A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it hasn't Spacemonkey.

This is why you need to take your own advice and take a good look in the mirror. You really seem to have no conception of how poorly you have behaved throughout this thread.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said in the early days of this thread when I felt backed into a corner I may have weaseled, but I have no reason to now.

What's with this "may have" crap? Even now you can't be honest about how you have behaved. And of course you still have reason to weasel. You shouldn't, but you will. As soon as I ask you anything about light and vision you will immediately begin weaseling again, because you know full well that you can't make any more sense of it than we can.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is your motive Spacemonkey? To prove to everyone that I don't know how to do research, and therefore could not know whether Lessans has a discovery or not?

Motive fallacy. No, I'm not using it against Lessans. Everyone but you is already quite satisfied that he has been refuted already. The point is that you don't know how to do proper research, and that this is another area where you could seek to improve your behaviour. You could learn how to research.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You told me I was weaseling because I didn't give a straight answer as to autism going up, down, or remaining steady. I was not weaseling Spacemonkey, so stop accusing me of this in every single post.

You're changing the subject. I was talking about your past weaseling, explaining that it has not worked for you at all, and is not something you should be trying to justify.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, he would have wanted people to scientifically test his claim. He was not against this.

Now you're weaseling again. Who asked you anything about people testing his claim? I sure didn't. My question was about your inconsistency. You're unreasonably claiming that his inability to explain phenomena that the current account can explain shouldn't count against him in any way, whereas you would not accept us saying the same if the situation were reversed - you would not accept our inability to explain something his account could explain being rejected as not counting against us.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you do not seem to understand that traveling photons, which involves time, does not make this account impossible. Metaphors were used to help you to see what it is I'm talking about. I'm trying to make it easier to grasp. By virtue of the fact that the object can be seen automatically puts the light at the eye or camera. There is no time involved, although light travels which I never denied.

None of this even addresses the problem. None of it helps at all to make efferent vision any less contradictory. Facts can't put light anywhere. If light is to be in any given position, then it must be possible to explain how it got to be there. You can't do that. At all. Ever. Whenever you try you end up blatantly contradicting yourself and then weaseling out of addressing your inconsistency. This is because the contradictions are irreconcilable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First off, scientists cannot assume that the afferent account is correct. In order for the tests to be accurate, there can be no bias in either direction. There are experiments that can be done on Earth that can help to determine whether his claim holds any weight.

Scientists don't just assume that afferent vision is correct. They conclude this on the basis of mountains of consilient evidence. And while no experiment can ever be entirely free of bias, you've never shown bias to be a significant problem in any of the evidence disproving efferent vision. So where does that leave us? I was asking you for standards we could use in place of those you are objecting to. Apparently you require us to reject any evidence where bias is possible even if unidentified. That would mean rejecting any and all evidence, including any future evidence that might support Lessans. Or, if we require problematic bias to actually be identified, then we still get to keep all the evidence presently amassed against him for which you have not shown any problematic bias.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I still say that the fact dogs cannot identify their loving masters from a picture...

That is still neither a fact nor relevant to the mechanism of vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you're wrong here as well. Your reasoning in favor of compatibilism is a nice concept. It's just not accurate. Determinism is incompatible with any kind of free will concept (the kind compatibilism uses) except as a useful definition that justifies blame and punishment. It is useful because without it, people in our society would get away with murder. I get it, but there is a better alternative and you won't listen.

No, you don't get it. You still haven't learnt even the most basic concepts involved in this discussion. Determinism is by definition not incompatible with compatibilist free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe if I had thought it through I would have answered differently, but I know how people judge based on extraneous things, and I didn't want people to judge me before we even got started. I understand that they judged me for weaseling and that I was better off being honest, but it's too late. We can't go back in time.

Thank you. That is the admission that I've been looking for. You have weaseled and it was not a good thing to do. That means you have had opportunity to identify behaviour in this thread that you could improve upon.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can paraphrase the gist of a study...

No, I don't think you can.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My last cut and paste was a commentary. It was not a scientific study.

So? That doesn't mean you shouldn't make any attempt to verify its claims. What measures have you taken to verify the accuracy of your last cut and paste that was a study?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to understand the studies that have concluded there is no correlation between autism and mercury, or chronic illness and the number and frequency of the latest vaccine schedule. Scientists, toxicologists, et al are questioning the credibility and reliability of these studies.

You're making things up again. Which specific studies are you talking about? And who exactly are these scientists and toxicologists you claim are questioning them? Give specific studies and specific people.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are tens of thousands of kids who were born after thimerosal was removed, so could not have been vaccinated before that. You should be able to look at autism stats for kids born after 2003 in the US to see if the rates are increasing, decreasing, or staying steady...right?

