A revolution in thought

[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 parents who 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 are saying is true, then an inactivated vaccine combined with a strong immune system should eliminate the problem, correct?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

Your reasoning is so far off Adam, it's getting absurd. If there was even the slightest possibility that someone could be hurt by a stray bullet, I would never allow my child to play with a powerful bb gun that is strong enough to penetrate an organ. This is not the same thing as saying no to a vaccine which involves my child's well-being.

[Spacemonkey]

Are you satisfied with having made no progress at all for yet another week, Peacegirl?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your reasoning is so far off Adam, it's getting absurd. If there was even the slightest possibility that someone could be hurt by a stray bullet, I would never allow my child to play with a powerful bb gun that is strong enough to penetrate an organ. This is not the same thing as saying no to a vaccine which involves my child's well-being.

What if there was even the slightest chance that your child could be a vector for a deadly disease that could kill or disable many someones?

[thedoc]

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.

Of course I don't "want" to sit in the dentist chair and have a filling or get my teeth cleaned, but I do it anyway because it's better that abscesses and root canals. If you actually sit in the dentist chair for a procedure because you 'want' to and enjoy it, you are sicker than I thought. How often do you schedule a visit? every week? You really are quite dishonest, and misrepresent what others say. But then you filter everything through your efforts to validate your fathers book and everything gets twisted away from reality.

"I'm not sick, I'm twisted. Sick makes it sound like there's a cure".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

What if there was even the slightest chance that your child could be a vector for a deadly disease that could kill or disable many someones?

If a child showed signs of a contagious illness, he would have to be isolated until he wasn't contagious anymore. You are assuming that only unvaccinated children can be vectors. You are not looking at the other side: the potential danger of too many vaccines. No one (not even the doctor) knows the short and long term complications that could occur in every case, so this argument will not motivate a parent to vaccinate if they are worried about the risks. This was already discussed.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...h-vaccine.aspx

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Of course I don't "want" to sit in the dentist chair and have a filling or get my teeth cleaned, but I do it anyway because it's better that abscesses and root canals.

You are completely lost. You don't want to sit in the dentist's chair but if you don't, you will have further problems with your teeth which you are trying to prevent. This is called the lesser of two evils and was explained in Chapter One.

[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.

I'm not convinced, and if I was a parent who had young children, this would be a concern. How can you guarantee that all adjuvants have no possibility of causing harm?

ADVERSE EFFECTS OF ADJUVANTS IN VACCINES by Viera Scheibner

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

Adam, my answers are not evasive. I am trying to help you understand why man's will is not free, but you seem to think I'm equivocating, which I'm not. The definition that he gives of free will is perfectly acceptable. I hope you don't jump on the anti-Lessans bandwagon too soon.

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.

Originally Posted by Adam

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

I can't even begin to list all of them. She asserts that Lessans' proof is a modal fallacy, which is false. That's just one of many.

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"

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

LadyShea asserts that it is a modal fallacy to say that a particular choice is necessary. According to her reasoning, the most you can say is that "I can or I will choose that", not "It is necessary that I choose that." Therefore, she negates his claim of determinism. Her reasoning is based on Swartz' effort to disprove determinism, which is flawed.

[Stephen Maturin]

This thread remains a source of valuable information. I'd never heard of Scopie's Law until just today.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

But there has to be a working definition. This definition is useful. It states that free will means you can choose evil over good or good over evil; that you have free agency which is independent of any preceding events or circumstances.

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.

But we're talking about a definition that is useful because it is accurate Adam. I am not handwaving anything away. We have to have a basis of communication, and this definition gives us that basis.

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.

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

I have. After thousands of posts, very few people even understand Chapter One, let alone Chapter Two. You fit into that category.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

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"?

Good is more difficult to define because what is good to someone might not be good to someone else (like the taste of certain foods; it's relative), but evil is used in one main context and that is when someone is being hurt by someone else without apparent justification. People who kill without any apparent reason are often said to be pure evil.

[peacegirl]

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.

He is arguing for vaccinations. Now he is excluding live vaccines and children who are immunocompromised. Everyone here seems to be of the opinion that the new vaccine schedule is safe. He stated that 36 injections before the age of two is nothing to be concerned about because children's immune systems handle hundreds of germs everyday.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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.

