ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th June 2019, 10:18 PM   #881
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 695
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Is that an argument? People should not take vaccines because we should not reduce the risks of life?
Maybe if I put it in my signature, people will get the message.
"ANYONE WHO WANTS A VACCINE SHOULD HAVE ONE."
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 10:37 PM   #882
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 695
I.G.T. involves mixing synthetic genes, with your own.

Is everyone comfortable with that?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 11:16 PM   #883
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 695
Even if everyone was vaccinated, for those who cannot be vaccinated, precautions need to be taken because they are still vulnerable to diseases for which there is no vaccine.

Even the common cold can be dangerous for these people. They could catch a strain of flu the vaccine doesn't protect against. And, the vaccinated could shed.

"when a vaccine sheds, it is the weakened or attenuated vaccine strain [...] Of course, there is a situation in which even a vaccine strain could be dangerous, and that’s for those who are severely immunosuppressed."

https://vaxopedia.org/2019/06/12/how...-vaccine-shed/
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 11:26 PM   #884
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,012
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Horizontal gene transfer is allowed by nature.

Anything we can do is “allowed by nature”. If nature doesn’t allow something, it can’t be done.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 11:39 PM   #885
Matthew Ellard
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,785
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I.G.T. involves mixing synthetic genes, with your own. Is everyone comfortable with that?
So I can live through accepting a designed synthetic gene, in some of my cells, that I do not pass down to my children........or die from catching a virus, that evolved to kill me by the same virus modifying my existing genes, to reproduce itself?

I can see why your genes are being bred out and leaving the human gene pool.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 11:47 PM   #886
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,367
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Maybe if I put it in my signature, people will get the message.
"ANYONE WHO WANTS A VACCINE SHOULD HAVE ONE."
And how exactly will children express their desire to not die to their parents who chose otherwise?

As for you 'crossing a spider with a goat' nonsense. Horizontal gene transfer entails the movement of one (or small set) of genes between one organism and another. Which is exactly what IGT also does. How is one 'allowed' and the other not?
Because the only difference is that if humans initiate transfer we *know* what is transferred. Whereas transfer trough a virus or other mechanism is totally random.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 11:50 PM   #887
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 695
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Anything we can do is “allowed by nature”. If nature doesn’t allow something, it can’t be done.
Man is changing the fundamental building blocks of life.
If that's 'allowed by nature' by your definition, fine.

It's not by my definition. It's manipulating life on Earth in an irreversible way.

And patenting the result.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 11:56 PM   #888
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 695
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
And how exactly will children express their desire to not die to their parents who chose otherwise?

As for you 'crossing a spider with a goat' nonsense. Horizontal gene transfer entails the movement of one (or small set) of genes between one organism and another. Which is exactly what IGT also does. How is one 'allowed' and the other not?
Because the only difference is that if humans initiate transfer we *know* what is transferred. Whereas transfer trough a virus or other mechanism is totally random.
You haven't heard of 'spider goats'? They look like ordinary goats but a substance is extracted from their milk to make BioSteel.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:09 AM   #889
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,367
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
You haven't heard of 'spider goats'? They look like ordinary goats but a substance is extracted from their milk to make BioSteel.
Yes and rather than the Frankensteinian horror you are implying this is exactly what I ment.
A single new protein is produced in their milk that allows for something we can use.
The goats do not LOOK like ordinary goats, they still are. In the same way that a goat that get a virus is still as ordinary as a goat that did not.

But again, understanding this requires actually learning about how biochemistry and genetics work, something you have clearly indicated you neither do nor have the inclination to acquire.

You'd rather JAQ and use youtube bites to try and scare yourself and others about 'unnatural abominations'.
Of course, I doubt you are actually living a 'natural' life, as you are using a computer.
Or are you someone that lives on the Savannah, eating only what you can catch and never using any healthcare ever?
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:18 AM   #890
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,767
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post

But it brings up an interesting question.

The CDC now recommends over 70 vaccine doses in 40 injections by age 18. As more vaccines get added to the schedule, what's your threshold?

At what number would you begin to question the schedule or say, "that's enough"? 80 doses? 100? 150 doses by age 18? What's your threshold?
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
My threshold would conform to the number of dangerous diseases that could be prevented by vaccination.
Vaccines stimulate the body to produce antibodies to fight infection by specific diseases. Reducing the number of vaccinations to conform to some arbitrary number will not prevent exposure to these diseases. It will only limit the ability of our bodies to fight them.
What is your threshold for the number of preventable diseases that we should risk being exposed to without protection? 5? 20? 80? What would be your justification for withholding protection from these diseases?
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If you've read my posts, you should know I don't advocate withholding protection. Whoever wants a vaccine should have one and be protected.
I would have thought that, as I quoted you in my post, and replied directly to your point, it would be fairly clear that I'd read your posts.

