Florida plans to become first state to eliminate all childhood vaccine mandates

[Dutch Uncle]

Hahahaha! Said the fearful twat who cringed inside her home for months and wouldn't leave w/o full protective gear not even to go to work.

I now have 42 MAGA morons on ignore....even if over half of them have multiple accounts.

 

[Scott]

What I do instead is trust articles, scientific studies and papers whose findings fit what I've already come to believe is true.

This will be your undoing. Articles, studies and papers are awash in errors. Just because it's written in print doesn't make it any more trustworthy or accurate.

I think the question is, more trustworthy or accurate in comparison to what? I should have mentioned something else, and that is that I also trust certain -sources- above others, sources that I have found to provide reliable information in the past. Sources can include publications, but I think the golden standard is generally individuals, such as individual journalists and researchers. Now, the one thing that is generally lacking when it comes to articles is that, unlike an online forum, you generally can't debate with those who write articles or publish studies and papers. On the other hand, they frequently provide a lot more evidence that online posters do to support their conclusions.

 

[Scott]

Also, there is no such thing as a "scientific" study. There are only studies. No study somehow acquires more authority because someone refers to it as "scientific." Studies are not science; they don't get the "scientific" honorific.

I would classify a study as scientific study if it follows the scientific method. I certainly believe that a lot of studies, particularly in the field of virology, are not scientific, regardless of whether or not they claim to be.

 

[Scott]

There is, ofcourse, one factor wherein I go beyond what I would usually look at, and that is online forum posters who disagree with my viewpoints.

That doesn't work either. They can be wrong as well, just with their errors pointing to differing conclusions.

Certainly, but the fact that they have views that don't align with mine means they have seen evidence that I am not aware of that, if I became aware of it, might change my point of view.

My recommendation to you is to go directly to science, math and logic. You won't get that in studies / articles.

Again, I think that depends on the quality of the studies, papers and articles.

... but my closing recommendation to you is, that once you have reviewed relevant science, math and logic, go with whatever your own critical reasoning tells you, and tell all the others who are lining up to call you "thtooopid" to fuck off.

The main problem here is that when it comes to science, particularly the scientific method, I'm not sure I fully understand all of it. I -think- I'm close to fully grasping it, but I'd rather rely on someone who's been working on such things for much longer, such as Mike Stone, when it comes to biological viruses and germ vs. terrain theory. As to people insulting me for my beliefs, it can be disheartening, which is why I have taken long breaks from debating whether or not biological viruses exist here.

You might be totally correct that there are no living organisms "viruses" and that there is a different explanation for our observations that is, in fact, correct.

Thanks for providing your input here . I think that a few of the signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" 2 page statement have provided compelling evidence that the diseases and deaths attributed to biological viruses are most likely caused by other things. I would consider some of them, namely Mike Stone, Mark Bailey and Sam Bailey to be the best sources when it comes to such evidence.

 

[Scott]

If it differs from Wikipedia's, yes, I don't. I believe I told you that if people can't reach a consensus on what something like abortion means, trying to -discuss- whether abortion should be allowed or not becomes impossible.

You are being dishonest. You know that the topic is "contract killing."

It wasn't originally. I get into the details of how things moved from abortion to contract killing in post #825.

 

[Scott]

You know that the topic is "contract killing."

I now know that you'd wish to talk about that, yes. However, I'm still not sure if you agree to define the term as Wikipedia does. In case you'd like to see Wikipedia's definition, it's here:

Contract killing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Scott]

No, I'm trying to explain how I thought you meant whether I support abortions and your saying "contract killings" was just some exotic way of saying abortion. It now seems that you really were talking about contract killings, but it also seems like you're trying to insinuate that abortions -are- contract kilings and that's where I simply disagree with you.

Did you ever learn about "sets" in math class in school?

I did, yes.

Do you know what a "proper subset" is?

I got this from duckduckgo's search assist:
**
A proper subset in mathematics is a set that contains some, but not all, elements of another set. If set A is a proper subset of set B, then all elements of A are in B, but B has at least one element that is not in A, denoted as A ⊂ B.
**

 

[Scott]

Nope. There is a distinct group of cowardly leftist denizens who are only here to sling poo.

I haven't seen any evidence of this.

You make a habit of turning a blind eye to mountainous evidence all around you.

If you believe there is -any- evidence for your assertion, why not simply quote and link to it?

 

[IBDaMann]

I would classify a study as scientific study if it follows the scientific method

Great. Now when you write "scientific study" I'll know you're talking about rigorous product reviews.

I certainly believe that a lot of studies, particularly in the field of virology, are not scientific, regardless of whether or not they claim to be.

Correct. They are simply research. Research is not science.

 

[IBDaMann]

If you believe there is -any- evidence for your assertion, why not simply quote and link to it?

I'll tell you what; I'll give you an example and you can research it to your heart's content.

Look through ThatOwlCoward's posting history. It won't take you long before you find conversations with a standard group that only slings poo.

 

[IBDaMann]

I did, yes. I got this from duckduckgo's search assist:
**
A proper subset in mathematics is a set that contains some, but not all, elements of another set. If set A is a proper subset of set B, then all elements of A are in B, but B has at least one element that is not in A, denoted as A ⊂ B.

