A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

You won't hear the other side because you are determined to justify your stance on this matter.

You are the one that does not change her point of view when faced with facts that do not match it: despite the fact that you were wrong about

1: overloading the immune system with vaccines
2: formaldehyde levels in vaccines
3: The use of adjuvants in vaccines

You have not changed your position one bit.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are really late in the game Adam. I've been through this with LadyShea and Davidm more times than I want to remember.

And yet you continue to offer the same evasive non-answers. It seems that no matter how late it gets, it's always early.

as·ser·tion (-sûrshn)
n.
1. The act of asserting.
2. Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.
as·sertion·al adj.

OK, so can you explain why whatever LadyShea referred to as an assertion was not, in fact, an assertion?

As far as modal fallacy goes, here is an interesting rebuttal to Schwartz's charge of modal fallacy in the free will debate.

Alanyzer: Foreknowledge, Free Will, and "The Modal Fallacy"

And can you explain of that in your own words? Can you even explain what a modal fallacy is? Before you go accusing LadyShea of not knowing what she's talking about, it would be helpful if you were to establish that you, in fact, do know what you're talking about.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That comparison doesn't fly Lone because we know that a bullet to an organ can definitely kill (even from a strong bb gun if an essential organ is hit). Knowing this, how could there be any justification in keep a dangerous bb gun in the reach of children? I am not sure where you are using your example to justify injecting children with vaccines that could, in certain cases (however small), destroy lives. Please help me here.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Do we know with 100% certainty that these bullets being sprayed around are going to hit someone in an organ? Unless you can find a ballistics expert who can give us a 100% assurance that one of these bullets will strike an organ, I don't see how you can ask TLR's neighbors to sacrifice their own well-being for some greater good that isn't even proven.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Free will as defined in the dictionary as the ability to choose from the options available what one wants or what one does not want equally. That a person is free to choose either/or. But how is that possible?

No, free will is not defined that way by anyone but you and your father. I've invited you, several times, to cite any other author who uses the term "free will" in such a way that the ability to choose something other than one's own preference is essential to it. You have not done so because you cannot do so. No

Most people define free will as being able to choose without outside constraint or persuasion, but this is a superficial definition.

Ah, so "most people" define "free will" differently from your father. Then his definition is idiosyncratic, end of story. Whatever he has to say about what he considers to be free will has no relation to what other people mean when they talk about what they consider to be free will. All the handwaving in the world about his definition being clarified, or less superficial, or whatever does not change the fact that he is talking about something different from everyone else.

Equivocation:

Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings.

Logical Fallacy: Equivocation

Show me where he does this.

I've already shown you two instances where Lessans equivocates. For all your whining about people not having read your father's book, you don't seem to have really read many of the posts addressed to you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are the one that does not change her point of view when faced with facts that do not match it: despite the fact that you were wrong about

1: overloading the immune system with vaccines
2: formaldehyde levels in vaccines
3: The use of adjuvants in vaccines

You have not changed your position one bit.

Of course I haven't, because in all honesty I cannot and will not claim that I know that no one has been hurt directly from these vaccines. For that reason I have to be honest, and admit that I don't know. Can you admit that you're not sure that a vaccine could be responsible for a child's disability? If you can, the more power to you, but if a child is hurt by a vaccine that you recommended, you will have to live with it. That's not an easy thing to do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

No, free will is not defined that way by anyone but you and your father.

That is a total untruth Adam, and if you want to talk to me, you have to be honest.

Originally Posted by Adam

I've invited you, several times, to cite any other author who uses the term "free will" in such a way that the ability to choose something other than one's own preference is essential to it. You have not done so because you cannot do so. No.

What does citing other authors have to do with the truth of what I am presenting? This is a strawman if ever there was one.

Most people define free will as being able to choose without outside constraint or persuasion, but this is a superficial definition.

Originally Posted by Adam

Ah, so "most people" define "free will" differently from your father. Then his definition is idiosyncratic, end of story. Whatever he has to say about what he considers to be free will has no relation to what other people mean when they talk about what they consider to be free will. All the handwaving in the world about his definition being clarified, or less superficial, or whatever does not change the fact that he is talking about something different from everyone else.

Damn it, this was in the goddam DICTIONARY. What else could he have gone by. You are full of hot air, big time.

There is no ambiguity. The definition was explained. The reason for this definition was proposed. What is your problem other than being mad that you're wrong, and now you can't deal with it. DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!!!

[Adam]

Peacegirl, do you understand that there are many different sense of the words "good" and "evil"? That is, do you understand that people mean different things when they use those words in different contexts?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Peacegirl, do you understand that there are many different sense of the words "good" and "evil"? That is, do you understand that people mean different things when they use those words in different contexts?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

That is a cop-out Adam. Evil is doing something to someone that they do not want to be done to themselves. I do not want you to break into my home and steal from me. That is a hurt to me. I do not want someone to shoot me with a gun while I'm window shopping. That is a hurt to me. I do not want someone to jump a curve and kill me because they lost control with their car. That is a hurt to me. Is that enough, or do you need more?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is a cop-out Adam. Evil is doing something to someone that they do not want to be done to themselves. I do not want you to break into my home and steal from me. That is a hurt to me. I do not want someone to shoot me with a gun while I'm window shopping. That is a hurt to me. I do not want someone to jump a curve and kill me because they lost control with their car. That is a hurt to me. Is that enough, or do you need more?

That's not the simple yes or no answer I asked for, but it might work even better.

So, this ("doing something to someone that they do not want to be done to themselves") is the universal, non-context-dependent definition of "evil"? Whenever someone says "evil", they mean "doing something to someone that they do not want to be done to themselves"?

