Coveny

Senior Members
  • Content count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-7 Poor

About Coveny

  • Rank
    Quark
  • Birthday 02/29/72

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    ForDebating.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Jacksonville FL
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Renewables
  • Occupation
    Windows and Cisco IT Consultant
  1. I got a bit of a discussion from Arte but otherwise this the last page or two of response just feels like you guys are trolling me so I'm going to stop responding now. I'll try again in a bit with a different discuss topic and see how it goes. /unfollow
  2. Please improve your reading comprehension. If something is still in a lab or in the ice somewhere... then it is on the planet. Please improve your reading comprehension. And I quote from the CDC article AGAIN "Two doses of MMR vaccine are about 97% effective at preventing measles". Just because YOU believe it's 100% doesn't mean it is, and the article YOU linked contradicts you... (I love when people are condescending and accusatory about the exact thing they did) You would have to find me, you would have to shoot first, and you would have to hit me in the brain, and unless you got all of it, my brain function would continue thinking. Even in your passive aggressive example you still attempt to bypass reality. Again not being able to fly is NOT a loss of freedom. Sure man. Start a poll to see if " the most wrong" is correct grammar, knock yourself out. Smoking does not "kill" or everyone who smokes would die. If someone who was really good at hitting small target blew all the brains out of your skull that would prove bullets kill. (that passive aggressive stuff is fun!) There is a correlation, and it increases the risks, but cancer kills you not smoke. Sure just look at how I respond to the people who have put forth reasonable discussion points. I've had plenty of civil conversations in this topic. You can of course quit talk about this if you prefer...
  3. On the point of climate change effecting eradication - http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170504-there-are-diseases-hidden-in-ice-and-they-are-waking-up I tend to lead toward keeping it for research, which means it's not really eradicated it's just not currently in circulation, but could come back. I also agree with the point of bio-diversity allowing for better research, and therefore better cures. Didn't say you "would get cancer" that's a strawman fallacy. I said their smoke would get in your body which infringes on your freedom. The article you linked to the CDC does list "protection is complete" (or 100%) it lists "Two doses of MMR vaccine are about 97% effective at preventing measles". Please don't spread misinformation. Although I agree 90+% should be considered effective it is NOT "complete" protection. I wasn't trying to discuss the evolution of illness or the various misfires that some of the less scientifical community accepted vaccines have had.
  4. #1 Understand that with global warming we have many diseases that have long since been "eradicated" possibly coming back into circulation. If we plan for that and keep cultures there is always the chance that the disease could be released again by a malicious agent. So I would be interest in your thoughts on the feasibility of eradicating a disease. I like the direction though, it's a respectable one. I don't see a way to make it happen, but maybe you do, so my view is that vaccines must be indefinite. #2 And then we are back to something that isn't analogous. When you smoke you put it in the air, and it WILL get in others lungs, it's not a "risk" it's an inevitability. This is a case of your freedoms infringing on my freedoms. Vaccination isn't that way in that it may or may not matter, and it's not 100% effective so vaccinated people can still "smoke" as you put it, and in both vaccinated and unvaccinated the "smoking" is against the individuals will. (if they infected themself on purpose that would remove them from the group I'm referring too) In the context of the response it is personal use by yourself not public use, in that context they are the same thing.
  5. That's a slippery slope fallacy. Not to mention the laws could be tailor written deal with percentage of coverage that would allow for some percentage of the population to opt out, and still applying pressure to vaccinate. I'm not really sure how to deal with it though, as that's why I started this thread. (wasn't as helpful as I would have liked) Why can't you make a law exactly that way? It sure seems like to me that it could work that way. Salt thing doesn't apply as there isn't a coverage requirement and it only applies to yourself. Same is true with smoking. You don't target the people, you target the percentage. Align laws to apply pressure on those who aren't vaccinate if the percentage falls below a certain point. You may not be familiar with it but there are laws in place that prevent group homes residence levels within an area. It doesn't matter who builds the group home but there is a ratio max residence that area can support. This is very similar if opposite to what I'm talking about. It's cool and the government doesn't care if the coverage is 86%, but at 85% warnings or citations start going out to everyone who isn't vaccinated. Now I don't know that it should be everyone, or if it should be a fine or whatever, but that's what I'd like to discuss. How and where to criminalize not vaccinating from a moral standpoint. To me if the coverage requirement has been met there shouldn't be a requirement to be vaccinated as the chance of spread does NOT increase that much from 92% to 91% so the threat to society (greater good) isn't morally justified to overrule individual freedom in my opinion. If you comply with the law... why argue against it? Are you trolling me? You know that the holocaust was legal right? Legal does not equate to moral. This isn't about CAN we force vaccination, it's about SHOULD we force vaccination. There are some VERY stupid laws on the books. Why argue against laws? Really? You're trolling me now aren't you?
