Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 10:34:52 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Donate bitcoins to Adam Curry and help get a DSC episode dedicated to bitcoin.  (Read 5574 times)
jon_smark
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 90


View Profile
May 12, 2011, 05:17:32 PM
 #21

I have no idea who Adam Curry is, but if you think that there is anything close to a scientific consensus on the climate, you're deluded.

Thank you creighto for so succinctly illustrating the kooky worldview I was talking about.  But next time try not to be so obvious, or people may suspect you're on my payroll...

I suspect you may be getting your information concerning climate change from denialist sources, hence your statement rejecting the scientific consensus.  But guess what, among climatologists there is near complete consensus that the globe is warming up (I'm talking about figures in the vicinity of 99%), and as the latest IPCC report shows, the error bars suggest human responsibility with about 90% confidence.

I know you are likely to invoke some conspiracy theory as a response.  That's always the last refuge of the kooks.
1480934092
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480934092

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480934092
Reply with quote  #2

1480934092
Report to moderator
1480934092
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480934092

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480934092
Reply with quote  #2

1480934092
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480934092
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480934092

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480934092
Reply with quote  #2

1480934092
Report to moderator
Garrett Burgwardt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
May 12, 2011, 05:21:48 PM
 #22

Now now, lay off the ad hominem attacks.

Why even bother debating the cause of global warming? Better to hedge your bets than sit around pointing blame.
jon_smark
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 90


View Profile
May 12, 2011, 05:37:58 PM
 #23

Children have died because of taking vaccines, which is why not all of them are given to children in developed nations anymore.

Vaccination does have some risks, but the benefits are so overwhelming that any reasonable cost/benefit analysis will favour giving them to all the kids who can have them.

And it's also true that not all of them are given to children anymore.  One notable example is smallpox: there's no need to vaccinate against it anymore because the vaccination campaigns of the 20th century were so overwhelmingly successful that the disease was eradicated from the face of the earth!  Think about this: one the biggest killers in human history goes "poof" thanks to vaccines.  Want a better argument in favour of vaccination?

Quote
My own children have only had about half of the "reccommended" set for school children, because they are homeschooled and I can do as I want.  My wife and I choose between them based on the risks of real harm if infected times the odds of actual infection in the modern world and weigh that against the odds of a particular vaccine causing harm.  We live in the US, which means that our children benefit from the 'herd immunity' effect from being in a city wherein most of the other children are vaccinated, and therefore there is no infection vector that could likely reach them anyway.

I hope you realise the enormity of what you are confessing to.  And pardon me if I'll sound condescending, but your actions show the lack of basic moral behaviour that I would expect from a 5 year-old, not from an adult.

Have you considered what would happen to the herd immunity if all parents did as you do?  You are basically freeloading on top of the herd immunity created by parents who have acted more responsibly -- you do realise this, don't you?

Moreover, I suspect you may even be putting your kids (or future grandkids) at a higher risk than what you are realising.  What if one of those diseases they're not vaccinated against makes a comeback? Or suppose your children's children get infected with a disease like pertussis because your children pass it on to them? (I'm only using pertussis as an example -- I don't know which were your actual choices concerning vaccination).

Quote
The public school kids bear the risks, while my kids benefit.  It's not fair, but that's life.

So you're pretty much confessing to willingly freeloading to the disadvantage of your society.  What a fine example!
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
May 12, 2011, 05:52:14 PM
 #24

Thank you creighto for so succinctly illustrating the kooky worldview I was talking about.  But next time try not to be so obvious, or people may suspect you're on my payroll...

I suspect you may be getting your information concerning climate change from denialist sources, hence your statement rejecting the scientific consensus.  But guess what, among climatologists there is near complete consensus that the globe is warming up (I'm talking about figures in the vicinity of 99%), and as the latest IPCC report shows, the error bars suggest human responsibility with about 90% confidence.

I know you are likely to invoke some conspiracy theory as a response.  That's always the last refuge of the kooks.

First, what the fuck is "consensus"? I don't remember that word from science class. Is consensus like the last step of the scientific method?

Secondly, "the globe is warming up" != "humans are contributing to global warming" != "humans are a main cause of global warming" != "government regulation is the solution to global warming"
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 12, 2011, 05:56:10 PM
 #25

Children have died because of taking vaccines, which is why not all of them are given to children in developed nations anymore.