I made a serious mistake. There are 10's of millions of kids born in the US after 2002. That should be more than enough kids to work with on autism stats post thimerosal

2003 4,089,950
2004 4,112,052
2005 4,138,349
2006 4,265,555
2007 4,316,233
2008 4,247,000
2009 4,131,019
2010 3,999,386
2011 3,953,593
2012 3,958,000

[LadyShea]

Asthma might be linked to Tylenol!!!

10 Reasons Asthma Rates are Still Rising - Asthma

Studies have shown inflamed cells have a low level of this protein, and people who take acetominophen have 40 to 60 percent greater risk of having asthma and allergies.

Acetaminophen and Asthma - Understanding the Facts - Risks - Asthma

What Dr. FitzGerald found was that people who took acetaminophen seemed to be 1.6 times as likely to develop asthma. Even children whose mothers took Tylenol when pregnant had 1.3 times more risk of getting asthma. Kids who took high doses of asthma were 3 times as likely to develop asthma.

Oh wait, it was likely a correlation/causation error due to being observational rather than experimental. Why does that sound familiar :hmm:

When they separated the children into groups, based on their exposure to analgesics in their first year of life, the researchers found that those with the highest exposure had a greater likelihood of developing asthma by age 7, a result consistent with earlier reports. But once they adjusted their findings to take into account the occurrence of very early respiratory infections, they found that the association between pain relievers and asthma diminished.

Much of the research linking pain relievers to asthma comes from observational studies, which are limited by a problem known as confounding by indication, in which the symptoms of an underlying disorder can be mistakenly considered a side effect of treatment. In this case, mothers whose children develop fevers stemming from pneumonia, bronchitis and other viral infections are more likely to end up reaching for a bottle of Tylenol or Advil. To researchers who do not take these respiratory infections into account, it can look as if the drugs themselves are involved in the development of asthma, when in fact the underlying infections were the problem. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0...dy-finds/?_r=0

Luckily I think Tylenol is no better than doing nothing, so we don't use the scary poison.

[peacegirl]

If autism actually went up after thimerosal was removed completely, I would still have to know whether the children had been previously vaccinated before the mercury was removed and if this was used in the study as proof that thimerosal wasn't involved. I would not say one way or the other with confidence until I know whether the studies are reliable because what they are finding is that the studies themselves are biased.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are tens of thousands of kids who were born after thimerosal was removed, so could not have been vaccinated before that. You should be able to look at autism stats for kids born after 2003 in the US to see if the rates are increasing, decreasing, or staying steady...right? You don't even have to look at "official" stats...see what the autism activist parents are saying if you prefer (Autism Speaks, Generation Rescue). Also, other countries have completely different health care systems, so might not have the same political and monetary pressures you feel are corrupting all of our scientists, so look for stats elsewhere too.

Even take the mercury question out of it completely, and simply answer whether autism rates are increasing, decreasing, or staying steady based on your research.

You are the one that has been arguing that we are experiencing an unprecedented epidemic of "chronic issues" in children that might be related to vaccines, yet you are weaseling away from even naming these issues and exploring them individually. How can you know if vaccines are involved if you don't even know the exact condition you are researching or if it is a problem at all? Is autism one of them?

All I can do is offer the contradictory reports and you can make up your mind who is lying and who is telling the truth. I am not here to promote one way or the other. It's up to each individual to make their own decision but just know that mandating a vaccine that could have deleterious effects on even one child is unethical and no doctor in the new world would want to assume this responsibility, which is why the decision to vaccinate will be left to the parent's discretion after learning the true benefit/risk ratio.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...just know that mandating a vaccine that could have deleterious effects on even one child is unethical...

Why? Do you also think that it is unethical to mandate the use of seatbelts if they could have harmful effects on even one child? Do you think the use of seatbelts should also be left up to the parents' discretion?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Asthma might be linked to Tylenol!!!

10 Reasons Asthma Rates are Still Rising - Asthma

Acetaminophen and Asthma - Understanding the Facts - Risks - Asthma

Oh wait, it was likely a correlation/causation error due to being observational rather than experimental. Why does that sound familiar :hmm:

Luckily I think Tylenol is no better than doing nothing, so we don't use the scary poison.

I agree that there can be mistakes made and correlations can be wrong, but I'm trying to look at the overall picture to see if there are causal mechanisms that are not easily identified due to the complex processes involved once the cascade of chemical reactions due to the vaccine, occur.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why? Do you also think that it is unethical to mandate the use of seatbelts if they could have harmful effects on even one child? Do you think the use of seatbelts should also be left up to the parents' discretion?

