I see a strong argument, followed by a weak argument... and everyone getting stuck on the weak argument.
. A) Science proves vaccinations are safe and in your best interests.
. B) If you don't get vaccinations, I may be hurt... and others may be hurt. You are morally obligated to get vaccinations.
. b) entertainers are immoral for entertaining (or the unenlightened are immoral for retarding enlightenment).
All I'm saying is we should stick with the A argument, it stands strong. We don't need B and b. Waste of time... diminishing returns... weak arguments...
So someone who shouts "fire!" in a crowded theater is completely absolved of any responsibility in the ensuing stampede, injuries and possible deaths?
Because that's what Jenny McCarthy is doing.
Show me this stampede of people refusing vaccinations, crushing innocent bystanders in their wake.
...
Look, all I'm telling you is that instead of attempting to indict individuals that are inexplicably petitioning others to refuse vaccination, and attempting to guilt those same people into getting vaccinations, we would all be better served ignoring that poor argument, and instead use the first, and stronger argument that THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS and SCIENCE IS SCIENCE. Tell them the experts know better than those that have no credentials, and vaccinations are safe and a good thing because science proves it. We don't need the weak argument.
The argument is still fallacious. Sounds like bandwagon to me.
I don't see too many posts with the level of exaggeration that yours contains.
Yeah, I want to cut the bullshit right out. Most of the text in the comments is all about what a shame it is because their stupidity ultimately hurts children... an attempt at guilting the dipshits into vaccination. Though the heart is in the right place (someone IS thinking of the children, or at least, THEIR children), its intellectually dishonest and a waste of time. Its not immoral to refuse vaccination any more than it is to refuse medicine. This is academic.
The facts alone —the valid, reproducible science and research behind the medicine — must suffice as a reason to get vaccinated. Using guilt is a weak argument... the stronger argument is "listen to the scientists, not the entertainers."
Nope, that's not it at all. You're trying to convince someone that some kind of life-saving procedure is dangerous. Thus if you actually succeed at convincing and the person actually dies due to the lack of said life-saving procedure, you're at least partially responsible for the outcome.
First of all, I'M not arguing against vaccinations. I am arguing that there is no moral imperative to get vaccinated, and it is silly to waste time trying to guilt people into vaccinations when THERE IS SCIENCE to serve the rational argument. Secondly, If SCIENCE tells you that you are sick and need medicine, and some non-expert tells you something different, and you listen to the fool, the fool is not responsible for your actions. Not even a little bit. Ultimately, you are responsible for your decisions and your actions. If the fool was your boss, or your commander, and ordered you, or held you at gunpoint and you were obligated to follow... only then can you begin passing blame around.
By your argument, if I have kidney disease, and you are a blood match, then you are morally obligated to give me one of your kidneys... you have NO CHOICE!!! Its idiotic, fallacious, and bullshit. And YOU'RE the ignoramus, Ignoramus!
that is directly responsible for the deaths of LOTS of children.
directly???!!! So its not the diseases that are killing? Its her agenda... mmmkay.
There is a moral imperative to not do something that you know will cause wide spread harm to a large part of a population.
She isn't at large and actively infecting people! No such universal imperative exists.
She's just like any other conspiracy theorist. More concerned with finding a greater truth, than they are with actual reality. I think she knows she is full of crap. On one hand she's a has been celebrity. On the other hand, she can be famous again. Who cares if innocent children have to pay the price?
Ah, then it is really the First Amendment that is responsible.... nay! It is James Madison's fault!!!
Its the same argument as me saying you are denying me my livelihood, that you are responsible for my poverty by buying my competitor's product instead of mine. And it is clearly fallicious.
How does something evolve that kills its host and thus kills itself?
It will be fine as long as it can reproduce before it kills its host/itself.
No... it won't. It kills the entire host population (like an isolated village) and burns itself out... so... when did it have time to evolve? It may have initial opportunity to reproduce prior to the population being eliminated... but eventually, its not reproducing anymore because there are no more hosts.
Its shit like this... Ms. McCarthy may be bat-shit-crazy, but so are any who claim she is killing people by speaking out against or refusing vaccinations. There is no moral imperitive for vaccination. There are, however, compelling rational and scientific reasons for vaccination.
They put out a story telling women that a type of birth control pill increased their risk of getting cancer.
