easy target [...] They’re not just wrong: they’re harming people.
This emphasis feels painful, like implied endorsement of an error: harm of a claim should only make it easier to argue against it via appeal to consequences.
I think that the reason I don’t see a lot of arguments against anti-vaxxers is that I don’t know that I know of any. I think the reason that I see anti-vaxxers derided more often than average is flat-earthers are parsed as harmless and anti-vaxxers are parsed as doing harm. I think I’m not quite following what you’re saying.
The harm should make it more valuable/appealing to argue about a claim, lending value of information to it, but shouldn’t make it easier for arguments to hold. The fallacy of appeal to consequences facilitates arguing against a claim because of the harm it does, so appealing to ease of argument because or the harm is appealing to use of appeal to consequences.
(You are certainly not doing any of that, I’m just curious about the reasons behind my own reaction to that statement, where it perplexingly was viscerally painful to read.)
The anti-vaxers usually assume the harm argument points the other way: that vaccines cause actual harm, while the disease itself is mostly harmless (or does not exist at all). From their perspective, it is the sheeple believing whatever the Big Pharma tells them who are not just wrong, they’re harming children by giving them autism.
If you want to argue by appeal to harmful consequences, first you have to show those consequences. But either side will dismiss the data provided by the other side.
(Everyone is the good guy in their own story. The covid denialists also don’t go like “hey, I am an asshole and I don’t give a fuck whether your grandma dies”. Instead they tell you how face masks suffocate the kids and prevent them from developing social skills because they can’t see each other’s faces. From their perspective, it’s the people who want to stop covid who are the heartless bastards.)
This emphasis feels painful, like implied endorsement of an error: harm of a claim should only make it easier to argue against it via appeal to consequences.
I think that the reason I don’t see a lot of arguments against anti-vaxxers is that I don’t know that I know of any. I think the reason that I see anti-vaxxers derided more often than average is flat-earthers are parsed as harmless and anti-vaxxers are parsed as doing harm. I think I’m not quite following what you’re saying.
The harm should make it more valuable/appealing to argue about a claim, lending value of information to it, but shouldn’t make it easier for arguments to hold. The fallacy of appeal to consequences facilitates arguing against a claim because of the harm it does, so appealing to ease of argument because or the harm is appealing to use of appeal to consequences.
(You are certainly not doing any of that, I’m just curious about the reasons behind my own reaction to that statement, where it perplexingly was viscerally painful to read.)
The anti-vaxers usually assume the harm argument points the other way: that vaccines cause actual harm, while the disease itself is mostly harmless (or does not exist at all). From their perspective, it is the sheeple believing whatever the Big Pharma tells them who are not just wrong, they’re harming children by giving them autism.
If you want to argue by appeal to harmful consequences, first you have to show those consequences. But either side will dismiss the data provided by the other side.
(Everyone is the good guy in their own story. The covid denialists also don’t go like “hey, I am an asshole and I don’t give a fuck whether your grandma dies”. Instead they tell you how face masks suffocate the kids and prevent them from developing social skills because they can’t see each other’s faces. From their perspective, it’s the people who want to stop covid who are the heartless bastards.)