Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Measles
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dgiharris" data-source="post: 73549139" data-attributes="member: 322579"><p>*snip*. I just wasted 20 minutes of my life trying to construct an argument that would/could show anti-vaxxers the error of their ways.</p><p></p><p>In a nutshell, my argument is simply this. Over the course of the last 100 years, hundreds of thousands of doctors, scientists, researchers, and academics have spent BILLIONS of man-hours trying to cure various types of diseases and ailments. Out of this community of professionals, 99.99% of them have concluded that XYZ is necessary and that XYZ will save lives and that XYZ will prevent countless deaths.</p><p></p><p>0.01% of the people in this profession claim that XYZ is unnecessary and that XYZ is harmful.</p><p></p><p>Now, which is more likely? Which do I want to base the health, safety, and welfare of my family on? Do I go with the 99.99% or do I go with the 0.01%</p><p></p><p>Furthermore, the evidence and data side with the 99.99%. The evidence and data does NOT side with the 0.01%. </p><p></p><p>now, the 0.01% uses anecdotal data and slight-of-hand analysis to lend credence to their arguments but it all falls apart under any close scrutiny...</p><p></p><p>What does it say about your psychological makeup that you believe in the 0.01% vs the 99.99%? </p><p>It is amazing how strongly being an anti-vaxxer correlates with believing the moon landings were fake and that the Earth is Flat and *insert conspiracy theory here*</p><p></p><p>I guess it is very gratifying to one's ego being the only one smart enough to see the truth and discover the conspiracy....</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dgiharris, post: 73549139, member: 322579"] *snip*. I just wasted 20 minutes of my life trying to construct an argument that would/could show anti-vaxxers the error of their ways. In a nutshell, my argument is simply this. Over the course of the last 100 years, hundreds of thousands of doctors, scientists, researchers, and academics have spent BILLIONS of man-hours trying to cure various types of diseases and ailments. Out of this community of professionals, 99.99% of them have concluded that XYZ is necessary and that XYZ will save lives and that XYZ will prevent countless deaths. 0.01% of the people in this profession claim that XYZ is unnecessary and that XYZ is harmful. Now, which is more likely? Which do I want to base the health, safety, and welfare of my family on? Do I go with the 99.99% or do I go with the 0.01% Furthermore, the evidence and data side with the 99.99%. The evidence and data does NOT side with the 0.01%. now, the 0.01% uses anecdotal data and slight-of-hand analysis to lend credence to their arguments but it all falls apart under any close scrutiny... What does it say about your psychological makeup that you believe in the 0.01% vs the 99.99%? It is amazing how strongly being an anti-vaxxer correlates with believing the moon landings were fake and that the Earth is Flat and *insert conspiracy theory here* I guess it is very gratifying to one's ego being the only one smart enough to see the truth and discover the conspiracy.... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Measles
Top
Bottom