Vaccination does have some risks, but the benefits are so overwhelming that any reasonable cost/benefit analysis will favour giving them to all the kids who can have them.

And it's also true that not all of them are given to children anymore.  One notable example is smallpox: there's no need to vaccinate against it anymore because the vaccination campaigns of the 20th century were so overwhelmingly successful that the disease was eradicated from the face of the earth!  Think about this: one the biggest killers in human history goes "poof" thanks to vaccines.  Want a better argument in favour of vaccination?

You just contradicted your first paragraph with the second.
Quote
Quote
My own children have only had about half of the "reccommended" set for school children, because they are homeschooled and I can do as I want.  My wife and I choose between them based on the risks of real harm if infected times the odds of actual infection in the modern world and weigh that against the odds of a particular vaccine causing harm.  We live in the US, which means that our children benefit from the 'herd immunity' effect from being in a city wherein most of the other children are vaccinated, and therefore there is no infection vector that could likely reach them anyway.

I hope you realise the enormity of what you are confessing to.  And pardon me if I'll sound condescending, but your actions show the lack of basic moral behaviour that I would expect from a 5 year-old, not from an adult.

Have you considered what would happen to the herd immunity if all parents did as you do?  You are basically freeloading on top of the herd immunity created by parents who have acted more responsibly -- you do realise this, don't you?

Yes, it's a true "Tragedy of the Commons" situation.  Those other parents aren't acting more responsibly, they are largely compelled to vaccinate their children because they send them to government schools.  The first responsibility of the parent is to the child, if the conditions of the modern world make the risks of the vaccine equal to that of the benefits, it's irresponsible to give it to one's children.
Quote

Moreover, I suspect you may even be putting your kids (or future grandkids) at a higher risk than what you are realising.  What if one of those diseases they're not vaccinated against makes a comeback?
That was considered, and if any of these diseases start to make a comeback, odds are very high that we would have time to return to the pediatritian and take care of it.  They have had all of the low risk vaccines, it's a risk/reward calculation which is different for a child growing up in the modern world wherein most communicable childhood diseases have been supressed or eradicated.
Quote
Or suppose your children's children get infected with a disease like pertussis because your children pass it on to them? (I'm only using pertussis as an example -- I don't know which were your actual choices concerning vaccination).
 They hav also had all of the diseases that have high long term risks.  When I was a child, my mon intentionally expossed my and my sister to chicken pox, because it's less life threatening to a child than an adult.  My children have had all of those vaccines.
Quote
Quote
The public school kids bear the risks, while my kids benefit.  It's not fair, but that's life.

So you're pretty much confessing to willingly freeloading to the disadvantage of your society.  What a fine example!


Yes, Thank you!  It's good to see that you acknowledge that a parent's first responsibility is to his own children.   Cool

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 12, 2011, 06:06:12 PM
 #26

I have no idea who Adam Curry is, but if you think that there is anything close to a scientific consensus on the climate, you're deluded.

Thank you creighto for so succinctly illustrating the kooky worldview I was talking about.  But next time try not to be so obvious, or people may suspect you're on my payroll...

I suspect you may be getting your information concerning climate change from denialist sources, hence your statement rejecting the scientific consensus.  But guess what, among climatologists there is near complete consensus that the globe is warming up (I'm talking about figures in the vicinity of 99%), and as the latest IPCC report shows, the error bars suggest human responsibility with about 90% confidence.

I know you are likely to invoke some conspiracy theory as a response.  That's always the last refuge of the kooks.


I didn't mention my own position.  There is no such thing as consensus in science, there are respected PhD's in Physics that still doubt that the Big Bang Theory is an accurate discription of the early universe.  There may be a majority of climatologists who agree that the climate is warming up, but it's provablely not a consensus.  And even then, they don't agree on the root causes of the climate change.  Solar cycle theory is still a significant minority position among meterologists and climitologists that can fit the data as well as human causes do.  i'm not a master of this field, and I would wager that neither are you, but I would hazard the guess that human activities do play a contributing factor.  The question is, how much of one?  I think that it's a bit rediculous for us to assume that human activities have a significant role in climate change based on 120 years of records, particularly considering the Earth has been much warmer in the past than it is today or is likely to get in 100 yeras.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
jon_smark
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 90


View Profile
May 12, 2011, 06:12:16 PM
 #27

First, what the fuck is "consensus"? I don't remember that word from science class. Is consensus like the last step of the scientific method?

