A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So now you are claiming that all these 'Wooovians' you've been quoting as authorities are on the fringe of society or are destitute? Either would explain why they make the claims they do, - just to get attention.

That's not what I said thedoc, so stop purposely misinterpreting my words. That's the perception but in actuality it is the educated parents; the ones who went to college and have a profession that are among the ranks of those who are beginning to question the safety of vaccines.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

It's unethical and morally unjustifiable to prevent children having vaccines because a parent is crazy and refuses to acknowledge the mounts of evidence suggesting vaccines are not just safe, but orders of magnitude safer than not having the vaccine.

In the new world, everyone will be vaccinated!

No Dragar, mounting evidence is beginning to reveal that vaccines are not as safe as once believed. In the new world, doctors will be able to recommend anything they want; the only thing stopping them is the realization that they would have to live with regret if their advice was misguided and a child was injured or died as a result. The fact that they can hurt people with impunity because they won't be punished or blamed for their actions, will compel them to be honest with themselves as to what they really know, and more importantly what they don't know. In addition, the fact that the guarantee will prevent the possibility of losing their standard of living will remove any justification to pretend to know more than they do.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Dragar, mounting evidence is beginning to reveal that vaccines are not as safe as once believed.

No peacegirl, evidence is mounting that vaccines are safe and these 'studies' and 'experts' you quote are fraudulent and frauds.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't know what you're talking about.

Sure I do. Because I know how cameras and digital photosensors work.

No, that is not true.

Of course it's true, because of how cameras and digital photosensors work.

We're not talking about travel LadyShea.

Sure we are because light travels, at all times. If it isn't traveling it isn't light, and it certainly cannot have a location, such as the retina or film or photoreceptor without having traveled there.

There is NO travel time.

There is, 8 minutes, just like Lessans said.

We are using the light that is at the retina to see the object. We see the object because of light's presence, but light alone is bringing nothing.

How did it get to the retina without traveling there? How is light present at the retina if it has not yet reached Earth?

You keep using that analogy and it doesn't apply.

It absolutely applies when you have light being present at locations. You simply refuse to acknowledge the laws of physics

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you please shut up with your better than thou attitude? I was referring to the new world. In this world the courts are needed to solve disputes. But in the new world there will be no court making these decisions (since these issues won't come up; although there will be lawmakers that will clarify what is a hurt and what isn't) just as there will be no authority mandating vaccines, which is unethical (or morally unjustifiable), especially when a no blame environment will compel them to be honest with themselves that they really don't know whether vaccines are completely safe or which children could be adversely affected.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

OMG and you claim you no longer weasel? This is a flat out lie.

Where in your initial response, which is clearly and unambiguously what I was asking about, is there anything indicating you were talking about the new world that doesn't exist?

Doesn't matter. I often compare the two worlds because I want to show how these issues won't even come up. That's what this thread is supposed to be about.

1. Yes, this is probably politically motivated.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Definitely referring to current world, specifically the US

Absolutely not. Dragar mentioned the high court in the UK. Appointments are not the same as elections, true, but it's still a political system and, as such, it is going to have an impact on the judge's decision. That's what I meant when I said politically motivated.

2. For a high court to have the final word over the parent is, in my mind, unethical.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Talking about this world, and this case

I wasn't referring to this case specifically. This case was justified because the parents weren't in agreement. I was stating that parents should not be penalized if they choose not to vaccinate. And that's what government does. It penalizes parents and the children suffer.

3. There are many cases where a parent's right to choose is disregarded.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No new world in this either

You're right, this statement was not about the new world. It was to show how wrong it is for a government agency to override a parent's decision [as to what she believes is in the best interest of her child] by forcing compliance, especially when the issue is as controversial as vaccines.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what I said thedoc, so stop purposely misinterpreting my words. That's the perception but in actuality it is the educated parents; the ones who went to college and have a profession that are among the ranks of those who are beginning to question the safety of vaccines.

