Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:Gak Sebster you just don't get it do you? The evidence is staring you in the face. Its the short sleeved dress shirt !(we used to call those engineer shirts) Do you not see the conspiracy!

Ah, true. I didn't notice the shirt. I won't be getting my kids immunised now.

loki old fart wrote:Nope he's just the one I chose to link

yes and he is one of many, who either misuse scientific data, make up data, are paid off by benefiting parties or are all round idiot fear mongers.

don't show me a youtube clip, show me a peer reviewed scientific/medical paper (sorry you only have discredited, removed articles from doctors who have been struck off the medical record, not only was his dataset inaccurate his collection method was wholey unethical).

@Goliath:

cheers

A peer reviewed scientific paper that argues what?

More importantly, are we to assume you could understand such a paper?

I mean, if you don't understand post hoc fallacies (to the extent that you will claim the term is too high fallutn'), there isn't much hope.

dogma wrote:A peer reviewed scientific paper that argues what?

which argues loki's point, seeing as you don't understand the pattern of point and response (i was responding to his point, so the point he was argueing was already stated so i did not need to explicitly write it) i don't think you can comment on my perseved intelligence (i was not saying it was 'too high fallutn'' i was commenting on how he was using it, to belittle someone).

Sorry, the lack of punctuation, capitalization, and the egregious use of parentheses made your post difficult to follow.

Loki didn't make a point, he posted youtube videos that made a point. We have no idea what Loki's position is, he may agree with those videos in total, or he may not. Since he hasn't spoken to the matter we cannot assume anything.

Additionally, Ahtman didn't use it to belittle you. He used it to illustrate that you were making a fallacious argument. If you consider pointing out the flaws in other people's reasoning 'belittling', then that's fine, but you also have to understand that nearly all constructive discourse is therefore belittling.

He was pointing out someone else was making a fallicious argument, and was not belittling me, read the tread, before you comment.

It can also be concluded that these are loki's views due to how he presented it, so i took it as his views

BluntmanDC wrote:He was pointing out someone else was making a fallicious argument, and was not belittling me, read the tread, before you comment.

It can also be concluded that these are loki's views due to how he presented it, so i took it as his views

Yeah dogma. Read the damn tread. I'm sick and tired of you bringing in your liberal extremist views into every tread you enter without even going so far as to read the tread first to see that no one cares about whatever it is you were going to troll the tread with. Ever since you came along treads in dakka have just gone downhill, every tread in every topic has lost it's point as you pull the tread down into ad hominim and belittlement. The treads don't deserve it.

<--- Read this

BluntmanDC wrote:He was pointing out someone else was making a fallicious argument, and was not belittling me, read the tread, before you comment.

My mistake.

BluntmanDC wrote:
It can also be concluded that these are loki's views due to how he presented it, so i took it as his views

Never infer things in the course of arguments. It makes you look foolish.

BluntmanDC wrote: i don't think you can comment on my perseved intelligence

You misspelled 'perceived' and forgot to capitalize the 'I'.

Get snow chains.

Be nice to each other.

I feel to strongly about this issues.

Being a MPV does this to someone but my point will be simple.
scaremongering really pisses me off with vaccines and tablets. It kills people, without real facts these people should be shut up.

Mannahnin wrote:Be nice to each other.

I'd go further than that...

The treads gotten back on track.

sebster wrote:First up, in a comparison between peer reviewed CDC reports and youtube clips, which one should be given more credibility? Second up, would your concern be the mercury they stopped putting in vaccines about a decade ago?

Is this a joke? Obviously some guy with a video camera and youtube account is far more credible than some silly government agency. Sheesh, what's next, you telling me I shouldn't ask that guy in the tin foil hat about government mind control rays?

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Is this a joke? Obviously some guy with a video camera and youtube account is far more credible than some silly government agency. Sheesh, what's next, you telling me I shouldn't ask that guy in the tin foil hat about government mind control rays?

Of course it isn't a joke. He's on the internet and he's saying vaccines are dangerous, and no-one on the internet is ever wrong And yet there's this immense wealth of peer reviewed research demonstrating no link between vaccines and autism... so what do we do?

Obviously we have to conclude we need more research (or more people to make videos on youtube).

Pshaw!

Academic liberals and their peer review, scientific method, and empirical data are not to be trusted!

dogma wrote:Academic liberals and their peer review, scientific method, and empirical data are not to be trusted!