Do you understand it?

 

[Scott]

Well, I think I've made some progress with my efforts to avoid insulting posters and their beliefs as much as I'm capable of.

You really shouldn't be worried about whether someone might feign indignance or pretend to be offended.

You are assuming that they are feigning and pretending. I wouldn't assume such things. More to the point, however, I -try- to treat others as I would like to be treated. I don't always succeed, but I think my ratio's pretty good.

 

[Scott]

Ask your questions, and if someone pretends that your fair questions are somehow a problem then you've been given a green light to tell them to sit on this and spin around.

Had a little chuckle there . If people find my questions a problem, I might ask them why they find them a problem. However, if their first reaction is to insult either me or my ideas, I tend to point that out how that is stultifying my interest in responding to them. If it's someone who's insulted me repeatedly in the past, I've started to simply avoid responding to such insulting posts at all. By doing this, I avoid the vicious circle of insult and counter insult and spend more time on people who are willing to have civilized discussions with me.

 

[Scott]

What I mean is that I -think- that, generally speaking, I think posters tend to refrain from insulting me and my beliefs,

You are on the left.

On some subjects, not on others. My views on vaccines are decidedly more on the right, although to be fair some on what is called the far left hold the same views. My views on Covid generally are much more aligned with those on the right. My views on gun control are also more on the right. I'd say that my views on the war in Ukraine are also more on the right.

 

[IBDaMann]

It wasn't originally.

It was the topic the moment I made it the topic by asking you about your support for contract killings. Instead of just answering my question, you feared that your indefensible position would be revealed, so you made the topic "101 ways to EVADE a question by claiming it isn't the topic."

I get into the details of how things moved from abortion to contract killing in post #825.

So the bottom line is that abortion is a proper subset of contract killings. We don't need to mention abortion, ever. If you acknowledge contract killings to be vile, immoral and having no place in civilized society, then you similarly acknowledge such for all subsets thereof. If you support a particular subset of contract killings, you should explain why you support those contract killings.

Math and logic afford you no wiggle room on this matter.

I now know that you'd wish to talk about that, yes

I bet your first clue was my asking you your position on the topic.

However, I'm still not sure if you agree to define the term as Wikipedia does.

I reject Wikipedia at all times. Every time you cite Wikipedia, I summarily dismiss it. You should only cite authoritative sources.

 

[Scott]

You are on the left. Those who exist only to sling poo are also on the left. They aren't going to sling poo at you, but they will always be poised to sling poo at me. Hence, I return fire. I'm not a victim, I'm a poo-Howitzer.

As I said before, on some issues, such as vaccines, I'm clearly more on the right. If by poo you mean insults, some of those on the left certainly sling some at me as well. I just don't return fire. Instead, I tend to stop reading and responding to their posts when I see insults against me or my beliefs and I tend to point this out in my response. For some repeat offenders, I've started to simply not responding to posts with insults of this nature in them.

 

[Scott]

Sorry, you aren't the only one. I hate to be the one to break it to you. Have you searched JPP's posting history?

Nothing to be sorry about, that's very good news in my book. If you're asking if I've searched for the term viruses and virus in thread titles to see if anyone besides me has posted about that there's no solid evidence that biological viruses exist, then yes, just now. The list for viruses was short, the list for virus much longer- I didn't find anyone who shared my view in the first 2 pages of the virus title search. If you know the name of 1 or more posters who share my views on this, by all means, let me know, I'd definitely keep an eye out for their posts.

 

[IBDaMann]

You are assuming that they are feigning and pretending.

I'm saying that you shouldn't care. This is a forum of ideas. If you are making an honest point then others shouldn't be expressing outrage or offense; they should be offering rebuttals. If they have no rebuttal then they have no offense, unless it a supremacy argument.

I wouldn't assume such things

You shouldn't care about such things.

More to the point, however, I -try- to treat others as I would like to be treated.

Aaahh, the golden rule.

I don't always succeed, but I think my ratio's pretty good.

Congrats.

 

[Scott]

I disagree.

You don't get to disagree, I'm sorry. This is not a subjective matter of opinion. If usage descriptions differ then they cannot both be the definition.

We've been bouncing around a bit here. We had been talking about dictionaries. You now seem to be talking about words themselves. Many words have more than one definition. What I like about dictionaries is that they focus on common definitions for words, with some words having more than one definition. Used properly, dictionaries can be quite helpful in helping to ensure that people mean the same thing when talking about a word.

Also, since nobody owns any language, nobody gets to define any word in any language. If two people wish to agree on a definition of a word, them great, they can define the word for themselves but not for "the language _.

I agree with you in part. 2 people can certainly agree to define a word any way they like- dictionaries are more constrained. Generally if not exclusively, they only list definitions for words that are fairly common. Again, the best part about this in my view is that it makes it easier for people to agree on the definitions for words even if they don't agree on various other things.

 

[Into the Night]

Here's the first definition of science from The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition:
**
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
**

Do you agree with that definition for the purpose of our discussion?

No dictionary defines any word.

Science is not observation, or identification. It is not an experiment.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.