A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In this thread: Geography: Nether Regions - Freethought Forum they are discussing measles outbreaks in The Netherlands, which are directly correlated to low vaccination rates due to religious beliefs.

Recently in Texas, a church that promotes faith over medicine, and therefore has low vaccinations rates, has been the epicenter measles outbreak as well.

So the unvaccinated can absolutely be blamed for outbreaks.

Bump

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does that rebuttal relate or apply to the charge of Modal Fallacy made against Lessans' argument?

It wasn't meant to; it was to show that there are other ways to look at this argument. Making the assertion that Lessans' claim of no free will is a modal fallacy based on Swartz's analysis, is a very superficial way of looking at this issue, just like saying will is free because nothing is stopping us from choosing A or B, is a very superficial way of looking at it. It takes a deeper analysis than that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a risk in either case. Again, I am not saying that vaccines are all bad. I am saying no doctor in the new world would tell a parent that it is perfectly safe; he would give the statistics and leave it up to the parent.

The scenario I offered assumes the new world is in full swing. The parents chose not to vaccinate as per the conditions you have stated.

If an infant should get infected as a result of a child that was unvaccinated, it would be just as unfortunate as a child who was vaccinated and became seriously ill or died.

Yes it would be unfortunate, but the death of someone else's child would be the responsibility of the parents that chose not to vaccinate in this case. How would their conscience deal with that in the new world? How would the "first blow" be ascertained in the New World in such a scenario?


*FYI no doctor tells parents that any vaccine is "perfectly safe" in this world.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It wasn't meant to; it was just to show that there are other ways to look at this concept, which at first glance you made the assertion based on this concept alone, that it disproved Lessans' claim.

You have been asked to refute the charge of modal fallacy in Lessans argument many, many times and have never done so. You simply assert that there is no modal fallacy.

Now you bring up a rebuttal of the modal fallacy as it relates to theology via Foreknowledge, for no reason whatsoever. Nobody is using the Foreknowledge or Omniscience scenario in this thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

There probably is a correlation, but children who are vaccinated are not always protected either, so an outbreak could occur even though children have been vaccinated. Barbara Loe Fisher points this out in her second or third video. I am not telling anyone what to do because I don't want that responsibility; if you want to vaccinate your child, you should have that right. But so should every parent have the right to do what they feel is best, and they will be given that right in the new world since no doctor or institution would assume this responsibility.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...exemption.aspx

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...interview.aspx

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There probably is a correlation, but children who are vaccinated are not always protected either, so an outbreak could occur even though children have been vaccinated

But outbreaks don't occur in areas with high vaccination rates. Individual and isolated cases, sure, but not outbreaks.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have been asked to refute the charge of modal fallacy in Lessans argument many, many times and have never done so. You simply assert that there is no modal fallacy.

Now you bring up a rebuttal of the modal fallacy as it relates to theology via Foreknowledge, for no reason whatsoever. Nobody is using the Foreknowledge or Omniscience scenario in this thread.

I only gave that link to show that Swartz's modal fallacy has opposition, not that the opposition is necessarily the answer. I have explained to you why Lessans' claim is not a modal fallacy. You either aren't listening carefully or it isn't penetrating because you have your mind made up. Every single moment of time we are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction (out of necessity), which means that talking about "before a choice is made as actual and after a choice is made as necessary" is an artificial construct with no validity whatsoever.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe he could use this as a justification in this world, but he could not use this as a justification in the new world. Can you imagine how he would feel if a child died after convincing the parents to get him the vaccine, knowing that no one was going to question him in any way, while seeing the parents suffer as a direct result of his recommendation?

If they can figure this out, then they can give 100% guarantees. Until then, no doctor would be able to use the justification that a few children lost in favor of the majority is okay. The most he would be able to do is give the pros and cons of the vaccine based on the latest information, but he would never tell a parent what is best because he would not want to be responsible for a child's injury or death if something should go wrong.

It seems that now, and for the foreseeable future, no doctor will be able to give 100% assurance of anything, but they can say that there is less chance of illness with the vaccine than without.

A good doctor would feel the same now as they would in Lessans new world, the only difference is that they're may be the possibility of legal complications in the world as we now know it. And it seems that this would offer more incentive to be cautious now than in the new world, especially with the possibility of malpractice as a major factor in most doctors considerations.

Doctors today give the pro's and con's of everything based on the latest information available, and doctors are in a better position to have access to this information than the patient. Doctors are constantly reviewing studies and information on the area of medicine they practice. Peacegirl if you had been to a doctor of any kind in the last 30 years you would know this, unless when you do go, you are willfully ignorant of what is occurring.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But outbreaks don't occur in areas with high vaccination rates. Individual and isolated cases, sure, but not outbreaks.

