A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Judging people on their words and actions and judging people on the color of their skin are very, very, very different. That you don't see this difference is very odd.

All of my judgments are based on people's behavior, not on any traits that are out of their control or ability to influence or change.

And since all those other traits are not accessible on an internet forum, only their words, those other traits are not a factor in Judging another persons worth. You can't even judge their actions, only the act of posting words on a screen.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does she think we take into our body every day just from breathing and eating and having skin and stuff?

Maybe she lives in a bubble and uses hand sanitizer as a body wash?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And since all those other traits are not accessible on an internet forum, only their words, those other traits are not a factor in Judging another persons worth. You can't even judge their actions, only the act of posting words on a screen.

Putting thoughts into words and advocating for positions etc. are actions, though

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Putting thoughts into words and advocating for positions etc. are actions, though

Yes, but are they true acts or just a false act to put on a show behind the shield of anonymity. We have only the words on a screen and no way of asserting that they are the true words of the person posting them. I try to read only the words on the screen and read nothing more into them. In the end I have no way of knowing if you are what and who you say you are. Perhaps you have the tools to track me down in reality, but I do not. Nor do I want them, I would much rather accept what is posted as reality and not worry about the truth.

Sorry I'm tired and much too philosophical, I understand the what I perceive is filtered through my nervous system and I have no real direct connection to reality. I think Shakespeare was right, we are all just actors on a stage and it's all just fiction.

[LadyShea]

Well, if you say it, I feel JUSTIFIED! in judging it. I've no desire to track anyone down. You really are tired because I am unsure you are following this

[The Lone Ranger]

Just in case it isn't clear: it's not at all unusual to be exposed to thousands of novel antigens. Per day. Studies of immunocompetence consistently indicate that even a very young child's immune system can cope with exposure to 100,000 novel antigens in a single day and function just fine. Easily.

A kid who goes outside and plays in the dirt will -- in just a few minutes' time -- be exposed to literally millions of different bacterial strains. And that's not even accounting for the countless different protozoan, fungal, and nematode species (s)he will be exposed to at the same time.

But a few dozen vaccinations over two years' time is going to stress the system? Don't make me laugh. Only someone who knows nothing at all about how immunity works would make such an idiotic claim.

[Vivisectus]

You do not understand... these are TOXINS!!1!! And they have not been tested for COMBINATION RISK!!11!!

Toxin certainly sounds bad. So does combination risk.

But then again - what about the combination risk of the hundreds of regular stuff that updates our immune system on a daily basis? What about the toxins we are exposed to on a daily basis? Has anyone measured the "exposure time" of the normal rate antibodies are introduced into our system - I reckon we are under a continuous "onslaught" already, and vaccines are the least of our problems!

But hang on - if the "onslaught" of a few hundred a day is natural (and actually, unnaturally low if you define "natural" as "what we would be exposed to in our natural state, IE as low-tech hunter gatherers", then the problem is not that the "artificial" adding to them is happening in an increased rate... it is actually that they are too low!

Also, the story of the carcinogenic adjuvants is old hat that has been debunked long ago. Not only was the substance in question not in the specific vaccine that triggered that story at all, but even if it was, there is no known study that clearly links them to cancer risks.The ones used in childhood vaccines have been used for decades now, and there is no data to suggest they result in an elevated risk of cancer.

[Vivisectus]

By the way:

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/elsner_b.html

"Dr" Elsner is not a medical doctor: he never studied medicine. He is a Chiropractor.

I get the feeling, and so far this is only a hunch, that he is the type of "holistic practitioners" that enjoy giving medical advice even thought hey are really only qualified to give nice massages. In any case, due to his lack of relevant background I would question if he has the required expertise to write a proper peer-reviewed study about this. We know for a fact that he has not written any peer-reviewed study as he does not show up in any of the literature.

