@smallyoda111 do you inject apples into your bloodstream?

Or, even better......are you forced to inject apples into your bloodstream?

So, you're creating a false comparison then?

Yes, and unless you're saying apples are injected into your body, you're comparing......well....apples to oranges, er, vaccines.

Do you?

@Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach
Ummmmm.....you: "how is eating the amount of mercury in an apple less dangerous than injecting a vaccine"

@Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach
Some student you are....please show me where I made a statement about the effects of mercury? My only position is that comparing eating an apple and injecting vaccines (typically in a baby) is a false comparison. Please don't introduce your own personal bias into this, student.

@smallyoda111 please justify your comparison before you continue with your own bias.

@Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach because you just made a claim and I'm refuting it. So, the onus is on you?

@smallyoda111 who is feeding apple slices? Your assumption

@Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach here is the issue. The false comparison of eating apples to injecting vaccines because you don't inject apples into your bloodstream, and specifically, forced to inject apples into your bloodstream like vaccines are. So......any other blah blah blah that you're going to Gish Gallop about is irrelevant. Or, can you not handle that?

"you can get a mercury poisoning eitherway"
Oh! Wonderful! I'm glad you agree that you can get mercury poisoning from injecting vaccines. So, now the whole "forced to be injected with vaccines" bit, please.

@Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach
What you believe literally doesn't matter.

@Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach ummmm.....no.......the point is......trying to compare eating an apple and injecting an apple because that's how vaccines are typically introduced and being forced to do so.....is the false comparison and the only subject at hand. So, once again, everything you say that is not about that subject is clap trap.

Blah blah blah. Stick to the point. Or smell ya later.

Your best attempt at discussing the subject matter is to......try and recycle the same confirmation bias statement that I used on you......avoid the subject matter......declare yourself correct without evidence of your position on the subject matter (just your opinion). I think you're going to need more of your self proclaimed schooling.

Not going to allow you to change the subject matter. Sorry. You're trying to sabotage critical thinking. Until you answer the specific question about the specific subject matter, you're just blowing out hot air. So, until you can do that, conversing with you two is just a waste of time. So much for critical thinking.

@Wretch well, his grasp of critical thinking is suspect, to be sure. The other one, too.

I'd have no problem discussing things with them, if they could just stick to one point at a time. But......they couldn't even do that. The way I see it, if you want to prove your point, you should dwell on it a bit.

If not, it's just farts in the wind.

@indio007 there can be no debate....if that doctor chooses to administer treatment knowing that he is harming his patient, it's not an issue about his career. It's an issue of being a sociopath. Because only sociopaths harm for benefit.

@Say do whatever you want, just don't force others to do it.

@Say can vaccines injections cause harm, or not?

@Bill Withers how so?

You didn't answer my question.

Duh

@Say are you going to stand by your position that the worst vaccines can do is cause rashes and whatever "whatnot" is?

@Bill Withers are you going to back up your claim of "people like this ruin other people's lives"?

Instead of not answering my direct question?

OK. So.....are you changing your position, then?

Well...let me get this straight......you initially said that only rashes and "whatnot" was the worst that could happen from vaccines. Then you immediately changed that to extreme reactions. So.....can you please get your position down straight, and could you not try to justify your answer with added embellishment. I'll even ask the question again, and I'll try to word it so that you can get a defining response......what's the worst that can happen from getting vaccines?

Why are you dodging the question? Can you just answer the question plainly and clearly?

I'll try this one last time......what is the worst that vaccines can do? Please don't "nuance" it.

Are you suuuure?

Did you want to pull out the data sheet that comes with every dose?

OK. So.....now you've modified your answer AGAIN from absolute worst case of temporary paralysis to death. We're sliding down to reality here. Good.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

So....earlier you said something to the effect of "vaccines are for the greater good". I'm paraphrasing because I can't seem to find that quote of yours anymore. Maybe you deleted it? Anyway, you kind of confirmed it with your statements of " were better off with those extenuating circumstances" and "necessary to have herd immunity".
So, would it be your position, from your prior statements that you think that everyone should get vaccinated because of the greater good? Would that be fair to say? Based on your prior statements?