Does it mention how many deaths occurred with these outbreaks?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What of the parents that choose against vaccinations, then their child becomes sick with a vaccine preventable disease and infects the neighbors infant, that was too young to be vaccinated. Both children die. How will those parents feel in the New World knowing that their decision led to the deaths of their own child and someone else's?

According to Lessans and Peacegirl, the parent in question would chalk it up to God's will, and go on as if nothing would happen, remove the blame and justification, and there is less possibility for remorse.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Does it mention how many deaths occurred with these outbreaks?

I don't know, why is that important? Hospitalization is sometimes required, as well as there are often non-fatal complications.

Measles outbreaks in the 21st century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It seems that now, and for the foreseeable future, no doctor will be able to give 100% assurance of anything, but they can say that there is less chance of illness with the vaccine than without.

A good doctor would feel the same now as they would in Lessans new world, the only difference is that they're may be the possibility of legal complications in the world as we now know it. And it seems that this would offer more incentive to be cautious now than in the new world, especially with the possibility of malpractice as a major factor in most doctors considerations.

Doctors today give the pro's and con's of everything based on the latest information available, and doctors are in a better position to have access to this information than the patient. Doctors are constantly reviewing studies and information on the area of medicine they practice. Peacegirl if you had been to a doctor of any kind in the last 30 years you would know this, unless when you do go, you are willfully ignorant of what is occurring.

The only difference is that the doctor in the new world will let the parent make the final decision without persuasion. He will lay out the most up-to-date facts and let the parents decide. Today a parent is made to feel guilty if he doesn't go along with the doctor's recommendation and the state accuses the parent of negligence unless he can get an exemption.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't know, why is that important? Hospitalization is sometimes required, as well as there are often non-fatal complications.

Measles outbreaks in the 21st century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was trying to see how many children died as a result of not being vaccinated with children who were. I got the measles as a child.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not proven that un-vaccinated children cause other children to be at risk. If there is no chance that a child can be injured from a vaccine, most parents would not have a problem with it. The problem is that there is no guarantee. Parents are not purposely trying to be obstinate. They just want to be able to make an informed choice, which is their right.

It is also not proven that certain herbicides and pesticides cause Lymphoma but it seems that there is a preponderance of cases that occur in people who regularly handle these materials. There are currently no guarantee of much of anything but there is a greater amount of evidence that vaccination is of more benefit that risk.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a risk in either case. Again, I am not saying that vaccines are all bad. I am saying no doctor in the new world would tell a parent that it is perfectly safe; he would give the statistics and leave it up to the parent. If an infant should get infected as a result of a child that was unvaccinated, it would be just as unfortunate as a child who was vaccinated and became seriously ill or died.

No doctor in this world assures a parent that a vaccine is perfectly safe, there are always risks that are pointed out in anything in medicine, your opinion is about 30 years, or more, out of date Peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't know, why is that important? Hospitalization is sometimes required, as well as there are often non-fatal complications.

Measles outbreaks in the 21st century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was trying to see how many children died as a result of not being vaccinated with children who were. I got the measles as a child.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was trying to see how many children died as a result of not being vaccinated with children who were. I got the measles as a child.

Are deaths the only criteria to judge the effectiveness of a vaccine? What about the number of nonlethal cases in an area of low vaccination compared to an area of high vaccination. If there are 20 times more cases, there are 20 times more risk of death, even if those deaths do not occur. As usual you and Lessans try to use the extremes to justify the means and it doesn't work that way.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that the doctor in the new world will let the parent make the final decision without persuasion. He will lay out the most up-to-date facts and let the parents decide. Today a parent is made to feel guilty if he doesn't go along with the doctor's recommendation and the state accuses the parent of negligence unless he can get an exemption.

It seems that in your new world the doctor would present the statistics with an air of "I really don't give a shit what you do with your little brat, just don't try to blame it on me". Personally I wouldn't consult a doctor with an attitude like that, and I don't, nor do I consult a doctor that has an air of superiority.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was trying to see how many children died as a result of not being vaccinated with children who were. I got the measles as a child.

In all of the outbreaks, the vast majority of children who became ill were not vaccinated, either by parental choice or due to being too young.

Here are the stats on measles complications

About 30% of measles cases develop one or more complications, including

Pneumonia, which is the complication that is most often the cause of death in young children.
Ear infections occur in about 1 in 10 measles cases and permanent loss of hearing can result.
Diarrhea is reported in about 8% of cases.

These complications are more common among children under 5 years of age and adults over 20 years old.