I am not purposely misinterpreting your words, I'm just following your statements to their logical conclusions, but logic is something you don't understand or have any concept of. On the other hand you are constantly misinterpreting what others have posted.

Can you verify that any of the anti-vaxer parents are educated, or have gone to college, or are professionals? Or is this just another claim you pulled out of the air, or somewhere?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure I do. Because I know how cameras and digital photosensors work.

So what? The fact that it's the same light, the same object, and the same size and brightness makes what is seen on film the exact same thing as would be seen in real time.

Photons have to be at the object, so we would not be able to see each other for 8 minutes, but that does not mean we wouldn't be able to see the Sun when it was first ignited.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It does mean we wouldn't be able to photograph the Sun, though. Because photons must be in the same physical location as the camera film or digital sensor

No, that is not true.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course it's true, because of how cameras and digital photosensors work.

Right, and the same exact conditions that allow light to be at the film are the same conditions that allow light (or a mirror image, so to speak) to be at the retina.

The very belief that photons have to travel to Earth in order to be at the retina or film is exactly what is being disputed

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not a belief nor have you disputed it at all, you've simply claimed magic and left it at that. You have to show that it is physically possible for something that is traveling to be somewhere where it hasn't reached yet. You have photons in two places at once, which is fine, if you can demonstrate that to be possible with physics

We're not talking about travel LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure we are because light travels, at all times. If it isn't traveling it isn't light, and it certainly cannot have a location, such as the retina or film or photoreceptor without having traveled there.

You have a block, and there's nothing I can do about it.

There is NO travel time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is, 8 minutes, just like Lessans said.

Yes, but you're missing why light --- where efferent vision is concerned --- does not have to travel to Earth first. Due to the brain looking through the eyes outward, it changes the function of light from bringing the image through space/time to a condition of sight only. If the object meets the requirements of size and brightness, the light is at the retina or film instantly; there is no delay. The fact that light travels has no bearing on this phenomenon.

We are using the light that is at the retina to see the object. We see the object because of light's presence, but light alone is bringing nothing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How did it get to the retina without traveling there? How is light present at the retina if it has not yet reached Earth?

I just explained it again, and I know it won't make sense to you. Maybe one day it will.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If I am traveling in my car between your house and mine, can I already be at your house?

You keep using that analogy and it doesn't apply.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It absolutely applies when you have light being present at locations. You simply refuse to acknowledge the laws of physics

I do recognize the laws of physics and there are no laws being broken.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I am not purposely misinterpreting your words, I'm just following your statements to their logical conclusions, but logic is something you don't understand or have any concept of. On the other hand you are constantly misinterpreting what others have posted.

Can you verify that any of the anti-vaxer parents are educated, or have gone to college, or are professionals? Or is this just another claim you pulled out of the air, or somewhere?

I have read more than once (I can't remember the sources) that the trend is changing as far as demographics and educational background. Maybe the articles lied, but I don't think so.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dragar is in the UK, and the case being discussed was in the UK. Do you have similar criticisms of the British public healthcare system? If so what evidence are THEY based on?

No I don't. There's enough problems with the US healthcare system to have to worry about the UK, but it seems to me that this is a worldwide problem, not just a national issue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why don't you know? Even if you don't know why haven't you formed an opinion? Can you not determine whose information to trust? Why not? What criteria are you using to try to verify the information you are reading , and are both sides of this particular issue really so equally compelling? Why is it even difficult? Does nobody who is interested in this topic try to track autism diagnoses?

I won't form an opinion because, as I said, I don't know if the rate of autism has gone up or gone down. I don't know whether the Amish have something to teach us. I don't throw opinions around because they don't mean much if you can't back them up. But there is a growing body of evidence that there is a correlation, and further studies need to be done.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't want to see videos, which is just people talking about their opinions. I want to see actual scientific information and analysis. The guy is a doctor, he knows how to write a paper with proper citations.