Very few areas in science can advance based solely on deductive reasoning.  Often you must rely on triangulation in logic space, or have to contend with error bars so large that multiple competing hypotheses cannot be discarded.  Nevertheless, as those error bars get smaller, a consensus among the experts tends to form.  This is also the case for global warming.  It is in fact very interesting to study the evolution of the IPCC reports through the years: though the first reports only suggested that humans may be involved, as time passed on and more data was collected, those error bars got smaller and the consensus slowly gravitated towards its present position that human beings are most likely to be the main culprit.

Quote
Secondly, "the globe is warming up" != "humans are contributing to global warming" != "humans are a main cause of global warming" != "government regulation is the solution to global warming"

I agree, and you will note that I was always very careful in never conflating any of the issues above.
jon_smark
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 90


View Profile
May 12, 2011, 06:27:47 PM
 #28

I didn't mention my own position.  There is no such thing as consensus in science, there are respected PhD's in Physics that still doubt that the Big Bang Theory is an accurate discription of the early universe.  There may be a majority of climatologists who agree that the climate is warming up, but it's provablely not a consensus.  And even then, they don't agree on the root causes of the climate change.  Solar cycle theory is still a significant minority position among meterologists and climitologists that can fit the data as well as human causes do.  i'm not a master of this field, and I would wager that neither are you, but I would hazard the guess that human activities do play a contributing factor.  The question is, how much of one?  I think that it's a bit rediculous for us to assume that human activities have a significant role in climate change based on 120 years of records, particularly considering the Earth has been much warmer in the past than it is today or is likely to get in 100 yeras.

There is in fact such a thing as the Scientific consensus.  Moreover, I suspect you may be confusing the meaning of the word consensus as it is used in the context of science versus its use in everyday life.  Saying that there is a scientific consensus about position X does not mean that a full 100% of practitioners support X without any doubts about the certainty of X.

About the concrete examples you mentioned, it would be a mistake to lump them all together in the same sack:

  • Most physicists take the Big Bang model as the best current description of the early universe.  However, it is also part of the "consensus" that many aspects of the Big Bang theory are not particularly solid.  Therefore, the "consensus" is that physicists would not be completely surprised if the Big Bang theory were to suffer a significant change.
  • Concerning climate change, the overwhelming consensus is that it is a real phenomenon.  As to the causes, the consensus is that human beings are most likely to be the main culprits, but the error bars and our understanding of certain phenomena do not allow us to make a categorical affirmation that we are certainly fully responsible.  You see, it is perfectly okay for a consensus opinion to say "we are about 90% sure".
jon_smark
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 90


View Profile
May 12, 2011, 06:44:13 PM
 #29

Vaccination does have some risks, but the benefits are so overwhelming that any reasonable cost/benefit analysis will favour giving them to all the kids who can have them.

And it's also true that not all of them are given to children anymore.  One notable example is smallpox: there's no need to vaccinate against it anymore because the vaccination campaigns of the 20th century were so overwhelmingly successful that the disease was eradicated from the face of the earth!  Think about this: one the biggest killers in human history goes "poof" thanks to vaccines.  Want a better argument in favour of vaccination?

You just contradicted your first paragraph with the second.

Smallpox is a horrible, deadly disease.  There were certain (tiny) risks associated with the vaccine, but the disease was so widespread and deadly that the benefits of the vaccine far outweighted the risks.  The vaccination campaign was so successful that the disease was eradicated.  Since the smallpox virus became extinct in the wild and was never coming back1, it was no longer necessary to vaccinate children against it, which is why it's no longer done.

How is the paragraph above a contradiction?  Please explain your reasoning step by step, as I'm curious to see what sort of cognitive mechanisms are responsible for your conclusion.

1Excluding some bio-weapon scenarios using preserved samples of the virus.  But let's not get into that...
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 12, 2011, 08:15:09 PM
 #30

First, what the fuck is "consensus"? I don't remember that word from science class. Is consensus like the last step of the scientific method?

Very few areas in science can advance based solely on deductive reasoning.  Often you must rely on triangulation in logic space, or have to contend with error bars so large that multiple competing hypotheses cannot be discarded.  Nevertheless, as those error bars get smaller, a consensus among the experts tends to form.  This is also the case for global warming.  It is in fact very interesting to study the evolution of the IPCC reports through the years: though the first reports only suggested that humans may be involved, as time passed on and more data was collected, those error bars got smaller and the consensus slowly gravitated towards its present position that human beings are most likely to be the main culprit.

