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

> "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)".

I didn't say "argumentum ad hominem", I said "ad hominem attack", which 
is different.

You are intentionally and deliberately calling my character into question 
because I am disagreeing with you.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by 
an answer to the contentions made

You are /not/ discussing the issue, you're saying things in response to 
disagreements with your assertions that the ends justify the means by 
saying things like "you make me sick".

And it's time you STFU.  Seriously, if that's your debating technique, 
then you need to learn how to debate properly rather than resorting to 
character attacks in a deliberate appeal to people's emotions to make 
your point.

"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."

Yeah, because that's not appealing to people's emotions and is debating 
based on the facts/merits of the argument you're trying to make.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/08/2013 8:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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".
>

Bloody Aida! Jim. I didn't know that you were old enough to speak Latin 
as your native language.
My how time flies. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 10.08.2013 01:37, schrieb Warp:

> 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.

I tell you something sick:

Here in Germany, some decades ago there was a huge campaign pro Iodine: 
To fight hypothyreosis, people were encouraged to use salt with added 
Iodine, companies were encouraged to add Iodine to their food products, 
and farmers were encouraged to add Iodine to the food of their 
livestock. All for the good of the people, especially (but not limited 
to) those suffering from undiagnosed hypothyreosis.

Today, in effect it's nigh impossible to buy any food products that have 
natural levels of Iodine.

This is good for people who have an undiagnosed disposition to 
hypothyreosis.

It's devastating though for people who have an undiagnosed 
/hyperthyreosis/ - the excess Iodine can literally /kill/ them! And even 
if those people are lucky enough to find a doctor who comes up with the 
correct diagnosis, the most obvious and least invasive treatment - a 
low-Iodine diet - is in practice nearly impossible; instead, the typical 
treatment is to remove or destroy the thyroid gland, making the patient 
dependent on artificial thyroid hormones for the rest of his life (not 
to mention that a portion of the patients lose their voice or even their 
life due to the surgery).

Without the artificial addition of Iodine to literally each and every 
food product - which in effect boils down to forced medication of each 
and every person - it would be the people with hypothyreosis who would 
need treatment, but that would be as easy as changing their diet to food 
with a high natural Iodine concentration, or in the worst case 
artificially adding Iodine to /their/ food - instead of adding it to 
/everyone's/ food.

I have someone among my relatives who suffers from this very problem. 
That is something that makes /me/ sick.

/Forced/ medication? No, sir.

If people /want/ to get vaccinated, or at least allow themselves to be 
/talked/ into being vaccinated, to protect /them/ from Polio or 
whatever, let them. But do /not/ force medication - of any kind - onto 
anyone against their will.

Sacrificing people's freedom to reject some medical procedure, in order 
to try achieving some greater medical benefit for all, opens up a can of 
particularly ugly worms we've seen crawling across Europe before.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 21:26:44 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 10/08/2013 8:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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".
>>
>>
> Bloody Aida! Jim. I didn't know that you were old enough to speak Latin
> as your native language.
> My how time flies. ;-)

;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > 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 now you are also a liar. If you want to take that as an "ad hominem"
then be my guest.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> And it's time you STFU.

No, I won't shut the fuck up, and here's why:

Many people participated in the worldwide smallpox vaccination campaign,
and their efforts helped eradicate the disease from the face of Earth,
saving millions of people. Did they sometimes half-force people to be
vaccinated? Yes. However, those actions have saved millions of lives.

You, and others here, however, are calling their actions "totalitarian"
and comparing it to eugenics. That, my friend, makes you an asshole in
my books, and it makes me sick.

I would really like to see you explain to a mother whose child has been
crippled for life because of polio the reason why there is still polio
in the world. "Yeah, sorry, we could have eradicated this disease years
ago, but we didn't because, you see, our moral sensibilities take
precedence." I'm sure that mother will find solace in the notion that
her child has been a worthy sacrifice for your higher moral sensibilities,
to make you feel like you are not imposing a "totalitarian regime" and
"eugenics" onto other people. What is the life of a child in comparison
to the purity of your mind?

