A4E Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 7 hours ago, ofd said: I am suggesting that appeal to nature is a fallacy. Woah... are you serious right now? Thanks for the laugh though. I have not really laughed that long for some time. What kind of food do you think humans should eat? Be careful not to mention anything of living organisms. You might be appealing to nature. What kind of standards do you propose we can use to compare a healthy life to, if we can not compare it up against nature?
ofd Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 Quote An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'".[1] It can be a bad argument, because the implicit (unstated) primary premise "What is natural is good" typically is irrelevant, having no cogent meaning in practice, or is an opinion instead of a fact. In some philosophical frameworks where natural and good are clearly defined in a specific context, the appeal to nature might be valid and cogent. Just in case you don't know what appeal to nature is. Quote You might be appealing to nature. Ok, you don't know what it is. Quote What kind of standards do you propose we can use to compare a healthy life to, if we can not compare it up against nature? You know stuff like observations and statistics. Quote I have not really laughed that long for some time. I cry everytime.
A4E Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 3 hours ago, ofd said: Just in case you don't know what appeal to nature is. I have kinda heard of it. It just seemed a bit desperate of you to include it, which also looks like a cowardly deflection. Either injections is an ok/good way to try to teach the body something, or its not/a horrible way. And actually evolution would make sure that it would be used, (in one way or another), if it was safe and effective. And for sure there are systems through the digestive tract and lungs to do it that way. I and others use the short word for that, which is 'natural'. 3 hours ago, ofd said: Ok, you don't know what it is. To me it looks like my question did present an opportunity for you to appeal to nature, by pointing to anything of a living organism. Not sure how you did not see that. 3 hours ago, ofd said: You know stuff like observations and statistics. So compared to what? If the natural state of a human being is to walk and talk, and many of the victims of toxic shots can not do that, and you can throw out the appeal to nature where humans walk and talk. Then what are we left with? Are we going to compare it to whatever is most normal? So if the majority of children can not walk or talk, then it is the children who can walk and talk that are not healthy? Or what?
ofd Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 Quote The truth is that it actually would be normal if it was normal for humans to get vaccines. But vaccines are foreign material introduced by other humans. 'Normal' is an appeal to nature, in case you missed my point entirely. Quote Either injections is an ok/good way to try to teach the body something, or its not/a horrible way. And you find out that via statistics, looking at the death rates of children before and after there were vaccines, reasons why they died. Quote And actually evolution would make sure that it would be used, (in one way or another), if it was safe and effective. Let me tell you a sad truth. For evolution, rubella and measles are just as important you. Evolution doesn't care if you are dead or alive. Evolution also doesn't look after safe consumption for humans or other organisms. Quote If the natural state of a human being is to walk and talk, and many of the victims of toxic shots can not do that, and you can throw out the appeal to nature where humans walk and talk. Then what are we left with? You still have no idea what appeal to nature is. Fascinating. Quote Are we going to compare it to whatever is most normal? So if the majority of children can not walk or talk, then it is the children who can walk and talk that are not healthy? Or what? I have a suggestion for you. Look at how many children died of infectious diseases against which there are vaccines now. The natural way would be for them to die. The artifical evil method of vaccination prevented that.
