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

[IBDaMann]

What evidence do you believe I've ignored when it comes to alleged biological viruses?

Whatever you conveniently opted to not "see" so you could claim "I haven't seen any evidence."

 

[Scott]

We can certainly criticize Wikipedia passages that we find to be untruthful in online forums.

Nope. You absolutely will not, because you aren't able to recognize anything untruthful in Wikipedia.

We clearly disagree at times on what is and isn't truthful, but I suspect that you might agree in part with me in the following exercise, at least when it comes to covid vaccines. I will quote the first sentence from Wikipedia's article on vaccines and then point out where I think it's flawed:
**
A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious or malignant disease.
**

I disagree that it provides immunity to anything. I think that Mike Stone has the gist of what vaccines do. I went to his viroliegy page and found the following article just now that I think is on point on the subject:

Vaccination: Proved Useless And Dangerous (1889)

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” -Mark Twain People seem to fail to realize that the antivaccination movement is not a new thing. In fact, it has been around as long as vaccination has been an idea. Obviously, most will not hear about the opposition to the...

viroliegy.com

 

[IBDaMann]

I was referring to you.

You were referring to yourself inadvertently ... almost as though you were projecting.

It's easy to preach things like "Marxis is global and entrenched".

Are you saying that you find it easy to state the obvious?

What's generally much harder is to provide evidence for one's assertions.

I wouldn't know. I've never had difficulty in that area.

 

[IBDaMann]

Do you have any evidence that I have denied math?

Your denial of set theory is at the center of your killing supremacy fallacy.

 

[IBDaMann]

I disagree that it provides immunity to anything.

It is easy to preach, but more difficult to provide support. What is your rational basis for rejecting all research thus far? What specific research have you conducted?

 

[Scott]

We can certainly criticize Wikipedia passages that we find to be untruthful in online forums. I've certainly done this in the past.

Let's look at an example: Wikipedia's usage of "Contract Killing"

Contract killing (also known as murder-for-hire) is a form of murder or assassination in which one party hires another party to kill a targeted person or people.[1] It involves an illegal agreement which includes some form of compensation, monetary or otherwise.

This is erroneous. This description includes the words "murder" and "illegal" which are merely incidental in US society. If Congress were to legalize contract killing, it would apparently no longer be contract killing. Stupid. The legality of contract killing, or lack thereof, is not a component of contract killing. Ergo, Wikipedia should be describing contract killing as:

Contract killing is the killing of a living human whereby one party hires another party to kill a targeted living human.

By the way, I gave you the obviously correct version, which you rejected as you rushed to the erroneous version, simply because you allow Wikipedia to do your thinking for you, which requires you to reject anything differing from what Wikipedia declares you shall accept.

I admit that I find some of your points above to be interesting. I think it could be said that the U.S. already engages in somewhat legalized contract killing, in cases such as the death penalty and ofcourse in its many wars, both covert and overt, that the U.S. has engaged in over the years. Getting back to abortions, I think the key thing to consider when it comes to what is sometimes called voluntary abortions is who is authorizing the abortion- in my view, only the pregnant woman should be able to authorize it. If it's anyone -other- than the mother, I believe I would consider it to be wrong.

 

[IBDaMann]

I think it could be said that the U.S. already engages in somewhat legalized contract killing, in cases such as the death penalty and ofcourse in its many wars, both covert and overt, that the U.S. has engaged in over the years.

Please notice the mental gymnastics you performed in order to exclude abortion, which is an unspoken Special Pleading fallacy. You are finding great difficulty admitting to supporting a subset of contract killings. You can't refute the definition I provided and you can't explain how abortion is somehow not a subset.

Getting back to abortions,

We weren't talking about the subset of contract killings; we are talking about the entire set of contract killings. Stay focused.

I think the key thing to consider when it comes to what is sometimes called voluntary abortions is who is authorizing the abortion- in my view

Our working definition of contract killing indicates that the killing is ordered by the customer who hires the professional killer.

, only the pregnant woman should be able to authorize it.

When a pregnant woman is the customer who is hiring a professional killer then yes, she is "authorizing" the contract killing. Is this really so difficult?

If it's anyone -other- than the mother, I believe I would consider it to be wrong.

If anyone other than a pregnant woman hires a contract killer, it is still a contract killing.

 

[Scott]

Damocles made the assertion that all the articles I refer to refer back to 3 books and 3 articles. I simply pointed out that I have no idea where he got that idea. If Damocles wants to argue that he meant it as some kind of parable, he can certainly do so.

Do you understand what "self-referencing" means?

Self-reference:
the act or an instance of referring or alluding to oneself or itself

Source:

Definition of SELF-REFERENCE

the act or an instance of referring or alluding to oneself or itself; specifically : reference or allusion by a literary or artistic work to the mental attitudes and creative processes that brought it into existence… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Scott]

If Wikipedia's sources in a particular article are bad, they can frequently be shown to be bad.