And when you just look at the kind of reasoning that is used in the article that you brought up, you can see the quality of the arguments used leaves a lot to be desired:

Carcinogens are not the only thing vaccines contain. They also contain neurotoxins, “harsh poisons,” and even hazardous waste. Yes, you read that correctly, hazardous waste. According to Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of thimerosal, “This material and its container must be disposed of as hazardous waste.” So the medical profession disposes of this hazardous waste into our most innocent and purest form of life—our children!

Plasma must also be disposed of as hazardous waste, but that certainly does not mean it is bad to administer it to people. It just means it classifies as biomedical waste, just like out-of-date aspirin from a hospital dispensary.

This is typical ill-informed alarmist claptrap.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But hang on - if the "onslaught" of a few hundred a day is natural (and actually, unnaturally low if you define "natural" as "what we would be exposed to in our natural state, IE as low-tech hunter gatherers", then the problem is not that the "artificial" adding to them is happening in an increased rate... it is actually that they are too low!

Indeed. To develop proper immunocompetence, we require exposure to antigens. For example, there's considerable evidence that one reason why rates of asthma have risen in the past few decades is because so many American children are raised in environments that are "too clean." Want your kids to develop a good, robust, properly-functioning immune system? Let 'em go out and get dirty.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well, if you say it, I feel JUSTIFIED! in judging it. I've no desire to track anyone down. You really are tired because I am unsure you are following this

I think I was following it, you are saying that posting is an act in itself and you are justified in judging that act, and I agree. I was just off on a tangent that we can't really know if what is posted are the true thoughts of the person or something made up just for the post. In the end we can only read what is on the screen and unless you have other contact and can verify what has been posted it may all be an illusion.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Indeed. To develop proper immunocompetence, we require exposure to antigens. For example, there's considerable evidence that one reason why rates of asthma have risen in the past few decades is because so many American children are raised in environments that are "too clean." Want your kids to develop a good, robust, properly-functioning immune system? Let 'em go out and get dirty.

I believe that antigens come in many different forms and there may be a few very dangerous forms and many that are mild or not dangerous at all. If the body is exposed to the mild forms it can develop an immunity that will function on the more serious forms. Years ago I read (but I can't confirm) that the South Pacific Island People had a mild form of skin disease and when the European sailors arrived carrying Syphilis, the islanders had some immunity to it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Indeed. To develop proper immunocompetence, we require exposure to antigens. For example, there's considerable evidence that one reason why rates of asthma have risen in the past few decades is because so many American children are raised in environments that are "too clean." Want your kids to develop a good, robust, properly-functioning immune system? Let 'em go out and get dirty.

Also having pets is supposed to help prevent allergies and asthma. I had read about the hygiene hypothesis, so when Kiddo was a baby I wasn't all addicted to hand sanitizers and constant surface bleaching like many parents I knew. Dunno if it helped or not, but he is a healthy kid.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that being mean can ruin a conversation. There's no place for it if the goal is to hear another point of view. Name calling squelches the desire to converse knowing that one's ideas will be ridiculed because they are not accepted by the group.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your sentence quoted above indicates you see a relationship between the squelching of free speech and meanness. Additionally, you are now saying that squelching a desire to converse and squelching of freedom of speech are synonymous.

In a technical sense you are right, but in a moral sense you are not right.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

From what I gather, what you are really trying to say is that some people don't want to socialize or discuss with people they think are mean. I agree, and I think those people should refrain from socializing or discussing with people they think are mean.

Not just who people think are mean, but WHO ARE MEAN.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Responding to your edited in addition

I left here and people followed me.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes. However, you had some time with those forums prior to people from here showing up there. Were you enjoying those discussions? What if you found a group that agreed with you or had a different culture than , would those that followed you have been tolerated or allowed to "take hostage" your thread, or ridiculed out of there as outsiders? Maybe you should seek those groups that won't be welcoming to the type of mean people you think we are.

Maybe I should.