I like the anacdote... but not sure it is applicable as I think there actually may be risks to using birth control pills that a lot of young women have been takng very seriously for the last decade or so, with good reason. When you say "They put out a story..." you make it sound like you're now aware that it was media scaremongering and junk science. I am not aware of this... and would love a citation.
By putting out mis-information like this you are part of the reason for the large number of deaths from measels.
No he isn't, that's a fallicious argument... measels are the cause of the deaths, not misinformation, and not the GP.
Its fine to be passionate about something, and I believe you are on the right side... however, using fallicious argument to convince doubters is not the way to go. Lead with the science, they will follow.
It's those young kids who are put at risk by these nutjobs.
I do not doubt the consequences of herd immunity failing, but I don't believe there is any moral imperitive for vaccination even if the lack of vaccination places lives at risk. The way to convince those refusing to vaccinate their children is with science and cold facts, and not with fallicious argument (i.e. to exaggerate, if you refuse to vaccinate your child, you are murdering mine).
And... how does this differentiate Mossad from other intelligence agencies? You think the Syrians don't fake passports? CIA? China? I'm not sure it was so wise now... I wasn't attempting to defend Mossad... I was merely trolling a troll. Look closely at my post, you will see its A FUCKING JOKE, ASSHOLE.
Obviously, Pakistan has never heard of the MPAA. If Pakistan can beat Hollywood lawyers... India should begin sweating. I suspect it be long before Pakistan is just another Warner Bros. backlot.
Pakistan is not clever. If they were clever, they would not have outlawed encryption. They would have created a state run CA and outlawed all other CA's requiring everyone in Pakistan to use Pakistan's certificates.
How can one detect if a packet is encrypted? How do you distinguish unencrypted binary data from encrypted binary data?
I was thinking the same thing. Also... I wonder... you'd think by now the encryption nerds would have come up with an encryption that doesn't look like encryption: an undetectable encryption.
Practically speaking, I'm not sure the US has much to fear from Mossad. Mossad only seems to be effective at revenge.... at least that's all we hear. Fuck with Isreal, they will go to any lengths for however long it takes to hunt you down and assassinate you with some Q-like device like an umbrella or lethal contact lens thrown like a Frisbee. Unless the US starts killing Israeli olympians, I really doubt they'll be taking any action against the US or its citizens.
Obviously, the really virulent diseases like Ebola Zaire are so nasty that they burn themselves out fairly rapidly because the infected population dies before they can spread the virus.
As a typical slashdotter, I'm not all that biologically or mechanically oriented... so nothing here is obvious... but I thought I understood evolution, and the fact that viruses like these exist really puzzles me. How does something evolve that kills its host and thus kills itself? You'd think that evolutionary pressure would have eliminated all paracitic life that, as a matter of course of its life cycle, kills itself... that just the sheer volume of replication would cause mutation in such organisms such that it doesn't kill its host, allowing its population to build.
I actually really wanted one, strictly for web browsing. I don't care if it won't have apps or support in the future, though the projects going around to put Android on them will certainly add value to something I only wanted to a browser anyway.
Mod up. This is precisely what the manufacturers are missing, including Apple. A tablet that does web and NOTHING ELSE would still compete very well against a tablet that cooks you breakfast. And this web surfing tablet could replace the computers of millions of people that never do anything else but www and webmail. It is insane that competitors allowed Apple to be the only light tablet on the market for so long... I can't believe that Microsoft didn't at least rush something out the door that was half-baked... all they needed was a browsing tablet (keep it simple, stupid). How hard would that have been? COME ON.
Linux is for Windows fail. Microsoft breaks it... Linux fixes it. That is its prime reason for existing. The fact that Linux makes a fast, stable server platform is purely an unintended side-effect, call it a happy accident, of not being Windows.
so the devastating storm the news machine had hyped up simply never materialized
not defending the media here, but by what measure wasn't it devastating? 3rd or 4th deadliest hurricane in 30 years... billions and billions of dollars in property damage... check out what it was doing to Vermont.
I swear there is some kind of contest going on here to see who could be the least impressed with the weather.
Slashdot Mirror
Other parts of the world depend on the Sahara being like the Sahara is, so if you change the Sahara, you change those other parts of the world.
And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake ... I... drink... your... milkshake! I drink it up!
Once might be an accident, but two unreleased iPhones lost in bars starts to look like a strategy.
No, it actually makes it look more like an accident.