What about "good"?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Adam

So, this ("doing something to someone that they do not want to be done to themselves") is the universal, non-context-dependent definition of "evil"? Whenever someone says "evil", they mean "doing something to someone that they do not want to be done to themselves"?

So now my Dentist and Dental Technician are evil?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You sound like a little kid on the playground who is losing the game.

Really? Which one of us habitually ignores facts and logic and dogmatically refuses to abandon her completely discredited beliefs? Hint: It's not me.

Which one of us lies constantly? Hint: It's not me.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course I haven't, because in all honesty I cannot and will not

You should have stopped right there.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You sound like thedoc now. It's an interesting phenomenon to observe from an objective participant.

Heeeeey, Nothing really to add I just wanted to say Heeeeey.

BTW, congratulations to Angakuk for your momentous achievement, you sound just like me, and you and I are officially "Objective Participants". Apparently unlike the "Other" subjective participants?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are the one that does not change her point of view when faced with facts that do not match it: despite the fact that you were wrong about

1: overloading the immune system with vaccines
2: formaldehyde levels in vaccines
3: The use of adjuvants in vaccines

Thedoc has spoken!!!

Originally Posted by thedoc

You have not changed your position one bit.

No I haven't because it has not been proven to my satisfaction that vaccines are safe for every child.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Really? Which one of us habitually ignores facts and logic and dogmatically refuses to abandon her completely discredited beliefs? Hint: It's not me.

Which one of us lies constantly? Hint: It's not me.

Actually, this is not a playground game. These are real lives we're discussing. If you cannot guarantee that vaccines do not cause harm, then you cannot act like vaccines are safe for every child. Be honest for a change.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Truly, this is not a game at all. These are real lives. If you cannot guarantee that vaccines can cause no harm to every single child, then you cannot act like vaccines are safe for every child. If you do, then you will have to live with the consequences if a child should be hurt as a result. Fortunately for you, you're not a doctor.

Bolding mine. Please cite where TLR, or anyone posting in this thread, has stated or implied that vaccines are "safe for every child".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So now my Dentist and Dental Technician are evil?

What the hell? If you didn't want your cavities filled, you wouldn't be sitting in the dentist's chair.

[Adam]

and you've since edited the post I quoted to include a call for TLR to "be honest for a change". Go ahead and find that citation to TLR making the absurd claim ("vaccines are safe for every child") you've attributed to him, or else admit you're the one being dishonest.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, this is not a playground game. These are real lives we're discussing. If you cannot guarantee that vaccines do not cause harm, then you cannot act like vaccines are safe for every child. Be honest for a change.

What a contemptible liar you are!

Exactly no one has ever suggested that an immunocompromised child should be exposed to live vaccines.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Bolding mine. Please cite where TLR, or anyone posting in this thread, has stated or implied that vaccines are "safe for every child".

But that's all that I'm saying. This IS a number's game, but if it was your child that was injured or died, the statistics mean nothing. The point I'm getting at is that vaccines are not safe for every child, so when TLR says that children should be vaccinated because it is protective, he is not telling the whole truth. All anyone can say is that the majority of children seem to do okay.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Adam

and you've since edited the post I quoted to include a call for TLR to "be honest for a change". Go ahead and find that citation to TLR making the absurd claim ("vaccines are safe for every child") you've attributed to him, or else admit you're the one being dishonest.

You're asking for honesty from her? She wouldn't know honesty if it hit her in the head with a two by four. She's a serial liar and a kook. What amazes me is why anyone bothers even responding to her anymore. I gave it up for months, and only got lured back in because I stumbled upon her posting her bilge at another board, and couldn't resist responding, alas! This is a woman who actually buys the lie that vaccines cause autism. She latches on to every kook claim she can like a barnacle to a boat because it's only in Kookville that her idiot father could possibly be taken seriously. She lives in an elaborate fantasy world of her own construction, based on what Daddy told her. The only reason she opposes vaccines is because Lessans did, in his foolish pile of crap book. If Lessans had written that the world was flat, she'd be arguing that the world was flat.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's all that I'm saying. This IS a number's game. This discussion is only to point out that there is risk involved so when TLR says that children should be vaccinated because it is better to do so, he is not telling the whole truth. All he can say is that the majority of children seem to do okay with the new vaccine schedule.

This post does not appear to contain any evidence that TLR has claimed that, or "acted like", "vaccines are safe for every child".

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are completely out in left field Angakuk. All you do is criticize without ever asking a sincere question.

Actually, over the course of this thread I have asked numerous sincere questions. None of which have you answered to my satisfaction. Since you don't appear to have any adequate answers to my questions, it hardly seems worthwhile to continue asking questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's an interesting phenomenon to observe from an objective participant.

Who are you calling an "objective participant"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Damn it, this was in the goddam DICTIONARY.

Citation please.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Evil is doing something to someone that they do not want to be done to themselves. I do not want you to break into my home and steal from me. That is a hurt to me. I do not want someone to shoot me with a gun while I'm window shopping. That is a hurt to me. I do not want someone to jump a curve and kill me because they lost control with their car. That is a hurt to me. Is that enough, or do you need more?

I do not want to have the area behind my ears scrubbed. That is a hurt to me. Ouch! I said that hurts. You are an evil mommy!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the hell? If you didn't want your cavities filled, you wouldn't be sitting in the dentist's chair.

Peacegirl, I noticed that you took the time to respond to thedoc's joke about my question to you, but not to answer my question to you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

What a contemptible liar you are!

Exactly no one has ever suggested that an immunocompromised child should be exposed to live vaccines.

Of the children whose parents believe their child was harmed by a vaccine, I am wondering if they were immunocompromised, or whether they were exposed to a live vaccine? If that is the case, then identifying immunocompromised children should be a priority. If what you say is true, then that an inactivated vaccine combined with strong immune systems should eliminate any unexpected reactions.