Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

And yet you did.

Nope, I know your canned answers without having to read them one more nauseating time. Back to the discussion, you are no longer the gatekeeper of this knowledge. Independent researchers who have no prior knowledge of this forum will be asked to study my book, which is an accurate compilation of my father's discovery (in spite of chucks effort to destroy me), FREE OF CHARGE!

[ChuckF]

peacegirl, the future is now! Independent researchers interested in rejecting your Corrupted Text can just PM me for a FREE copy! No need to pay peacegirl's outrageous asking price for her worthless Corrupted Text. I'll send independent researchers who reject the Corrupted Text a copy, on me, the True Steward of the Authentic Text! And, for a limited time, the Seymour Lessans Memorial Foundation for Childhoold Vaccination will donate $41.00 to UNICEF in memory of Seymour Lessans, to ensure that every child is vaccinated against preventable illnesses.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, the future is now! Independent researchers interested in rejecting your Corrupted Text can just PM me for a FREE copy! No need to pay peacegirl's outrageous asking price for her worthless Corrupted Text. I'll send independent researchers who reject the Corrupted Text a copy, on me, the True Steward of the Authentic Text! And, for a limited time, the Seymour Lessans Memorial Foundation for Childhoold Vaccination will donate $41.00 to UNICEF in memory of Seymour Lessans, to ensure that every child is vaccinated against preventable illnesses.

Thanks for your help!

[peacegirl]

The FDA Exposed

http://www.mercola.com/downloads/bon...d/default.aspx

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks for your help!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks for your help!

Hey Chuck, thanks for your help! Because of your efforts, children are being vaccinated in the name of Seymour Lessans!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Hey Chuck, thanks for your help! Because of your efforts, children are being vaccinated in the name of Seymour Lessans!

I'm sure he would have been honored!

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sure he would have been honored!

Me too, peacegirl. Me too. It is long past time that someone honored his legacy rather than Corrupting it for lucre.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Me too, peacegirl. Me too. It is long past time that someone honored his legacy rather than Corrupting it for lucre.

Whatever you say chuck.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sure he would have been honored!

I'm sure you're right! And he'd be all the happier about it if he knew the Seymour Lessans Memorial Foundation for Childhood Vaccination is helping undo the damage caused by a pathological liar who's falsely portraying Lessans as an antivaxxer even though he wasn't.

In addition, donations in memory of Seymour Lessans are most welcome at the Autism Science Foundation, an organization founded by Dr. Paul Offit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I'm sure you're right! And he'd be all the happier about it if he knew the Seymour Lessans Memorial Foundation for Childhood Vaccination is helping undo the damage caused by a pathological liar who's falsely portraying Lessans as an antivaxxer even though he wasn't.

That excerpt went right over your head because you're too busy trying to destroy me. This was just an example of how doctors, once all blame is removed from the environment, would never desire to take on the responsibility of telling a parent what to do for fear of giving the wrong advice. Doctors in the new world would offer the most up to date information regarding vaccines but leave it up to the parent to make the final decision without making any judgments (because money or losing their license will no longer be a motivating factor). They would never try to subtly persuade a parent which direction to go for if something should go wrong, it would be on his conscience just as if he insisted that the child be vaccinated according to the latest schedule (which by that time could be 3 times what they're receiving now ). You and your cronies are the biggest liars of all.

In addition, as early as two months the baby is
receiving a series of vaccines that are given on schedule with more and
more being added to the list. Some of the vaccines he will receive are
a Hep shot if he did not receive it in the hospital, a DtaP shot, Hib
shot, IVP shot, and PVC shot. Some doctors will also give the baby
the vaccine for Rotavirus. Recently, the American Academy of
Pediatrics has begun advocating ‘firing’ parents who don’t conform to
the CDC’s overloaded vaccine schedule, the schedule with 36 vaccines
on it, almost double the average of 30 other first world countries. The
schedule that has never been tested for combination risk. There has
been a growing public and professional concern over the immediate
and long term effects of these multiple vaccines (several shots given
simultaneously), as well as the toxic ingredients used to produce them,
but the pediatrician will tell the mother that it’s for the baby’s well-
being by reassuring her that the benefits far outweigh the risks. He
may explain that without these immunizations the baby is not
protected and the disease that once killed so many could easily come
back. Because she wants to do what is best for her child, she complies.
In some cases, however, a child could have a severe reaction and be
injured by the vaccination that was intended to help him. An
increasing number of physicians claim that the risks do not outweigh
the benefits. The following quotations are from doctors and
researchers who believe there is a possible link between vaccinations
and the chronic childhood illnesses that are so common today.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

