Fox Braintrust: Mandatory Vaccinations Could Lead To 'Forced Abortion'

[JakeStarkey]

Progressives come in right and left wings, west wall, and, no, we are not going to a non progressive style of government. We have not for more than 80 years. Get over it.

The OP is brain crippled as you know and as has been demonstrated over and over above.

 

[SwimExpert]

Not just that, but by refusing to inoculate their kids they put others' kids at risk. F that. I mean if there's a medical reason some kid shouldn't be vaccinated, fine. But a person's right to make an uninformed decision for themselves stops when it impacts others

You have no inherent right to someone else's vaccination.

I have a right to demand my politicans make it illegal to blow smoke in restaurants and drive drunk. I'm not gonna be just hunky doorey with a bunch of ill educated pampered middle class fools deciding their rights trump somebody else's.

So getting vaccines is now on par with drunk driving? What a lunatic you are.

 

[SwimExpert]

It's "callous" to live and let live? I wonder if you actually believe this nonsense or if you're just trolling.

It is very callous to allow parents to neglect their children who have no choice in the matter. It is very callous to live and let die.

It's very callous to believe that the decisions you would make are the only acceptable "non negligent" means of parenting.

 

[SwimExpert]

Why don't you understand that babies aren't born vaccinated nor are they born immune to those diseases?

Assuming facts not in evidence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, the facts are in evidence, and a major fact established here is that swimexpert has not a clue about this topic.

 

[SwimExpert]

Yes, the facts are in evidence, and a major fact established here is that swimexpert has not a clue about this topic.

Speaking of having no clue, perhaps you should educate yourself on the logical conjunction. Understanding the logical conjunction we are mindful of the fact that a conjunctive statement is true only if all operands are true. Or, to put it another way:

(A ^ B) = true ≡ A = true, B = true

The negation of the conjunctive statement is equivalent of the negation of at least one of the operands, with no preference being logically necessary. On the other hand, the assertion of a conjunction statement where the truth value of only some of the operands is known is to assume facts not established. This constitutes a complex question fallacy. Again, to express it symbolically:

B = true, A = unknown
(A ^ B) = true :⇔ fallacy

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact is that it is known, and your logical conjunction delivers a conclusion that is false. Vaccinations have proven to be overwhelmingly good, negating the very minimal, if any, side effects.

We the People in our constitutional republic give our legislators to make decisions for all of us, even if a few disagree.

 

[SwimExpert]

The fact is that it is known, and your logical conjunction delivers a conclusion that is false.

You're not paying attention. This is the conjunction:

Why don't you understand that babies aren't born vaccinated nor are they born immune to those diseases?

 

[Dana7360]

The fact is that it is known, and your logical conjunction delivers a conclusion that is false.

You're not paying attention. This is the conjunction:

Why don't you understand that babies aren't born vaccinated nor are they born immune to those diseases?

Facts are evidence. Facts are what's used in court cases to defend or convict someone.

Facts are used in science to prove or disprove a theory.

Facts are indisputable which is why you posted something that makes absolutely no sense.

You're basically saying, yes I not only believe that people have the right to kill other people's baby, I want as many people possible killing other people's babies.

If you don't like the facts I posted that's your problem.

Not mine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact is that it is known, and your logical conjunction delivers a conclusion that is false.

You're not paying attention. This is the conjunction:

Why don't you understand that babies aren't born vaccinated nor are they born immune to those diseases?

The conjunction is immaterial to why infants and children need to be vaccinated.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact is that it is known, and your logical conjunction delivers a conclusion that is false.

You're not paying attention. This is the conjunction:

Why don't you understand that babies aren't born vaccinated nor are they born immune to those diseases?

Facts are evidence. Facts are what's used in court cases to defend or convict someone.

Facts are used in science to prove or disprove a theory.

Facts are indisputable which is why you posted something that makes absolutely no sense.

You're basically saying, yes I not only believe that people have the right to kill other people's baby, I want as many people possible killing other people's babies.

If you don't like the facts I posted that's your problem.

Not mine.

Well put, Dana.

 

[SwimExpert]

Facts are evidence. Facts are what's used in court cases to defend or convict someone.

What's your point?

Facts are used in science to prove or disprove a theory.

Actually, that's not quite right. Experimentation is what's used to prove or disprove a theory. Facts are what's used to develop the theory in the first place.

Facts are indisputable

This is very untrue. Facts are in dispute all the time. As a matter of fact, one of the world's oldest branches of study is how to deal with facts being disputed. It's called logic.

which is why you posted something that makes absolutely no sense.

Actually, what I posted was logic.

You're basically saying, yes I not only believe that people have the right to kill other people's baby, I want as many people possible killing other people's babies.

Whoa! Where in the hell did that come from? You're sounding like Stephanie, making up stuff like that. Nowhere did I say anything about wanting to kill babies. Nowhere did I say anything that could be even remotely construed as being related to wanting to kill babies. You're now making wild, insane, accusations.

If you don't like the facts I posted that's your problem.

Not mine.

Go back and try again. You posted a statement containing two operands. I quoted it. Go back and read it again.

In order for your statement to be true, both operands must be true. However, only one is true. The other is one you assumed as fact, despite having nothing to base your accusation on. Go back and figure out which is the one where you made an assumption.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SwimExpert is wrong, logically and realistically, on this subject no matter how long the argument continues. Sux to be SE.

 

[SwimExpert]

The fact is that it is known, and your logical conjunction delivers a conclusion that is false.

You're not paying attention. This is the conjunction:

Why don't you understand that babies aren't born vaccinated nor are they born immune to those diseases?

The conjunction is immaterial to why infants and children need to be vaccinated.

In other words, any argument that does not agree with your position is immaterial.

 

[SwimExpert]

SwimExpert is wrong, logically and realistically, on this subject no matter how long the argument continues. Sux to be SE.

Go forget enough logic to fill a college course, then you can talk to me about the subject.

 

[westwall]

SwimExpert is wrong, logically and realistically, on this subject no matter how long the argument continues. Sux to be SE.

Actually, Swim Expert just schooled you on logic, and the basics of the scientific method. There was a dash of rhetoric in there too.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact is that it is known, and your logical conjunction delivers a conclusion that is false.

You're not paying attention. This is the conjunction:

Why don't you understand that babies aren't born vaccinated nor are they born immune to those diseases?

The conjunction is immaterial to why infants and children need to be vaccinated.

In other words, any argument that does not agree with your position is immaterial.

In other words, your argument does not agree with reality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SE just demonstrated how the use of logic can be used to try to undermine reality and facts. That is what the far right reactionaries and libertarians don't get: the principles of logic rigid and do not necessarily lead to factual and actual realities.

SE and west mall's demonstration here is why we know libertarians cannot be trusted to run governments.

 

[bendog]

SE is attempting to build a case that modern vaccines may be more harmful that helpful. He's right to the extent that all "knowledge" is always ripe for testing to see if what is accepted as true is true. But, he's lying to the extent that there is any scientific support for the beliefs that vaccines may be more harmful than helpful. He's simply using the old Goebbels meme of repeating shite until someone starts believing it.

 

[SwimExpert]

SE just demonstrated how the use of logic can be used to try to undermine reality and facts

Jake is renouncing the use of logic. Absolutely nothing you say can have any relevance to anything, whatsoever. You have no means to object to any argument a person offers anymore. You have no means to support any position you offer anymore. For, without logic, you can neither demonstrate an imposition against you, nor can you show any conclusion of yours to be sound. Any attempt to do so will be an appeal to the very logic you've hereby renounced.