I would have loved to go to another group (there are quite a few out there), but spiders would have given people clues as to where I was, and I would never tolerate having people from this group take my thread hostage like they did in project reason. Anyway, I'm going to market soon and won't have time for this silliness.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They are as free as you to discuss at open discussion forums. Again if you find, or even start, a group that thinks as you do on "bullying" and "squelching speech" etc., then anyone that followed you would be the outsiders, right?

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooo. You are twisting my words.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My experience is entirely within my power. I am not a target because I am not a helpless victim when it comes to voluntarily discussing things with other humans.

Nobody is saying you're helpless and that it isn't within your power to own your experience, but words are what we use online, and if those words are foul, the experience is not enjoyable and will compel people, of their own free will (I know David has no clue what I mean by that), to leave. Then you'll wait until the next sucker joins this "freethought" group so you can use him as fodder.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The nature of free speech is such that everyone can say what they want It's not my responsibility to ensure others enjoy their time or whatever. And some people do enjoy their time here at or it wouldn't exist and have members.

Absolutely. Everyone loves lulz. You are trying desperately to justify this thread and the disgusting attitude toward me, but it really doesn't fly LadyShea. Maturin and David are mean, period. I will not talk to them again because they are hiding behind their insecurities. I don't want to be a part of it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In fact, it has ruined any chance for a fair and enjoyable conversation. Can't you see how everyone becomes part of group think in an effort to avoid becoming the next target? This is called self-preservation. There has not been a person that would dare cross the line of what is acceptable, or they know they will be the next person in line to become fodder for laughter.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who is everyone? Are you talking about yourself, only, or have you had some kind of private communications with other "victims of the mob" who are magically powerless to preserve themselves by not clicking the link that brings them to ?

The victims of the mob, once they understand the game, do eventually leave and never come back.

Yes, people that do not like it here can and should leave and never come back. You, however, were actually not talking about them. You were talking about alleged people who stay here and participate while actively avoiding being a target, and not daring to cross lines, out of self preservation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who are those people?

The people who have left and never came back.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I think I was following it, you are saying that posting is an act in itself and you are justified in judging that act, and I agree. I was just off on a tangent that we can't really know if what is posted are the true thoughts of the person or something made up just for the post. In the end we can only read what is on the screen and unless you have other contact and can verify what has been posted it may all be an illusion.

Well, we can never truly know if anyone is speaking/writing their true thoughts or making it up, embellishing it, putting on a social mask or what, even in person. So, all we have to form opinions about anyone is what they say or do. That was my point.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also having pets is supposed to help prevent allergies and asthma. I had read about the hygiene hypothesis, so when Kiddo was a baby I wasn't all addicted to hand sanitizers and constant surface bleaching like many parents I knew. Dunno if it helped or not, but he is a healthy kid.

Are you telling me that your research on your child should be a standard for every child? You have the right to decide for your child, but do not tell me based on your situation what is right for my child. What is so difficult to understand LadyShea?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also having pets is supposed to help prevent allergies and asthma. I had read about the hygiene hypothesis, so when Kiddo was a baby I wasn't all addicted to hand sanitizers and constant surface bleaching like many parents I knew. Dunno if it helped or not, but he is a healthy kid.

Who is arguing with you about this? I don't even get you LadyShea. This is common knowledge. Anyone child lives with dogs or lives on a farm has a better immune system. What does this have to do with dangerous injections that are given by government coersion? Help me here.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In a technical sense you are right, but in a moral sense you are not right.

What does that even mean? I am trying to clarify what you are talking about and you are weaseling, yet again.

You were ranting about the lack of free speech here. That's not truly the case at all. People may not want to speak for whatever reason, but that's on that person, not on others.

Not just who think are mean, but WHO ARE MEAN.

Meanness is not some objective thing that actually exists and can be asserted as a fact. It's a subjective perception as well as transitory by being dependent on circumstance.

[quote]

Maybe I should.

It's entirely up to you, fully within your power to control your experiences.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooo. You are twisting my words.

I was just offering a way for you to figure out that you are not forced to interact with people you don't like. You can go find people you do like and maybe would help protect you from meanies.