Oddly, something about it sort of reminds me of a Clancy plot.
I see a strong argument, followed by a weak argument... and everyone getting stuck on the weak argument.
. A) Science proves vaccinations are safe and in your best interests.
. B) If you don't get vaccinations, I may be hurt... and others may be hurt. You are morally obligated to get vaccinations.
. b) entertainers are immoral for entertaining (or the unenlightened are immoral for retarding enlightenment).
All I'm saying is we should stick with the A argument, it stands strong. We don't need B and b. Waste of time... diminishing returns... weak arguments...
If you don't shut up, I'm going to kill myself. Go on... be a murderer... say something.
/hoping unexplained sarcastic point taken
So someone who shouts "fire!" in a crowded theater is completely absolved of any responsibility in the ensuing stampede, injuries and possible deaths?
Because that's what Jenny McCarthy is doing.
Show me this stampede of people refusing vaccinations, crushing innocent bystanders in their wake.
...
Look, all I'm telling you is that instead of attempting to indict individuals that are inexplicably petitioning others to refuse vaccination, and attempting to guilt those same people into getting vaccinations, we would all be better served ignoring that poor argument, and instead use the first, and stronger argument that THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS and SCIENCE IS SCIENCE. Tell them the experts know better than those that have no credentials, and vaccinations are safe and a good thing because science proves it. We don't need the weak argument.
The argument is still fallacious. Sounds like bandwagon to me.
I don't see too many posts with the level of exaggeration that yours contains.
Yeah, I want to cut the bullshit right out. Most of the text in the comments is all about what a shame it is because their stupidity ultimately hurts children... an attempt at guilting the dipshits into vaccination. Though the heart is in the right place (someone IS thinking of the children, or at least, THEIR children), its intellectually dishonest and a waste of time. Its not immoral to refuse vaccination any more than it is to refuse medicine. This is academic.
The facts alone —the valid, reproducible science and research behind the medicine — must suffice as a reason to get vaccinated. Using guilt is a weak argument... the stronger argument is "listen to the scientists, not the entertainers."
Nope, that's not it at all. You're trying to convince someone that some kind of life-saving procedure is dangerous. Thus if you actually succeed at convincing and the person actually dies due to the lack of said life-saving procedure, you're at least partially responsible for the outcome.
First of all, I'M not arguing against vaccinations. I am arguing that there is no moral imperative to get vaccinated, and it is silly to waste time trying to guilt people into vaccinations when THERE IS SCIENCE to serve the rational argument. Secondly, If SCIENCE tells you that you are sick and need medicine, and some non-expert tells you something different, and you listen to the fool, the fool is not responsible for your actions. Not even a little bit. Ultimately, you are responsible for your decisions and your actions. If the fool was your boss, or your commander, and ordered you, or held you at gunpoint and you were obligated to follow... only then can you begin passing blame around.
By your argument, if I have kidney disease, and you are a blood match, then you are morally obligated to give me one of your kidneys... you have NO CHOICE!!! Its idiotic, fallacious, and bullshit. And YOU'RE the ignoramus, Ignoramus!
She is lying to push forward a personal agenda
irrelevant.
that is directly responsible for the deaths of LOTS of children.
directly???!!! So its not the diseases that are killing? Its her agenda... mmmkay.
There is a moral imperative to not do something that you know will cause wide spread harm to a large part of a population.
She isn't at large and actively infecting people! No such universal imperative exists.
She's just like any other conspiracy theorist. More concerned with finding a greater truth, than they are with actual reality. I think she knows she is full of crap. On one hand she's a has been celebrity. On the other hand, she can be famous again. Who cares if innocent children have to pay the price?
Ah, then it is really the First Amendment that is responsible.... nay! It is James Madison's fault!!!
No it isn't. Its the same argument as this thouught experiment.
Its the same argument as me saying you are denying me my livelihood, that you are responsible for my poverty by buying my competitor's product instead of mine. And it is clearly fallicious.
How does something evolve that kills its host and thus kills itself?
It will be fine as long as it can reproduce before it kills its host/itself.
No... it won't. It kills the entire host population (like an isolated village) and burns itself out... so... when did it have time to evolve? It may have initial opportunity to reproduce prior to the population being eliminated... but eventually, its not reproducing anymore because there are no more hosts.