If you refuse to accept any Wikipedia entry as erroneous, you've got problems.

Sometimes, I wonder if you're really listening to what I'm saying. What part of "If Wikipedia's sources in a particular article are bad, they can frequently be shown to be bad" don't you understand?

 

[Scott]

In any event, I do not accept Wikipedia and I will never accept errors.

I accept Wikipedia as a starting point in discussions. From that starting point, I may point out flaws, or errors as you call them, in a given Wikipedia, if I believe that the Wikipedia article under discussion has them.

 

[Scott]

If Wikipedia's sources in a particular article are bad, they can frequently be shown to be bad. I've done this in the past. The point is, at least they have sources that we can take a look at.

Teachable moment: prepositional phrases always begin with a preposition; they never end in one. You should have written "... at least they have sources we can examine."

I guess. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't say that you can't end with a preposition, but it implies it by saying they end with a noun, pronoun or noun phrase. I may be an English teacher, but generally speaking, I only teach people who are aspiring to get to Cambridge's B2 or less. In other words, at the level I'm teaching, no one really cares about the correct use of prepositional phrases. And I personally like the word combination of "take a look at".

 

[Scott]

If Wikipedia's sources in a particular article are bad, they can frequently be shown to be bad. I've done this in the past. The point is, at least they have sources that we can take a look at.

Folding in what Damocles was saying, what if those references are themselves bogus, pointing to a common set of bogus references? You have never gotten that far.

Actually, I have. When that happens, I wipe the floor with the lot of them. If memory serves, I did this not too long ago in regards to the Ukraine war in another forum.

 

[Scott]

Many mainstream publications don't even list their sources,

I suspect that when you refer to "mainstream sources", that you are actually referring to totally bogus, leftist indoctrination sources.

Honestly, I don't really pay attention to whether a mainstream source, particularly the 'big 5' as Wikipedia calls them, are left or right. I just think that, generally speaking, their news isn't worth looking at that much. I do like some of the comedians sometimes though.

 

[Into the Night]

Your bit about the titanic got me thinking of ways to go.

Planning on dying?

Tyrian's response to a bandit leader still makes me smile . It's here if you're interested:

Random portion ignored.

 

[Into the Night]

Preaching is easy. Providing evidence frequently isn't.

I guess that's why you do it. You just called yourself lazy.

The main issue comes down to what we each consider to be evidence for a given position. You may consider some piece of information to be solid evidence for a given position, while I may not. They key is trying to understand why people see or don't see a given piece of information to be solid evidence for a given position. But first, we both need to see the information in question. We haven't gotten to that stage yet.

Void argument fallacy.

Sure. I'm simply pointing out that you haven't provided a shred of evidence that Wikipedia in any way resembles drug pushers or pimps.

Well, you DO seem to be addicted to Wikipedia, now that you mention it.

I'm not talking about editing Wikipedia itself,

Yes you are. Don't try to deny this post!

I'm talking about the discussions we have here about it. We can certainly criticize Wikipedia passages that we find to be untruthful in online forums. I've certainly done this in the past.

You cannot use Wikipedia as a source.

 

[Into the Night]

If Wikipedia's sources in a particular article are bad, they can frequently be shown to be bad.

Satisfied. They can frequently be shown to be bad.

I've done this in the past. The point is, at least they have sources that we can take a look at. Many mainstream publications don't even list their sources, meaning you frequently can't even figure out where they got their information from.

Won't work. You cannot use Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia does not define any word.

 

[Into the Night]

Not to me,

To bad. It's irrelevant.

and, I suspect, not to many others as well.

It's irrelevant.

At the heart of this is what we should value.

Valuing irrelevancy doesn't make any sense.

I believe that a being's intelligence is more important then what species the being belongs to.

Irrelevant.

 

[Into the Night]

Link to one such occassion then.

RQAA

No, though the issue of perspective is certainly important here.

Irrelevant.

We clearly have different points of view here.

Irrelevant.

I think it's safe to say that we don't fully understand each other here.

He understands you more than you know. So do I.

I don't see why you think there is evidence of people being dishonest here

You can't blame your problem on anybody else.

and you seem to think that the evidence is plain to see.

It is.

I think that trying to understand why we have such different perspectives

Irrelevant. Not about 'perspectives'.

here might be worth looking into, but for that, we'd first need to see what you consider to be evidence for your position here.

RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

I have my doubts -.-

 

[Into the Night]

No, it has at least 4 definitions as a noun, more if you count its uses as a verb:

Only one definition. I just gave it. It can be used as a verb or a noun.

shill — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

False authority fallacy.

I can believe that this may well have been what the term meant originally. Based on the dictionary definitions above, however, it appears that this definition has become sidelined by other definitions of the term.

False authority fallacy. Dictionaries to not define any word.