Hacker News Reader

Comment by cies | Hacker News Reader

It's okay to downvote me, but please tell me whats wrong with my logic...

You could say this about pretty much anything with fines involved.

"It's OK for the rich to park on double yellow lines, litter in the streets, etc.."

Yes, I totally agree (and often argue) that fines that are not income/wealth-variable are a way to give liberty to the rich while restricting the poor. Only Norway has a system like this, afaik.

Yes. That is one of the correct ways to frame this problem.

Just tons of down votes for even explaining what anti-vaxxers might think, nothing wrong with your logic.

I think people feel genuinely scared about contracting serious illnesses so it's hitting a lot of buttons and the two sides don't seem to be able to hear or respect each other.

Note the name calling and judgement in many of the threads.

The two sides are not equal. This is a mistake I see constantly. One's dumb beliefs are not equal to science. Why would anyone respect the stupidity of anti vaxxers? How about throwing those assholes in jail for endangering not only their children but everyone else also? That would be better than the tax break proposed by Australia as it would apply to both the rich and the poor equally and be an even better incentive.

The name calling and threats actually just makes you look bad.

If someone says they're scared to vaccinate their kid, only respect and listening can possibly help you achieve your goal.

I actually think vaccines are a good thing but get down voted for even saying we should respect anti-vaxxers as people.

As I get older I've realized that resistance is usually valid even if I don't agree with it. People rarely make decisions against their own interest. The trick is to align their interests with yours and calling them names will just drive then farther from you.

It seems like many people here just want to spout anger at anti-vaxxers rather than make any progress as a community.

> Just tons of down votes for even explaining what anti-vaxxers might think, nothing wrong with your logic.

As the GP explained, there are a lot fewer anti-vaxxers when it requires them to voluntarily take a financial hit.

> the two sides don't seem to be able to hear or respect each other.

You’re not going to find a lot of support or respect for anti-science positions on a strongly pro-science message board.

Support no. But if we don't respect those that disagree with us it just makes us look bad IMO.

And yeah, you can influence any behavior with financial insensitive.

Would you call it discrimination to specifically target poor people to receive government aid?

Typically people call a policy discriminatory when some person or group is being harmed, but most people here agree that vaccinating children is helping to prevent harm from occurring, so it does not appear to be discriminatory. The fact that this policy does not apply to wealthy people is a red herring, since it doesn't impact whether or not poor people are being harmed.

> Would you call it discrimination to specifically target poor people to receive government aid?

Yes. It is called positive discrimination, because the object of discrimination is advantaged by it.

> so it does not appear to be discriminatory.

You want to choose the vaccination schedule yourself, now you have to pay a fine (or not receive a benefit: close to the same thing). It is said to prevent harm from occuring, but apparently the person who's making the decision here believes the Finnish schedule (which is 1/2-1/3 of the US schedule in size) is better for them.

No choice for the poor, all the choice to the rich. Discriminatory policy if you ask me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com