The Satanic Character of Social Darwi...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#273 Aug 25, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> And how many lives have vaccines destroyed or ruined?
Until historically recently, infectious disease was generally the number one cause of death. Even if some vaccinations have the side effects you claim, the balance is clearly on the side of the vaccines. You claim to be a maths whizz. Are you capable of some simple arithmetic? How do the statistics for Mumps, Measles, and Polio stack up against those for Autism? Hmmm?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#274 Aug 25, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text>
The obvious reason why poor countries could total 164,000 deaths due to measles is the lack of clean drinking water and sanitation. And it's just like Satan and those with satanic ethics to promote vaccines in place of nutrition, clean water and sanitation.
Its "Satanic", to use your quaint phrase, not to promote any of these things. Clean water, sanitation, and vaccines. One does not exclude the others. Since you want to withhold one of these, perhaps you are the one with a Satanic agenda.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#275 Aug 25, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
Before the vaccinations programs started, 90% of all people caught measles before their 15th birthday. Measles killed 164,000 people worldwide even in in 2008 - in the countries without vaccination.
Tell that to concerned parents. Information, not coercion.
There are also people who refuse vaccination due to their religious beliefs.
Liberal democracies have long since conceded that a level of irrationality regarding various religious beliefs are to be tolerated even with some negative consequences because the greater evil of enforcing "correct" behaviour and action on people results in a far worse outcome overall.
Vaccination is not a medication.
And my point was that you seem to accept that traffic deaths, taking a death toll far less than infectious diseases, are justly to be regulated by the government
Now be realistic. Given the real information on the danger of not vaccinating, such as your measles statistic above, and the obvious increase in diseases among the children of those who refused to vaccinate, the vast majority of parent will opt for vaccination. A few religious lunatics notwithstanding (who benefit from the free rider effect, at least).
In many European countries the wearing of a crash helmet is compulsory, as well as seat-belts, and a periodic mot test of cars. And car accident insurance. Almost everybody agrees. And nobody feels his freedoms stripped by those. That's why there only are 26,000 traffic fatalities in the EU (population 505 million people) and in the USA 50,000 with a population of 318 million.
Yes and in either case, reduction of the speed limit to 50kph and crash helmets in cars (not just bikes) and banning cars over 5 years old etc etc could reduce it further but the cost/benefit ratio is accepted without these extreme measures.

Enforced vaccination IS a forced medical intervention for a non-existent condition and the slippery slope argument does apply, in my view. And frankly Shubee is right about one thing, and that is that drug companies have a very poor record in being honest or revealing information about deleterious side effects for their concoctions.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#277 Aug 25, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<
Its "Satanic", to use your quaint phrase, not to promote any of these things. Clean water, sanitation, and vaccines. One does not exclude the others. Since you want to withhold one of these, perhaps you are the one with a Satanic agenda.
The exclusion, which you agree is satanic, happens in the US all the time. That's why cows that are raised for food are permitted to live their lives in their own feces but are given a regular diet of antibiotics to manage infections. So it shouldn't be surprising that that is the logic we are enforcing on humans in poor countries.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#278 Aug 25, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
Since you want to withhold one of these, perhaps you are the one with a Satanic agenda.
I'm only agreeing with Dr. Andrew Wakefield advocating proper scientific testing over the long term without regard for the short-term, short-sighted interests of the vaccine industry.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#279 Aug 25, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
Even if some vaccinations have the side effects you claim, the balance is clearly on the side of the vaccines.
There's no reason to be a willfully deceived propagandist like TurkeyBoy. Please watch this award-winning documentary:

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#280 Aug 25, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
In any case, if some lame idiot was trying to enforce "Social Darwinism" as a social program, they would NOT enforce vaccination, they would BAN it.
Your unscientific presupposition that some humans can survive the toxins put in vaccines without a possible escalation of irreversible, long-term damage to the genome and the rapid extinction of humanity is just magical thinking.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#281 Aug 25, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
You are not only wrong, you are illogically, stupidly wrong about this.
No. The axiom exists. You're just trying to twist my words.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#282 Aug 25, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
Until historically recently, infectious disease was generally the number one cause of death. Even if some vaccinations have the side effects you claim, the balance is clearly on the side of the vaccines.
Yes, if we presuppose the magical thinking of Social Darwinism.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#283 Aug 25, 2014
Andrew Wakefield is a dangerous man, deceiving people because of his own commercial short term interests and caused a increase in measles incidence with all the costs in human lives and suffering.

A 2004 investigation by Sunday Times reporter Brian Deer identified undisclosed financial conflicts of interest on Wakefield's part, and most of his co-authors then withdrew their support for the study's interpretations.

The British General Medical Council (GMC) conducted an inquiry into allegations of misconduct against Wakefield and two former colleagues. The investigation centred on Deer's numerous findings, including that children with autism were subjected to unnecessary invasive medical procedures, such as colonoscopy and lumbar puncture, and that Wakefield acted without the required ethical approval from an institutional review board.

Hence, on 28 January 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children. In November 2011, a report in BMJ revealed original raw data indicating that, contrary to Wakefield's claims in The Lancet, children in his research did not have inflammatory bowel disease. In other words, Wakefield has conducted unnecessary, invasive medical procedures on vulnerable children who didn't had any medical problems.

In January 2011, an editorial accompanying an article by Brian Deer in BMJ identified Wakefield's work as an "elaborate fraud". In a follow-up article, Deer said that Wakefield had planned to launch a venture on the back of an MMR vaccination scare that would profit from new medical tests and "litigation driven testing".

