If you don't take no for an answer and won't accept anything besides people agreeing to your goals then it is you who is not arguing in good faith. Correct misunderstandings, refute falsehoods, but ultimately you need to let people make their own decisions.
Accusing someone (or worse, groups) of "shifting goalpoasts" is a lame excuse to write of discussion. People can an do have multiple concerns where some of those take a backseat until others are resolved. People can be afraid to state their true concerns, often rightfully so considering how quick they can be grouped with all the other wrongthinkers and summarily condemned and ridiculed. And when it comes to groups - especially such nebolous ones as "the anti-vax side: - the apparent (ie loudest) argument can shift just by the group composition changing.
Accusing someone (or worse, groups) of "shifting goalpoasts" is a lame excuse to write of discussion. People can an do have multiple concerns where some of those take a backseat until others are resolved. People can be afraid to state their true concerns, often rightfully so considering how quick they can be grouped with all the other wrongthinkers and summarily condemned and ridiculed. And when it comes to groups - especially such nebolous ones as "the anti-vax side: - the apparent (ie loudest) argument can shift just by the group composition changing.