Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
Participant[quote=zk]And, even if it did, that wouldn’t mean that everything that began with society pointing a finger at a minority for endangering public health would be discrimination.
[/quote]
…or even a bad thing, necessarily.
Participant[quote=paramount]My Body, My Choice: Informed Consent
“Discrimination begins, always, with the majority in a society pointing the finger at a minority for somehow endangering the public health and welfare. Individuals in the minority group are singled out as different – ethnically, biologically, spiritually, morally – from the majority.
The human impulse to fear, judge, marginalize or eliminate those different from the rest has left a blood soaked trail winding throughout the entire history of man…”
The definitive video on vaccines with Dr. Weinberg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXNkaROF4s0%5B/quote%5D
Equating mandatory vaccines with discrimination is pure nonsense. Discrimination doesn’t “[begin], always, with the majority in a society pointing the finger at a minority for somehow endangering the public health and welfare.” And, even if it did, that wouldn’t mean that everything that began with society pointing a finger at a minority for endangering public health would be discrimination.
The faulty logic and assumptions continue from there.
Participant[quote=flyer]Since many people don’t have anything to be “immodest” about, and have never had even one “glory day”–past or present in their entire life–personally, I find it interesting to hear from those who have interesting lives–especially since it seems there are so few.
Brian Williams didn’t need to add any embellishments to his already amazing life–but he chose to–and, IMO, that’s where he made his mistake.[/quote]
I think most people have something to be immodest about, whether it’s generosity, thoughtfulness, solid character, financial success, athletic victory, a special talent, a fascinating career, or a wonderful family. Perhaps you think there are few of these people because you assume they’ll tell you all about it. Probably you don’t recognize their modesty because you clearly don’t understand modesty, as evidenced by your quote below.
“As I mentioned, I enjoy sharing, as well as hearing about any and all accomplishments others have made. I don’t consider it immodest to share that information with others..”
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=FlyerInHi]
I have a female cousin who told me that men should not be modest. She likes men who talk in the hyperbole. Men who talk about shooting a thief who breaks in. Men who recount their sport exploits, or military or professional feats, even when it’s obvious they are stretching the truth, or already well past their glory days.[/quote]
Your cousin is the first woman I’ve heard of who feels this way. I think she must get a contact buzz from the self-aggrandizing. I’ve been married for a long time – but I used to find self serving lies/boasting a perfect reason to walk away. Especially talking about achievements when they are “well past their glory days.” It suggests that they don’t predict any future glory days …,[/quote]
You can find at least one person who likes almost anything. But I think modesty is admired by most people. And I think most people think mentioning your status/accomplishments/wealth at the drop of a hat is immodest and annoying, whether they’ll tell you that to your face or not.
Participant[quote=flyer]
If, in the context of a conversation or discussion (as on this forum) it makes sense to mention achievements in relation to a particular topic to illustrate a point, etc., I enjoy doing so…[/quote]
Interesting you would chime in on this, flyer.
Mentioning your accomplishments/status/income every time it’s contextually appropriate (and you do it even when it’s only tangentially so) makes you immodest. Yes, flyer, I’m saying you’re immodest. At least on this forum.
Participant[quote=dumbrenter]
By the same logic, if your neighbor’s kid is allergic to nuts, we should ban them from your neighborhood or even the whole county just to be sure. Because we don’t want kids to suffer, either from measles or allergies.[/quote]That’s not the same logic.
But, to answer your question, yes, to prevent my kid (and thousands of other kids) from getting measles, I want everybody to be poked by a needle.
Participant[quote=dumbrenter]If you are vaccinated against measles, you would not get it anyway, right?[/quote]
No, not right. Thus voiding your point(s).