This one's just too funny to pass up, and still makes a point in a matter of 2 minutes. I hope you watch it.

Activist Post: How the Drug Companies Make Vaccines

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Great, so are they appointed by politicians or not?

No, the Queen. Isn't the Queen a politician in a loose sense?

A politician, political leader, or political figure (from Classical Greek πόλις, "polis") is a person who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

No peacegirl, evidence is mounting that vaccines are safe and these 'studies' and 'experts' you quote are fraudulent and frauds.

I bet you didn't even take the time to listen to any of the videos I posted. That's why this conversation is one-sided. If you actually listened to them, it would give you the other side's perspective instead of just calling their studies fraudulent and them frauds.

http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-New...Interview.aspx

[peacegirl]

Intermission. Love this rendition.

Il Divo - Hallelujah (Alelujah) - YouTube

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what? The fact that it's the same light, the same object, and the same size and brightness makes what is seen on film the exact same thing as would be seen in real time.

Yes, and the light has to get to the film or photosensor, which is what you cannot explain in the efferent account. You can assert all you want, but until you explain, using a mechanism that is not magic, how that light is present on the surface of camera film without having traveled there, you have nothing but gobbeldy gook.

Right, and the same exact conditions that allow light to be at the film are the same conditions that allow light (or a mirror image, so to speak) to be at the retina.

The only known mechanism for light being located somewhere is that it traveled there. "Conditions" are not a mechanism. "Conditions" are not an explanation of the physics involved in instant photography. It's just a weasely way to say magic.

You have a block, and there's nothing I can do about it.

You have invisible friends whispering in your ear that magic is possible if you believe hard enough.

Light physics are what they are. You have been unable to reconcile efferent vision and physics.

Yes, but you're missing why light --- where efferent vision is concerned --- does not have to travel to Earth first.

And you're missing that what you are saying is not possible within the laws of physics.

If the object meets the requirements of size and brightness, the light is at the retina or film instantly; there is no delay. The fact that light travels has no bearing on this phenomenon.

The fact that light travels has bearing on this statement: "the light is at the retina or film". Lessans never stated anything about where light is located, which is where you are hitting the block wall of physics, that's all you.

I just explained it again, and I know it won't make sense to you. Maybe one day it will.

You have explained absolutely nothing, you've made assertions.

I do recognize the laws of physics and there are no laws being broken.

Well yes, of course there is, the law of physics that says that light can't be physically located somewhere it hasn't traveled to.

[GenesisNemesis]

A bit off-topic, but I was wondering if peacegirl had accepted that she had made mistakes in the past with regards to her debating/presentation tactics. I've seen her before on IIDB, and everything she said was practically the same.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis

A bit off-topic, but I was wondering if peacegirl had accepted that she had made mistakes in the past with regards to her debating/presentation tactics. I've seen her before on IIDB, and everything she said was practically the same.

The only change is that she's managed to switch from the book to discussing anti-vaccination. Her methods haven't changed at all. She has been flip-flopping recently between rationalizing & justifying her evasive weaseling (supposedly something she doesn't do anymore) and accepting that it was a bad thing to do.

She definitely doesn't weasel now, just as she is definitely not returning to the topic of light and vision, as you can see from her recent posts.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the Queen. Isn't the Queen a politician in a loose sense?

A politician, political leader, or political figure (from Classical Greek πόλις, "polis") is a person who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician

No, piecegirl, you numpty. The Queen has no involvement in public policy.

Besides, your own quote just told the Queen has not been involved for the last eight years. So why are you still arguing so hard for this political business? It's like once you glom onto an idea, no matter how stupid it is shown to be, you just can't let go.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by Dragar

It's unethical and morally unjustifiable to prevent children having vaccines because a parent is crazy and refuses to acknowledge the mounts of evidence suggesting vaccines are not just safe, but orders of magnitude safer than not having the vaccine.

In the new world, everyone will be vaccinated!