If, as you say, you think anyone who wants to have a vaccine should have one, why would you then attempt to impose an arbitrary limit on the number of vaccines they should have? That would be denying people the choice you claim you want them to have.
You also didn't answer my point. (Are you reading my posts? ). Why would you want to impose an arbitrary threshold on the number of vaccines, given that each vaccine protects against a specific disease, and there is no threshold on the number of these diseases we could be exposed to during our lifetimes?
If you don't want to impose a threshold, why did you ask the question?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:40 AM   #891
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,012
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Man is changing the fundamental building blocks of life.
If that's 'allowed by nature' by your definition, fine.

It's not by my definition. It's manipulating life on Earth in an irreversible way.

And patenting the result.

Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:58 AM   #892
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 11,639
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
How considerate of 'science' and Big Agriculture to leave us a choice between their synthetic food and natural food. It shows how much they really, really care about you.

Oh good, now we can add knowledge of farming to the list of things IB knows nothing about but has firm views on.
__________________
"Your deepest pools, like your deepest politicians and philosophers, often turn out more shallow than expected." Walter Scott.
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:12 AM   #893
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,956
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
How considerate of 'science' and Big Agriculture to leave us a choice between their synthetic food and natural food. It shows how much they really, really care about you.
Well I've heard that they are all full of chemicals as well! And arsenic is a chemical!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:45 AM   #894
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,897
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Are you OK with synthetic genes combining with your DNA?

Are you offering? I could use a synthetic gene that codes for urate oxidase. The whole animal kingdom has one, from ancient bacteria right up to most mammals, but being a higher primate the gene I inherited for it is defective, which causes me some inconvenience and occasional discomfort.

I've cleared some space on my 10th chromosome. Whenever you're ready. Thanks!
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:54 AM   #895
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,719
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
You haven't heard of 'spider goats'? They look like ordinary goats but a substance is extracted from their milk to make BioSteel.
You said crossing a goat with a spider earlier. That's not what you're talking about here.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:05 AM   #896
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,568
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
You said crossing a goat with a spider earlier. That's not what you're talking about here.
Did the goat even notice?
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:29 AM   #897
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,178
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If that's 'allowed by nature' by your definition, fine.
"Allowed by nature" is a concept you made up, as is the imaginary division between the "natural" world and the scientific world, or between man and nature.

Quote:
It's not by my definition.
Why should we allow the ignorant and fretful to make the definitions? Historically that hasn't worked out too well.

Quote:
It's manipulating life on Earth in an irreversible way. And patenting the result.
And which one pisses you off the most? Fine, go be Nature Boy and live outside of modern life and civilization. But quit trying to hold everyone else back and endanger them just because you're huddled under the covers trembling in fear.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:17 AM   #898
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 695
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I would have thought that, as I quoted you in my post, and replied directly to your point, it would be fairly clear that I'd read your posts.

If, as you say, you think anyone who wants to have a vaccine should have one, why would you then attempt to impose an arbitrary limit on the number of vaccines they should have? That would be denying people the choice you claim you want them to have.
You also didn't answer my point. (Are you reading my posts? ). Why would you want to impose an arbitrary threshold on the number of vaccines, given that each vaccine protects against a specific disease, and there is no threshold on the number of these diseases we could be exposed to during our lifetimes?
If you don't want to impose a threshold, why did you ask the question?
If you read my posts, you'd know I'm not imposing any number.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:20 AM   #899
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 695
This link doesn't hit a paywall for me, but it probably will for you. I think I know why now, and why I didn't hit it at BMJ, but that's not important. Earlier in the thread, someone posted a browser extension to bypass paywalls.

This quote has been widely circulated, but this is the original source.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...696-1/fulltext

VOLUME 385, ISSUE 9976, APRIL 11, 2015
Article Title: "Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma?" by Richard Horton

"“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I'm not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides."
[…]
"Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”."
— Richard Horton, (editor of*The Lancet)
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:24 AM   #900
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,012
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Nature doesn't allow cross breeding a strawberry with a fish, probably for good reason.

If you think that “Nature” does things “for good reason”, do you also think that “Nature” produced infectious diseases “for good reason”?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:26 AM   #901
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,178
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If you read my posts, you'd know I'm not imposing any number.
You're the only one posing the scenario that a reasonable person, as you reckon it, should object to some number of vaccine injections.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
As more vaccines get added to the schedule, what's your threshold?

At what number would you begin to question the schedule or say, "that's enough"? 80 doses? 100? 150 doses by age 18? What's your threshold?
You're trying to bait people into answering a question whose premise they disagree with -- that any number is "too much." If you believe the premise, then what's your threshold, O reasonable person? If you don't believe the premise, then you agree with your critics that your question was ill-founded and that your little rhetorical stunt has failed.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:49 AM   #902
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,587
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
This link doesn't hit a paywall for me, but it probably will for you. I think I know why now, and why I didn't hit it at BMJ, but that's not important. Earlier in the thread, someone posted a browser extension to bypass paywalls.