Who are you calling an "objective participant"?

Me, because I'm the underdog in here, and I see things that others seem to be blind to. This group bonding is a serious problem. No one here would contradict one of their buddies. I hardly ever see it happen.

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?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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!

The term "evil" refers to doing something to someone with the intent to do harm. A mother is doing what is best for her baby, until her baby can take responsibility for himself. Evil in the context of the book only means a hurt, and a hurt is something one does not want done to himself. That is a fair definition. He also explains that evil and good are relative terms. You should know a lot about this term. Why don't you give me the Bible definition and we'll see if we can work with it.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

p. 55 Then let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple
reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already
referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are
reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have
a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious
that he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what his
particular motion at any moment might be, or he has a choice and
then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled by his
nature to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction
whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good
over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free
because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered
that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is
right and wrong, not symbols of reality. The truth of the matter is
that the words good and evil can only have reference to what is a
benefit or a hurt to oneself. Killing someone may be good in
comparison to the evil of having that person kill me.

<snip>

Dog food is good to a starving man when the
other alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a
menu may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because
the other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more
is still considered worse under his particular circumstances. The law
of self-preservation demands that he do what he believes will help him
stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to get what
he needs to survive he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill and do any
number of things which he considers good for himself in comparison
to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn’t do these things.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not convinced, and if I was a parent who had young children, this would be a concern. How can you guarantee that all adjuvants have no possibility of causing harm?

Well, we sure as heck know what happens when you don't vaccinate.

Again, You Fail Statistics Forever.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Well, we sure as heck know what happens when you don't vaccinate.

Again, You Fail Statistics Forever.

I'll definitely read that to see where I fail. Whether the decision not to vaccinate is irrational in your opinion, you cannot force someone to take the risk if they don't want to. The purpose of this discussion has been forgotten. In the new world no doctor would feel comfortable telling a parent what to do. They would offer everything they know so the parent could make the decision. They would never persuade anyone what they should do in the event something should go wrong. I know I wouldn't want to carry that burden of responsibility on my head if my recommendation to vaccinate backfired, would you?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are completely lost. You don't want to sit in the dentist's chair but if you don't, you will have further problems with your teeth which you are trying to prevent. This is called the lesser of two evils and was explained in Chapter One.

So you agree that my Dentist and Dental Tech are only somewhat evil and not a major Evil?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'll definitely read that to see where I fail. Whether the decision not to vaccinate is irrational in your opinion, you cannot force someone to take the risk if they don't want to. The purpose of this discussion has been forgotten. In the new world no doctor would feel comfortable telling a parent what to do. They would offer everything they know so the parent could make the decision. They would never persuade anyone what they should do in the event something should go wrong. I know I wouldn't want to carry that burden of responsibility on my head if my recommendation to vaccinate backfired, would you?

Doctors in the new world will do exactly what they do now and give the parent all the relevant and accurate data and statistics they have, and none of the hysterical nonsense.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Please note that I have been quite busy in the past few weeks and I may have missed important additions to the tracker. Feel free to let me know what needs updating and I will amend the sheet.


Progress Tracking

Books sold: 0
People convinced: 0
Estimated date of revolution: unspecified time after we are all dead.
Number of Scientists confirming the book 0
Instances of empirical evidence supporting the book surfaced 0
Marriages saved 0
Reasons to believe conscience works as described in the book found 0
Proof-puddings eaten 0 puddings
Amount of crow eaten by detractors 0 crows
Sexy jackets and translucent robes sales uplift (Year on year) N/A

Forum-specific

Amount of times that PG said she will soon leave this forum: 0
Amount of times that PG left 0
People on ignore (name, date of ignore start) 1? Spacemonkey (some time before 16 sept, unconfirmed)
People with Agendas: 1 (TheDoc)
People who are out to discredit the book because of personal reasons :0
People driven by anger, hatred, confusion and resentment and who should be pitied: 1 (Maturin)
People who reject the book because of the authors lack of credentials 0
Names called (by name called)

1. Slimy ( Pgirl -> Vivisectus) 1

People who have ruined it for everyone 0
Instances of Peacegirl being unable to explain or support her point because of other people's attitude and/or psionic powers 1
Tyranny ITT 1
People Who Blew It: 2 (Adam, Spacemonkey)


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:

Posted on the freethought forum
Read stuff on the internet

Tracking 2 weeks of progress so far.

peacegirl's denial of all this...... priceless.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you verify that claim as factual? Can you point me to the evidence for that claim? My 7 year old child has been fully vaccinated and did not have nearly that many before age 2.