In the new world there won't be a need for seatbelts because there won't be aggressive drivers who would take risks that could injure others. Once again, if you want to compare apples to apples, it is the parent who will be making these decisions because there will not be authority figures overriding a parent's judgment in these situations. If a parent believes that seatbelts provide a measure of safety they would buy cars with seatbelts, but this is no one else's business. Of course you don't understand this because you never got past page 50 in the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This is the point that needs to be explained for Efferent vision to even be considered. Light travels at a finite speed, that everyone agrees on. But you claim that in Efferent vision the image of an object is at the eye without any time passing from the time the photons are at the object till the image (apparently photons) are at the retina. This point must be explained in a way that can be tested and proven. So to support Efferent vision, you need to come up with some testable hypothesis to do so.

I said that if the object is large enough and bright enough (such as the example of the Sun being turned on), we would be able to see the Sun when it is first ignited for this very reason. In this account we are not receiving the image from the light itself, which would involve time; we are seeing the object because it is within our visual range and because it meets the requirements that would allow the object to be seen.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I know what I"m writing. Just because he's not running for office doesn't mean he isn't part and parcel of the political system that appointed him. Don't you think he knows what the conservative party expects (which is to answer conservatively and in keeping with the times), and don't you think this has an effect on his decision?

Hilarious! Keep this going peacegirl, it's great. Tell me more about how high court judges in the UK are appointed, and why it's far more sensible to assume he's part of a ruling class conspiracy than that your nutty crackpot sources are nutty crackpots.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not perpetuating lies Dragar. If anything, I'm promoting what many toxicologists and biochemists are already aware of; that vaccines are not as safe as government claims they are.

You idiot. The government doesn't claim anything; doctors are the ones who make the claims of safety. You think the frootloops out there are divine oracles of information, while ignoring every other medical professional that disagrees with you (the vast, vast majority).

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I can do is offer the contradictory reports and you can make up your mind who is lying and who is telling the truth. I am not here to promote one way or the other. It's up to each individual to make their own decision but just know that mandating a vaccine that could have deleterious effects on even one child is unethical and no doctor in the new world would want to assume this responsibility, which is why the decision to vaccinate will be left to the parent's discretion after learning the true benefit/risk ratio.

Current big time weaseling noted.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree that there can be mistakes made and correlations can be wrong, but I'm trying to look at the overall picture to see if there are causal mechanisms that are not easily identified due to the complex processes involved once the cascade effect commences.

What makes you think you'll be able to spot causal mechanisms amongst the complexities since you haven't yet demonstrated that there is a problem at all, let alone identified and quantified the problem that is allegedly being caused?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the new world there won't be a need for seatbelts because there won't be aggressive drivers who would take risks that could injure others. Once again, if you want to compare apples to apples, it is the parent who will be making these decisions because there will not be authority figures overriding a parent's judgment in these situations. If a parent believes that seatbelts provide a measure of safety they would buy cars with seatbelts, but this is no one else's business. Of course you don't understand this because you never got past page 50 in the book.

Yeah because all accidents are caused by aggressive driving . Is this like how in the new world compatibility of personality won't be important to marriage, because nobody will have a "bad" personality lol.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that if the object is large enough and bright enough (such as the example of the Sun being turned on), we would be able to see the Sun when it is first ignited for this very reason. In this account we are not receiving the image from the light itself, which would involve time; we are seeing the object because it is within our visual range and because it meets the requirements that would allow the object to be seen.

You've stated multiple times that photons will be present at the eye when seeing the newly ignited Sun, but have refused to answer where the photons would come from or how they come to be present at the eye.

That is an irreconcilable contradiction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Well, you've admitted to weaseling, and there's no such thing as fair weaseling. It is a fundamentally dishonest practice, and one you should be trying to stop using instead of trying to rationalize and justify.

Of course there is. If I can rationalize weaseling, then in my eyes it makes sense. Even dishonesty in some situations can be justified, so it doesn't matter what you think about it just like it doesn't matter what you think about murder because your opinion isn't going to stop it. What will stop it is when the rationalization to weasel is removed, and when the justification to murder is removed, and it certainly isn't going to be removed by your accusations.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that they both can't be right, so one has to go. There is absolutely no contradiction within the efferent account...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yet you've contradicted yourself every single time you've tried to explain it. You've admitted there are apparent contradictions. So I'm asking you if these apparent contradictions are ones you can reconcile or if they are irreconcilable contradictions. Which are they?

I have not contradicted myself at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I only evaded questions or weaseled because I believed correctly that people would use my inability to answer certain questions (e.g., regarding the structure of the eye) against Lessans inappropriately.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That doesn't justify weaseling. You can't justify dishonesty by claiming that honest answers might make you look silly. Dishonesty makes you look a whole lot worse. Wrong answers only make you look ignorant. Weaseling makes you look both ignorant and dishonest.