This quote has been widely circulated, but this is the original source.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...696-1/fulltext

VOLUME 385, ISSUE 9976, APRIL 11, 2015
Article Title: "Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma?" by Richard Horton

"“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I'm not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides."
[…]
"Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”."
— Richard Horton, (editor of*The Lancet)
Gish gallop anyone?

IB, you have clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding of a key part of science, namely statistics. By itself that’s OK; we are all ignorant.

What makes your posts hard to accept (well, for me) is your apparent willful ignorance ... so far you have shown no interest in learning, well, anything.

Yes, reproducibility is important, and rightfully attracts attention. But what does one paper, on its own, show?

If you want to have a discussion on this, please start a new thread. And please be prepared to learn some basics ...
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:59 AM   #903
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,367
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
This link doesn't hit a paywall for me, but it probably will for you. I think I know why now, and why I didn't hit it at BMJ, but that's not important. Earlier in the thread, someone posted a browser extension to bypass paywalls.

This quote has been widely circulated, but this is the original source.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...696-1/fulltext

VOLUME 385, ISSUE 9976, APRIL 11, 2015
Article Title: "Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma?" by Richard Horton

"“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I'm not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides."
[…]
"Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”."
— Richard Horton, (editor of*The Lancet)
And this surprises anyone? I'd say the percentage is even higher.
To start with, the older the publications, the less likely things are true as we gain more insight. (which is relevant to the decades old study you tried to use). The thing is, it IS constantly checked and re-checked and when someone finds an error it is immediately published as well.
And thus we expand knowledge.

By the way, you forgot to answer a question I asked two posts ago when you claimed to want people to be able to choose.
How is an infant going to be able to express its choice to be inoculated against deadly diseases when its parents decide that random internet 'expertise' is better than actual expertise?
Or is the occasional dead child better than limiting parents freedom to do what they want to their child?
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:10 AM   #904
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,178
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
...when someone finds an error it is immediately published as well.
The original intent of published proceedings of scientific societies was to put the findings in front of a larger audience who would test it, propose alternatives, debate it, etc. Only recently has publication come to signify, to some people, a certain unassailable correctness. True, we have things now like peer review that didn't happen in the past. But if one starts with the premise that anything published is presumed to be the correct and final word, one is going to be surprised.

Yes, the Lancet quote makes the round of pseudoscientists, who tend to view any action by mainstream science to correct itself and improve quality as a wholesale admission of guilt. I'll leave other posters to debate the propriety of someone urging transparency in science from behind a veil of secrecy. Someone wanting to stir things up without being held responsible for the stirring seems suspicious.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:13 AM   #905
Cainkane1
Philosopher
 
Cainkane1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The great American southeast
Posts: 8,563
In my opinion its a lot safer to take said vaccines than to not take the vaccine. Nothing is perfect but the consequences of not being vaccinated far outweigh the problems presented by said vaccines. Take for example the fact that parents often lose their child to diseases like measles if they aren't vaccinated.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.
Cainkane1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:37 AM   #906
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,767
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If you read my posts, you'd know I'm not imposing any number.
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You're the only one posing the scenario that a reasonable person, as you reckon it, should object to some number of vaccine injections.



You're trying to bait people into answering a question whose premise they disagree with -- that any number is "too much." If you believe the premise, then what's your threshold, O reasonable person? If you don't believe the premise, then you agree with your critics that your question was ill-founded and that your little rhetorical stunt has failed.
This.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:39 AM   #907
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,582
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If you read my posts, you'd know I'm not imposing any number.
We are reading your posts. All of us. Everyone but you is aghast at your willingness to inflict harm, even death, on the people around you in service to a dumb superstition and it's attendant paranoia.

You are, of course, perfectly free to maintain such stupid ideas. You are
NOT free to inflict same on everyone else to the detriment of their health.

And you certainly cannot demand any respect for such views.

Furthermore, while it is true that you do indeed possess that freedom, where do you get the right to impose your particular crank beliefs on your children? Have they no rights? Can you simply decide to sacrifice them on an altar to the god Quetzlcoatl because you hold that faith? Where do those "parental rights" start and end? Do the words "duty of care" mean anything to you? To your kids? To my kids?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:57 AM   #908
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,817
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
We are reading your posts. All of us. Everyone but you is aghast at your willingness to inflict harm, even death, on the people around you in service to a dumb superstition and it's attendant paranoia.

You are, of course, perfectly free to maintain such stupid ideas. You are
NOT free to inflict same on everyone else to the detriment of their health.

And you certainly cannot demand any respect for such views.