No, see, 'cause getting sick and dying doesn't lead to Greater Satisfaction, so in the New World, there will be no disease at all!

[Vivisectus]

In the new World, we will not need seatbelts. You see, no-one would get into a car if they are not 100% sure they would never harm anyone by doing so. hence, they will only get into a car unless

- they are 100% certain that they will not make a mistake while driving
- the car is 100% certain not to malfunction in any way
- they are 100% sure the road is in optimal condition everywhere between their current location and their objective, both in terms of surface quality, visibility, and type.
- they are 100% sure that everyone else is ALSO sticking to these rigid guidelines.

In other words, never. Since no-one will be driving cars, seatbelts will simply not be required anymore.

The same goes for any sort of study: no-one will draw any conclusions, ever, because they will never be 100% certain. We will all sit around together waiting for the empirical evidence that proves the impossible to come in.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

No peacegirl, evidence is mounting that vaccines are safe and these 'studies' and 'experts' you quote are fraudulent and frauds.

Added to previous post:

You continue to accuse everyone who is an anti-vaxer as being fraudulent. You say there is evidence mounting that vaccines are safe. Oh really?

Nearly two dozen medical studies prove that vaccines can cause autism

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I won't form an opinion because, as I said, I don't know if the rate of autism has gone up or gone down. I don't know whether the Amish have something to teach us. I don't throw opinions around because they don't mean much if you can't back them up. But there is a growing body of evidence that there is a correlation, and further studies need to be done.

You throw opinions around all the time without being able to back them up. You formed the opinion that these anti-vaxxers are less biased and/or more trustworthy than the scientists doing actual work in this area. You formed an opinion that a whole bunch of studies are flawed without understanding or identifying or verifying any flaws yourself...again trusting the sources you've decided are more likeable.

Now you've formed an opinion that there is a growing body of evidence of a correlation, even though you've presented no evidence, just opinions and anecdotes.

Your trusted sources are in disagreement as to whether autism rates are increasing or not...so you are unable to hold an opinion because you don't know who you trust more. That is the only explanation because you rely on others to tell you what your opinion should be. This is why you have been unable to answer the simple question "What criteria do you use to verify the veracity of someone's statements" because your criteria seems to be whether or not you already agree with someone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

No, piecegirl, you numpty. The Queen has no involvement in public policy.

Besides, your own quote just told the Queen has not been involved for the last eight years. So why are you still arguing so hard for this political business? It's like once you glom onto an idea, no matter how stupid it is shown to be, you just can't let go.

You're right, she doesn't have political power but she can sway public opinion, and the vaccine issue is in the public realm.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure I do. Because I know how cameras and digital photosensors work.

So what? The fact that it's the same light, the same object, and the same size and brightness makes what is seen on film the exact same thing as would be seen in real time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, and the light has to get to the film or photosensor, which is what you cannot explain in the efferent account. You can assert all you want, but until you explain, using a mechanism that is not magic, how that light is present on the surface of camera film without having traveled there, you have nothing but gobbeldy gook.

The light is at the retina and film already. There is no travel time. It is not magic; it only appears that way if you don't understand why the brain using the eye as a window to the external world allows this phenomenon of real time vision to occur.

Photons have to be at the object, so we would not be able to see each other for 8 minutes, but that does not mean we wouldn't be able to see the Sun when it was first ignited.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It does mean we wouldn't be able to photograph the Sun, though. Because photons must be in the same physical location as the camera film or digital sensor

No, that is not true.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course it's true, because of how cameras and digital photosensors work.

Right, and the same exact conditions that allow light to be at the film are the same conditions that allow light (or a mirror image, so to speak) to be at the retina.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The only known mechanism for light being located somewhere is that it traveled there. "Conditions" are not a mechanism. "Conditions" are not an explanation of the physics involved in instant photography. It's just a weasely way to say magic.

You are still conceptualizing that light is the conveyer of the image. It is not. It is a condition only, which changes the function of light in terms of what it does. We do not interpret the light. Light reveals what exists out there.

