A revolution in thought

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one is saying X has to happen. I just told you that you can rebuke this claim by saying I don't have to eat eggs for breakfast, I can if I want to, but I don't have to, therefore saying eating eggs is necessary is a modal fallacy, but this is a strawman because this in no way disproves the claim that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is his proof of determinism.

You're so close.

OK, first, no one is trying to "disprove...the claim that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction". As has been pointed out, that claim is just an obfuscatory way of saying that whatever we choose is what we choose. You get that, right? Can I get confirmation that you understand that no one is arguing that we do not "move in the direction of greater satisfaction" (i.e. choose whatever it is we choose)?

The fallacy lies in your (and Lessans') interpreting "I must have chosen whatever it is I chose" as being necessarily, rather than contingently, true. In other words, you're confusing, "If I have chosen X, then I must have chosen X" with "It must be the case that, if I have chosen X, I have chosen X."

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I'm telling you you are the one that is confused on this, not me.

Then refute the charge of modal fallacy instead of leaving it at telling me I am confused.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one is saying X has to happen.

I said "X had to have happened", which is your argument. You have stated it over and over and over again. That is where you commit the modal fallacy repeatedly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just told you that you can rebuke this claim by saying I don't have to eat eggs for breakfast, I can if I want to, but I don't have to, therefore saying eating eggs is necessary is a modal fallacy, but this is a strawman because this in no way disproves the claim that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is his proof of determinism.

When you say "Once eggs have been eaten it couldn't have been otherwise" you commit the modal fallacy. It could have been otherwise had another choice been made, it simply wasn't otherwise.

Do you understand the difference between "X happened" and "X had to have happened" yet?

Unless you can prove that egg eating was the necessary choice before it happened, you can't say it was necessary after it happened. That's the fallacy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A compulsion does exist

That's the assertion you have been asked to demonstrate or prove or offer evidence for, but are failing to demonstrate or prove or offer evidence for.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What? Where did this claim come from? What evidence do you have to support such a statement?

The results of our survey with 7724 participants show that unvaccinated children are far less affected by common diseases

New Survey Shows Unvaccinated Children Vastly Healthier – Far Lower Rates of Chronic Conditions and Autism | ________________Child Health Safety_________________

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are many limits to all kinds of choices as citizens, for community safety and a reasonably orderly society. If we want to utilize public spaces and systems, we have to live with the limitations, or live away from society, or find a society more to our liking.

But this restriction (which is based on hysteria than anything else) is like telling a gay child he can't join the Boy Scouts for community safety and an orderly society. Some restrictions are just meant to be broken.

[LadyShea]

The results of our survey with 7724 participants

A survey of self selected participants

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The results of our survey with 7724 participants show that unvaccinated children are far less affected by common diseases

New Survey Shows Unvaccinated Children Vastly Healthier – Far Lower Rates of Chronic Conditions and Autism | ________________Child Health Safety_________________

That survey () doesn't at all support your assertion that children today are in general weaker or sicker than previous generations. You would need a statistical comparison between previous generations rates of illness and current rates of illness.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Since there's no need to "fight" for an exemption, your qualifier does nothing to rescue the original claim of "force[d] vaccinations" of "every child" from its falsity.

To cite but one example, check out the immunization form for my state. Note that a parent or guardian can obtain an exemption for his or her child simply by claiming "adheren[ce] to a personal belief opposed to immunizations."

You're right, I should have qualified my statement.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Slowly but surely parent's rights will be given back to them, where it belongs.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Parents have virtually unfettered choice in the matter already, baseless anti-vax hysteria to the contrary notwithstanding.

We are seeing positive changes, thanks to the anti-vaccine movement.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

This issue almost makes me long for the Golden Age described in Lessans' book, where people will make up their own minds based on the best available scientific data and with an eye toward minimizing harm. In that sort of world, the anti-vax movement and other forms of quackery (together with purveyors thereof such as Natural News, Joe Mercola, AAPS, whale.to, etc.) will simply dry up and blow away for lack of interest.

To call the anti-vax movement quackery and leave it at that indicates to me that you don't have a strong defense. FYI, there won't be this kind of debate going on in the new world because doctors will be compelled to be honest with their patients that they really don't know if a vaccine could harm their child. As a reminder, I never talked about vaccines with my father.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But this restriction (which is based on hysteria than anything else) is like telling a gay child he can't join the Boy Scouts for community safety and an orderly society. Some restrictions are just meant to be broken.

Fear of community epidemics of infectious diseases that have killed billions throughout human history is not hysteria, and your Boy Scout analogy is so full of fail I can't even imagine how you made that leap. What does keeping a gay child out of Scouts have to do with community safety and what does it have to do with government imposed limits and restrictions? You are absurd.

A better analogy would be speed limits and traffic laws...we have restrictions on what we can legally do while driving cars. A better analogy would be smoking bans and restrictions; people can't smoke everywhere they want to. A better analogy would be safe food handling and storage laws for restaurants. If you don't want to live with these restrictions, you can choose not to drive, not to own or work at a restaurant, and not to visit or work anywhere where smoking bans are in place.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That survey () doesn't at all support your assertion that children today are in general weaker or sicker than previous generations. You would need a statistical comparison between previous generations rates of illness and current rates of illness.

This was an observation by a man in the early 1900's that you will probably discredit, just as you did my father.

“It is now 30 years since I have been confining myself to the treatment
of chronic diseases. During those 30 years I have run against so many
histories of little children who had never seen a sick day until they were
vaccinated and who, in the several years that have followed, have never
seen a well day since. I couldn’t put my finger on the disease they have.
They just weren’t strong. Their resistance was gone. They were perfectly
well before they were vaccinated. They have never been well since.” — Dr.
William Howard Hay

It is a sad commentary on the state of the public health that so many American children are so sick and there are still so many gaps in scientific knowledge about the ways that vaccines act in the human body to stimulate long term immunity or cause injury and death. The stubborn reluctance of government, industry and medicine to acknowledge the validity of reports by parents that children are getting sicker not healthier, despite using so many vaccines, may turn out to be the greatest medical scandal and human tragedy of the past century.

Vaccine Awakening: Chronic Illness Epidemic: Unvaccinated Children Healthier

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I can see that indeed it has not helped.

by the way, this

is just another way of saying "Once the dart is thrown, it has been thrown".

That does not mean the same thing. It means that the choice to throw the dart could not have been otherwise at that moment in time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Once again your own link makes my case for me. First off, that broadcast is from Australia.

secondly, no-one is forced to vaccinate. You can opt out. Juts because you have to fill out a form in order to be an idiot does not a prosecution make.

thirdly, let us examine what else fairdinkum radio believes. Can it be? Why yes it is:



I wonder, in the new world, will sites like this exist? Or will they not be able to justify putting up info like this because they are not 100% sure? They sure seem sure to me...

I thought you were a free thinker? Isn't that this site is promoting? This radio show brainstorms all kinds of solutions to all kinds of problems. They are not dogmatists who are trying to sway the public in any underhanded way. They are putting out new ideas to be analyzed. We cannot make progress if every idea is thrown out and made fun of just because you think some of their ideas are untenable.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This was an observation by a man in the early 1900's that you will probably discredit, just as you did my father.

“It is now 30 years since I have been confining myself to the treatment
of chronic diseases. During those 30 years I have run against so many
histories of little children who had never seen a sick day until they were
vaccinated and who, in the several years that have followed, have never
seen a well day since. I couldn’t put my finger on the disease they have.
They just weren’t strong. Their resistance was gone. They were perfectly
well before they were vaccinated. They have never been well since.” — Dr.
William Howard Hay

It is a sad commentary on the state of the public health that so many American children are so sick and there are still so many gaps in scientific knowledge about the ways that vaccines act in the human body to stimulate long term immunity or cause injury and death. The stubborn reluctance of government, industry and medicine to acknowledge the validity of reports by parents that children are getting sicker not healthier, despite using so many vaccines, may turn out to be the greatest medical scandal and human tragedy of the past century.

Vaccine Awakening: Chronic Illness Epidemic: Unvaccinated Children Healthier

Still nothing to do with your claim that previous generations were stronger and healthier. Do you plan to support it or not?

My vaccinated son has been much healthier overall than my neighbors unvaccinated son of the same age. Does my experienced anecdotal evidence trump the anecdotes you have offered?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Still nothing to do with your claim. Do you plan to support it or not?

My vaccinated son has been much healthier overall than my neighbors unvaccinated son of the same age. Does my experienced anecdotal evidence trump the anecdotes you have offered?

No, it doesn't trump the observations and the surveys that were done, but it does suggest a correlation between vaccine administration and immunological problems in a subset of children.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it doesn't trump the observations and the surveys that were done, but it does suggest a correlation between vaccine administration and immunological problems in a subset of children.

What? My vaccinated child is healthier than a neighbor's unvaccinated child! How does that suggest that correlation?

I think it is proof positive that unvaccinated children are not as healthy! If I completed an anonymous and uncontrolled survey online, would you then accept my rock solid evidence that vaccinated children are healthier?

[Vivisectus]

I thought you were a free thinker? Isn't that this site is promoting? This radio show brainstorms all kinds of solutions to all kinds of problems. They are not dogmatists who are trying to sway the public in any underhanded way. They are putting out new ideas to be analyzed. We cannot make progress if every idea is thrown out and made fun of just because you think some of their ideas are untenable.

They are just another kind of flat earthers, PG. Look at the things they believe, and how they support it.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

by the way, this

is just another way of saying "Once the dart is thrown, it has been thrown".

[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

That does not mean the same thing. It means that the choice to throw the dart could not have been otherwise at that moment in time.

Modal fallacy: you are mistakenly assuming that the fact that the result is a certain way constitutes proof that it could not have been otherwise. It does not get much more classic.

You have not shown that it could not have been otherwise. You have merely shown that the result is a certain thing.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The results of our survey with 7724 participants show that unvaccinated children are far less affected by common diseases

Most likely because they were around vaccinated children who did not have these diseases, and lack of exposure to a sick person would account for the absence of children getting the diseases. People don't contract a disease spontaneously without some contact or exposure to another person who has that disease.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

You're so close.