It's notable that you chose the IPCC reports to make this point, particularly since the vast majority of scientists that contribute to the IPCC reports are not meterologists nor climatologists, and those that are work directly or indirectly for government agencies, not as scientists in research.  Using the IPCC as evidence for anything displays either an immediate political bias or an inforgivable ignorance to the politics that contribute towards the IPCC.  A couple of years ago, a climatologist had to sue the IPCC for falsely claiming that said climatologist had reviewed and/or contributed to one such report and upon pointing out the "error" the IPCC refused to remove said climatologists name from supporting documents and website pages.  Before it was over, there were over 60 scientists who discovered that their professional reputations were being falsely claimed by the IPCC.

In short, the IPCC is not a credible source of scientific information, either for or against the debate about climate change.  It is only a political action committee cloaked in a false shroud of impartial scientific retoric.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 12, 2011, 08:21:51 PM
 #31

Vaccination does have some risks, but the benefits are so overwhelming that any reasonable cost/benefit analysis will favour giving them to all the kids who can have them.

And it's also true that not all of them are given to children anymore.  One notable example is smallpox: there's no need to vaccinate against it anymore because the vaccination campaigns of the 20th century were so overwhelmingly successful that the disease was eradicated from the face of the earth!  Think about this: one the biggest killers in human history goes "poof" thanks to vaccines.  Want a better argument in favour of vaccination?

You just contradicted your first paragraph with the second.

Smallpox is a horrible, deadly disease.  There were certain (tiny) risks associated with the vaccine, but the disease was so widespread and deadly that the benefits of the vaccine far outweighted the risks.  The vaccination campaign was so successful that the disease was eradicated.  Since the smallpox virus became extinct in the wild and was never coming back1, it was no longer necessary to vaccinate children against it, which is why it's no longer done.

How is the paragraph above a contradiction?  Please explain your reasoning step by step, as I'm curious to see what sort of cognitive mechanisms are responsible for your conclusion.

You used the example of a high risk vaccine being used to eradicate a higher risk disease from nature, and the subsequent removal of that vaccine from use; as the support for the ongoing use of moderate risk vaccines intended to prevent moderate risk childhood diseases that have already been (statisticly & effectively) eradicated from the society that my children live in.  I shouldn't need to follow any step by step explaination, it's self-evident to anyone that doesn't have your cognative dissonnance.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Longmarch
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 132



View Profile
May 12, 2011, 08:32:02 PM
 #32

"Statistically and effectively eradicating" a disease is a long way from making it extinct.  Rubella, pertussis, mumps etc. are more than "moderately" dangerous.  The vaccines for these diseases are less than "moderately" dangerous. 

Vaccines are a miracle of human ingenuity.  The Unibomber was a terrorist.  Can't we all just get along?
Longmarch
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 132



View Profile
May 12, 2011, 08:43:43 PM
 #33

Oh, also, I've always had this hunch that the anti-vaccine movement and global-warming denialism were part of the global banking elite's world population control program.   Crazy weather and widespread epidemics could kill off a nice percentage of the little people while the multibillionaires sip human growth hormone in their air-conditioned bunkers.

Come on sheeple, wake up.

 
error
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574



View Profile
May 12, 2011, 08:50:06 PM
 #34

Oh, also, I've always had this hunch that the anti-vaccine movement and global-warming denialism were part of the global banking elite's world population control program.   Crazy weather and widespread epidemics could kill off a nice percentage of the little people while the multibillionaires sip human growth hormone in their air-conditioned bunkers.

Come on sheeple, wake up.

I suspect you've got it backward. "Global climate change" overreaction benefits the elite. Not to mention, "denialism" is not the same as demanding trustworthy research.

15UFyv6kfWgq83Pp3yhXPr8rknv9m6581W
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 12, 2011, 08:56:53 PM
 #35

"Statistically and effectively eradicating" a disease is a long way from making it extinct.  Rubella, pertussis, mumps etc. are more than "moderately" dangerous.  The vaccines for these diseases are less than "moderately" dangerous. 