Again you don't even realize it but you are coming from the afferent perspective which means that you are still imaging that time is a factor. It is not in this account. That is why this model of sight does not violate the laws of physics.

You have a block, and there's nothing I can do about it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have invisible friends whispering in your ear that magic is possible if you believe hard enough.

This has nothing to do with magic or invisible friends or unicorns.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light physics are what they are. You have been unable to reconcile efferent vision and physics.

Why are we into this debate again. I really don't want to get involved because there will be no reconciliation not because Lessans was wrong, but because people are misunderstanding how this model works and why it works.

There is NO travel time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is, 8 minutes, just like Lessans said.

Yes, but you're missing why light --- where efferent vision is concerned --- does not have to travel to Earth first.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And you're missing that what you are saying is not possible within the laws of physics.

Nope, it's your lack of understanding since traveling light cannot, in and of itself, bring an image to the eye or film through space/time (or distance). The object must be present.

If the object meets the requirements of size and brightness, the light is at the retina or film instantly; there is no delay. The fact that light travels has no bearing on this phenomenon.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The fact that light travels has bearing on this statement: "the light is at the retina or film". Lessans never stated anything about where light is located, which is where you are hitting the block wall of physics, that's all you.

It is not necessary to discuss where light is located if the role of light turns out to reveal the world to us, not bring the world to us.

We are using the light that is at the retina to see the object. We see the object because of light's presence, but light alone is bringing nothing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How did it get to the retina without traveling there? How is light present at the retina if it has not yet reached Earth?

I just explained it again, and I know it won't make sense to you. Maybe one day it will.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have explained absolutely nothing, you've made assertions.

Whatever LadyShea, Ms. Smarty Pants has spoken, therefore it must be!!

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If I am traveling in my car between your house and mine, can I already be at your house?

You keep using that analogy and it doesn't apply.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It absolutely applies when you have light being present at locations. You simply refuse to acknowledge the laws of physics

I do recognize the laws of physics and there are no laws being broken.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well yes, of course there is, the law of physics that says that light can't be physically located somewhere it hasn't traveled to.

This model does not violate this law of physics because Lessans never denied that light travels and must be at the object for it to be seen, therefore if light has not reached Earth, we won't be able to see each other because the conditions for sight have not been met.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You throw opinions around all the time without being able to back them up. You formed the opinion that these anti-vaxxers are less biased and/or more trustworthy than the scientists doing actual work in this area. You formed an opinion that a whole bunch of studies are flawed without understanding or identifying or verifying any flaws yourself...again trusting the sources you've decided are more likeable.

Now you've formed an opinion that there is a growing body of evidence of a correlation, even though you've presented no evidence, just opinions and anecdotes.

Your trusted sources are in disagreement as to whether autism rates are increasing or not...so you are unable to hold an opinion because you don't know who you trust more. That is the only explanation because you rely on others to tell you what your opinion should be. This is why you have been unable to answer the simple question "What criteria do you use to verify the veracity of someone's statements" because your criteria seems to be whether or not you already agree with someone.

I am listening carefully to the worries of immunologists and toxicologists who are concerned about vaccine safety. I do not believe that these isolated studies are able to identify how these vaccines may be able to get into the cell and possibly change the structure of DNA. They just don't know, and the fact that the pro-vaxers presume that everything is perfectly fine with administering more and more vaccines to the already loaded schedule where they are now giving 36 doses to children before the age of two, is very cavalier and a dangerous attitude to have. If anything it should make all of us wary instead of just assuming that science has all the answers because they don't.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, she doesn't have political power but she can sway public opinion, and the vaccine issue is in the public realm.

Okay, so your position is that the High Court judge made this ruling because of the political influence exerted on him by the Queen(!), whose influence is her ability to sway public opinion(!!), even though the Queen is no longer involved in the appointment of high court judges(!!!).

Just so we're clear: