andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 10-8-2013 1:28, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> On 9-8-2013 22:57, Warp wrote:
> >
> >>> By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
> >>> Which makes absolutely no sense.
> >
> >> Ah, it is good to see the great strawman-master at work again.
> >> Well done.
> >
> > Yes,

> Indeed so stop with that.

> And everything below is totally irrelevant to my remark.
> Learn how to debate and stick to the subject.

You are trying to convince me to "stop with that" by cutting the first
word of my reply and making a smartass remark about it, without even
trying to resond to what I actually said?

How about I don't?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:16:56 -0500, Shay wrote:
> > You'll need power to do that, near-absolute (total) power. Genie ...
> > Bottle ... Forced Vaccinations ... Eugenics ... Greater Good

Yes, because that's totally what happened in the 70's when smallpox
was eradicated. Forced vaccinations, eugenics...

Sure, rather than forced vaccinations, which inevitably leads to eugenics,
we should have let all those millions of people die horrible deaths.

> Bingo.

You are both sick in the head, and you are making me sick.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > Do you disagree with the notion that eradicating smallpox from the
> > world, saving millions of lives, was a good thing?
> > 
> > Or would you rather sacrifice those millions of lives to your altar of
> > political correctness?
> > 
> > If you agree that those millions of lives were worth the worldwide
> > smallpox vaccination program, then you have not business in criticizing
> > the worldwide polio vaccination program, or else you are just a
> > hypocrite.
> > 
> > If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the vaccination
> > program, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to
> > describe what you are, because it's nauseating to even think.

> Sorry, but if you're going to engage in this sort of personal attack 
> rather than debating on the merits, then you're not worth my time.

You didn't answer my question. Instead you resort to the "you are making a
personal attack" card.

I repeat: Do you think it was a bad a thing that smallpox was completely
eradicated, saving millions of lives?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 10-8-2013 1:40, Warp wrote:

> > When it has been scientifically and empirically proven with absolute
> > certainty

> There is no such thing at all, at all. If you were a scientist you would 
> know that.

Well, if you happen to find smallpox on the wild, inform me. Or better
yet, the proper authorities. I think they would be interested.

I think it's pretty safe to say that we know with absolutely certainty
that there is no smallpox out there. Thus the efficacy of the program is
likewise proven.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10-8-2013 19:26, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 10-8-2013 1:28, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> On 9-8-2013 22:57, Warp wrote:
>>>
>>>>> By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
>>>>> Which makes absolutely no sense.
>>>
>>>> Ah, it is good to see the great strawman-master at work again.
>>>> Well done.
>>>
>>> Yes,
>
>> Indeed so stop with that.
>
>> And everything below is totally irrelevant to my remark.
>> Learn how to debate and stick to the subject.
>
> You are trying to convince me to "stop with that" by cutting the first
> word of my reply and making a smartass remark about it, without even
> trying to resond to what I actually said?
>
> How about I don't?
>

"Yes" was sufficient the rest was irrelevant, because it had nothing to 
do with what I said. It was nothing more than a childish 'he did it too 
;( ' and that was not true either.

For me there was and is no point in going into a debate with you on what 
totalitarian means or not, because, again, it is irrelevant for the 
discussion. I have said elsewhere why vaccination 'by force' won't work. 
If you have anything useful to add to that, be my guest.

-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 13:31:34 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > Do you disagree with the notion that eradicating smallpox from the
>> > world, saving millions of lives, was a good thing?
>> > 
>> > Or would you rather sacrifice those millions of lives to your altar
>> > of political correctness?
>> > 
>> > If you agree that those millions of lives were worth the worldwide
>> > smallpox vaccination program, then you have not business in
>> > criticizing the worldwide polio vaccination program, or else you are
>> > just a hypocrite.
>> > 
>> > If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the
>> > vaccination program, then I don't even want to write the words that
>> > come to mind to describe what you are, because it's nauseating to
>> > even think.
> 
>> Sorry, but if you're going to engage in this sort of personal attack
>> rather than debating on the merits, then you're not worth my time.
> 
> You didn't answer my question. Instead you resort to the "you are making
> a personal attack" card.
> 
> I repeat: Do you think it was a bad a thing that smallpox was completely
> eradicated, saving millions of lives?

Of course that was a good thing.

Now you answer *my* questions.

And instead of saying "you make me sick", try actually debating on the 
merits rather than engaging in personal attacks.

Otherwise, I'll just add you to my 'asshole' filter and move on.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:5206786d@news.povray.org...
>
> Sure, rather than forced vaccinations, which inevitably leads to eugenics,
> we should have let all those millions of people die horrible deaths.
>

Again, you're examining one totalitarian (or, if you prefer, 
"by-overwhelming-force") act in isolation. This is the problem with "if I 
were king for a day" thinking.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I have said elsewhere why vaccination 'by force' won't work. 

Does that mean there is still smallpox on the wild out there?

Quite clearly smallpox contradicts your statement.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> If, however, you're going to continue to engage in ad hominem attacks 
> against those you disagree with, then we're done here.

You don't even know what "ad hominem" means.

"Argumentum ad hominem" is a claim that tries to say that someone's
argument is invalid or suspicious because of something objectionable
about that person. In other words "you shouldn't listen to him because
he is (something objectionable)".

A couple of examples:

"He doesn't accept the theory of evolution, therefore he's an idiot"
is *not* an ad hominem.

"He is in jail for tax fraud, and thus you shouldn't be listening to
what he has to say about the theory of evolution" *is* an ad hominem.
(He might be wrong about evolution, but he being in jail for tax fraud
is completely irrelevant to the issue.)

Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong because of what kind of
person you are, or what you have done, or anything of the sorts.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 15:02:02 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> If, however, you're going to continue to engage in ad hominem attacks
>> against those you disagree with, then we're done here.
> 
> You don't even know what "ad hominem" means.

Again with the "defining my native language to me".

> "Argumentum ad hominem" is a claim that tries to say that someone's
> argument is invalid or suspicious because of something objectionable
> about that person. In other words "you shouldn't listen to him because
> he is (something objectionable)".
> 
> A couple of examples:
> 
> "He doesn't accept the theory of evolution, therefore he's an idiot" is
> *not* an ad hominem.
> 
> "He is in jail for tax fraud, and thus you shouldn't be listening to
> what he has to say about the theory of evolution" *is* an ad hominem.
> (He might be wrong about evolution, but he being in jail for tax fraud
> is completely irrelevant to the issue.)
> 
> Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong because of what kind of
> person you are, or what you have done, or anything of the sorts.

You have, and if you don't knock it off, then I'm done talking with you.

Jim

Post a reply to this message