Youtube videos get comments, that counts as peer review. I'm not sure what the scientific method is, but I guess it's like the rythym method and this thread isn't about birth control. I don't support emperialism, I think holding colonies is evil, so I wouldn't trust empirical data anyway.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

dogma wrote:Academic liberals and their peer review, scientific method, and empirical data are not to be trusted!

Youtube videos get comments, that counts as peer review. I'm not sure what the scientific method is, but I guess it's like the rythym method and this thread isn't about birth control. I don't support emperialism, I think holding colonies is evil, so I wouldn't trust empirical data anyway.

Really Frazzled, Really! I don't see how anyone could question the wisdom of choosing to believe 'some guy with a youtube video' over 'a large organization with many scientists publishing peer reviewed papers based on hard evidence', it's obvious which one is more reliable. The guy who can operate a webcam and handle filling in a registration form clearly didn't have his mind poisoned by years studying in a University and being indoctrinated into that 'science' and 'critical thinking'!

Uhh how come mattyrm hasn't apologized to all the religious people he accused of scaremongering when it has been shown that it isn't necessarily religious people doing the scaremongering.

Also please don't come to Kentucky, you won't like it and it puts you a few hours from me.

GG

p.s. Kent Hovind who is in jail for tax evasion is hardly a credible "religious" person.

Tax evasion makes someone less religious?

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

dogma wrote:Academic liberals and their peer review, scientific method, and empirical data are not to be trusted!

Youtube videos get comments, that counts as peer review. I'm not sure what the scientific method is, but I guess it's like the rythym method and this thread isn't about birth control. I don't support emperialism, I think holding colonies is evil, so I wouldn't trust empirical data anyway.

Imperials don't have colonies, they have clones. Duh.

And then I realized I was drunk enough to know better than to reply to this thread at this point.

Oh wait, I'm doing it wrong!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
/not vaccinated.

I will spew my rabies ALL OVER YOU.

dogma wrote:Tax evasion makes someone less religious?

My point was that he was using Kent Hovind, the criminal, as his "pillar of religion".

GG

As far as I know, the great majority of religious people support vaccination.

sebster wrote:Imperials don't have colonies, they have clones. Duh.

Cloning is ILLEGAL. You're going to trust data from someone breaking the LAW over some guy on youtube? I rest my case!

Imperials may not always hit their target, but they do have vaccines.

It became mandatory after Vader caught space polio and was confined to an iron lung.


For any of you against vaccines let me propose a hypothetical situation. There are two boxes before you. You must choose one. The first has a tiny chance to give your child autism. The other has a tiny chance to give him a deadly disease. Which would you choose?

Personally, I'd take autistic and live over dead and normal any day of the week. So even if there was a relation between vaccination and autism I'd risk it.

generalgrog wrote:Uhh how come mattyrm hasn't apologized to all the religious people he accused of scaremongering when it has been shown that it isn't necessarily religious people doing the scaremongering.

Also please don't come to Kentucky, you won't like it and it puts you a few hours from me.

GG

p.s. Kent Hovind who is in jail for tax evasion is hardly a credible "religious" person.

Where to begin?

First of all the whole thread was a question, ie i watched a talk at TED, and then asked why some Religious people would be opposed to vaccines, and what (if any) scriptural reasons existed that could put them at odds with what almost all medical professionals with regards to vaccines.

How is that in anyway at all worthy of me apologising to anyone?

Is it maybe because some Religious people get offended super easily and demand apologies for absolutely everything because they dislike the fact that their beliefs dont stand up to any scrutiny so they get offended easily to try and stop us from talking about it?

I can fully understand you demanding an apology at the drop of a hat, you guys do it so often it may have become routine, but just read my question again and be honest and you will see i dont actually owe you any apology. Im a nice guy, i'd happily apologise if i spilt your pint or accidently knocked into you on the sidewalk or something, so please dont think im just being cantakerous.

Oh and Kent Hovind made MILLIONS of dollars and spoke in places packed absolutely packed to the rafters with believers, so you cant argue that he had no credibilty.

Or what about Ted Haggard? Does he not have any either? He used to speak to The President on a weekly basis apparently.. well.. until he got caught sniffing cocaine off a rent boy.

As i said, i wasnt having a go, i was asking for ideas because a quick google search didnt come up with very much, and i was curious if there was a biblical explanation, i certainly wasnt having a bash at anyone, as im well aware 99% of people happily use vaccines.

Oh and when i visit Boro Kentucky ill be frequenting the places i find fun (pubs), and not going into the places i dont find fun (church) so its unlikely we would run into each other.

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:Tax evasion makes someone less religious?

My point was that he was using Kent Hovind, the criminal, as his "pillar of religion".

GG

He isn't?