| I'm not interested in holding a discussion with someone who denies the Banqiao dam burst deaths, and wants to take unsourced blog statistics by a single dude over the World Health Organization and the United Nations I am not interested in someone who says "here's a list of numbers, the United Nations must be wrong, the causes are a matter of polemics." Polemics are generic archetypal verbal attacks. The United Nation's health statistics do not get interpreted in terms of verbal attacks. You make vague references to "Russian academicians" and claim they said things, but don't provide evidence. The Russian academics still haven't admitted Kyshtym happened. There is a point at which if someone listens to clowns but not the world's authorities, they and everything they believe should just be discarded without further commentary The science is clear: arguing with an anti-vaxxer or a flat earther just drives them further into their delusion. The common sense is also clear: the regular person does not get satisfaction, but rather more frustration, at the end. The current position of psychology is that the reason anti-vaxxers exist is that they have genuinely mis-identified their addiction to argument as being seen as knowledgeable, and that even when legitimate experts show up with evidence, their unwillingness to budge convinces them that they're even righter. They really think this makes them look good. Psychology currently frames this as the result of severe self doubt, as "you need to argue with me so that I can show myself that I could win." Of course I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who denies basic facts, and refers vaguely to evidence they haven't provided. Nobody should. That's how you get flat earthers. Deniers don't deserve argument, and trying to talk to them like normal people hurts them mentally. |
I referenced published documents, everyone is free to read, counter-argument, and even rant on.