Predictable your main attack is to put seeds of doubt into legit news sources while you probably get your information from pseudoscience blogs and frightened mothers that heard a fourth hand anecdote through her yoga class or followers of the doctrine of Alicia Silverstone and Rob Schneider. So it appears you are a student of Putin?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Ridiculous, your attempt to hold up totally discredited 'news sources' while making false assumptions and assertions, with absolutely no evidence, that I am following actors and Putin is a transparent ruse to discredit me while you won't look into the subject any more than a 'little googling around'.
I'm with the Russians? Ha! Do you guys have any other arguments? You do know that the cold war is over, right?
If you are genuinely interested in learning I'd even help, but right now, as I see it, it would be a waste of time.
Alicia Silverstone, Rob Schneider, and Russians. wow, so for future reference, the Russians did it, and Alicia Silverstone and Rob Schneider helped is not an argument unless you have evidence. If you leave that part out you might convince someone to share your beliefs, but it won't be me. You've completely discredited yourself now.
You said I followed Lenin because I trust in science and progress. I compared you to Putin for claiming CNN and WaPo are not legit news sources. Try to keep up bud.
And maybe if you put forth, I don't know, a single source that tries to prove anything legitimate you have against vaccines or any peer-reviewed studies done on alternatives to vaccines I would give your responses some credence. But as is I can only compare you to other bad actors (double entendre intended) that spout bullshit based off anecdotal stories with no science to back them up.
And given your lack of substance in any statement you've made, the only thing I can assume you've put thousands of hours into is inane trolling on the internet. It's been fun, stay stupid.
I asked if perhaps you are a student of Lenin because of Lenin's statement that, "accuse others of what you do". I find no science or progress in your comments, only conjecture based on 'news sources' which have made every effort to discredit themselves. Try to keep up bud. I watch and read these occasionally to practice logical deconstruction. Where did you get the idea that they are credible?
You are the one making bullshit claims that you can not back up. I save my valuable knowledge for those who are not willfully indoctrinated.
Peer review is clear appeal to popularity, genetic fallacy, and appeal from authority, and then finally, we are back to you making assumptions.
If you learn to reason it could be worth my time to engage you with facts, but where you are right now is an unreachable place from the land of logic.
= they don't exist. All I needed to know, could have saved me 5 minutes of replying to you by saying that earlier.
This is simply more unfounded assumption on your part. You have shown no sign of being receptive to anything that you do not already believe. You have not presented any argument worth refutation. Baseless arguments do not even rise to the level of consideration. FUD indoctrination is all I see. The closest you came was with the 'herd immunity', which is also part of the indoctrination. Learn the physics of the chemistry of the process and the better methods become apparent. So maybe, spend more than five minutes 'googling that up', and verse yourself in the best tools to which you'll ever have access.
It appears that you may want to start at the beginning, the Trivium is a place to start. Grammar, logic, and rhetoric. If you can fit it in, the Quadrivium is second to none when understanding the math. Without these, genuine attempts at communication are usually fruitless.
What's more likely: that you have information (which by the way, scientists, doctors, journals, and the media never mention) which either disproves the efficacy of vaccines or shows a better alternative to them yet you refuse to show it to someone genuinely asking, or that it doesn't exist? Occam's Razor.
P.S. Didn't realize the steem comment depth went this far now. Good job devs!
You are still not genuinely asking. The more likely thing, ipso facto, is the appeal to probability masquerading as an argument that I see in line one of your comment, followed by the appeal from authority, appeal to popularity, and genetic fallacy in parenthesis.
Occam's razor is not a law, but only a general guideline.
Here's a question. What if I do have a better alternative that you could benefit from, but you continue to dump the catalogue of fallacies on the comments to ridicule something that you haven't even seen?
So that's all you've got?