Being blind to well-supported arguments does not make you right.
Lorelei Weldon thank you for your response.
When I first saw that you took the time to answer my critics, I was really pleased. Unfortunately, you seem blocked in your belief of being right no matter what. Your blindness to not only arguments but the data that support them and your keenness to personal attacks and hate speeches are other proofs of your faulty reasoning.
Unlike you, I will take the time to answer your “points” in a respectful way and (again) with real arguments.
1. Respect is a good step toward sain debate.
“You are the one with rhetorical fallacies and huge gaps in critical analysis.”
My previous answer was respectful, well-researched and all my arguments are clearly supported by reliable sources (all links to references, research, and sources are available). If you missed them, I kindly invite you to check them out.
Of course, that does not make me necessarily being right, nonetheless. My arguments can be criticized with proper and well-supported counter-arguments. Unfortunately, you seem keener to display hateful, unrespectful speeches instead.
I sincerely wonder why you feel obliged to attack the person instead of the arguments? Unfortunately for you, this does not make your arguments more right either.
2. A Non-argument Remains A Non-argument Even If You Repeat It Again And Again.
“If people die and become disabled from vaccines (which they do every year) then they do present some danger. Duh! Vaccines are beneficial in many instances and they are also catastrophic in some others.”
Well, you continue to claim this but if it’s true, you should be able to show actual proofs or evidence. So, this is still a fallacy called “onus probandi”.
Ironically, let me quote yourself:
“You saying that doesn’t make it actually true, though.” — Lorelei Weldon answering Jordan Chandler’s comment.
You seem to live with weird contradictions: In one hand, you’re keen to remind everyone (with a bit of anger) that just claiming something doesn’t make an argument. And on the other hand, you so easily use the same rhetorical logic yourself, all the time.
3. Dismissing The Debate Is Not An Argument Either
“That’s why it’s a complex issue, with many grey areas. If most people are helped and some people are killed, that’s a complex issue.”
You insist on the “complexity” of the subject. And who said the contrary? It’s effectively a complex subject, way more than the overly simplified false dilemma you wave to anyone who dares contradict you.
If it’s complex, then show some verifiable facts, some reliable data, some research or studies published on scientific papers. You seem to know things that I don’t, so complexity should not be an excuse to dismiss the discussion.
4. The Burden Of the Proof
“Why do you assume that just because I haven’t gone in depth into all the supports for my assertions (all of which you could easily Google for yourself) that I too am talking out of my ass? Is it because you a condescending zealot, I wonder?”
Why would you have to prove your claim? Well, because otherwise, it’s pure rhetoric and anyone could claim anything with no need to bring evidence. What a place to live in: Journalists could tell anything with no proof as soon as it makes people click and scientist could invent any theories as soon as it pleases them and is in line with what they believe…
Happily, this is evidence-based science that allows your car to move forward or allows us to write messages on Medium (computer, internet, Wifi).
Okay, so let me give you an example of your faulty reasoning. Let’s say you chat with John. John strongly believes that unicorns exist:
Unicorns exist! I know they exist and I’ll belive so until you prove me they don’t!
Of course, you can’t prove something does not exist. We call this “shifting the burden of proof” and it’s a logical fallacy, a sophism (from the French “Sophisme”). In fact, this is John who should bring the proofs of his claim.
This is the distinction between belief and actual knowledge.
3. Dismissing The Debate Is Still Not An Argument
“I’m not going to get sucked into a long discourse with you.”
That’s a shame, really. You only show the few arguments you have to put on the table and dismiss the debate once done. If I’m a “condescending zealot”, how should we call that behavior?
4. Love, Beliefs, and Appeal From Authority
“If you care to be fair minded and to further educate yourself (which I doubt), look this shit up and round out your perceptions. You can start by looking up the table of compensation from the Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation program by vaccine, injury, and amount paid. This will give you greater insight into what kinds of side effects and damage that real people have experienced and been compensated for due to vaccine injury. Here, I’ll get you started. Look on the subsequent pages for tables of injury and death.”
There’s so much kindness here, I’m overwhelmed. No really, I don’t know where to start. So, let’s begin with the beginning:
“If you care to be fair minded and to further educate yourself (which I doubt), look this shit up and round out your perceptions.”
Well, my previous message was not “my opinion against yours”. You claim things with no actual proof or even a beginning of clues. This is factually fallacious and rhetorical. I made the proof of that with well-supported arguments.
