I'm thinking of the sphynx in mystery men for some reason.
Understand what you're trying to say VD, and I agree with your viewpoints about the tyranny of the majority (very much so!) but I think you've missed the point of my post mate.
1. I wasn't using straw man arguments (I.e, if you believe a, you must believe b,c and d). I was using them as examples of batshit crazy theories for which you can find credible looking evidence online.
2. I'm not saying that majority rules, or that I blindly follow the mob, or that there's no room for dissenting opinions in any circumstance.
Here's what I am saying. If you want to take a contrary view on a matter of policy, or politics, or social issues, or even historical issues, then go crazy, that's totally fine. What's not logical, IMO, is taking a dissenting opinion on a matter of science when you have no special qualifications that would allow you to substantiate that opinion. I have no farking idea whether or not vaccinations cause autism. None. I'm not a doctor or a specialist. But if the vast vast vast vast majority of educated specialists on the subject tell me it doesn't, and I have no qualifications or special understanding to indicate that they are wrong, then I have no logical choice but to believe them.
I'm not saying you can't take the contrary view. Of course you can. Its just not logical to do so.
And the Penn and Teller video was clearly supposed to be humorous, it wasn't intended as a rebuttal to your video. If I wanted to post a rebuttal to your video, I could have referred to any of the comprehensive, peer reviewed, credible material produced by the overwhelming, 99.9% majority of doctors who say there is no evidence to support your theory.
I agree with those experts because there's no logical reason not to. If you want to agree with Jenny McCarthy and the other tin foil hat wearers then that's totally cool, and is your right. Just don't pretend that its logical or enlightened.
Actually, your understanding of a straw man argument is not quite correct. I think wiki has it pretty straight. Here:-
"A common type of argument.... based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
The so-called typical 'attacking a straw man' argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition.... and then to refute or defeat that false argument ....instead of the original proposition. This technique has been used throughout history.... particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining 'battle' and the defeat of an 'enemy' may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue."
That is precisely what you did by bringing the flat earth believers, the holocaust deniers and the JFK was an Alien theory into a discussion about vaccination - more importantly a discussion about mandatory vaccination. And I guess you're not even aware of your use of that cheap trick because you even went and did it again in your latest response when you intimated my view puts me in the same camp as other tin foil hat wearers.
So by lumping vaccination opponents with all of the above, you are in fact using the straw man technique. The ploy is for people to dismiss your opponent's proposition by covertly including it with other propositions that readers would readily dismiss.
Anyway, putting your straw men to one side, I am going to shock you by saying that your logic of accepting the experts' views on a matter when you do not have the prerequisite qualifications yourself to make an assessment of something, in a perfect world would actually be completely sound. Regrettably, In the imperfect world in which we live it is flawed. Because the world in which we live is such that we cannot trust the experts.
This is something I know about. So you see, my friend, our own personal different world views see us having differing opinions on this matter. You are comfortable trusting what the "authorities" and "experts" state on this matter. I am not. Because I do not trust the people running the world. It's that simple. I'm not insane. I don't wear a tin foil hat. I'm informed. My reasons for not trusting our "owners" is based on countless hours of research and educating myself.
So, would I trust the vaccines these crooks peddle? No. Do I think they should be mandatory!? Hell, to forcibly inject a human being with a substance against their will is an absolute crime against natural law.
Solid response (seriously). Believe it or not, I actually share your skeptical, non-trusting attitude in respect of a lot of issues and experts, but not in respect of the the medical and scientific community, who I think are beyond reproach in most ways.
We'll have to agree to disagree my friend.
I'm thinking of the sphynx in mystery men for some reason.
I have a description of your intelligence.
So do I.
Incisive, critical, courageous, if a little verbose.
Understand what you're trying to say VD, and I agree with your viewpoints about the tyranny of the majority (very much so!) but I think you've missed the point of my post mate.
1. I wasn't using straw man arguments (I.e, if you believe a, you must believe b,c and d). I was using them as examples of batshit crazy theories for which you can find credible looking evidence online.
2. I'm not saying that majority rules, or that I blindly follow the mob, or that there's no room for dissenting opinions in any circumstance.
