Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
It is undeniable that your version has been changed so much you did not even recognize the real version anymore - you did not even know which book it was!
And we have also seen that the corrupted version states the exact opposite of the original in at least one area.
But perhaps the worst thing is the way you used this book to further your own anti-vaccine biases as well... you used a book intended to save the world as a vehicle for your anti-vaxx screed!
What if someone was to agree with the book, and then came across your half-witted anti vaxxery? They are likely to conclude the whole thing is as anti-scientific as anti-vaxx quackery!
If you want to write anti-vaccine propaganda, go ahead and write your own book. In stead you tried to highjack the authority of someone whose system was designed to save the world, just to get your petty hatred for scientific medicine across! That is even worse than corrupting the text out of simple ignorance, the way you have already done.
Some way to look after an important legacy. Use it to further your own pet hatreds, and to try and sneak them into a book you hope is going to be used as a blueprint for future generations - which is dishinest enough - but also running the very real risk of associating it with the crackpots, holocaust deniers, racists, quacks and general nutcases that you keep quoting as sources for your anti-vaxx idiocy!
Shameful.
|
I can't help but laugh my head off. I never gave a pet hatred to be used as a blueprint for future generations. I gave vaccines as an example of how these principles work. I'm not the one looking stupid here. I'm stopping this ridiculous conversation with Chuck. |
No, but you tried to sneak your pet hatred
into the blueprint. There is no trace of anti-vaxx sentiment in the uncorrupted text: that is just you, trying to use your fathers legacy as a vehicle for anti-vaxx propaganda. That is very unprincipled indeed.