In addition, donations in memory of Seymour Lessans are most welcome at the Autism Science Foundation, an organization founded by Dr. Paul Offit.

FAKE NEWS: FOUR VACCINE LIES FROM SCIENCE MAGAZINE

MAY 2, 2017 8:19 PM \ 17 COMMENTS \ JAKE CROSBY

Science Magazine is fake science news and lies routinely about vaccine safety like the rest of the damn mainstream media and major science journals. Here’s four examples from their dishonest post “Four vaccine myths and where they come from” by one of their hired liars Lindzi Wessel. Autism Investigated will not refute all the lies because there are too many, just the major ones below.

“False: Vaccinations can cause autism”

Citing further concerns about ethics and misrepresentation, The Lancet retracted the paper in 2010. Shortly after, the United Kingdom’s General Medical Council permanently pulled Wakefield’s medical license.

The truth is, all those findings against Wakefield and his paper were completely overturned in a court decision that said the GMC used “faulty reasoning” and came to “wrong conclusion”(s). Even The Lancet acknowledges this.

cont. at: paul offit Archives - Autism Investigated

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That excerpt went right over your head because you're too busy trying to destroy me. This was just an example of how doctors, once all blame is removed from the environment, would never desire to take on the responsibility of telling a parent what to do for fear of the possibility they would be giving bad advice and have to live with their mistake. They would only give the most up to date information and leave it up to the parent to make an informed choice. You and your cronies are the biggest liars of all.

-Worthless Corruption deleted-

peacegirl, your Corruptions are of no interest. We reject your Corrupted Text because it is Corrupt. We interpret the Authentic Text as Written by the Author and published in his lifetime.

Think of humanity as an infant. Your Corrupted Text is like poisonous formula that would kill the child (or maybe give it autism). In order to grow up and transmute the baser metals of his nature into the pure gold of the Golden Age, the child must suckle from Author's own breasts the pure milk of the Authentic Text.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, your Corruptions are of no interest. We reject your Corrupted Text because it is Corrupt. We interpret the Authentic Text as Written by the Author and published in his lifetime.

Think of humanity as an infant. Your Corrupted Text is like poisonous formula that would kill the child (or maybe give it autism). In order to grow up and transmute the baser metals of his nature into the pure gold of the Golden Age, the child must suckle from Author's own breasts the pure milk of the Authentic Text.

With this response, you have to be insane, and your followers are no more than Jonestown believers. You really are sick chuck in your use of the scientific standard (which is filled with flaws when it comes to knowledge of the human body) to dismiss anything to the contrary. That is where you've gone astray. You will fight me on this tooth and nail (and give all your patrionizing reasons why you are the expert) but you will not win in the long run.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

With this response, you have to be insane, and your followers are no more than Jonestown believers.

You really are sick chuck in your use of the scientific standard (which is filled with flaws when it comes to knowledge of the human body) to dismiss anything to the contrary.

That is where you've gone astray. You will fight me on this tooth and nail (and give all your patrionizing reasons why you are the expert) but you will not win in the long run.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, your Corruptions are of no interest. We reject your Corrupted Text because it is Corrupt. We interpret the Authentic Text as Written by the Author and published in his lifetime.

Think of humanity as an infant. Your Corrupted Text is like poisonous formula that would kill the child (or maybe give it autism). In order to grow up and transmute the baser metals of his nature into the pure gold of the Golden Age, the child must suckle from Author's own breasts the pure milk of the Authentic Text.

You really are really Let me count the ways!

You are filled with dishonest debate tactics! Let me count the ways.

Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics
Posted by John Reed on Aug 31, 2015

Copyright by John T. Reed

This Web site is, in part, a debate between me and others with whom I take various issues. I welcome intellectually-honest debate. It is one of my favorite ways to test my theories and learn.

That is the way we were trained at Harvard Business School where all lessons are taught by the case method and my wife and I got our MBA's. When Harvard Business School was founded in 1908, it was modeled after Harvard Law School, which also uses the case method of instruction.

In college, I was on the debate team during my freshman year. Retired general and unsuccessful presidential candidate Wesley Clark was on that debate team as well. He was my ‘Table Commandant” in the mess hall at West Point three meals a day for a number of months that year.

I have not written a book about this per se, but this book of mine—Succeeding—has the most about making an honest living:



Fox News has had various interesting regular segments most notably Tonya Reiman’s body-language analyses, O’Reilly’s “Truth Serum” and “Is it Legal?” segments, and Howard Kurtz’s Media Buzz which evaluate the truth and journalistic ethics of various public figures, reporters, and analysts.

I really think they need to add a regular segment that does what this article does—identify intellectually-dishonest debate tactics of various prominent speeches or debates—and I suspect it would be more popular and enduring than the fact-check and body-language segments and actually elevate the discourse in America.

One of my readers said reading this article changed his life. I was surprised by that. But I find myself returning more and more to it over time. Google Analytics says it is one of my most popular web articles.

One of the great disappointments of my life is discovering how thoroughly dishonest most people are. Some people will, on the slightest provocation, fire off a statement or paragraph that contains three, four, five, or six different, intellectually-dishonest arguments in a matter of seconds. Alan Colmes who regularly appears on Fox News is one of them. Juan Williams is another.

Readers who like this article will probably also like my Real Estate B.S. Artist Detection Checklist.

Most arguments and debates are one dishonest tactic after another
Although I am fond of intellectually-honest debate, about 90% to 95% of the statements made by my opponents to prove that I am wrong have been of the intellectually-dishonest variety. The same thing applies across the board. Almost all arguments consist of one intellectually-dishonest debate tactic after another. The general failure to recognize these tactics as intellectually-dishonest and invalid are one of the reasons why our country has gotten so screwed up.

Here are a few that apply to you chuck, but they are not all inclusive.

Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive; for example, cult members and bad real estate gurus typically warn the targets of their frauds that “dream stealers” will try to tell them the cult or guru is giving them bad advice; name calling is only intellectually dishonest when the name in question is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; there is nothing wrong with calling your opponent a name that is relevant and objectively defined.

Accusation of taking a quote out of context: debater accuses opponent of taking a quote that makes the debater look bad out of context. All quotes are taken out of context—for two reasons: quoting the entire context would take too long and federal copyright law allows “fair use” quotes, but not reproduction of the entire text.

Taking a quote out of context is only wrong when the lack of the context misrepresents the author’s position. The classic example would be the movie review that says, “This movie is the best example of a waste of film I have ever seen,” then gets quoted as “This movie is the best...I’ve ever seen.”

Any debater who claims a quote misrepresents the author’s position must cite the one or more additional quotes from the same work that supply the missing context and thereby reveal the true meaning of the author, a meaning which is very different from the meaning conveyed by the original quote that they complained about.

Furthermore, other unrelated quotes that just suggest the speaker is a nice guy are irrelevant. The discussion is about the offending quotes, not whether the speaker is a good guy. The missing context must relate to, and change the meaning of, the statements objected to, not just serve as character witness material about the speaker or writer.

Merely pointing out that the quote is not the entire text proves nothing. Indeed, if a search of the rest of the work reveals no additional quotes that show the original quote was misleading, the accusation itself is dishonest.

Finding small error: Citing a slight error or typo as evidence that everything the opponent says is false or that the opponent is “unprofessional” or incompetent (name calling, ill-defined words, typo).

Repeating sarcasm without indicating it was sarcasm. One of the cardinal rules when you give an unvideoed deposition is never use sarcasm. Sarcasm is a statement which is the opposite of what you believe. The key is that you say it in a tone of voice that reveals how stupid a statement you think it is. The phrase, “Yeah, right” is the classic example.