If avoiding "totalitarianism", as you call it, means sacrificing the life
of millions of people, then you can shove your morals where the sun doesn't
shine. You are sick in the mind.

If you want to call this an "ad hominem", then go right ahead. It won't
make any difference.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:48:16 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > 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 now you are also a liar. If you want to take that as an "ad hominem"
> then be my guest.

Stop being a jerk, Warp.

You have persistently engaged in personal attacks and character attacks 
in trying to make your point.

You have said that holding an opposing view makes you sick.  You have 
continually tried to twist what's being said so you can denigrate people 
who disagree with you.

I'm calling you out on that.

If calling you out on saying the things that you have said makes me a 
liar, then I guess that means you think I'm a liar.

Here are things that you have *specifically* said:

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

"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."

(Yes, the implication is there - "if you don't agree with what I'm 
saying, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to 
describe what you are" - you set up a strawman and knock it down by 
implying that those who don't agree with you are sick.)

I said it before, and I'll say it again:  If you want to debate *on the 
merits*, fine, let's debate on the merits.  If you're going to resort to 
calling people who disagree with you "sick" and worse, then you don't 
really have a very coherent argument to make.

Now, shall we try this again - and you can stop calling me names and 
describing what kind of a person I am because I disagree with your 
fundamental premise of forcibly vaccinating people against their will?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:59:44 -0400, Warp wrote:

> If avoiding "totalitarianism", as you call it, means sacrificing the
> life of millions of people, then you can shove your morals where the sun
> doesn't shine. You are sick in the mind.

Yeah, audit you.  I'm done.  You don't want to debate, you want to just 
engage in name calling and proclaim your moral superiority.  I'm done 
with you.  You don't know me, and you are in no position to judge me.  I 
don't really give a shit what you think, because you think that forcing 
people to do things against their will "in the name of the greater good" 
is perfectly fine.  Your authoritarian views make me sick, and your 
method of debating is reprehensible.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I tell you something sick:

> Here in Germany, some decades ago there was a huge campaign pro Iodine: 
> To fight hypothyreosis, people were encouraged to use salt with added 
> Iodine, companies were encouraged to add Iodine to their food products, 
> and farmers were encouraged to add Iodine to the food of their 
> livestock. All for the good of the people, especially (but not limited 
> to) those suffering from undiagnosed hypothyreosis.

Surely you can now point out how the polio vaccine is likewise dangerous,
and should therefore not be administered worldwide?

Do you see your "thing X is dangerous, therefore thing Y probably is too"
fallacy here?

> Sacrificing people's freedom to reject some medical procedure, in order 
> to try achieving some greater medical benefit for all, opens up a can of 
> particularly ugly worms we've seen crawling across Europe before.

There's a big difference between your iodine example and things like
smallpox and polio: These latter things are contagious, and by not
taking a vaccine, you are potentially spreading the disease to others.
You are, thus, not responsible only for your own wellbeing, but of other
people as well.

There's another difference: Smallpox and polio can be completely
eradicated. Once they are gone, they will are gone for good, and nobody
ever will have to suffer from them or need any further vaccinations for
them.

By not removing those diseases from the Earth when we have the means to,
we are responsible for all the lives that are lost or ruined. Many of
them will be people who would most certainly have wanted to live and be
healthy. The blood is in our hands if we allow people to suffer and die
when we are sitting on the cure because of our moral sensibilities.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:5206b7cf@news.povray.org...
>
> I would really like to see you explain to a mother whose child has been
> crippled for life because of polio the reason why there is still polio
> in the world. "Yeah, sorry, we could have eradicated this disease years
> ago, but we didn't because, you see, our moral sensibilities take
> precedence."

I would like to see you explain to a mother whose child has been blown in 
half by a terminator drone the reason why wealth and power are so 
concentrated in the world that the powerless majority are herded and 
slaughtered like livestock. "Yeah, sorry, we keep those guys around in case 
we have to forcibly vaccinate someone."

Post a reply to this message