@Retr0spect with all due respect, this isn't the issue at hand.

@Say what do you mean "everyone that is able to"?

@Say are you trying to say that people that might be harmed by vaccines shouldn't get the vaccine?

@Say what do you mean by "good chance"?

What do you mean by "harmed"?

@Say are you trying to say that just because one's life may not be compromised, that it's not harm? Like isn't, as you said, paralysis a form of harm?

@Say so, your position is.....is that it's OK!to harm people as long as you don't kill!them?

@Say well, that really didn't answer the question. Is it OK to harm people as long as you don't kill them?

@Say well the last half of that sentence could be argued, but that's not the point. I'm trying to clear up your position about harm. So, could you please answer the question with clarity.....is it OK to harm people as long as you don't kill them?

Sort of like Russian roulette?

But with a gun with a really large cartridge?

Nerf bullet? Can a nerf bullet kill? Because you DID say that vaccines can kill, right?

How do you know?

Do doctors usually say something then immediately modify their answers when prodded?

Sounds like moving the goals posts to me,.

Aren't people with bad immune systems precisely the people who need to be protected with vaccines?

Arent people with strong immune systems capable of fighting off diseases? Or, does every disease have a 100% kill rate?

So, does every disease have a 100% kill rate?

So, it's possible for people to survive an infection without being vaccinated?

I mean....people survived infections before vaccinations, right?

What does significantly mean to someone who survived it? I would say that, for that individual, significant means nothing.

If someone survived an infection without being vaccinated, he didn't "significantly better chance of survival". ….he DID survive.

How so?

That person DIDN'T survive? You agreed that it's possible. So, I guess it's not nonsense.

Strawman. That is not what we discussed.

Only you're talking 'rates". That is your attempt to divert from the subject at hand.

Because that's your strawman. Here, let's try this again.....do diseases kill 100% of the people who aren't vaccinated?

I didn't ask if vaccines strengthen our immune systems. Please stop embellishing your answers with strawman positions.

So these are the facts from you so far,.

People can be harmed from vaccines, from minor to major harm including death.

People can survive not vaccinated.

You think it's OK to harm people to get what you want.

You are anti-immigration.

Are these statements accurate?

I don't know why you're trying to complicate it. Are these statements of yours accurate?

"You stand a better chance of survival with a vaccination than without one"
Please dont create strawman positions in an attempt to solidify your argument.

*crickets*
No response? I'm out.

I have no idea. What does herd immunity mean to you?

I'm not throwing aside anything. I'm keeping him to the subject at hand

His "facts" are mere distractions from the subject matter.

So, then.....you're against immigration then, right?

And against travel, right?

And pro-coercion, right?

So.....anti-immigration, right?

But what if they don't want to be immunized?

OK, great. Problem solved. Vaccinate if you want to.

So.....coercion?

How so?

Are you trying to say that one form of harm is acceptable whereas another form of harm isn't?

So, you're a moral relativist?

I thought you were for informed CONSENT?

But their caretaker can.

Then they wouldn't be a caretaker.

And then another caretaker would be initiated, if there was someone willing to be a caretaker.

A caretaker doesn't initiate harm.

Giving potential harm is abuse.

Yea, the caretaker's choice is to prevent harm.

@Say allowing you child to be exposed to harm is abuse, yes.

More people have died or been harmed this century in the US by the measles vaccine than by contracting measles. 149 times greater. So, yes....there is a greater chance of killing you child through the vaccine than there is from contracting the disease. So, I would say that giving the measles vaccine is more harmful than the disease.

@Say "Even if it did cause autism, you’re better off being vaccinated"
This is what psychopaths say.

@Say no statistics. Evidence.

Ummmmm.....no.......reasonable people are not morally relativistic. @Say