ParticipantAnd perhaps your misunderstanding of how this works is also partly responsible for your suspicion of a cover up. If you think that each new case needs to be investigated in order to understand what’s happening, then you’d expect the government to be very interested in each new case. The reason they’re not as interested as you’d like isn’t because of a cover up. It’s because the science has already been done. Many times. At some point, you’re just wasting your time and money investigating something that’s already been proven incorrect. The government doesn’t want to hear about it if you suspect that you were cured by bloodletting, either. That’s not because of a cover up. It’s because the science has been done already.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
It’s been years since I’ve talked to those families, but at the time, nobody was trying to do tests to see why their children reacted to the vaccines the way they did. As a matter of fact, they were told that the vaccines couldn’t cause those problems, and were pretty much shut down by doctors and government officials when they tried to report it. With one family of the two that we’ve known, their pediatrician refused to treat their children after that (don’t remember specifics about the other, but don’t believe they got much assistance from the medical community or the related government agencies, either). That smells an awful lot like a coverup.
[/quote]
That last sentence really took me by surprise. On that tiny amount of second-hand information, you smell a cover up? Your friends were probably despondent and maybe angry and who knows what really happened. If a pediatrician really did refuse to treat their children, my guess would be it had a lot more to do with their unreasonableness or their (understandable) hysteria than with any government cover up. Also, I don’t think a cover up would work unless all the doctors were in on it. Were they able to find a pediatrician to take their child as a patient? Was that doctor involved in the cover up or not? If he wasn’t involved, why didn’t he report the cover up? Did they ask him about the cover up? Did he say, “I can’t report it because I’m afraid” or something like that? If he was involved, did he convince them about the “official message” from the government that vaccines don’t cause autism? The more questions you ask, the sillier it gets. Or do those questions seem reasonable to you?
[quote=CA renter]Until those particular patients are studied (all of the patients that had that a “coincidental” reaction within ~24 hours of being vaccinated), then we don’t know nearly as much about these vaccines and the possible reactions to them as you’d like to think we do.[/quote]
So you’re saying that until we study every single coincidental reaction we don’t know as much about the vaccine as I’d like to think we do? This, to me, appears to illustrate your lack of understanding of how science works to understand these things. Perhaps this is at the root of your refusal to accept what science has found.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
I tend to not make emotional decisions, especially when it comes to important issues in life. But I’d be an idiot if I were to ignore cases of real people who’ve experienced their children developing severe autism within 24 hours of getting vaccinated.
[/quote]
You would be an idiot, unless you had some reason to believe that the vaccines weren’t causing the autism. Such as a number of studies proving that they didn’t.
[quote=CA renter]Call it whatever you want, but I would argue that it’s an emotional thinker who ignores what they see with their own eyes and instead listens to the “offical message” from the government.
[/quote]
The government? “Official message?” I’m not listening to the government. I’m listening to scientific studies.
[quote=CA renter]The FACT (not an emotional argument) is that many families have seen their children become completely closed off, autistic, even catatonic, immediately after being vaccinated. You can talk about coincidences all day long… [/quote]
If 4 million people have incident A happen to them during their second year of life, and if ten thousand people have incident B happen to them during that same year, there are going to be some that have incident A and B on the same day. And even more that happen within a day or two. I don’t know if you call that a coincidence or not, but it’s a fact.[quote=CA renter]
… but it’s this sort of evidence that leads us to understand the world around us. More research is necessary.
[/quote]
Those two sentences really don’t make sense when taken together. First, you say that this anecdotal evidence is how we understand the world. Then you say “more research is necessary.” What kind of research are you talking about? The kind that’s already been done, but more? So, which is it? Anecdotal evidence is what counts, or more scientific studies?
[quote=CA renter]And I’m not suggesting that vaccines necessarily cause autism, just that we don’t know for a fact that they don’t. [/quote]
And what would it take to know “for a fact” that they don’t?
[quote=CA renter]Let’s not forget that this government/govt-approved data is from the same government who said that the air was safe to breathe after 9/11:
[/quote]
Where are you getting “government-approved” from?
[quote=CA renter]But let’s also note that the most emotional thinkers are the ones who consistently attack those who hold opposing viewpoints, rather than staying on topic and addressing the issues one by one.