If you are able to prove what you’re saying, then it will be my pleasure to consider them. So far, you seem unable to do so.
“You can start by looking up the table of compensation from the Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation program by vaccine, injury, and amount paid. This will give you greater insight into what kinds of side effects and damage that real people have experienced and been compensated for due to vaccine injury. Here, I’ll get you started. Look on the subsequent pages for tables of injury and death.”
Again, the Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation program and the said compensations are not proof of the supposed danger of the vaccines. It simply proves that people won in the court (despite lack of evidence).
To quote the document you kindly share with me, the very same document you apparently didn’t read properly:
“[…] Approximately 70 percent of all compensation awarded by the VICP comes as result of a negotiated settlement between the parties in which HHS has not concluded, based upon review of the evidence, that the alleged vaccine(s) caused the alleged injury.
[…]What reasons might a petition result in a negotiated settlement?
- Consideration of prior U.S. Court of Federal Claims decisions, both parties decide to minimize risk of loss through settlement
- A desire to minimize the time and expense of litigating a case
- The desire to resolve a petition quickly”
— VICP Monthly Statistics Report, first page.
Okay, so you provide numbers but it has no more value than demonstrating how many people attribute their health conditions to vaccines, with no actual proofs (as stated in this document, as well as here).
This means many people believe things with no proof. Thank you for proving that.
“The forward to JM’s book, Louder Than Words, is written by Dr. David Feinberg, medical director of the Resnick Neuro-psychiatric Hospital at UCLA, and an introduction by Jerry J. Kartzinel, a top pediatric autism specialist.”
First, how a book, in general, could be proof of anything? If it references proper scientific research and studies, yes probably. But this book, in particular, is the story of the personal experience of a mother, Jenny McCarthy, also known as being an anti-vaxx activist. Unfortunately, personal experiences are not enough to make a proof.
If I tell you that “last week, I saw a unicorn in the woods”, what proof it makes that unicorns exist? There are easier ways to explain what I saw (whatever it is) than having to introduce an extraordinary element such as a unicorn. In addition, we know that memory and perception (see here, here, and there) can easily be tricked. So, personal experiences are not really reliable.
Secondly, if you properly read my previous message, you might have seen something called “appeal from authority”. What you did here is a great example of it.
- Dr. Kartzinel is a pediatrician. How could his point of view be relevant to the topic of vaccines? Did he participate in research on the subject? Well, I was not able to find his name on any scientific paper about vaccines. If you have any proof, could you provide them?
- Is Dr. Kartzinel a reliable source anyway? He wrote a book on autism called “Healing and Preventing Autism”, interestingly co-written with Jenny McCarthy. What small world. Again, a book is not enough to make a proof, and unfortunately, I was not able to find Dr. Kartzinel’s name on any scientific paper (period). If you have proof of the contrary, could you provide them?
In addition, Dr. Kartzinel position is not really supported by the scientific community. Read here a critic of Dr. Kartzinel’s work in the scientific journal “Society for Disability Studies”:
“Although Dr. Kartzinel is a parent of a child with autism and a doctor with patients on the autism spectrum, his narrow and negative view of autism is harmful and has led him to advocate potentially dangerous “cures” for autism. Instead of working with the child, he works against his/her body with treatments such as chelation, which aims to extract mercury from the body. Children with autism can struggle socially, but they have so much to offer that Dr. Kartzinel neglects to see. By ignoring the unique capabilities of people on the autism spectrum, Dr. Kartzinel underestimates their talents and worth in society. In contrast, Daniel Tammet, Temple Grandin and John Elder Robison all have written about their lives as individuals with autism and show that through their unique ways of thinking, fixations, and rare talents, they have each accomplished quite a lot.”
— Disability Studies QuarterlyFall 2008, Volume 28, №4
Surprise! Selling books and wellness therapies do not make you necessarily relevant…
Anyway, by invoking Jenny McCarthy and Dr. Kartzinel as proof for your argument (that vaccines are dangerous), you are making an “appeal from authority”. This is nothing else than a fallacy and a sophism.
Conclusion
You seem to make a point alas your argumentation relies on nothing. You’re good at attacking people with hateful and unrespectful speeches, which one could interpret as a way of compensating your lack of concrete arguments.
Recognizing such fallacious speeches is one of the aspects of proper critical thinking. I would recommend you a bit more open-mindedness to recognize the facts in front of you and –why not– apply your own recommendation to “educate yourself”.