Absolutely. Everyone loves lulz. You are trying desperately to justify this thread and the disgusting attitude toward me, but it really doesn't fly LadyShea. Maturin and David are mean, period. I will not talk to them again because they are hiding behind their insecurities. I don't want to be a part of it.

LOL, you love playing the victim don't you? You are trying to justify your own mean streak, and hide your own insecurities by playing it as merely defending yourself. You don't have to be here at all! You wouldn't need to defend yourself if you weren't in the fight...do you see yet?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The people who have left and never came back.

You seemed to miss the actual question when you answered. See the bolded and underlined part. Try again

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you telling me that your research on your child should be a standard for every child? You have the right to decide for your child, but do not tell me based on your situation what is right for my child. What is so difficult to understand LadyShea?

The question was your contention that introducing 36 antigens through vaccination constituted an "onslaught" in an unnaturally short period of time. As it turns out this is ill-informed nonsense based on bad information and an even worse understanding of how the immune system actually works.

Now you are saying that you have every right to be ill-informed and make poor decisions based on bad information. No-one has claimed otherwise.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In a technical sense you are right, but in a moral sense you are not right.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does that even mean? I am trying to clarify what you are talking about and you are weaseling, yet again.

If you would stop accusing me of something I'm not doing, maybe I can talk to you, otherwise I refuse. There is a problem with the way people (and they know who they are) have used this thread to puff themselves up. These people are mean, and this squelches free speech because no one wants to be verbally attacked. Please don't tell me that this is not what is going on in here because that's exactly what is going on in here, which negates any good that could come from a freethought forum.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You were ranting about the lack of free speech here. That's not truly the case at all. People may not want to speak for whatever reason, but that's on that person, not on others.

I am not talking about the ability to move one's lips to form words. Are you that literal?

Not just who think are mean, but WHO ARE MEAN.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Meanness is not some objective thing that actually exists and can be asserted as a fact. It's a subjective perception as well as transitory by being dependent on circumstance.

So what. It isn't objective because there's no such thing as meanness? Let me define it for you. Meanness is when someone is being hurt by a person's words that are said purposefully in order to have a desired effect. What is the desired effect? To make someone feel less than; to make someone feel that their contribution means nothing; to make someone feel unimportant in the scheme of things, with nothing valuable to say. If that's not enough, let me know and I'll give you more.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Responding to your edited in addition

I left here and people followed me.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes. However, you had some time with those forums prior to people from here showing up there. Were you enjoying those discussions? What if you found a group that agreed with you or had a different culture than , would those that followed you have been tolerated or allowed to "take hostage" your thread, or ridiculed out of there as outsiders? Maybe you should seek those groups that won't be welcoming to the type of mean people you think we are.

Probably not, but it added to the anger. It escalated the rage, and gave me no opportunity to continue.

Maybe I should.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's entirely up to you, fully within your power to control your experiences.

Of course it's entirely up to me. Who else would be up to? You're not saying anything new or helpful.

I would have loved to go to another group (there are quite a few out there), but spiders would have given people clues as to where I was, and I would never tolerate having people from this group take my thread hostage like they did in project reason. Anyway, I'm going to market soon and won't have time for this silliness.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They are as free as you to discuss at open discussion forums. Again if you find, or even start, a group that thinks as you do on "bullying" and "squelching speech" etc., then anyone that followed you would be the outsiders, right?

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooo. You are twisting my words.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I was just offering a way for you to figure out that you are not forced to interact with people you don't like. You can go find people you do like and maybe would help protect you from meanies.

You weren't trying to be helpful. You were tyring to tell me to go to a place that is filled with woo's so then I wouldn't have to deal with the smart people like you.

"You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”

Abe Lincoln

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My experience is entirely within my power. I am not a target because I am not a helpless victim when it comes to voluntarily discussing things with other humans.