According to the 2013 CDC recommended schedule (PDF) there are 13 vaccinations before age 2 if you break apart the compounded MMR and DTaP. In addition to those 6 there is HepB, HepA, Varicella, IPV, PVC, Hib, and RV. 14 if you include a flu shot.

Are you counting each booster of the same stuff as a separate vaccine?

Bumping since you ignored it, but then made the claim again

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If a child showed signs of a contagious illness, he would have to be isolated until he wasn't contagious anymore.

That very well may be too late. With variable incubation periods, by the time symptoms appear someone may have been contagious for days already

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Me, because I'm the underdog in here, and I see things that others seem to be blind to. This group bonding is a serious problem. No one here would contradict one of their buddies. I hardly ever see it happen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The term "evil" refers to doing something to someone with the intent to do harm.

I see, this must be an evolving definition since "the intent to do harm" was not included in the definition you posted previously.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A mother is doing what is best for her baby, until her baby can take responsibility for himself.

According to your definition of evil is what Andrea Yates did to her children evil or not?

Originally Posted by Andrea Yates

"It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them, they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell."

She killed them to save them from going to hell. She was just trying to do what was best for her children. Isn't that what a loving mother should do?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I am glad you at least admit that the facts do not matter in the slightest to you.

Of course if you apply your point of view to other cases, then the same can be said for

1: Not-vaccinating children. I cannot say for sure that by not vaccinating a child, I will not cause it to contract polio and then spread the disease, for instance.

2: Providing your children with fire-arms as protection against bear attacks. You cannot say for sure bears will not eat my child if I do not arm it. So you cannot possibly be against arming children: this is to be left up to the parents, who are their child's best advocate.

The problem is, of course, that your reasoning is flawed. I do not need certainty about the outcome of something in order to advocate it, just like I do not need to know for sure that a bear will not eat my child. All I need to know is that the chance of my child shooting itself or others is much larger than the chance of bears eating it.

If I was a thoughtful person and cared about other people as well I might even understand that if more and more people arm their children, schools become progressively more dangerous places to go.

But no, alas! We must leave this up to individual parents. You see, we cannot say for sure that no children would be eaten by bears as a result of not being armed, so we have to be honest and admit this, or else we would never be able to live with ourselves if a child got eaten by bears.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not convinced, and if I was a parent who had young children, this would be a concern. How can you guarantee that all adjuvants have no possibility of causing harm?

ADVERSE EFFECTS OF ADJUVANTS IN VACCINES by Viera Scheibner

I can say I am not convinced about the wisdom of sending my child to school unarmed: it would still make it an immoral and criminally stupid thing to do.

How can you guarantee my child will not come to harm that could have been prevented by it being armed?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So you agree that my Dentist and Dental Tech are only somewhat evil and not a major Evil?

You are trying very hard to make this knowledge sound absurd, but the absurdity is with your thinking not with the knowledge. We're talking about a situation, not a person. The situation of getting my teeth cleaned is the lesser evil to me than not getting the work done. You are using the term evil incorrectly. No one is inherently evil, not even your dentist.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bumping since you ignored it, but then made the claim again

Here is the schedule.

Infants, Children, & Teens (birth - age 18) | Vaccines.gov

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If a child showed signs of a contagious illness, he would have to be isolated until he wasn't contagious anymore.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That very well may be too late. With variable incubation periods, by the time symptoms appear someone may have been contagious for days already

Maybe another child will catch whatever the other child was spreading, but it can be minimized by keeping the child home once the symptoms appear. There is no 100% guarantee, even with vaccinated children. Young children carry all kinds of germs especially in a closed environment like a daycare. They pick up what the other children have, but it seems to eventually build their immune systems. I did remove my kids from daycare because they developed strep throat even after two series of antibiotic treatments. I went to an naturopath and he put them on B propolis and a few other supplements which seemed to help. Whether it was the change in the daycare or the supplements, I don't know. All I know is that it was a relief when the strep finally cleared up.