Originally Posted by
FJRider
He promotes his opinion ... nothing more. He has no input or influence on any of the parents or guardians of any children at risk. Yet you continue to accuse him of being at fault ...
Originally Posted by
FJRider
But in the meantime ... you chose to blame those not involved with the decisions that may have caused harm.
Originally Posted by
FJRider
What is lacking is your proof of Katmans conspiracy to kill. All you have his stated opinion.
Not to take you out of Context - but I feel these 3 comments are part of the same argument, so I'm grouping them together to give a single response. Firstly - do you accept the premises that:
A: Measles is a highly virulent and potentially fatal disease, particularly to Children
B: The risk of death from measles is significantly higher than the risk of death from a Vaccine
C: The historical record shows that when we had ~95% vaccination rates, there were zero fatalities from Measles and when those rates fell, we saw Fatal cases of Measles
D: One of the biggest Causal factors in decreased vaccination rates is due to the Anti-Vax movement
E: Said Movement relies in people (such as Katman) in spreading and perpetuating their viewpoint
F: Katman regularly, voluntarily, posts links to articles/'studies'/YT videos that fall under the category of 'Anti-Vax content' and does so without being asked or not in response to something
I believe that on all points, there is sufficient evidence to backup these claims (for example - see posts after https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1131103939)
based on the above premises, there is a clear logical and causal chain between Katman promoting his anti-vax opinion, and people opting not to vaccinate based on repeatedly disproved lies.
You ask about a conspiracy to kill - well, considering how many times the overwhelming mountain of evidence (Including a case study that exists for when an entire first world nation stops using the MMR vaccine) has been pointed out to him - it's either that or he's clinically Delusional. Since he's able to form coherent thoughts on other matters - that rules out Delusional - so what are we left with?
Originally Posted by
FJRider
You admit to exceeding posted speed limits ... that could be construed as encouraging unlawful behavior ... thus responsible for some of the deaths on the roads of New Zealand.
Originally Posted by
FJRider
Degree of complicity ... ?? How often do you exceed the speed limits ... ???
Originally Posted by
FJRider
You are just another citizen of this country ... that picks and chooses which part of the legislation they choose to comply with (or not). Usually with the certainty of being caught an element in deciding factor not to comply with the law. Nothing we haven't already noticed ...
Originally Posted by
FJRider
A parent holding their child as it dies from the result of that parents excessive speed ... fails to prevent that parent exceeding posted speed limits in the future. Your theory leaves a lot to be desired. Like admitting fault and responsibility by those directly involved with the deaths.
These too form a single argument - grouping together to respond.
This is a massive false equivalency. Can you point out where I've encouraged other people to speed? Futhermore Speeding itself doesn't cause the crash - it's the associated effects (too fast for the conditions, too fast for the corner, dangerous overtaking etc.) - whereas measeles definitely does kill. Even if you take the most charitable side of 'it's just stating his opinion' - can you show where I've just stated my opinion that it's right for people to speed AND that the studies done on the effects of crashing at speed are crocked/fasle as the behest of 'Big Auto' AND that I present alternative, debunked and retracted 'studies' as proof?
Show me doing that for a start, then we can pick apart why the above argument is BS without the massive fallacy.
Originally Posted by
FJRider
Risk of prosecution ...
That's an Appeal to the Law - If that's the case, then Slavery wasn't morally wrong or evil as there was no risk of Prosecution for owning slaves when it was Legal.
I'll ask again - what is the philosophical difference between the 2?
Originally Posted by
FJRider
What if ..??? ... is that all you've got ...
No, the point (and by evading the question, you show you know the answer and where it leads) is to show that we can accept people doing something stupid if they alone suffer the consequences of their stupidity, but when it's not them, but other people that suffer - this becomes a different issue, one that in many instances mandates an intervention (whether that be at the Personal, Societal or Governmental level).
Originally Posted by
FJRider
You never gave it in the past ... and you expect us to believe you now ...
Har Har, jab well made (THE PUN!) - I was infact acknowledging the libertarian argument, and that I don't like the fact that we need to have this discussion as I wish people would be able to separate the objective facts from the BS, but alas, the world is not perfect.
Originally Posted by
FJRider
Death (in most cases) is due to multiple factors ... only a few of those are usually known prior to a death. Especially on the roads of NZ. Do you think this might happen in the matter of vaccinations ??? Would not getting a vaccination be the sole cause of death ... ??
Well, consider the data when we maintained a ~95% vaccination rates for over a Decade - ZERO Measles deaths, the Anti-vaxxers come along, rates fall to 90% - we now have Measles deaths - even if you were to exclude death from secondary conditions (such as Pneumonia etc.) you still have as you say "not getting a vaccination be the sole cause of death" very clearly established.
Originally Posted by
FJRider
Start a "Givealittle" page ...
Would need to switch careers and get a few decades of experience under my belt to have sufficient credentials to honestly start one.
Originally Posted by
FJRider
Petty ...
: Valid .. debatable ... ?? ... but Legal ... if accusations are true. But if found to be false accusations ... expensive.
There's a difference between not being proved and false accusations. Point was to show figures for countries with similar traits to ours (so not using say the figures from Angola or some other African country) and then show that the risk is as real as I'm making it out to be, and the only reason the death rate is so low is due to the protection afforded by Vaccination.
To use the low rate of death to portray that the risk of measles is low, therefore the vaccination is unnecessary, whilst using the low figures that are due to Vaccination is dishonest.
Originally Posted by
FJRider
The belief of statistics entirely depends on the statisticians ability to reduce (or remove) the elements of uncertainty.
Fair point - answer me this: even with a high level of uncertainty, you can still make draw a conclusion as to which way the trend is going. Even with the rough numbers and calculations provided - does it point more towards the position that I hold or more towards the position that Katman holds?
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Bookmarks