Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

EmuChance4523 t1_j6s05qa wrote

No, but anti-vax and climate denial don't have any real foundation in reality, and work with conspiracy theories and religious zealotry and not with evidence and logic on their side.

So, we have an ethical responsibility to evaluate things.

If we go to real scientific theories, we must demand good evidence, definition and consistency in them, and depending on the topic, this is normally provided. The main scientific theories that the scientific community tends to hold, already hold enough evidence and information to be accepted, but the important point there is to also accept that if we found more information and those things need to be discarded, we need to accept that.

23

ButtcoinSanta t1_j6sd5sb wrote

Which definition of vaccine are you using for your 0/1 antivax take?

−12

EmuChance4523 t1_j6sfd2a wrote

What definition of vaccine do you have that the antivax take is not bs?

If you take any scientific vaccine, this is the answer to the antivax take. It is reasonable to be antivax for example, when the vaccine proposed is the piss vaccine used by crazy cults, but the scientific ones don't have the flaws attacked by the antivax crazies.

This doesn't mean that our scientific methods, or that the process that we used to develop vaccines, or that there isn't corruption in our institutions that we need to fix, but the problems aren't related to what the antivax cults cry.

7

[deleted] t1_j6sh25w wrote

[removed]

−9

VitriolicViolet t1_j6v9ii1 wrote

the current modern ones?

the anti-vax movement either focus on A) new shit like the COVID vaccine (its beyond apparent at this stage that its safe) or B) old-ass mercury containing vaccines from the 1930s.

which 'definition' are you using?

i oppose mandatory vaccination on the grounds of inalienable right to bodily autonomy, not some completely inaccurate nonsense about their safety.

1