SwimExpert
Gold Member
- Nov 26, 2013
- 16,247
- 1,682
- 280
- Banned
- #201
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.
No, you fool. Swim Expert is objecting to Dana's statement "Why don't you understand that babies aren't born vaccinated nor are they born immune to those diseases?" because Dana is making an assumption that is not supported.
As explained, Dana's statement is a logical conjunction, containing two operands. The first operand is "you don't understand that babies aren't born vaccinated." The second one is "you don't understand that they aren't born immune to diseases." In order for Dana's statement to be true, both operands must be true. If at least one is false, her statement is false.
Dana is assuming that I do not understand these things. That is to say, she is assuming the above operands are true. However, her assumption is unfounded and without justification. She has no basis to assume the above operands are true.
This is logic. Jake has renounced logic, in favor of--I don't know, maybe reading the tea leaves of a pink fairy garden. You, apparently, don't understand the first thing about logic, and are probably just making things up as you go along. Dana, I suspect, is intelligent enough to make sense of it all if she just takes a step back and removes the blinders.
As it turns out, I do understand that babies are not born vaccinated, so Dana's statement is false. Dana seems to view my position on this issue as being one only possible if one is ignorant, which is an egregious mistake on her part.