Mockery. 1. Derision; ridicule. 2. An absurd misrepresentation or imitation of something. No facts or logic.

Badgering. This is repeating the same intellectually-dishonest debate tactic again and again in an attempt to wear out the opponent.

cont. at: https://www.johntreed.com/blogs/john...debate-tactics

[Crumb]

Did you get John Reed's permission to post that here?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Crumb

Did you get John Reed's permission to post that here?

I skipped a lot so I think it was fair use. It certainly wasn't close to copying the whole article.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics
Posted by John Reed on Aug 31, 2015

Two intellectually-honest tactics
There are only two intellectually-honest debate tactics:

1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts

Like so:

2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic

Like so:





Thanks, John Reed!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Like so:

Like so:





Thanks, John Reed!

Another diversion. For once, address the issue. You won't because you have no defense. Your cronies just give you a free pass.

[ChuckF]

Ok, peacegirl. Remember the past 24 hours when I kicked the living shit out of your idiot source that you didn't even bother to read?

But I won't give you a free pass on all of your Corruptions, peacegirl. I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text. I must reject your Corrupted Text in favor of the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime. As the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I am obliged to identify and despise your errors and omissions (like the ones shown above).

It is like when I called you on your Corruption of the Tapes. You eventually (after much blameful whining) thanked me for it and claimed to wish to correct your vile Corruption. See how I, the True Steward of the Authentic Text, helped you tell the truth? That is what I am trying to do, peacegirl: to help you tell the truth.

You're welcome, peacegirl. You're welcome.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Ok, peacegirl. Remember the past 24 hours when I kicked the living shit out of your idiot source that you didn't even bother to read?

But I won't give you a free pass on all of your Corruptions, peacegirl. I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text. I must reject your Corrupted Text in favor of the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime. As the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I am obliged to identify and despise your errors and omissions (like the ones shown above).

It is like when I called you on your Corruption of the Tapes. You eventually (after much blameful whining) thanked me for it and claimed to wish to correct your vile Corruption. See how I, the True Steward of the Authentic Text, helped you tell the truth? That is what I am trying to do, peacegirl: to help you tell the truth.

You're welcome, peacegirl. You're welcome.

The corruption you talk about is the only thing you have to grab onto, but anyone who is knowledgeable in logic could easily point out your flaws. The small changes I made do not interfere with the principles. You have no understanding of the book no matter how you spin it or how many times you repeat yourself. You've just made up your mind that he was wrong which is your justification for treating me the way you do.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The corruption you talk about is the only thing you have to grab onto, but anyone who is knowledgeable in logic could easily point out your flaws.

I guess it's my good luck that you're just an ignorant parasite, then.

You have no understanding of the book no matter how you spin it or how many times you repeat yourself. You've just made up your mind that he was wrong which is your justification for treating me the way you do.

peacegirl, you have no understanding of the Authentic Text no matter how you spin it or how many times you hawk your Corrupted Text for lucre online. You just made up your mind that the Author was wrong which is your justification for Corrupting the Authentic Text and re-writing it completely. That, together with your pursuit of lucre and unwillingness to do a day's honest work, is the story of your Corrupted Text.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I guess it's my good luck that you're just an ignorant parasite, then.

peacegirl, you have no understanding of the Authentic Text no matter how you spin it or how many times you hawk your Corrupted Text for lucre online. You just made up your mind that the Author was wrong which is your justification for Corrupting the Authentic Text and re-writing it completely. That, together with your pursuit of lucre and unwillingness to do a day's honest work, is the story of your Corrupted Text.

Repeating yourself does not make your faulty interpretation of my motivations any more true!

[ChuckF]

And hawking your Corrupted Text for lucre doesn't make it any less Corrupt, peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

And hawking your Corrupted Text for lucre doesn't make it any less Corrupt, peacegirl.

Chuck, anyone who follows my threads has got to see the phony responses you provide unless they're sheep following their master, and I think deep down you know what I'm saying is true. It's so sad.

[ChuckF]

Of course - I want anyone who reads my Revolution in Thought thread to read my posts there. That is why everyone understands that I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text, and your Corrupted Text must be rejected because it is Corrupt.