflammatory attack on an opposing position, right?
This from a guy who (without providing a shred of evidence to support it) specifically recommends: "
anti-vaccination nuts should be frontally attacked as people who seek to harm children". In my opinion, once you begin using that kind of language, you waive your right to complain about others' use of inflammatory language in response.
I don't know nor care if the person was an expert at risk communication. This person has (or had) a voice in the public dialog on this issue; this person has credentials that will cause them to be perceived as an expert by most who are listening; this person was invited to make her remarks by a legislative body and this also lends her a perception of legitimacy.
Would you agree that not every person with expertise in the field of (say) physics is highly qualified to
teach physics?
