Hacker News Reader

> The ad doesn't contain misinformation, merely opposition.

Can you show me a formulation of "vaccine opposition" that does not require misinformation to be credible?

Seriously. The use of the term "opposition" here makes it sound like vaccinations are things people can have subjective opinions about. It's like having a dissenting opinion on 1+1=2 or voicing ones opposition to the sky being being blue and expecting everyone to be cool with that. Except in the case of vaccinations, these dissenters cause people to freaking die, and not just themselves or their own. And their argument is literally never anything more than, "well, y'know, some people are saying vaccinations are bad, I hear. Some of them are even in my family or on TV or go to my church so there must be something to it!"

Sure: there's the idea of opposing vaccines because you want the absolute option of bodily autonomy over what gets injected into your bloodstream.

The thing about you deciding what goes into you is that it is harming other people. Your rights stop once you harm others.

That wasn't the point I was making, please don't strawman me. The GP asked for an argument against vaccination that didn't rely on misinformation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com