Slashdot Mirror

I'm not going to discuss an idiot like you. Goodbye.

When the facts elude you, ad hominem[sic] to the rescue.

You know, when you get called an idiot, it is usually not a good idea to prove the point. Of course, you being an idiot wouldn't recognise a good idea when it hit you on the head.

That really depends on what you're skeptical about. If you're skeptical with regards to the efficacy of a new medication or treatments around brain elasticity, then I think that's very fair. If, however, you skeptical about gravity or climate change, and you're over the age of 18 and not asking for the purposes of research but to grandstand your own ignorance, then yes, you're a fucking moron.

Additionally, calling you a moron does not on its own constitute an ad hominem. For example:

Joe is an asshole and his argument is shit. This is NOT an ad hominem.
Joe is an asshole and because of this all of his arguments are shit and not worth considering IS an ad hominem.

Here's a good primer on the topic: http://laurencetennant.com/bon...

Ad hominem

You don't know what that means.

People that support the idea of Special and preferrential treatment of minorities are the very problem. They are the ones creating inequalities

That would only be true if we already had equality. We clearly do not have equality.

How, then, would you propose that inequality be addressed without making special accommodations for disadvantaged groups?

Stop that

"anti-vax moron" is the ad hominem argument you used.

1) That wasn't me. 2) No, it's still really not an ad hominem. Maybe this will help.

as well, a straw man argument would be alleging that i was grasping at highly improbable straws to make my point. your lightning in the rain argument is like that. I was pretty clear in saying the harmful effects listed in the product monographs are highly probable, not highly improbable.

If you want to refer to the probable ones as being probable, do that. If you want to refer to the improbable ones as being improbable, do that. But don't mention only an improbable one and then use the statistic for the probable ones. That's just dishonest. The 20% statistic you referred to includes such adverse reactions as "redness at the injection site" and "headache."

But of course, your argument would have a lot less of an impact if you said, "You have a 20% chance of redness at the injection site and a vanishingly small risk of death!" So you selectively mixed and matched your data to construct a sentence that was technically true but totally misleading. Not good. Don't do that if you want people to take you seriously as somebody who makes honest arguments.

aside from that, the product monographs give ample reason to not want to have the vaccine, irrespective of any religious claims. efficacy of vaccines is much less than 100%, 60% they say now, and the best case scenario for timespan of immunity is 3 years or so.

If you're going to use numbers from now on, I'd appreciate a specific reference to what you're referring to and how you got the information. It sounds like you're mixing and matching the worst case values for certain specific vaccines and then waving your hand vaguely at all of them. Given your last use of statistics, I'm inclined to believe that's intentional.

a large percentage of vaccine recipients are communicable for some weeks after the vaccine.

What is a "large percentage" and for which vaccines? Again, this sounds like you're taking one particularly rare result out of context in order to confuse people. Because I guarantee that even if this is the case for certain vaccines, it's not the case for all of them, or even a bare majority.

aids from a vaccine cultured in west africa green monkey cells?

Did you just casually throw out AIDS without bothering to supply any data or context? Of course you did.

Not to put too fine a point on it, right?

I felt calling him a douchebag was worthwhile because he was making one of those "I called your argument a fallacy therefor I win" internet debate styles that's just the worst, especially when they're wrong about it being a fallacy. I hate those guys, and feel no remorse about insulting them.

I couldn't agree more. I ran across this the other day, you may find it interesting as well.

Sorry to derail the discussion, I was just having a bit of fun.

Just for you, since you're not interested in an actual education:

Why I roll my eyes when I read your replies

Now go and sin no more!