A4E Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 2 hours ago, ofd said: And you find out that via statistics, looking at the death rates of children before and after there were vaccines, reasons why they died. Yes. Good to have you on board. Now I trust you will stick to your word and do that in any form you'd like. Watch out for changes in the definition of polio, that I just learned about by following your advice. 2 hours ago, ofd said: Let me tell you a sad truth. For evolution, rubella and measles are just as important you. Evolution doesn't care if you are dead or alive. Evolution also doesn't look after safe consumption for humans or other organisms. Looks like my evolution argument was not understood. If there was a better way for humans (or animals) to protect themselves against tiny organisms, they would have evolved differently to make the best defense possible. I know that the tiny organisms will do the same, which is also why the current way of trying to immunize people using the tiny organisms, is akin to opening pandoras box, because of things like vaccine shedding. 2 hours ago, ofd said: You still have no idea what appeal to nature is. Fascinating. I do. Its just that my questions and examples might have been a bit too intricate, skipping several steps. Sorry about that. 3 hours ago, ofd said: I have a suggestion for you. Look at how many children died of infectious diseases against which there are vaccines now. The natural way would be for them to die. The artifical evil method of vaccination prevented that. Now we have come to the root of your replies in this thread. Thanks for revealing that. The majority of people critical to vaccines now were also pro-vaccines, or vaccine-accepting. And that is not because we were shown slides and statistics and actual history when we were young. Its just another indoctrination. True or false, good or bad, science, not science, I think you can admit that it is indoctrination, Right? No one here would probably be able to convince you to be open minded to our side and look at personal cases, and some documentaries or lectures or anything critical to vaccines, until something happens with yourself, your children, or someone else very close in your family. What is most important to you? That children are healthy, or that anyone in governments, media, and doctors talking about statistics before and after vaccines can be trusted and should be listened to? Please pick one.
ofd Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 Quote If there was a better way for humans (or animals) to protect themselves against tiny organisms, they would have evolved differently to make the best defense possible. That's a common misunderstanding of how evolution works. Evolution doesn't select for the best defense possible, it builds on existing structures and makes them good enough so that you can pass on your genes to your descendants. You can see that in designs that make no sense, until you realize that they made sense once and that they didn't change because they didn't inflict with your ability to pass on genes (teeth that have nerves make no sense, nor does the route of the nervus glosspharyngus) Quote I think you can admit that it is indoctrination, Right? It's only indoctrination if you show that what was taught (or dictated) was in fact wrong. Calling it indoctrination before determining the truth value is begging the question. Quote I know that the tiny organisms will do the same, which is also why the current way of trying to immunize people using the tiny organisms, is akin to opening pandoras box, because of things like vaccine shedding. Lets assume for the case of the argument that pandora's box is opened and vaccines are shedded. How can that be any worse than the virus shedding?
A4E Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 7 hours ago, ofd said: Evolution doesn't select for the best defense possible, it builds on existing structures and makes them good enough so that you can pass on your genes to your descendants. On 9/9/2017 at 8:45 PM, ofd said: Evolution doesn't care if you are dead or alive. Please explain how the above two quotes of yours do not contradict each other. 7 hours ago, ofd said: it builds on existing structures and makes them good enough so that you can pass on your genes to your descendants. In the short run, that is how it works yes. In the long run, it is the perfect genes for the environment that persists. Which results in what I said at first: On 9/9/2017 at 11:26 PM, A4E said: If there was a better way for humans (or animals) to protect themselves against tiny organisms, they would have evolved differently to make the best defense possible. 7 hours ago, ofd said: It's only indoctrination if you show that what was taught (or dictated) was in fact wrong. Calling it indoctrination before determining the truth value is begging the question. You can search on internet just as easily as I can. Look up indoctrination and see that your 'begging the question' accusation is nullified. 7 hours ago, ofd said: vaccines are shedded. As you already know: "Scientific evidence demonstrates that individuals vaccinated with live virus vaccines such as MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), rotavirus, chicken pox, shingles and influenza can shed the virus for many weeks or months afterwards and infect the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike."
smarterthanone Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 Vaccines are easy. Just look up the CDC reports they put out. Every year they put out reports for each vaccine/disease. An example of the kind of info: 1% without vaccine contracted disease of the 1%: 80% were just a bit sick, 10% were seriously life altering injuries, 10% died of those who took vaccine 0.7% had high vaccine injury such as permanent loss of eyesight, stroke, amputation, death Then you can calculate your risk of non vaccine for permanent injury is 0.2% and risk of vaccine permanent injury is 0.7% so then the decision is easy. Do this for each vaccine, they aren't all the same one way or the other, some are good, some are not.