  6. I vaccine so this isn't a scenario that would happen. Also this discussion isn't about anecdotal evidence. As I have stated several times I personally support vaccinations, so my personal use of vaccines is in line with most of what has been post here. What I would like to discuss is the moral aspect of criminalizing anti-vaxxers when we have high levels of coverage. If the requirement is 86% and we are at 92% how do you morally send someone to jail for not making it 93%? The differences AT THAT POINT are negligible, yet everyone here wants to exaggerate and say that not vaccinating at that point equals death. I don't believe in fear mongering to get my point across. So true, but maybe some day you'll get past regurgitating talking points, and we can have that rational debate I desire. Strawman. Didn't say that it "doesn't matter". Said that the effect on society is minimal between 92% and 91%. (although there is more too it) Only "sounds a lot like" those if you haven't been listening.
  7. Because you are the most wrong. hehe It's not a freedom to prevent others from doing something, anymore than it's a freedom to be able to fly. You keep confusing your inability to alter reality with a freedom. No I haven't been presented any evidence that I'm wrong, why would I realize I'm wrong when I'm not wrong? We know no such thing. Smoking increases the chance of lung cancer, but like my grandmother who smoked her whole life and died of an aneurysm doesn't "kill" you, it's just more likely to kill you. (a concept you seem to be struggling with) Not any more than the person I was responding to. The idea that not vaccinating = death is absurd. If you guys want to go down the absurd road I'll follow ya, but I'd much rather have a rational debate about the topic at hand rather than an emotional one where the supposed "proof" is NOT VACCINATING MEANS YOU ARE KILLING PEOPLE!!!! I would tell my wife that our son is 25 I respected his decision not to wear a seatbelt, and that decision may have gotten him killed in a car crash. (not sure how my leg is going to crush his skull in the back seat but these type of scenarios aren't really about logic are they?)
  8. Ignoring the "most wrong" grammar thing. Please show me someone who has died because they didn't get a vaccine. Not someone who died from a disease, someone who died because they did NOT get a vaccine. Lets use cars because they seem to be the go to analogy. While you can still be in a car accident, you aren't automatically in a car accident because you drive a car even though it does increase the risk/likelihood. My point is hopping in a car isn't what kills you, and you can't prove otherwise when it comes to vaccines. Freedom to think about whatever you wish is unbeatable but the freedom to dance in your house, the freedom to go in the woods, be alone and enjoy nature, etc also work.
  9. He misdirects instead. It's like interviewing Kellyanne.
  10. I don't see how a question could ever be a strawman. False dichotomy maybe because I only listed two options, but a strawman fallacy as a question? That's a stretch, if not a logical impossibility.
  11. What evidence do you have that implying a falsehood makes it true? Or are you saying you have evidence that vaccinated people can not contract the illness they have been vaccinated against? In either case present your evidence, I would be very interested to review it.
  12. How is the fact that vaccinated people can be vectors not follow that implying that they can't be isn't true? The levels of abstraction aren't about the word "disease" they are about the word "freedom", that should both explain and address why your reasoning is wrong. Also just because I'm OCD and it bugs me, because something is real doesn't preclude that there are levels of abstraction to it. You seem to keep ignore the "levels of" part and just focusing on the abstraction part, but the whole phrase which don't seem to be grasping because you understand abstraction you seem to believe you understand levels of abstraction which I don't think you do. Polio is real, and there are levels of abstraction to Polio for instance. That is not to say it's an abstract threat, just that the concept (high level of abstraction) of Polio is different depending on the case (low level of abstraction). At a high level you must talk about averages, and common symptoms, at a low level you know exactly what has effected the victim, and what those symptoms are without the ambiguity that a high level of abstract requires.
  13. Immunized people are potential vector routes to the immuno-vulnerable as well so the word "another" implies something that isn't true. Most of what I've read indicates that herd immunity doesn't require 100% coverage, and that in some cases it is achieved at 85% or lower. Of the population I believe less than 1% are in the situation where they can't get vaccines. So the point is if 85% is the requirement, and we are sitting at 92%, how can we morally justify forcing the other 7% to get vaccines. All the talk about herd immunity and the effectiveness of vaccines don't matter at that point, it's acheive, and each percentage point represents 3.2 million people. If it matters, personally I would like to see everyone who can be vaccinated, vaccinated but that's not what I'm attempting to discuss here. We have the societal requirement, we have the vaccines, the effect of more vaccines is negligible on herd immunity. You can see this by the lack of "spread" in the cases that have happened in America, as it's generally contained to the areas that have antivaxxers in them. I don't feel like you have, nor have you addressed my reasoning why it does apply. But hey we'll agree to disagree.
  14. Agreed but that's not what you linked. I'm also not questioning the validity of herd immunity, just the morals of forced vaccination, and also questioning the difference between 91% and 92% coverage as causing "large increases" in disease.
  15. Or the above could be sarcasm about the previous poster who tried to state opinions as facts without backing it up. That study isn't about coverage it's about whether vaccines are effective or not, which isn't the debate. I agree vaccines are effective, that's not in question to my knowledge.