Being of an age where most of my life is a kind of ancient history, it seems fair I look back and assess. The part I wish to share is I find that I have tried always to be a gentleman. My mother long ago defining a gentleman as a man who never hurt anyone by accident - I should have listened and understood - I translated into an admonition never to hurt, never to cause pain, and always to act "correctly." I have now and for some years understood that while being such a person can be a good thing, there are occasions, lots of them, when being such is just plain wrong and a mistake.

Relevant here because among us I find two groups. The first gentlemanly, expending their treasure of time and energy being more-or-less educators, thoughtful in presentation and argument, reasonable, sometimes even conciliatory. And these often enough clash with their opposites - and most of us know who they are, and usually even they know who they are.

At the moment it's anti-vaxxers. One of us has done imo an excellent job of laying out the underlying issues. Most of us will know him, but we leave him here anonymous. Also the inspiration for this thread.

---------------------

"To those continuing to fight against the vaccines:

"Your questions and demands for evidence will always outweigh whatever can be given, and will shift once the answer or evidence has been given. It's like whack-a-mole. That's why I encourage others not to get into the weeds, but to always keep in mind the bigger picture. It's not driven by good-faith assessment of the data -- it's picking and choosing data. It's the same tactic that Creationists use: poke as many holes as you can, identify apparent contradictions, mis-quote, tell half-truths, etc. When all else fails, shift to an entirely different question.

"What this all comes down to, ultimately, is the fact that this issue has been politicized. Like the issue of climate change, because it's been politicized there are all kinds of laymen, especially online, making claims about the sun, about natural variation, about climate scientists, etc. You see them on YouTube, on Facebook, on Twitter. But they're all repeating things they've heard from their sources, and their sources happen to be completely and demonstrably wrong, and their arguments don't hold any water when analyzed in detail.

"The anti-vax crowd (forgive the label) are doing exactly the same thing. It's a mistake -- simple as that.

"If you're afraid to take the shot and want to find reasons for not taking it, even after 9 months and 6 billion doses given, and after every major medical organization in the world recommends vaccination, then you'll certainly find reasons.

"If you're already convinced the medical establishment is untrustworthy, and that overwhelming scientific and medical consensus and advice can be ignored, then you'll find reasons for believing that -- and no amount of debate will change your mind, especially on the Internet.

"The question is: why so afraid of vaccines in the first place? And why so distrustful of medicine and science?

"It seems to me it's a selective skepticism.

"There's really no point looking up statistics or reports or articles or citing experts -- none of it will be good enough, none of it will matter. Once someone has taken it as part of their identity, arguing the matter is like arguing someone out of religion. It's a fool's errand, as tempting as it is (after all, most claims are pretty easy to refute).

"What we should be discussing is why these people are showing up to begin with. It's the same question we should be asking about Trump voters, it's the same question we should be asking about climate deniers.

"This doesn't come from nowhere. They don't realize it themselves, because they're stuck in the middle of it, but in my view it's simply being manipulated by misinformation, exacerbated by social media."

------------------------

This is not all that can be said; much more has been said, and with admirable restraint. But little else can be reasonably or sensibly added - because this pretty much says it all. And our writer has spent probably hundreds of hours attempting to educate and persuade those who will be neither educated nor persuaded. In these efforts, to be sure, he's had help and able help, but to little effect.

So what's the answer? Winston Churchill remarked on acknowledging the need to "bash one's opponent on the snout." I am not advocating snout-bashing. But when do the gloves come off? When has civility run its course? How ultimately does right prevail over wrong, reason exhausted, if not by snout-bashing, whether metaphorical or literal?