Are anti-vaccine people conspiracy theorists generally? - page 33
I have an old friend from years ago who I now keep in touch with on Facebook. Her posts are fascinating in the amazing variety of conspiracy theories, some outrageous, some maybe partially true.... Read More
Nov 11, '17Quote from FlatlineI just get a friend to give me a swirly in the toilet. It exposes me to all the germs, all at once, and my immune system can take out possums in the back yard. And there are no credible studies discounting its effectiveness.I am being serious.
There is a group of people that simply do not believe in it unless their hands are visibly soiled. They cite many of the things anti-vaccine people cite, "doesn't work, is not necessary, is potentially harmful...."
Both hand washing and vaccinations are forms of hygiene, they are both very firmly grounded in science and medicine as being beneficial. Why would someone question one foundation of science and medicine but not the others?
Nov 11, '17Quote from wtbcrnaApparently you haven't heard of Roy Moore, who is getting strong support from the religious right. While he does deny having sex with a 14 year old, he doesn't deny dating teenagers- whatever that means. And, as some of his supporters point out, Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult.I don't how many coins did fall out?. It was an example to try to make you understand herd immunity, obviously it didn't work.
If you are working as a nurse and/or not living in plastic bubble then you are still a danger to everyone around you if decide to not be vaccinated.
The whole reason for herd immunity is to protect the population as a whole, which would mean that the flu would still have little chance of spreading even if someone didn't become immune to the flu from the flu vaccine.
The last I heard it was still illegal to molest children and cover it up.
It is a new world.
Nov 11, '17Quote from Kooky KorkyKooky-Actually I am pretty much done here. I don't know if you're joking and making fun of me or if you're for real, so whatever. I guess it's the former since you call me illogical, unscientific, etc. Enjoy your joking at my expense. I don't expect much else here when I hold the minority view. There is a lot of immaturity and disrespect, rudeness, cliquishness on AN. Try to play nicely, kids, if you can. It's a shame that professional nurses (yes, I am one) can't be kinder and more mature than what is often seen here.
No, I have no particular need to win. And I don't think I especially engage anyone. People are just mad, not really interested in what I think or say, don't you think?
This topic is like abortion and sexuality issues, and the modern, non born again Christian view of them. People have strong views and none of us is likely to change them much any time soon.
What exactly do you mean by rooting? What are you rooting for? Why this switch of sides?
We all need to try to control ourselves and not let hostility violates TOS. Just stop replying to the thread and it will die.
If am both joking, and for real.
Sticking to your guns despite all the logic and facts directed at you is, in some ways, admirable. Facts, logic and science all just bounce off you like bullets off Superman.
As far as people being interested in what you say- you have been given ample opportunity to say interesting things. In this context, "interesting" means things that are facts. You have to realize that the whole "alternative facts" thing is new to a bunch of us, and many people are still stuck on the idea that facts are things that are actually true.
And, your analogy comparing vaccinations to abortion and sexuality simply does not hold water. While you and I might disagree on when life begins (I suspect we do), I respect your beliefs. Neither of our beliefs in this case are based on junk science and debunked internet frauds. If you, or anybody believes that it is a sin against God for two men to love each other, I defend your right to have that belief. Of course I would vote against anybody who thinks that belief has a role in US law.
No amount of facts or science or evidence would change anybody's beliefs about abortion or sexuality. Those beliefs are based on faith, and an interpretation of the bible and scripture.
The vaccine thing on a nursing forum is completely different. We are in an profession based on science and research and evidence.
But, thank you for keeping the conversation going, and best of luck staying out of this thread. Quitting this thread is a bit like quitting cigarettes; It may take multiple attempts. Don't beat yourself up if you can't quit. Just keep trying.
Nov 12, '17Quote from hherrnIt's interesting that gets brought up because it really is a symptom of the same problem. We are moving faster and faster towards a society that has no trust in expertise, facts, or the truth rather is predicated on narcissism and sporadically supported by pseudoscience and confirmation bias.
It is a new world.
In the words of Tom Nichols:
"It is a new Declaration of Independence: No longer do we hold these truths to be self-evident, we hold all truths to be self-evident, even the ones that aren't true. All things are knowable and every opinion on any subject is as good as any other."
"Worse, what I find so striking today is not that people dismiss expertise, but that they do so with such frequency, on so many issues, and with such anger. Again, it may be that attacks on expertise are more obvious due to the ubiquity of the Internet, the undisciplined nature of conversation on social media, or the demands of the twenty-four-hour news cycle. But there is a self-righteousness and fury to this new rejection of expertise that suggest, at least to me, that this isn't just mistrust or questioning or the pursuit of alternatives: it is narcissism, coupled to a disdain for expertise as some sort of exercise in self-actualization."
― Tom Nichols, The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters