Don’t be ridiculous, it’s a hypothetical. Chicken pox parties were the only path to immunity before vaccines were introduced and it’s simply a good example of parents exposing their children to a little evil for their own protection. Clearly the example was chosen because of its applicability to a cogent point, and not because of its specifics.
However, instead of focusing on the salient argument, you’ve decided to engage in pedantry for what, the sake of argument? Would you have preferred it if I added the qualifier “in the 60’s”?
Or is this just a ridiculous attempt to frame this as an anti-vaccine argument? You’ll get no mileage there, because, again, it was just a fitting example.
Don’t be ridiculous, it’s a hypothetical. Chicken pox parties were the only path to immunity before vaccines were introduced and it’s simply a good example of parents exposing their children to a little evil for their own protection. Clearly the example was chosen because of its applicability to a cogent point, and not because of its specifics. However, instead of focusing on the salient argument, you’ve decided to engage in pedantry for what, the sake of argument? Would you have preferred it if I added the qualifier “in the 60’s”?
Or is this just a ridiculous attempt to frame this as an anti-vaccine argument? You’ll get no mileage there, because, again, it was just a fitting example.