Even in previously healthy children, measles can be a serious illness requiring hospitalization. As many as 1 out of every 20 children with measles gets pneumonia, and about 1 child in every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis. (This is an inflammation of the brain that can lead to convulsions, and can leave the child deaf or mentally retarded.) For every 1,000 children who get measles, 1 or 2 will die from it. Measles also can make a pregnant woman have a miscarriage, give birth prematurely, or have a low-birth-weight baby.

You had measles as a child, fortunately without any complications, and hopefully without infecting someone else that did have complications, I didn't have measles....most likely because I was vaccinated against it. I had chickenpox as a child, fortunately without serious immediate complications and my mom took transmission prevention very seriously so hopefully I didn't infect anyone. But, now I must live with the possibility of shingles and risk of severe shingles with severe complications. My son is vaccinated against chickenpox and won't have to deal with the lifelong risks of having that virus.

There are risks no matter which way you go, however with some decisions you are risking others as well as yourself and your child. If you have no problem with that, or that is not a factor in your contemplation then you don't have the same ethical values that I have.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It wasn't meant to; it was to show that there are other ways to look at this argument. Making the assertion that Lessans' claim of no free will is a modal fallacy based on Swartz's analysis, is a very superficial way of looking at this issue, just like saying will is free because nothing is stopping us from choosing A or B, is a very superficial way of looking at it. It takes a deeper analysis than that.

Um, the Swartz article being rebutted wasn't the Swartz analysis of the modal fallacy that was posted in support of the charge of modal fallacy against Lessans. The above rebuttal and original article was specifically about Foreknowledge as it relates to free will.

In other words, it doesn't apply to this thread at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a risk in either case. Again, I am not saying that vaccines are all bad. I am saying no doctor in the new world would tell a parent that it is perfectly safe; he would give the statistics and leave it up to the parent.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The scenario I offered assumes the new world is in full swing. The parents chose not to vaccinate as per the conditions you have stated.

If an infant should get infected as a result of a child that was unvaccinated, it would be just as unfortunate as a child who was vaccinated and became seriously ill or died.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes it would be unfortunate, but the death of someone else's child would be the responsibility of the parents that chose not to vaccinate in this case.

You must always bear in mind that preserving one's own child comes first. That's just human nature. So the argument that it would be the responsibility of the parents that chose not to vaccinate is flawed. Obviously if another child caught an illness from their child, they would feel bad but to hold them responsible for murder is wrong. This website is actually in favor of vaccines, and she makes some very good points. In the new world all of these facts would be brought out so the parent could make an informed choice. You have to remember that the vaccine schedule is constantly changing, so that the benefit/risk analysis has to be reevaluated as well. The second link (which I gave earlier) offers a different point of view as far as the potential risks. I think both sides of this debate should have an opportunity to be heard.

The worst misconceptions parents of some unvaccinated children hold » The Vaccine Times

ADVERSE EFFECTS OF ADJUVANTS IN VACCINES by Viera Scheibner

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How would their conscience deal with that in the new world? How would the "first blow" be ascertained in the New World in such a scenario?

This would not be a first blow because the mother who is not vaccinating her child is not doing anything to another intentionally or to gain at someone else's expense, which is the definition of first blow.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

*FYI no doctor tells parents that any vaccine is "perfectly safe" in this world.

That is true, but their opinions hold a lot weight, which is the same thing as using their position to tell a parent in so many words that they should get the vaccine. They would not want to do this, although they would give the parent the information so they can come to their own decision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, the Swartz article being rebutted wasn't the Swartz analysis of the modal fallacy that was posted in support of the charge of modal fallacy against Lessans. The above rebuttal and original article was specifically about Foreknowledge as it relates to free will.

In other words, it doesn't apply to this thread at all.

I already agreed with you, but I brought it up just to show that not everyone agrees with Swartz's reasoning in defense of free will using the modal fallacy argument.

[Spacemonkey]

How goes the marketing, Peacegirl? Started yet? Perhaps best to wait another decade or so then? Or maybe resubmit the book again?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already agreed with you, but I brought it up just to show that not everyone agrees with Swartz's reasoning in defense of free using using the modal fallacy argument.

No, you brought it up because someone asked you to explain the modal fallacy, and you couldn't do it. So you posted the irrelevant results of a Google search instead.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Anyroad - hows the book-marketing? Last time I checked, the situation was as follows:

Results:

Books sold: 0
People convinced: 0
Estimated date of revolution: unspecified time after we are all dead.
Amount of crow eaten by detractors: 0 crows.

Enablers:

Meaningful changes made to marketing approach: 0
Meaningful changes made to website: 0
Skills acquired to market book: 0
Time spent acquiring relevant skills: 0
Time spent on relevant tasks: 0

Tasks achieved this week:

Read some stuff on the internet
Posted on the freethought forum about how I am not talking to people anymore and how they are all biased.

So, whats changed this week?

Time for a progress report, Peacegirl!