Here's what I am saying. If you want to take a contrary view on a matter of policy, or politics, or social issues, or even historical issues, then go crazy, that's totally fine. What's not logical, IMO, is taking a dissenting opinion on a matter of science when you have no special qualifications that would allow you to substantiate that opinion. I have no farking idea whether or not vaccinations cause autism. None. I'm not a doctor or a specialist. But if the vast vast vast vast majority of educated specialists on the subject tell me it doesn't, and I have no qualifications or special understanding to indicate that they are wrong, then I have no logical choice but to believe them.
I'm not saying you can't take the contrary view. Of course you can. Its just not logical to do so.
And the Penn and Teller video was clearly supposed to be humorous, it wasn't intended as a rebuttal to your video. If I wanted to post a rebuttal to your video, I could have referred to any of the comprehensive, peer reviewed, credible material produced by the overwhelming, 99.9% majority of doctors who say there is no evidence to support your theory.
I agree with those experts because there's no logical reason not to. If you want to agree with Jenny McCarthy and the other tin foil hat wearers then that's totally cool, and is your right. Just don't pretend that its logical or enlightened.
Actually, your understanding of a straw man argument is not quite correct. I think wiki has it pretty straight. Here:-
"A common type of argument.... based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
The so-called typical 'attacking a straw man' argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition.... and then to refute or defeat that false argument ....instead of the original proposition. This technique has been used throughout history.... particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining 'battle' and the defeat of an 'enemy' may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue."
That is precisely what you did by bringing the flat earth believers, the holocaust deniers and the JFK was an Alien theory into a discussion about vaccination - more importantly a discussion about mandatory vaccination. And I guess you're not even aware of your use of that cheap trick because you even went and did it again in your latest response when you intimated my view puts me in the same camp as other tin foil hat wearers.
So by lumping vaccination opponents with all of the above, you are in fact using the straw man technique. The ploy is for people to dismiss your opponent's proposition by covertly including it with other propositions that readers would readily dismiss.
Anyway, putting your straw men to one side, I am going to shock you by saying that your logic of accepting the experts' views on a matter when you do not have the prerequisite qualifications yourself to make an assessment of something, in a perfect world would actually be completely sound. Regrettably, In the imperfect world in which we live it is flawed. Because the world in which we live is such that we cannot trust the experts.
This is something I know about. So you see, my friend, our own personal different world views see us having differing opinions on this matter. You are comfortable trusting what the "authorities" and "experts" state on this matter. I am not. Because I do not trust the people running the world. It's that simple. I'm not insane. I don't wear a tin foil hat. I'm informed. My reasons for not trusting our "owners" is based on countless hours of research and educating myself.
So, would I trust the vaccines these crooks peddle? No. Do I think they should be mandatory!? Hell, to forcibly inject a human being with a substance against their will is an absolute crime against natural law.
Solid response (seriously). Believe it or not, I actually share your skeptical, non-trusting attitude in respect of a lot of issues and experts, but not in respect of the the medical and scientific community, who I think are beyond reproach in most ways.
We'll have to agree to disagree my friend.
Well done SMJ.
We disagreed. We made our points without being offensive or disrespectful (well, not over the top anyway). We go our ways. If all the discussions on this forum went like that, this place would be so much more appealing. Again, well done!! Respect for you 10/10. ;)
He’s spent one minute on YouTube and another minute on Wiki and thread is successfully trolled. Do some of you not remember VD the first time around?
He's spent one minute on YouTube and another minute on Wiki and thread is successfully trolled. Do some of you not remember VD the first time around?
That's a totally wrong assumption of course. Anyone who would knock back vaccination so flippantly would of course be a fool. I oppose vaccinations based on hours of research of both points of view, and combined that with my world view which is based on a life time of observation and study. But anyway Henry is just being Henry I guess, name calling someone a troll because he differs from the status quo. Why golly gee I wonder how many millennia that technique has been used? Can't you come up with something new please Henry, it's a little boring? :rolleyes:
OK, Henry, I'm going to attempt to jolt your mind out of its comatose, compliant state by asking you a question.
Can you tell me one point of view that you hold, on a controversially discussed topic, which differs from the point of view of the ABC, or the mainstream media, or the Bomberblitz status quo (that is members held in high esteem by the majority)?? Choose anything at all. It's not a trick question. I mean a topic which is hotly debated. You have a big range to choose from and I want you to name just one where you are diametrically opposed to all three of those groups I named above.
I'm not being a smart ■■■■ I'm genuinely curious.