A4E Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 1 hour ago, smarterthanone said: and risk of vaccine permanent injury is 0.7% If they base this on reports, then they should take into account that: -x number of injuries/deaths/SIDS might be ignored by parents/victims as having been caused by recent vaccine(s). Because most parents believe vaccines are safe. -x number of parents tell their doctor that they are pretty sure it is because of the vaccines, but doctor firmly denies any relation, or 'accepts' relation but only decides to report y amount of cases to the CDC because reporting is tedious work.
smarterthanone Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 1 minute ago, A4E said: If they base this on reports, then they should take into account that: -x number of injuries/deaths/SIDS might be ignored by parents/victims as having been caused by recent vaccine(s). Because most parents believe vaccines are safe. -x number of parents tell their doctor that they are pretty sure it is because of the vaccines, but doctor firmly denies any relation, or 'accepts' relation but only decides to report y amount of cases to the CDC because reporting is tedious work. 0.7% isn't the actual number. You would probably want to read the whole report and see how they were figuring the numbers before you decide if you find it accurate. But as it stands the CDC reports will tell you that some vaccines are not as safe as not taking the vaccine. Some of the reasons they push the vaccine anyways would be things like social disease control. ie you cant give vaccine to newborns but they can easily get it so if everyone else gets it, it keeps new borns safe. So they expect the individual to take the risk to save lives of newborns... just one example. So you really should read the reports.
villagewisdom Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 While I find the CDC information valuable, I am also aware of the intense vaccine push and the intense denial by doctors when a parent reports an issue. The lack of support for these parents and their children is criminal. I've worked in this community. It is rare for the doctor to believe the parent. And that in and of itself is the saddest, most cruel thing other than the permanently, life-long disabled child. You have the mother of a child that is clearly having issues and the doctor ignores the parent's plea for help, brushes the child's condition off as "normal" when they really mean "typical". They clearly expect the issues and feel no obligation to actually treat the patient. Unfortunately, this only perpetuates the parent distrusting the doctor and vaccines because usually the parent will cave and believe the doctor once again. . . . until the next vaccine and their child is permanently brain damaged or dies. Then it is too late and the anti-vax crowd gets another advocate. It's a slow process as the vaccine-injured push back and sadly many children are killed or maimed in the process. It's one thing to have a vaccine-injured child when you used that CDC information, asked your doctor questions and they actually gave you the time of day without making you feel like a complete idiot and you made a fully-informed and conscious choice to vaccinate your child. It's quite another to be completely uninformed of the risks, go along because "everyone vaccinates" and you are deemed ignorant if you don't know that and throw all of your trust in a doctor that has not even read the blackbox warnings and denies any issue when your child exhibits the side effects clearly written in the manufacturer and CDC's documentation. It's very easy to believe that the push-back on the vaccine schedule is just a bunch of uninformed idiots who believe psuedo-science. But when you look more closely what you will find is a growing number of parents with permanently damaged children requiring 24/7 care worried about who will care for their child when they are gone. You will find thousands upon thousands upon thousands of parents with personal experience that are being ignored because "science" cannot see them. "Science" refuses to see them. The evidence is there. WHY DO THEY REFUSE TO DO A STUDY COMPARING THE VACCINATED TO THE UNVACCINATED? WHY DO THEY REFUSE TO USE THE SCIENCE OF HAVING A CONTROL GROUP? THE GROUP IS ALREADY THERE ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS TALK TO PARENTS OF UNVACCINATED KIDS. Sorry, about the yelling but it is so hard to see the lives of these people ruined because they were unaware and uninformed of the risks. Those spearheading the anti-vax movement were previously the most vocal of the pro-vax crowd. They are like reformed smokers. The tide will eventually shift as more and more children are injured. It is inevitable. The personal experience will always overrule the intellectual speculation.
Recommended Posts