The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
— H. L. Mencken

Here is a preview: Caravaggio has no beliefs presented anywhere in any posting in this weblog. Beliefs were never discussed. We shall delve into structured knowledge. For a primer: “The Joy of Thinking: The Beauty and Power of Classical Mathematical Ideas” by Prof. Edward Burger and Prof. Michael Starbird. I look forward to the opportunity to assist.

Another note: Love as a metric for successful sheltering from death was being utilized by Caravaggio (as was thoroughly stated). For example: A Christian Scientist honestly LOVES his child as he willfully watches his offspring go into exsanguination and die from a hemorrhagic virus. This is not true (successful) LOVE as being defined in this debate. This is about ignorance and BELIEFS. And this very example has been experience by the readers of this blog before in real life (via the news) and you’ve instantly asked yourself, “how could a Father allow his son/daughter to just die horribly without seeking medical help?” To say you haven’t is to not allow yourself to be honest and open to this debate.

Ultimately, I’ll wager a bet this is little more about the semantics involved with the word “research”. And as such I shall have this applied to logophobia and the failure of significance in “sources” being utilized by counterpositions.

For one cannot polish a turd.

Again – in this age of the internet and false positives who knows what is right. In fact, this has been a problem throughout history. Right now THIS is right, 5 minutes from now it will be wrong. Do you all recall the Egg problem? In the lated 80s they were totally bad for you. In the nineties the egg whites were the only thing good for you, now the entire egg is good for you based on moderation. The irony is the egg itself hasn’t changed – merely our perception on it.

Caravaggio believes that vaccines are good, that is his right, based on his beliefs in the sources that he has chosen to believe. Scanjack believes that vaccines can be good as long as they are handled properly. Certain chemical additives were deemed bad at one point, many still believe that they are (including the FDA), and other believe that there is nothing wrong with them or perhaps just the amount of them used in a vaccine.

Do their differing perspectives mean they either love or do not love their kids? I see these two things as being completely not connected in this instance only because both people have done research and have in their research paths have come to differing conclusions – oddly enough that happens in Science more often than people seem to like to admit.

i refuse to go down the rabbit hole of subjective determinism about “data sources” when the countering position involves a logophobic stance based on “anything goes”.

ignorance runs contraindicated to proper love/care. by love/care i define as meaning the safety and health of one’s family. similarly, we’ve a rich history of human ignorance with well-meaning people who caused unprecedented suffering to base this on. this equates to EPIC FAIL on the love scale. again, i foresee this thread quickly turning into a focus upon logophobia (but i’m ready with my material already).

to oppose my position is to effective state one’s logic as:
“i love you, my child, therefore i’m going to spare you a modern medical preventative to an age-old viral illness… and i hope you don’t get sick. my basis for this behavior is not linear to sound logic as it is derived, not from rationale, but from fear”

i’ll restate that nothing is wrong with the vaccination program for children… from mumps to H1N1 and i’ve the scientific method supporting my declaration.

therefore my position stands:
“if you don’t vaccinate your children based on a hodgepodge of unqualified data sources, then you DON’T truly love your children”.

the ironic nature of today’s circumstance has educated, middle class people behaving like people of the dark ages. monsters abound. fear is the contagion. beware the darkness.

pure bunk.

i
lost
control
of
my
bowels.

thanks.

AHAHAHAHAHAH you jumped.

wuss.

To enact a determination metric by which the “safety” of a vaccine is left to the perception and interpretation one gathers from the common conduits of information (the majority of which comes from a combination of mass media coverage and social hearsay channels) is synonymous with telling yourself you’ll by flood insurance for your home next storm season because this past season it didn’t flood. It is utterly subjective. It is based on confusing correlation with causation. It puts kids (yours and the one’s they come into contact with) in danger.

NOTE: the primary resistance to full spectrum vaccination had its genesis as a social meme arising from disinformation produced by one amoral doctor in england (who has since lost his license to practice). the flu vaccine in any combination (HxNx) statistically cannot harm you or your kids. HOWEVER, to not vaccinate against HxNx means you are allowing fate to intervene as it pleases.

i, for one, love my kids enough to understand the risks/rewards and proudly had them vaccinated against the H1N1 virus with two full dosages. and i’m doing it again this upcoming flu season (not because i’m evil… but because i’ve a baseline understanding of math and do not spook easily)