And my kids have had MMR.  Again, it was a cost/benefit analysis.  If you stop and look at the list of vaccines that many public school districts require, you'll notice that many of those are on there for historical reasons or political ones.  Some of them are very expensive, and must be paid for by your medical insurance plan; and then the vaccine company will "donate" those same vaccines to the public clinic in the city so that those who couldn't afford it anyway don't bring attention to the fact that the company is making a fortune for a vaccine with debatable benefits for the public.  A perfect example of this kind of boondoggle is Gardasil, the HPC vaccine.  It's relatively new, comes with very real risks and very real benefits; but then it only protects against the eight most common forms of this disease, all of which are sexually trasmitted diseases.  If it were simply reccommended for teenagers, I'd say it was a great thing.  But it's required for public schooled girls as young as eight years old in some districts.  Why, exactly?  Does the public school system have a free love clinic for eight year olds?  When this first came out, my daughter was seven and it is "approved" for as young as six.  Our pediatritian, at her checkup, asked us if we wanted to consider it for our daughter.  He explained it all to us, and then admitted that his clinic gets a kickback for every one they administer.  I think he already knew that he had better come clean with his homeschooled clients, at least.  I thought, new vaccine therefore not much data outside of the lab on it's effects when combined with other drugs or conditions; daughter is homeschooled and years from puberty, and is devout Christian to boot; costs $80 per dose.  "I think I'll wait a few years and see how things work out, or at least for the price to drop."  Turns out to have been a good idea; for it's neither as effective as was claimed nor as safe as believed.  It's price is much lower now though.
Quote
Vaccines are a miracle of human ingenuity. 
I agree, but they are just another tool.  Choose wisely, they aren't magic.
Quote
The Unibomber was a terrorist.
The Unibomber was a disgruntled INTP with an ax to grind against former coworkers.  I'm also an INTP, and you shouldn't meddle in the affairs of INTP's; for we are (usually) subtle and quick to anger.
 
Quote
Can't we all just get along?

Is this your first time on the Internet?

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 12, 2011, 09:02:36 PM
 #36

Oh, also, I've always had this hunch that the anti-vaccine movement and global-warming denialism were part of the global banking elite's world population control program.   Crazy weather and widespread epidemics could kill off a nice percentage of the little people while the multibillionaires sip human growth hormone in their air-conditioned bunkers.

Come on sheeple, wake up.


Quick question, concerning your population reduction theory.

If the super rich are out to kill off the "little people" then who will buy the crap they sell in order to pay for the air-conditioned bunkers?  And concerning the bunkers, are they there to protect the super rich from the remnant?

And for the record, I'm not anti-vaccine.  I'm anti-blindly-accept-the-opinions-of-your-betters-crap.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
jon_smark
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 90


View Profile
May 12, 2011, 09:12:47 PM
 #37

You used the example of a high risk vaccine being used to eradicate a higher risk disease from nature, and the subsequent removal of that vaccine from use; as the support for the ongoing use of moderate risk vaccines intended to prevent moderate risk childhood diseases that have already been (statisticly & effectively) eradicated from the society that my children live in.

As Longmarch already pointed out, none of the diseases you've failed to vaccinate your children against have been irrevocably eradicated.  They may not be widespread in your particular community in this particular point in time, but they may stage a comeback at any point, particularly if there are many complacent parents like you.

Look, I'm not even making a subtle point here.  There's a world of difference between a disease which has been thoroughly extinguished worldwide like smallpox, and diseases like measles which nowadays are less common in industrialised nations but which are still endemic in poor countries and could therefore come back to byte us in the ass.  Why on earth are you having such difficulties understanding this point?

Quote
I shouldn't need to follow any step by step explaination, it's self-evident to anyone that doesn't have your cognative dissonnance.

Actually, I reckon anyone who paid close attention to this thread will have formed a different opinion as to who was engaging in cognitive dissonance.
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
May 12, 2011, 09:31:11 PM
 #38

Actually, I reckon anyone who paid close attention to this thread will have formed a different opinion as to who was engaging in cognitive dissonance.

Creighto's position appears carefully considered, whereas yours appears to be blind acceptance.

So, no.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 12, 2011, 09:39:35 PM
 #39

You used the example of a high risk vaccine being used to eradicate a higher risk disease from nature, and the subsequent removal of that vaccine from use; as the support for the ongoing use of moderate risk vaccines intended to prevent moderate risk childhood diseases that have already been (statisticly & effectively) eradicated from the society that my children live in.

