Part 1 – The Evangelists This essay series is a deep dive into the vaccine conflict: the preaching of the Vaccine Evangelists, the refutation of that preaching by the Vaccine Apostates, and the protection of the Vaccine Evangelists by the Vaccine Apologists.
Your essay is easy to follow and well constructed. It’s more persuasive at this first stage than any vague, hyped-up slogan which lacks clear evidence to further what it’s selling. Who needs an article to read when the headline’s so good, right? If your Doctor, Newsperson and Government are in agreement, they’ve just testified for each other’s veracity!
I find typical evangelists arguments are very often explicit (or more powerfully implicit) leaps of logic, misconstruing cause and effect, and their process usually involves emotional and moral framing which narrows the perspective of the receiver.
There's a type of thinking prevelant today whereby supporting something for compassionate reasons (eg saving grandma) in some way compensates for not fully understanding it (actual vaxx efficacy - or not!), and the arguments of the evangelists play into this type of thinking and actively encourage it.
One way out could be to learn to regain the ability to see different perspectives and to ask fundamental questions (does this vaxx stop transmission?) and so identify the logical inconsistencies, while still retaining compassion.
Thanks again, it's rare I agree with something 100% but the real value is in the thought it provokes. :-)
Excellent and comprehensive Part 1, Jordan. It had never occurred to me outright that the evangelists' corollary merits scrutiny, too! Looking forward to reading your next installment.
Your essay is easy to follow and well constructed. It’s more persuasive at this first stage than any vague, hyped-up slogan which lacks clear evidence to further what it’s selling. Who needs an article to read when the headline’s so good, right? If your Doctor, Newsperson and Government are in agreement, they’ve just testified for each other’s veracity!
We gotta get you a slogan. Wait, here it is:
Question Authority.
Great essay!
I find typical evangelists arguments are very often explicit (or more powerfully implicit) leaps of logic, misconstruing cause and effect, and their process usually involves emotional and moral framing which narrows the perspective of the receiver.
There's a type of thinking prevelant today whereby supporting something for compassionate reasons (eg saving grandma) in some way compensates for not fully understanding it (actual vaxx efficacy - or not!), and the arguments of the evangelists play into this type of thinking and actively encourage it.
One way out could be to learn to regain the ability to see different perspectives and to ask fundamental questions (does this vaxx stop transmission?) and so identify the logical inconsistencies, while still retaining compassion.
Thanks again, it's rare I agree with something 100% but the real value is in the thought it provokes. :-)
Excellent and comprehensive Part 1, Jordan. It had never occurred to me outright that the evangelists' corollary merits scrutiny, too! Looking forward to reading your next installment.
Fantastic analysis. I am looking forward to the next parts.