[/quote]
I’ve done nothing but address issues one by one.[quote=CA renter]
Read through this thread again and see who is most inclined to post emotional attacks against others (including the use of words like “idiot” or calling people “irrational”) and see if that high IQ of yours is blinding you to your own weaknesses.[/quote]
The only people I called idiots were Rand Paul and some women I met in Mensa a few decades ago. And I didn’t call you irrational. I said you were saying irrational things. If I say you’re saying irrational things, and I can point to those things, that’s not a personal attack.Participant[quote=CA renter]Hmmmm, sounds a bit like a personal attack…which you know never helps your side in an argument.
[/quote]
A personal attack? I’ve gone out of my way not to make personal attacks against you in this thread. Every time I’ve typed something that could’ve been construed as mean or personal I’ve erased it and replaced with something else.
You keep stating your same argument (“if you’d seen this, you’d feel different, too”). I keep bringing logic, reason, and science to the table, and you keep ignoring all of that.
Your IQ is irrelevant. I joined Mensa back in the ’80s, because I like smart women and I thought I might meet some. I did meet some, but I also met some… how do I say… idiots. My IQ is in the 99th, percentile, also. You know why I never mention that? Because it’s basically meaningless (which I hadn’t figured out yet in the ’80s). IQ measures a narrow area of brain function, an area that has little to do with actually living life. Among the countless important things that IQ doesn’t measure is one’s ability to see one’s own flaws and shortcomings. It doesn’t measure one’s ability to see one’s own biases and blindnesses. This is where it appears to me that you are falling short on this thread. Your emotion is clearly getting in the way of you seeing a clear picture.
Letting emotion get in the way of logic is extremely common. It’s the way we’re wired. And to restate, it takes all kinds. You seem like a warm, caring person. Always generous with praise. But you do let your emotions cloud your thinking sometimes, this thread being a prime example. You can take that as a personal attack if you want. But I don’t know what else would explain the irrational things you’re saying.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]I’m talking about incredibly dramatic and permanent changes happening within ~24 hours after a vaccination. A perfectly normal child becoming totally unresponsive to their own parents and siblings within a day.
There are thousands upon thousands of people who’ve had this very experience. […][/quote]
Speaking of the “I read something on the internet” brand of “science” …[/quote]
No, two families we have known in person. One family had one child with a reaction (they didn’t vaccinate their other child), and the other family had two children who reacted negatively to their vaccines (with one child having very severe autism, and the other with a mild-moderate form).
In all three cases, their reactions happened within about 24 hours after getting the vaccines. Again, these were *perfectly normal* children who had very dramatic changes within a day of getting vaccinated. This was not progressive, nor did they have any indication of being autistic before these vaccinations.
In the first case (with one child), the child just walked into the parents’ bedroom the next morning with his eyes glazed over. He didn’t smile or have react in any way when his parents spoke to him. When I last saw this family about ten years ago, their son was still severely autistic, though he was making some progress because of the daily work with his one-on-one therapist who came to their house for hours each day.
In the other case, the children got very sick, had rashes and very high fevers, were screaming in pain, etc. As they recovered from their illnesses (they were basically catatonic during their illnesses), the parents noted that they were not responding to them, either. One child eventually responded to some extent (though never fully recovered), and the other ended up being extremely autistic.[/quote]
I think scaredy’s right. Humans in general are wired to understand the world by anecdote. For many people, any scientific theory or fact or test or idea that takes into consideration more information than they’re really able to comprehend doesn’t compute for some them. So they ignore it.
I bet back when scientists first showed that the earth revolved around the sun, most people didn’t believe it. Because they could look up in the sky and see the sun going around the earth. It probably took centuries, or at least decades, for that fact to be accepted. Of course, back then, ordinary people didn’t have access to the latest science like we do now. But if they did, there still probably would’ve been a large percentage of the population that would refuse to believe that the earth revolves around the sun.