Furthermore, while it is true that you do indeed possess that freedom, where do you get the right to impose your particular crank beliefs on your children? Have they no rights? Can you simply decide to sacrifice them on an altar to the god Quetzlcoatl because you hold that faith? Where do those "parental rights" start and end? Do the words "duty of care" mean anything to you? To your kids? To my kids?
Don't forget, anyone that gets any sort of gene therapy are not 100% human.
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:31 AM   #909
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,792
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I.G.T. involves mixing synthetic genes, with your own.

Is everyone comfortable with that?
Yes.

If there is a synthetic gene treatment for asthma, diabetes, and cancer I'd be the first in line.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:16 AM   #910
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,012
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Yes.

If there is a synthetic gene treatment for asthma, diabetes, and cancer I'd be the first in line.

But all of those are natural! How can you be against nature?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; Yesterday at 11:17 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:17 AM   #911
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,897
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
If there is a synthetic gene treatment for asthma, diabetes, and cancer I'd be the first in line.

Hey, no fair! I asked... never mind, please cut ahead of me, with my best wishes.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:42 PM   #912
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
 
Chris Haynes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West
Posts: 4,385
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Man is changing the fundamental building blocks of life.
If that's 'allowed by nature' by your definition, fine.

It's not by my definition. It's manipulating life on Earth in an irreversible way.

And patenting the result.

So they should go back to making insulin from pig pancreas instead of the recombinant DNA method that has been used for decades:
https://www.gene.com/media/press-rel...y-production-o


You really don't understand nature. Nature really just wants to kill us all, humans just learned how to prevent that from happening so often.
__________________
I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids

"HCN, I hate you!"
( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )...
What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/
Chris Haynes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:34 PM   #913
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,972
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Hey, no fair! I asked... never mind, please cut ahead of me, with my best wishes.
Selfless, if you ask me
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:21 PM   #914
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 10,183
Technology and medicine work the same way for everyone on the Earth, even if they may choose to use them for different ends. The reason they always work in certain ways and not others is because they are based on science, and science is based on universals.

Universals are not claims people make up. Universals are facts that do not change with place, time, or observer. A dropped stone falls from any hand, without fail. This is the universal, and the cause is given a name, gravity. From that point forward, we can model, reason, and further observe gravity, often changing opinions, or making sweeping changes upon new discoveries. But rocket ship flight, satellite orbit, and GPS timing signals all deal with our evolving understanding of that single, basic universal. Science works.

All other claimants as sources of knowledge are, in fact, not universal, not based on observation, and are subject to whim, circumstance, time and place, and subjective impression. Their supposed "words etched in stone" change depending on the hand that chisels them. Such claims are, indeed, entirely unfounded and weak, requiring for their defense a further unsupported claim they are "absolutes" – "truths" that are "just so, because" – to shore up what otherwise has no tether to reality. Religion has no universals. Political dogmas and social theories may borrow them as premise for argument, but from that point forward, also rely on opinion.

Because it is healthy and wise to guide one's life in the real world using the facts of the matter; say, to decide whether wrestling bears is a good idea or not, we have a sound habit of using the truth to decide upon action. This is mistakenly, or maliciously, co-opted by those making baseless claims to further state that their "truths" miraculously are "authoritative" based on who is speaking in order to justify their political and social preferences. That's, ahem, an admission of non-universality right there. Sad.

Ignorance is the default. Knowledge acquisition the game. When comparing the strength of workable, reliable universals with the gossamer frailty of so-called absolutes, there is no contest. Or would be none, if not for the willfully insane.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion.
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; Yesterday at 02:23 PM.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:45 PM   #915
wasapi
Philosopher
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,939
Exactly what Hlaf said, and said so well.
__________________
Julia
wasapi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:54 PM   #916
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,012
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Maybe if I put it in my signature, people will get the message.
"ANYONE WHO WANTS A VACCINE SHOULD HAVE ONE."

How about people who would have wanted vaccines, but have been taken in by anti-vax scaremongering?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; Yesterday at 02:55 PM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:43 PM   #917
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,792
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
But all of those are natural! How can you be against nature?
Nature is a cannibalistic, puppy-killing, sister-raping, bacteria, and virus factory. If nature was perfect nothing would evolve to subdue, or take advantage of its cruelty.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:04 AM   #918
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,012
Should I have included a smiley?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:18 AM   #919
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,081
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
But all of those are natural! How can you be against nature?
This seems to be the crux of the argument now being presented by Itchy Boy; 'synthetic' deaths are bad natural deaths are good. Thus a vaccine that might cause one 'synthetic' death but prevent 1,000 natural deaths from an infectious disease is unacceptable because Nature is inherently good and well ... natural. Natural radiation induced or viral induced mutations are good even if they cause death or disability. Whereas intelligently designed mutations are wrong and evil even if they prevent death or disability.
Planigale is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:30 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.