OK, first, no one is trying to "disprove...the claim that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction". As has been pointed out, that claim is just an obfuscatory way of saying that whatever we choose is what we choose. You get that, right? Can I get confirmation that you understand that no one is arguing that we do not "move in the direction of greater satisfaction" (i.e. choose whatever it is we choose)?

Only if I get confirmation that whatever we choose could not have been otherwise since any other choice at that moment would have been less satisfying in comparison. This is not an obfuscatory statement.

Originally Posted by Adam

The fallacy lies in your (and Lessans') interpreting "I must have chosen whatever it is I chose" as being necessarily, rather than contingently, true. In other words, you're confusing, "If I have chosen X, then I must have chosen X" with "It must be the case that, if I have chosen X, I have chosen X."

No Adam, you are doing what LadyShea does. You are asserting that Lessans is wrong because you don't understand that this is a strawman. No one is saying that before a choice is made it is necessarily true that the person has to eat eggs for breakfast. It is only necessarily true that he is considering two or more options. We cannot predict with absolute certainty what choice a person will make. Choice is contingent upon present and antecedent factors that may only be known to the person doing the choosing. There is no prediction that can be made that is absolute because no one knows all the factors involved in a person's choice, but this is, again, a strawman because he is not defining determinism as being able to predict in advance what someone's choice will be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Most likely because they were around vaccinated children who did not have these diseases, and lack of exposure to a sick person would account for the absence of children getting the diseases. People don't contract a disease spontaneously without some contact or exposure to another person who has that disease.

What you don't seem to be taking into consideration is the possibility that all of these accumulated toxins in certain vulnerable children could cause a tipping point that could render a child constitutionally weaker and sicker. No researcher or scientist, if they are honest with themselves, could say with absolute certainty that this could not happen, therefore it's up to the parents to make a calculated risk on behalf of their child as to what is the safer route to take.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What? My vaccinated child is healthier than a neighbor's unvaccinated child! How does that suggest that correlation?

I think it is proof positive that unvaccinated children are not as healthy! If I completed an anonymous and uncontrolled survey online, would you then accept my rock solid evidence that vaccinated children are healthier?

Your child may be one of the lucky ones whose immune system was not already in a predisposed state. You cannot speak for all children.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

That does not mean the same thing. It means that the choice to throw the dart could not have been otherwise at that moment in time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Modal fallacy: you are mistakenly assuming that the fact that the result is a certain way constitutes proof that it could not have been otherwise. It does not get much more classic.

Modal fallacy, my foot. I am not mistakenly assuming anything. The fact that the result is a certain way is not his proof, so to say that this is his proof is completely fallacious.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You have not shown that it could not have been otherwise. You have merely shown that the result is a certain thing.

If you understood the law of greater satisfaction (which you obviously don't Vivisectus), you would know that anytime there are two or more choices where there is a preferable difference, a person is compelled to pick the choice that is most preferred, not the choice that is least preferred. This is an inviolable law.

[peacegirl]

This is poignant. Please pass this on!

People Should Know About This Awful Thing We Do, And Most Of Us Are Simply Unaware

[LadyShea]

Only if I get confirmation that whatever we choose could not have been otherwise since any other choice at that moment would have been less satisfying in comparison

The problem is I am not convinced by Lessans reasoning as it is fallacious and tautological, so how can I confirm that I agree with it?

[LadyShea]

No Adam, you are doing what LadyShea does. You are asserting that Lessans is wrong because you don't understand that this is a strawman. No one is saying that before a choice is made it is necessarily true that the person has to eat eggs for breakfast. It is only necessarily true that he is considering two or more options. We cannot predict with absolute certainty what choice a person will make. Choice is contingent upon present and antecedent factors that may only be known to the person doing the choosing. There is no prediction that can be made that is absolute because no one knows all the factors involved in a person's choice, but this is, again, a strawman because he is not defining determinism as being able to predict in advance what someone's choice will be.

You are committing a fallacy when you say after the fact that it could not have been otherwise. It could have been otherwise if another choice had been made. If X is not a necessary choice before it is never necessary. It can't become necessary at some later time. If something is contingent it is always contingent.

Person had a choice between X and Y
X was chosen

That's it, you can't say that X was chosen necessarily or that X must have been chosen or that it could not have been that Y was chosen unless you are using fallacious reasoning. That there are reasons X was chosen doesn't make it necessary.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your child may be one of the lucky ones whose immune system was not already in a predisposed state. You cannot speak for all children.

Neither can you say that this generation of children is in general weaker or sicker than previous generations unless you can back that up with some facts. And neither can those who answered an online survey speak for anyone but their own children. It doesn't matter how many people offer anecdotes, it isn't evidence of anything without hard data and valid statistics. I was making a point, you see. Of course my and my neighbor's children are not proof of anything.

So, do you plan to support your assertion that today's generation is in general weaker and sicker than previous generations, or do you retract it?