Cleverness and ingenuity were an evolutionary advantage when humans were evolving. You have to figure that’s why we (some of us) have it. But when we were evolving, we didn’t have the ability to collect that much data (i.e., more than a reasonably intelligent human could understand). So the usefulness of our cleverness was restricted to relatively immediate concerns. But once we learned to write stuff down and keep data over periods of time and such, science progressed to the the point where a hypothesis could be formed and tested using more data than a pre-science person would’ve been exposed to in his lifetime. For some people, given their wiring, and possibly their lack of ability to think very well in the abstract, this is too much for them to comprehend. So they ignore it.
But, hey, it takes all kinds. Everybody has their flaws. If we were all abstract thinkers and data crunchers, that would suck, too.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
I’m talking about incredibly dramatic and permanent changes happening within ~24 hours after a vaccination. A perfectly normal child becoming totally unresponsive to their own parents and siblings within a day.
[/quote]What does how dramatic and permanent the changes are have to do with anything? Those same exact changes happen to children who haven’t taken the vaccine. And as far as the timing goes, as I said, regressive autism frequently regresses, sometimes quite rapidly, at the same age that vaccines are given.
[quote=CA renter]
There are thousands upon thousands of people who’ve had this very experience. If that doesn’t make you question your “science,” then nothing will. [/quote]
Science is always open to questions. That’s the beauty of it. No real scientist would ever say, “don’t question my work.” If there weren’t several large studies that had already tested the hypothesis that vaccines cause autism, I would question the science of this matter. I would hypothesize that vaccines might have something to do with autism, and test that hypothesis. That’s how science works. Fortunately, that has already been done. Science has already shown that that hypothesis is incorrect.So you have the science disproving your hypothesis, and you have a perfectly reasonable explanation for what’s happening: If millions of children get vaccines at around the same age that many thousands of children’s autism regresses, there’s going to be many instances where the timing is such that the vaccine appears to cause the autism.
Before science had advanced enough, it seemed as obvious to humans that the sun revolved around the earth as it does to you that vaccines cause autism.
[quote=CA renter]
Believing that you know everything there is to know about the world is idiotic. [/quote]Well of course believing that you know everything there is to know about the world is idiotic. How does that pertain to this discussion?
[quote=CA renter]
We must ALWAYS be willing to question our existing beliefs when evidence (even anecdotal) indicates that we just might be wrong.[/quote]
Yes, we must always be willing to question our beliefs when evidence indicates we might be wrong. The belief that vaccines don’t cause autism has been questioned. It’s been questioned enough that major studies have been done to test that belief. Science has shown that vaccines don’t cause autism.We must always be willing to question our beliefs when evidence indicates we might be wrong. But the evidence no longer indicates that vaccines cause autism. Science took what had been anecdotes and turned it into testable data. The data show that vaccines don’t cause autism.
If you look at the anecdotes too close a perspective, and can’t see the larger picture, you’re going to have a distorted view. That’s what’s happening here.
[quote=CA renter]
but if we know that even a few people might have major reactions to these vaccines, instead of denying the very real experiences of some parents, why not work on a test to determine which children are affected by these vaccines? [/quote]
Nobody is denying that reactions have occurred in children with egg allergies and thimerosal sensitivities. But those reactions are not autism.[quote=CA renter]
Just calling these people “idiots” isn’t very convincing.[/quote]Fortunately, calling Rand Paul an idiot wasn’t the argument I was putting forth. The argument I’m making is in the posts I’ve made.
What’s not convincing is sticking to anecdotal evidence when that evidence has been turned into data, tested, and turned out to be incorrect.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]I’m pretty rational but I used to believe the universe was sending me signs. Once I was lost in a major city in the middle of the night and I put some money in a gumball type machine and received…..a compass….woah!
Mere coincidence?
It would be very difficult to persuade me so.[/quote]
Movie scene:
Setting: bad part of town in the middle of the night
[Noir cinemetography]
[Dark, dramatic music]
[Dramatic Narrator] “Lost in a major city in the middle of the night…”
[scaredy] “ooh! a gumball machine!” -
AuthorPosts