Its shit like this... Ms. McCarthy may be bat-shit-crazy, but so are any who claim she is killing people by speaking out against or refusing vaccinations. There is no moral imperitive for vaccination. There are, however, compelling rational and scientific reasons for vaccination.
They put out a story telling women that a type of birth control pill increased their risk of getting cancer.
I like the anacdote... but not sure it is applicable as I think there actually may be risks to using birth control pills that a lot of young women have been takng very seriously for the last decade or so, with good reason. When you say "They put out a story..." you make it sound like you're now aware that it was media scaremongering and junk science. I am not aware of this... and would love a citation.
By putting out mis-information like this you are part of the reason for the large number of deaths from measels.
No he isn't, that's a fallicious argument... measels are the cause of the deaths, not misinformation, and not the GP.
Its fine to be passionate about something, and I believe you are on the right side... however, using fallicious argument to convince doubters is not the way to go. Lead with the science, they will follow.
It's those young kids who are put at risk by these nutjobs.
I do not doubt the consequences of herd immunity failing, but I don't believe there is any moral imperitive for vaccination even if the lack of vaccination places lives at risk. The way to convince those refusing to vaccinate their children is with science and cold facts, and not with fallicious argument (i.e. to exaggerate, if you refuse to vaccinate your child, you are murdering mine).
And... how does this differentiate Mossad from other intelligence agencies? You think the Syrians don't fake passports? CIA? China? I'm not sure it was so wise now... I wasn't attempting to defend Mossad... I was merely trolling a troll. Look closely at my post, you will see its A FUCKING JOKE, ASSHOLE.
Obviously, Pakistan has never heard of the MPAA. If Pakistan can beat Hollywood lawyers... India should begin sweating. I suspect it be long before Pakistan is just another Warner Bros. backlot.
Pakistan is not clever. If they were clever, they would not have outlawed encryption. They would have created a state run CA and outlawed all other CA's requiring everyone in Pakistan to use Pakistan's certificates.
How can one detect if a packet is encrypted? How do you distinguish unencrypted binary data from encrypted binary data?
I was thinking the same thing. Also... I wonder... you'd think by now the encryption nerds would have come up with an encryption that doesn't look like encryption: an undetectable encryption.
is dust on the lens.
Practically speaking, I'm not sure the US has much to fear from Mossad. Mossad only seems to be effective at revenge.... at least that's all we hear. Fuck with Isreal, they will go to any lengths for however long it takes to hunt you down and assassinate you with some Q-like device like an umbrella or lethal contact lens thrown like a Frisbee. Unless the US starts killing Israeli olympians, I really doubt they'll be taking any action against the US or its citizens.
Obviously, the really virulent diseases like Ebola Zaire are so nasty that they burn themselves out fairly rapidly because the infected population dies before they can spread the virus.
As a typical slashdotter, I'm not all that biologically or mechanically oriented... so nothing here is obvious... but I thought I understood evolution, and the fact that viruses like these exist really puzzles me. How does something evolve that kills its host and thus kills itself? You'd think that evolutionary pressure would have eliminated all paracitic life that, as a matter of course of its life cycle, kills itself... that just the sheer volume of replication would cause mutation in such organisms such that it doesn't kill its host, allowing its population to build.
I actually really wanted one, strictly for web browsing. I don't care if it won't have apps or support in the future, though the projects going around to put Android on them will certainly add value to something I only wanted to a browser anyway.
Mod up. This is precisely what the manufacturers are missing, including Apple. A tablet that does web and NOTHING ELSE would still compete very well against a tablet that cooks you breakfast. And this web surfing tablet could replace the computers of millions of people that never do anything else but www and webmail. It is insane that competitors allowed Apple to be the only light tablet on the market for so long... I can't believe that Microsoft didn't at least rush something out the door that was half-baked... all they needed was a browsing tablet (keep it simple, stupid). How hard would that have been? COME ON.
and what do you do with linux then?
Linux is for Windows fail. Microsoft breaks it... Linux fixes it. That is its prime reason for existing. The fact that Linux makes a fast, stable server platform is purely an unintended side-effect, call it a happy accident, of not being Windows.
so the devastating storm the news machine had hyped up simply never materialized
not defending the media here, but by what measure wasn't it devastating? 3rd or 4th deadliest hurricane in 30 years... billions and billions of dollars in property damage... check out what it was doing to Vermont.
I swear there is some kind of contest going on here to see who could be the least impressed with the weather.