Henry won't give you an answer you want, Vinnie. What is a "controversially discussed topic" for you might be an uncontroversial event for him.
I found this Australian documentary very informative and I believe it will refute your assertion Saladin my old mate. I really hope people take the time to watch it right through. There are some very startling FACTS in this presentation.:-
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqsT5EoIk8U[/youtube]
... Nobody in this thread is a scientist or a doctor (I'm assuming). Therefore NONE of us come from a background where we have any specific knowledge on the subject. Consequently, the only thing we can do to inform ourselves is read the work and the views of others. The ONLY rational thing that a person can do in this circumstance is adopt the view of the vast majority of experts, as none of us have any specific knowledge that would refute that view.
As a medical student I'd be pretty surprised if the past six years of my professors of immunology and pathology alongside all the consultants in infectious diseases and general medicine were wrong with their adamant viewpoints that few things have positivelty shaped healthcare more than clean water and vaccines...oh and that anti-vaccers are huge cockheads (seriously should hear their rants, fun stuff).
But one thing that the majority of people in this anti-vaccine camp aren't exactly exposed to and therefor can't properly comprehend is that when you have a patient infront of you in immense pain or even dying from what could well have been a vaccine preventable illness, these facts that X% of people will develop a major flu like illness in response to receiving this vaccine pales in the comparison to the fact that there will be an X% reduction in the transmission/severity of the illness that has crippled this patient laying infront of you.
This isn't football, it isn't about choosing a side and supporting it regardless, it's not about trying to 'win' the argument. This is medicine and is best left to people with extreme knowledge and evidence in their camp to postulate a healthcare model that benefits the population the most and allows the best reduction in quality life years lost.
Peer pressure shapes the consensus of the group your professors and consultants belong to. Their careers advance and the respect with which they are held in their community is in direct correlation with how they toe the general consensus line. The moment one goes against the flow he/she is ostracised, his/her career jeopardised and the benefits/budgets of "going along to get along" disappear. In other words life as they knew it is stuffed. Very few have the gonads to differ and those that do are publicly called "huge cockheads" to the delight of those who cannot survive in our big bad world without the plebiscite ratification they so desperately need.
I would encourage you to think for yourself and consider other possibilities apart from what you learn from the system. It's hard, I know, but not impossible....and thankfully it's getting easier as more and more people are seeing through the facade of what we are being asked to conform to.
Personally, life has taught me that our world as we know it is circling the plug hole. I believe that it is not the opponents of the system that are to blame but the consenters.
We need more of this:
And less of this:
Surprisingly few tanks to stand in front of in my area.
Surprisingly few tanks to stand in front of in my area.
You should protest the lack of tanks.
Surprisingly few tanks to stand in front of in my area.
You should protest the lack of tanks.
Or imaginary tanks that only I can see, perhaps?
I would suggest that whether you did or didn't is irrelevant.
I don't think should rate responses in the same way you whinge about being criticised yourself.
Or do, either is fine.
Oh no my imagination is running wild again. Everything's OK folks, it's all above board, nothing to worry about, no conspiracies to control us, none at all.............. :( :blink:
Oh no my imagination is running wild again. Everything's OK folks, it's all above board, nothing to worry about, no conspiracies to control us, none at all.............. :( :blink:
That‘s clearly not a real quotation.
The world is still dumb.
Hell no, Dave, It's more sophisticated and marching toward world vaccination government. Come on, stop putting people down.
Since we''re rating each others intelligence, I think you are a superficial idiot VD.
Your conspiracy theories are a result of ■■■■■■■ laziness and about as relevant as "because that's the way god wants it," as an explanation of what goes on in the world.
Government for the maintenance of a powerful elite is a known political philosophy that's been openly known and taught and debated for centuries. It's not a ■■■■■■■ literati secret. Go and study the actual history of governance philosophy and stop trying to interest people with a boring matrix 4 script.
Putting people down?
I thought we were rating each others intelligence?
Or glibly dismissing opposing views as those of uninformed sheeple.
Are you up for that or not, Vinnie?
You don't seem to be consistent here.
Putting people down?
I thought we were rating each others intelligence?
Or glibly dismissing opposing views as those of uninformed sheeple.
Are you up for that or not, Vinnie?
You don't seem to be consistent here.
Chemtrails will do that to ya :P