Knightskye
Member

No, it is not a strawman. And neither one good nor another is the enemy of perfect. And there is more than one way to achieve good, in this case.

Well, the thread title is fraudulent enough. No doubt that's why the Zippy Account picked it.

I am, actually. And as often as you have this conversation, I'd have thought you were too. Of course. But you must admit that getting a vaccine is easier than avoiding something that floats on the wind, and is too small to see. If there's no risk to any child, regardless of their unique genetic makeup, in getting all vaccines at once, then she's right. If there is risk there, if only to a few children, then you're right. That's a question science has no definite answer for, yet, or if there is proof too many vaccines at once harmed a child we're not being let in on it. So it becomes a matter of risk of exposure v. risk this one child is the one who can't handle it. She may be right to say the one child in a million who can't take the regimen is the smaller risk. You are certainly right to say exposure is a risk that a mother does have some degree of control over. Neither of you is going to win this particular argument right away.

You don't appear to be listening, so I give up. But the fact remains that things have been proven which were once thought not to exist--by people who prefer jumping to conclusions to the scientific method. And some of them used the fact that scientists hadn't proven the thing to exist as proof it didn't--right up until better scientists proved it did.

And my point remains, quite simply, that the converse is not proven, and that makes concerns over it rational, and you're not going to win your argument by denying concerns that actually aren't irrational. You don't pick your battles. You should. If a person is concerned about combined vaccines, let them be. Just encourage them not to forget to get them all done. If Created4 shows you a chart someone released showing how to give two years' worth of immunizations at once, call it deplorable, and say you sincerely hope it's a fake and nobody is that stupid. Look at what you just typed, that I quoted above. Look at it. Then look at this: Are you sure that, in the heat of the moment, you didn't encourage that imagination of his?

Darwin never said that natural selection favors those who refuse to seriously consider precautions until causation is proven. The type of parent who even understands the concept of too many vaccines in one session really isn't likely to be the sort who will forget--or consider it too much trouble--to make more than one appointment. 'You probably shouldn't encourage this sort of parent to think that way because...' is a far cry from, 'Your precautions are evil because you'll forget to go back for the rest.' No, it seriously is not. You're arguing that what isn't proven cannot be, that questions scientists cannot prove an answer to are not valid even though scientists consider all questions valid until their answers are proven. You really are.

Cold and cloudy.

Ya whenever the media showed a violent incident at a Trump rally, it turned out that the person they showed who got punched or whatever had previously been violent on or off-camera.. but the media (and zippo) fail to mention things like this. I think there was also a black Trump supporter who punched a white protester at one point and the media wouldn't show it on TV either. They don't show anything that goes against their narrative.

Yes, they stand on facts. But when you get going, you really seem to kneel before them. You should get to know a few. The best scientists in the world almost never make it so black and white. They call their best evidence-based theories on how things work 'models' until either the evidence becomes incontrovertible or a better model comes along. The best scientists called our spherical earth a model practically until Yuri Gagarin blasted into space and looked over his shoulder. When scientists say, 'We have found no evidence,' it means exactly what it says. They don't consider that proof of anything at all. Except perhaps that what proof may or may not exist isn't where they looked for it. If you go bashing parents for not kneeling before Science, you may find yourself farther from the scientific method than the parents you're bashing.

No where did I say science and parents work the same way?

Because no parent worth his or her salt is satisfied with a null 'proof'. There is no proven link, but there is also no proof that the risk doesn't exist. So let people spread them out, if that aids their peace of mind. Don't call them anti-anything over a trifle like that, unless you want them to become that very thing out of spite. I thought we learned the hard way over the course of two Ron Paul campaigns that the way to convince people yours is the reasonable position is to be reasonable.

Kind of weak counterpoints to someone thinking it 'unlikely' that your individual child won't have their immune system adversely affected by, or run into the poorly understood risks of autism over, a massive dose of multiple dead but deadly diseases. Hardly worth vilifying parents who choose to spread them out. I don't see anything to be gained by treating them that way.

How terribly reassuring. Now. What is the proven or alleged advantage to doing them all at once, or in such short order?

Solar panels aren't a significant enough portion of the power on the grid, and the eclipse doesn't last long enough, and the eclipse won't be close enough to total in California, for this to even matter. It's a cute PR stunt, though. Here's a nifty excuse to let Big Brother stick its nose in your energy usage! Don't it make you feel grand?

I'm at a loss how it's harmful to take the common sense approach, and let a child's immune system learn how to fight diseases one at a time. Maybe most--even the overwhelming majority of--children can handle having their immune systems bombarded with multiple strains of dead bacteria, and can actually learn to recognize and deal with the lot at once. But where's the harm in limiting how many subjects their little immune systems must study at one time?

There was a lengthy thread on this very forum on the topic once upon a time. Can't find that either.

Couldn't be. A Navy court martial couldn't announce that McCain was on the catapult when official film existed clearly showing he was still on the port side aft, with his nose pointed to starboard.

Well, what do you know? The internal diagrams of the A-4 have been deleted from the internet, and all the clear vids of that fire starting have been scrubbed from YouTube.

After all, it quotes the official court martial findings. And the court martial of the son of a powerful admiral, who would eventually have a ship named after him, couldn't possibly turn into a whitewash. So definitely decide before you watch the films on the net, read up on 'wet starts', and look at where the fuel tanks are on an A-4.

I'm sorry. Please don't make me pay pun-itive damages.

See if you can impart some backbone on the ACLU. And yeah, I was thinking about the last time Americans got fed up with the insiders, and the insiders punished them for rejecting the Media Approved Choices. Jimmy Carter was sabotaged by Congress, the press and his own cabinet at every turn. Ultimately, even the Iranians contributed to the return to CFR Official Stooges. I'm sure they'll make a show of neutering Trump at every turn, just as they did Carter, even though the amount of coverage Trump got during the primaries clearly demonstrates he wasn't truly an Unapproved Choice. Just to impress upon us the lesson that Resistance is Futile.

Not necessarily. He could have been alarmed. Or maybe he anticipated gun control regulations, and wanted to get grandfathered in. He might have felt police were too busy to protect him, and he wanted to assume the mantle of responsibility. Or it's just an exercise so he can improve his digital dexterity. The salesman might have lied and told him it was a radio.

Because if the European Union used its own military to subjugate its conquests it might cause resentment.

How to survive being protected and served 101.

Let the liberals do the stereotyping. Oh, wait...

They went on military time quickly enough. So what happens to you if you don't load your "Clock 19" at seven p.m?

Doesn't matter, so long as they self-identify. By the way, the timetable can be moved up without prior notice. So, the 'Tomorrow's Forecast' comes with no express or implied guarantees that it will keep you ahead of the curve. For example, they had a guy on Bleats the Press this very morning applying the age-old Hitler Excuse for Spreading Democracy domestically. He said the problem is institutionalism of racism, and that comes of tolerance. Any racist should immediately be assaulted wherever that person appears because if Germans of the 1920s had done it, six million lives would have been saved. What's more, he was sitting right next to an official with the SPLC, and wasn't immediately declared to be a Hate Group. This may be an indication that Open Season has already been declared.

Good point. We should probably try to be more proactive. Toward that end, here's Tomorrow's Forecast: Being a Democrat is a valid reason to commit any Micro-, Macro- or Major Felony Aggravated Aggression.

No, no, no. That's the Old, Obsolete Liberalism. Today, it's vanilla is racist, and chocolate and strawberry are cultural appropriation. So this guy, being white, was guilty no matter what flavor he was after--whether his haircut was misinterpreted or not! Try to keep up.