system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Anti-vaxxers need to be shut up.

 

Masks and vaccines work. That's something I want to be taken as a given in this post.

Now, we all know that this virus is very dangerous. People are dying by the thousands, and it needs to stop. This pandemic would probably be over by now if it wasn't for anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers. That means people are dying every day because of someone's personal preference. Do you think this is fair? I certainly don't. Lives are much more important than a personal preference, even if it's a widely held one.

Anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers are killing people by transmitting the virus. It may be indirect, but it's still killing people. Seems very selfish to me. While I agree with free speech, I also think that sites and people going against literal *scientific evidence* need to be shut down, especially when it starts killing people. Children are also very impressionable, and if they were told this lie they would likely believe it, creating a new anti-vaxxer.

Imagine some poor little child, dying in hospital with covid-19, because somebody felt the need to not wear a mask. These anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers are killing people, and it needs to stop *right now.*

Change my view.
gpt
1. How will people react when they know they're being censored? Will they just give up? Will that really change their minds or behavior? Or will it make them feel even more like someone is trying to control them, which further justifies (in their mind) resistance against their government? Will we have another January 6?

2. Who decides what information contradicts the science, and how do they decide that? How do you make sure they're genuinely seeking the truth, and not trying to use their positions as censors in order to pursue some other goal?

3. How do you tell the difference between *contradiction* of science vs. *nuance*? Lots of people are hesitant about vaccines because they're aware of the nuances and they're concerned about what we *don't* know. Should nuanced discussion and discussion about the limitations of our knowledge be shut down, too?

4. What if the science needs to be revised? How will anyone know? Competing hypotheses need advocates order to be taken seriously and studied and tested. Therefore, in order for science to advance, people need to be free to advocate for ideas that might be incorrect. Who will advocate for hypotheses that are critical of vaccines? Can vaccine-critical ideas be presented and supported just for the sake of argument? If no, then how can anyone have a reasonable discussion where they learn anything? If yes, then how do you tell the difference between a pro-vaxxer proposing a hypothetical and an anti-vaxxer pushing their ideas and using "this is just for the sake of argument" as an excuse?