It reminds me of Alex Jones.
Jesus Christ: You can't impeach Him and He ain't gonna resign.
Posted on 06/26/2016 12:53:24 PM PDT by Pining_4_TX
If there’s one thing I’ve learned about the antivaccine movement, it’s that its members dislike being criticized. Oh, hell, let’s be honest. The really, really hate criticism and react very, very badly to it. Whereas you or I or other skeptics might react to criticism by trying to address it using facts, science, and reason, the first reaction of many antivaccine loons is to attack, attack, attack.
(Excerpt) Read more at scienceblogs.com ...
Now how would THAT make any difference? Throughout this thread I have been lectured that people who aren’t vaccinated do not carry or spread disease. All the unvaccinated immigrants shouldn’t make a bit of difference.
I had a long response prepared but I suspect you are pro-government mandate and are closed off to what people are saying. Also I was just answering someone else's question so the disconnect is on your side.
If you look over changes to the vaccine schedule over the years the changes for the better were largely due to antivax people pointing out the dangers in the existing program. For instance live polio vaccine versus killed virus vaccine, and whole cell pertussis versus acellular pertussis.
“I also love when people blame the resurgence all on recent illegal immigrants. They never go one step further and ask why it is that all the illegals have these diseases.”
Excellent point.
“Polio gets reintroduced by immigration, it has a fecal-oral vector. You would need to come in contact with fecal matter and ingest it. Like swimming in a lake where lots of infected people have been. Or changing the diaper of a baby that received the live vaccine”
Or. . . infected illegals working in kitchens and not practicing proper hygiene. Typhoid Mary, anyone?
Yeah. That right there.
Government, scientists, all involved in the early part of the last century were in the game for the right reasons.
Today? $$$$$
I’ll tell you why. It went away because we started water treatment systems. There was already a 90% drop in childhood diseases before the vaccine for polio came out. Most people that contract polio never show systems for polio. You know that right?
no it did not. I’ll try to post the CDC data for you later. I think it goes back to the 80s. We basically still have the same number of cases of polio we did back then. It hasn’t changed.
Its the way we count polio cases that is confusing you and most pro-vaccine people.
It reminds me of Alex Jones.
Jesus Christ: You can't impeach Him and He ain't gonna resign.
My wife asked her DR for a Tetanus shot and was told that the only way to get it these days is a DPT shot, a three in one shot.
I had a tetanus shot recently and it was only tetanus.
I was in a car accident a week ago and was given a tetanus only booster shot in the emergency room.
Appointment only Dr offices that give mostly only routine schedule vaccines don’t stock tetanus only because it is not cost effective. ER’s and urgent care or walk in clinics do stock them because they are the ones who provide the bulk of care to accident injuries where a booster shot would be needed.
I got a flu shot and got the autism.
“and keep them from hurting others” If you and yours are vaccinated, pay attention, what are you worried about. HAHAHA. And as thoughtomator pointed out, you make decisions on Emotion instead of Logic.
I don't like to think about that one.
And the fluoride in the water set it all off, didn't it?
Jesus Christ: You can't impeach Him and He ain't gonna resign.
They robbed me of my bodily fluids.
General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children’s ice cream.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: [very nervous] Lord, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I... no, no. I don’t, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It’s incredibly obvious, isn’t it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That’s the way your hard-core Commie works.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen... tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?
General Jack D. Ripper: [somewhat embarassed] Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.
General Jack D. Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence.
I just love the way you dismiss valid arguments as one of the major forms of fallacy, without apparently understanding what the fallacies actually are.
Referring to the large body of research, for example, is not a “call to authority” fallacy. The only “authority” involved is the law of nature, since the research had to take place within a natural system and its results arise from natural laws.
A “call to authority” fallacy occurs when someone who may be an expert on something is quoted as an expert in a completely different subject about which he knows little or nothing—for example, when Barbara Loe Fisher, who has a BA in English, is used as an expert source on vaccine issues, despite the fact that she knows utterly nothing about the science of vaccines.
I can go through the rest of your misuse of the concept of fallacies, but it is a waste of time. I have found that anti-vaxxers typically are not interested in science or children’s health—they are all about the conspiracy mongering. I see no reason to believe that you are any different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
"An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a logical fallacy that argues that a position is true or more likely to be true because an authority or authorities agree with it."
Ironically, 20 years of Internet discussions have made me quite an... authority on this subject. I have become ridiculously good at recognizing fallacies from long experience, and these are TEXTBOOK call to authority fallacies.
bookmark.
No, I am referring to the correct fallacy--which, according to the Wikipedia article you referenced, is now being called, more correctly, "argument from unqualified (or unreliable) authority." My example of Barbara Loe Fisher as an unqualified "authority" is spot-on. That woman has utterly no clue; I doubt she could read and correctly interpret a scientific paper if her life depended on it.
Arguing from authority, in itself, is not a logical fallacy. For instance, I happen to be an expert on the subject of vaccines. I read the medical literature extensively; with my PhD in biochemistry, I understand quite well the biology of the vaccines and of the human body's response to vaccines. I have designed a vaccine, and I have published a scientific article on the vaccine research I did myself, as well as at least 40 other articles on the subject, mostly for use by policy experts. So, given my background and experience with the subject, it is completely appropriate for me to use my position as a bonafide authority to explain why vaccines are beneficial, and the rationale behind the public policy of mandatory vaccination.
Ironically, 20 years of Internet discussions have made me quite an... authority on this subject. I have become ridiculously good at recognizing fallacies from long experience, and these are TEXTBOOK call to authority fallacies.
No, what 20 years of internet discussion have made you is an expert at reducing every argument to some kind of fallacy. This saves you, I suppose, from the trouble of actually having to present evidence to support your side. I've seen that tactic used by a lot of people who don't like the science regarding their pet ideology, but cannot actually refute the science. For example, strict interpretation creationists and "organic food" fanatics will sometimes dismiss counterarguments as some sort of logical fallacy, for the exact same reason: science does not support their opinion.
Let me give you a bit of a warning here: I have, for several years here on FreeRepublic, spoken up to quash anti-vax propaganda whenever it rears its ugly head. Since I do have reams of facts originating directly from the scientists doing the research on my side, it is extremely difficult to refute any of the evidence that I present. I like to think that because of my efforts, spanning many years, anti-vaxxers feel uncomfortable trying to post anti-vax nonsense here--at least, this issue seems to come up far less often than it did a few years ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.