Of course I can justify dishonesty. Kids do it all the time when they are asked by their parents where they were the night before, or why they didn't do their homework.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How sad! You can think what you want and play this sick game by turning this into an issue about my incompetence, but it won't work because this discovery is genuine. I am going to ignore your posts if you keep it up.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You asked me why I am here, so I gave you an honest answer. If you don't like the answer then you shouldn't have asked the question.

I'm glad I asked the question. Now it's up to me to decide how I want to respond.

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, since your response indicates you didn't read the article, I am really curious as to what your immediate thought was as to why a judge was ruling on this at all. Who did you imagine took the case to court? Why did you assume it was a political thing?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've stated multiple times that photons will be present at the eye when seeing the newly ignited Sun, but have refused to answer where the photons would come from or how they come to be present at the eye.

That is an irreconcilable contradiction.

If the Sun were hot enough upon igniting, we would see it because the light resulting from fusion (bringing together 4 hydrogen nuclei to make helium) would create enough brightness that we could see it instantly, not 8 minutes later. Please don't answer this post because I don't want to get into this discussion again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

I'm assuming the parents went to court because they couldn't solve the issue on their own. But it seems to me that the mother was at a disadvantage because the judge, being part of a political system, is representing the people therefore he would naturally side with the father since not vaccinating (according to that time period) is something only the fringe of society or the destitute do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If you understand this, Why are you arguing against it?

I'm not arguing against it; I'm saying this is why they would side with the father over the mother. It's no surprise.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You see, in the Brave New World, people will always know when they are right! And they will always know when they are wrong. And they will simply choose not to be wrong.

In the Brave New World, Peacegirl would not be able to justify not doing her homework to herself, as it might lead to her taking decisions that would lead to harm for other people. Whereas in this world, she is fine with repeating misinformation: someone will blame her for it, and this allows her to justify repeating blatant falsehoods that she could have easily checked up on, but did not.

In cases where someone could be seriously injured by a doctor's advice (or anyone else's advice for that matter), they will not be given the opportunity to rationalize or lie to themselves that a particular procedure or therapy is safe. They will only describe what they know the procedure or therapy to do, but they will never tell a patient what decision to make for fear that their recommendations may backfire since there is no way to know what possible side effects could ensue immediately or down the road, and they would never claim to know.

P.S. I am not telling anyone what to do Vivisectus. I am telling people what I would do. If they want to vaccinate after taking all the research into consideration, then that's what they should do.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the Sun were hot enough upon igniting, we would see it because the light resulting from fusion (bringing together 4 hydrogen nuclei to make helium) would create enough brightness that we could see it instantly, not 8 minutes later. Please don't answer this post because I don't want to get into this discussion again.

LOL, weasel. I didn't ask about the brightness, I asked if there would be photons located at human eyes on Earth

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

you are right the courts are not scientists, but the courts do not make decisions out of thin air, they rely on expert witnesses for the data on which they make their decisions. you've been watching too much "Judge Judy".

FYI, I don't watch Judge Judy. Relying on expert witnesses for the data is using the very data that many anti-vaxers are claiming has been fudged.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm assuming the parents went to court because they couldn't solve the issue on their own. But it seems to me that the mother was at a disadvantage because the judge, being part of a political system, is representing the people therefore he would naturally side with the father since not vaccinating (according to that time period) is something only the fringe of society or the destitute do.

Liar. Your initial answer, quoted above, was based on the link title, as it showed zero indication that you had read the article and understood that it was a case of a disagreement between two parents. I am also pretty sure you thought it happened in the US, since you have no idea how judges are appointed in the UK, so assumed some political motivation.

If you had read and understood it, you wouldn't have responded with "For a high court to have the final word over the parent is, in my mind, unethical", nor would you have assumed political motivation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, weasel. I didn't ask about the brightness, I asked if there would be photons located at human eyes on Earth

But the brightness has everything to do with it LadyShea. Remember the requirements? The object must be bright enough and large enough for it to be seen. The very belief that photons have to travel to Earth in order to be at the retina or film is exactly what is being disputed, but you will never be able to understand this concept if you are coming from the afferent position. Photons have to be at the object, so we would not be able to see each other for 8 minutes, but that does not mean we wouldn't be able to see the Sun when it was first ignited.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Liar. Your initial answer, quoted above, was based on the link title, as it showed zero indication that you had read the article and understood that it was a case of a disagreement between two parents. I am also pretty sure you thought it happened in the US, since you have no idea how judges are appointed in the UK, so assumed some political motivation.

If you had read and understood it, you wouldn't have responded with "For a high court to have the final word over the parent is, in my mind, unethical", nor would you have assumed political motivation.

For the record, the High Court used to be appointed by the Queen on advisement of the Prime Minister. Since 2005 and the Constitutional Reform Act, there's now a separate Judicial Appointments Commission designed explicitly to remove appointments from the political arena.

I also love how peacegirl describes the Conservative party: "which is to answer conservatively and in keeping with the times".