Nobody is saying you're helpless and that it isn't within your power to own your experience, but words are what we use online, and if those words are foul, the experience is not enjoyable and will compel people, of their own free will (I know David has no clue what I mean by that), to leave. Then you'll wait until the next sucker joins this "freethought" group so you can use him as fodder.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The nature of free speech is such that everyone can say what they want It's not my responsibility to ensure others enjoy their time or whatever. And some people do enjoy their time here at or it wouldn't exist and have members.

Absolutely. Everyone loves lulz. You are trying desperately to justify this thread and the disgusting attitude toward me, but it really doesn't fly LadyShea. Maturin and David are mean, period. I will not talk to them again because they are hiding behind their insecurities. I don't want to be a part of it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, you love playing the victim don't you? You are trying to justify your own mean streak, and hide your own insecurities by playing it as merely defending yourself. You don't have to be here at all! You wouldn't need to defend yourself if you weren't in the fight...do you see yet?

That's true, I wouldn't have to fight the good fight, but I'm here because I can't stand the arrogance and I am going to fight it until something better comes along, which won't be far off. So what you're saying is that someone with a discovery such as this should not defend it, just let people walk all over Lessans. As long as I have breath, I will continue to defend what I know to be true because the ramifications are that important.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you telling me that your research on your child should be a standard for every child? You have the right to decide for your child, but do not tell me based on your situation what is right for my child. What is so difficult to understand LadyShea?

Why do you ignore or dismiss the fact that some decisions can possibly affect not only your child, but other people's children and other people in the community?

For a non-vaccine example, some people think the right decision for their child is to send them to school, or to daycare, or take them to the store even though they are ill, exposing other people to that illness. In that case does their right to make decisions for their child/family supersede other people's rights to not be unknowingly exposed to illness?

Your children live in the community unless you keep them home all the time. Do you not feel any responsibility at all to that community, or do you only give a shit about yourself?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who is arguing with you about this? I don't even get you LadyShea. This is common knowledge. Anyone child lives with dogs or lives on a farm has a better immune system. What does this have to do with dangerous injections that are given by government coersion? Help me here.

I was commenting on the points made about the hygiene hypothesis, not arguing with anyone. I wasn't even talking to you actually. That being said it is not common knowledge...lots of people keep everything sanitized.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Just in case it isn't clear: it's not at all unusual to be exposed to thousands of novel antigens. Per day. Studies of immunocompetence consistently indicate that even a very young child's immune system can cope with exposure to 100,000 novel antigens in a single day and function just fine. Easily.

A kid who goes outside and plays in the dirt will -- in just a few minutes' time -- be exposed to literally millions of different bacterial strains. And that's not even accounting for the countless different protozoan, fungal, and nematode species (s)he will be exposed to at the same time.

But a few dozen vaccinations over two years' time is going to stress the system? Don't make me laugh. Only someone who knows nothing at all about how immunity works would make such an idiotic claim.

As long as you can justify giving your child vaccines on an ever increasing vaccine schedule, then do so. No one in the new world is going to tell you what to do. So there's no reason to be so defensive Lone Ranger.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, chapter two has the claim that conscience works that way, but does not make a case for assuming that claim is correct. I see you chose option 2: evasion. You just say "It is there somewhere but I cannot be bothered to point it out".

Of course he makes the claim as to how conscience works, but he explains why he makes said claim, and gives examples of what exactly takes place when someone does something considered wrong by others. I swear I don't know what your problem is.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The other two options, which you will soon avail of, are irrationalism or plain old dishonesty.

All that is is your default position when you can't back up your statements with anything better.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I nominate Maturin. And now that his secret is out we should totally gang-stomp him verbally. I'll get the pitchforks, you grab the torches!

No, I suggest turn the other cheek, and better yet, put him on ignore.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I can think of several people that I could hurt their feelings without the slightest twinge of conscience, and intentionally. Unfortunately most of what I would consider is illegal.

You just verified what I have posited all along. In this case, you have reason to be angry at certain people which would give you no twinge of conscience because you feel justified in your anger. If this is your comeback and you think you have proven Lessans wrong, I give up.