As Longmarch already pointed out, none of the diseases you've failed to vaccinate your children against have been irrevocably eradicated.  They may not be widespread in your particular community in this particular point in time, but they may stage a comeback at any point, particularly if there are many complacent parents like you.
And I would have plenty of warning in order to get my kids vaccinated if that were to occur, but the most likely cause of such a thing would be a mutation that renders the current vaccine ineffective anyway.  How would getting a vaccine of questionable benefit help my children, here and now?  And calling me complacent implies that I'm doing this out of laziness.  The lazy method would be to just get all of the vaccines that are recommended and not worry about the details.
Quote
Look, I'm not even making a subtle point here.  There's a world of difference between a disease which has been thoroughly extinguished worldwide like smallpox, and diseases like measles which nowadays are less common in industrialised nations but which are still endemic in poor countries and could therefore come back to byte us in the ass.

Not really.  My kids have had MMR, but lets use that as an example.  Measles can be fatal, but isn't likely to be fatal without a compromised immune system.  Measles is pain and suffering, but the vaccine can cause permanent nerve system damage if you turn out to be the unlucky one.  I live in a city that hasn't seen an actual case of measles (discounting the cases that are systomatic responses to the vaccine itself) since 1995.  Tell me how it's better for my child for me to risk a one in 50,000,000 chance that the vaccine will cause paralysis (or other less significant complications) when the odds of just being exposed to that same disease in this city is one in 50,000 or better, and the odds of lifelong effects from the infection itself (with access to 1st world medical care) are longer than with the vaccine?  I admit, getting the vaccine would be cheaper for me, and likely far less painful for my child, than for my child to get infected and be treated to a two week hospital stay.

Quote
Why on earth are you having such difficulties understanding this point?
I understand the point, it's just not an absolute.  At least I'm not competing with children in third world nations for those same vaccines.  You do know that, by not participating, I make those same vaccines cheaper for people who live in places where these diseases are still common, right?  Why do you hate brown people?
Quote
Quote
I shouldn't need to follow any step by step explaination, it's self-evident to anyone that doesn't have your cognative dissonnance.

Actually, I reckon anyone who paid close attention to this thread will have formed a different opinion as to who was engaging in cognitive dissonance.


There it is again.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
jon_smark
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 90


View Profile
May 12, 2011, 10:22:58 PM
 #40

And I would have plenty of warning in order to get my kids vaccinated if that were to occur, but the most likely cause of such a thing would be a mutation that renders the current vaccine ineffective anyway.

Unless your children are part of the first wave of infectees.  And you are also assuming that vaccines will be easily available in circumstances where there's a fulminant rise in the incidence of a disease.  As to the mutation issue, it depends a lot on the pathogen.  The flu virus is notoriously slippery, but that's not the case for other diseases.  Moreover, a vaccine may still offer partial protection against a mutated pathogen.  And partial protection is better than no protection at all!

Quote
How would getting a vaccine of questionable benefit help my children, here and now?  And calling me complacent implies that I'm doing this out of laziness.  The lazy method would be to just get all of the vaccines that are recommended and not worry about the details.

If the vaccine truly was of questionable benefit, I would not disagree with you.  However, I suspect you may be categorising as of "questionable benefit" vaccines which the science-based medical consensus agrees are worth the risks.  And note that I am not saying that there is always unanimous agreement between this consensus and the vaccines which may be recommended by your local authorities.  The latter may be influenced by non-medical interests.

Quote
Quote
Quote
I shouldn't need to follow any step by step explaination, it's self-evident to anyone that doesn't have your cognative dissonnance.
Actually, I reckon anyone who paid close attention to this thread will have formed a different opinion as to who was engaging in cognitive dissonance.
There it is again.

Listen, this back and forth game of more-logical-than-thou began when you accused me of contradicting myself in two statements I made. I have carefully explained why there is no contradiction in my statements. Therefore, and for the sake of closure, I suggest you either retract your accusation or proceed to explain step-by-step how those two statements of mine are in contradiction.  In cases like these I always suggest people draw a logical flowchart pinpointing the exact spot where a logical fallacy took place.  If you really think you are right, would you be so kind as to enlighten us all as to where the flaw in my reasoning lies?  Thank you.
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!