Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[TheDemonLord]

Exactly.

If there was anything in it that you could refute, you'd be all over it.

Everything from Myth 1 to Myth 8 is refutable. And has already been done so. See previous responses.

[Katman]

Everything from Myth 1 to Myth 8 is refutable. And has already been done so. See previous responses.

And for every response you've given in the past regarding Andrew Wakefield, I've given a countering argument - just like this article does.

The fact that you refuse to readdress any of those points speaks volumes though.

[TheDemonLord]

And for every response you've given in the past regarding Andrew Wakefield, I've given a countering argument - just like this article does.

The fact that you refuse to readdress any of those points speaks volumes though.

It does, just not the volumes you think.

Here's how it will go:

I'll pick one of the myths - point out why it's a load of horseshit, you'll argue the point for a couple of pages and then claim that it's not the only thing and refer to one of the other Myths, I'll point out the cherry picked, misrepresented and out-of-context BS used in that Myth, you'll argue the point - reference some conspiratorial drivel, written by someone who wouldn't know the difference between a Virus and Bacterium - I'll refute that AND the Myth, then you'll change the subject again.

So on and so forth.

But if it makes you happy - in the 5 seconds I skim read the 'refutation' I counted at least 4 different glaring logical fallacies and 1 blatant omission - I couldn't be bothered after that.

So let's try this - since you are so Skeptical and are always totally not biased - let's see if you can spot them.

[Katman]

But if it makes you happy - in the 5 seconds I skim read the 'refutation' I counted at least 4 different glaring logical fallacies and 1 blatant omission - I couldn't be bothered after that.

So let's try this - since you are so Skeptical and are always totally not biased - let's see if you can spot them.

Or you could point them out and we could discuss them.

But then again, we both know your current filibustering is just your standard operating procedure when you've backed yourself into a corner.

[TheDemonLord]

Or you could point them out and we could discuss them.

But then again, we both know your current filibustering is just your standard operating procedure when you've backed yourself into a corner.

Do you even know what a filibuster is? Considering the borderline Novels I'm happy to type out, my replies thus far have been positively minuscule.

But you don't see any fallacies or ommissions or misleading statements in those Myths?

[Katman]

Do you even know what a filibuster is?

Lots of words that say nothing and which serve no purpose other than to waste time.

Like I said - your standard operating procedure.

[husaberg]

And a few myths about Andrew Wakefield dispelled.

http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/di...deconstructed/

RATFLMAO........
Seeing as you claim it dispels myths about Wakefield
How about you show proof regarding any of the claims made in the article.

Lots of words that say nothing and which serve no purpose other than to waste time.

That's your link in a nutshell

[Katman]

Seeing as you claim it dispels myths about Wakefield
How about you show proof regarding any of the claims made in the article.

There are plenty of links provided in the article that support their claims.

People are free to read them and make up their own minds.

[husaberg]

There are plenty of links provided in the article that support their claims.

People are free to read them and make up their own minds.

But you are the one stating how it dispels myths about Wakefeild being a court proven scientific fraud.
So either you post the proof or you admit any defence of Wakefield's claims are blatant horse poo.

[TheDemonLord]

Lots of words that say nothing and which serve no purpose other than to waste time.

Like I said - your standard operating procedure.

Except it really isn't. I've kept my retorts deliberately brief, however nice to see you are up to your usual tricks of misrepresenting Reality to suit your warped delusions.

BTW - have you found the fallacies in your link yet?

[Katman]

BTW - have you found the fallacies in your link yet?

By your own admission you skim read the article for 5 seconds.

You wouldn't have a fucking clue what's in it.

[TheDemonLord]

By your own admission you skim read the article for 5 seconds.

You wouldn't have a fucking clue what's in it.

And in that 5 seconds, I spotted so many glarring errors and fallacies that it confirmed that it was full of shit.

Interesting how you've not been able to spot them.

[Katman]

And in that 5 seconds, I spotted so many glarring errors and fallacies that it confirmed that it was full of shit.

Interesting how you've not been able to spot them.

Why do you continue with this pretense of knowledge when you persist in arguing from a position of complete ignorance?

[TheDemonLord]

Why do you continue with this pretense of knowledge when you persist in arguing from a position of complete ignorance?

Because that isn't what I'm doing at all.

Let me put it another way - if someone brought a bike to you, with the engine missing, the forks bent and the frame visibly twisted, you took one 5 second glance at it and replied "Nope, it's fucked - get another bike" - would it be fair to say that you were arguing from a position of complete ignorance if you didn't run a full diagnostic on every aspect of the Bike?

Cause that's what you are saying.

I looked at the article and all it took to pick up multiple obvious errors was 5 seconds. Errors that anyone with an ounce of either skepticism or knowledge would pick up on. That told me all I needed to know about the article, that it was a steaming pile of shit and should be discarded as such.

[Katman]

That told me all I needed to know about the article, that it was a steaming pile of shit and should be discarded as such.

Dude, that is the epitomal position of ignorance.