Wakefield must be a Satan's child of social-Darwinian proportions, starting medical procedures on people who have no medical conditions. At his whim. And for his personal, commercial interest.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#284 Aug 25, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> The exclusion, which you agree is satanic, happens in the US all the time. That's why cows that are raised for food are permitted to live their lives in their own feces but are given a regular diet of antibiotics to manage infections. So it shouldn't be surprising that that is the logic we are enforcing on humans in poor countries.
Yep. That is why I stick to good New Zealand grass fed beef. Not only is it healthier, its more humane. You can keep your American shyte.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#285 Aug 25, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> Your unscientific presupposition that some humans can survive the toxins put in vaccines without a possible escalation of irreversible, long-term damage to the genome and the rapid extinction of humanity is just magical thinking.
I am going so far as to agree with you that there may be a case. However, you are the one who is unscientifically jumping to extreme conclusions here. In fact, humans and other creatures can tolerate a lot of toxins and always have done.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#286 Aug 25, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> No. The axiom exists. You're just trying to twist my words.
Not at all. If one were to foolishly turn evolution as a theory of origins into evolution as a program for human improvement, the last thing you would do is vaccinate against disease. Survival of the fittest means let the pathogens rip and the strongest immune systems survive.

For the record, again, its idiotic to equate evolution with "social darwinism" anyway, but if you are going to make that silly leap, at least you could examine its consequences logically. If anything, vaccination helps preserve the weak, so its not something a "social darwinist" would support.

Note too, that your pal Wakefield supports vaccination in general but opposed the MMR vaccine in particular.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#287 Aug 25, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
Note too, that your pal Wakefield supports vaccination in general but opposed the MMR vaccine in particular.
Yes, Wakefield supports vaccination in theory but also says that long term consequences of vaccines haven't been examined scientifically. Wakefield also asserts that the science is already in about the MMR vaccine.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#288 Aug 25, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am going so far as to agree with you that there may be a case. However, you are the one who is unscientifically jumping to extreme conclusions here. In fact, humans and other creatures can tolerate a lot of toxins and always have done.
Have you listened to the Dr. Russell Blaylock interview?-- the first video of everythingimportant.org/vaccines/ ?

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#289 Aug 25, 2014
There's good stuff on Nazi medical ethics here, which highlights what I've said about The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism:

Vaccine Damage, Fraudulent Vaccine Science & Mandatory Vaccine Trials - Dr. Russell Blaylock:

TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#290 Aug 25, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am going so far as to agree with you that there may be a case. However, you are the one who is unscientifically jumping to extreme conclusions here. In fact, humans and other creatures can tolerate a lot of toxins and always have done.
ALL preservatives to some extent have side-effects. Also many of them used in food.
Or in other drugs. The side-effects of most drugs are studied extensively (that's the main reason why the development of drugs is so expensive, often exceeding $ 1 billion each) known and sometimes straightly severe or even harmful. If you accept that vaccination is a free decision because the few cases of measles counterbalance the advantages of free choice, you should have no problem in accepting that preservatives in vaccines or the vaccines themselves, come with side-effects.

As long as the advantages exceed those side-effects, I think those side-effects are acceptable.
As far I can see, this has been the case in all vaccinations. Especially in MMR vaccinations where a diversity of large studies and other evidence have proved it to be a save intervention. But even MMR vaccinations have side-effects.

Hence, OF COURSE there is a case.
Do you think, as you accept "collateral damage" as a side-effect of freedom of choice, that it would be fully acceptable when MMR vaccination causes a decline in measles (alone) of 4,211,431 cases in 1980 to 55,719 in 2014, accompanied by a decline in the death toll of 630,000 deaths to a few thousands, that, let's say, a few thousands of cases of adverse effects wouldn't be acceptable?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#291 Aug 25, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> Yes, because it's all that my critics can do. They certainly refuse to face the evils of Social Darwinism that's glaring right at them in the opening post. Only the Funnel of Smoke had the courage to watch the 14 minute documentary and comment about it.
Nah. Nobody really gives a shit anymore about your obvious mental issues. Go argue it out with Satan the next time he stops by your bedroom.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#292 Aug 25, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> This thread is about The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism. If you can't cope with this subject, please start your own thread.
This thread is about the Satanic Character of Eugene Shubert and his imaginary friend, Zog.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#293 Aug 25, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> Have you listened to the Dr. Russell Blaylock interview?-- the first video of everythingimportant.org/vaccines/ ?
Come on Eugene. Be honest for once. You created Zog and pretended you were not Shubee. You even had exchanges between your two personalities at first to perpetuate this lie. After a time it was apparent that no one but you was buying this bullshit. Now you no longer pretend you are an different, independent individual when posting as Zog. What you did is a lie. A very, very, very BIG lie. If you will perpetrate and perpetuate such an enormous assault on the Ten Commandments, then how can anything you post be trusted? How are you not satanic? In furtherance of this lie, you just claim that we don't have evidence and actively ignore any post that points out your lie. Another BIG lie. I gotta tell you Eugene, it isn't looking good for you. Oh the tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive. I can understand your frustration. Nobody looks at your blog except for the occasional visitor that linked in by mistake. Your own religion has you arrested and though you do your best to equate that as an example of martyrdom, deep down you know it is just them dealing with an out of control nut. No respectable journal wants to post your work though you know, YOU JUST KNOW, it is groundbreaking and worthy of accolades. Even this little Topix forum is riddled with people that call you on your bullshit instead of just blindly accepting it. It has got to be depressing for you. But come on, isn't lying beneath the Great Eugene Schubert? Why don't you just come out and get it off your chest. You know you wanna.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 min emrenil 154,706
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 36 min Aura Mytha 216,739
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 58 min One way or another 48,580
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr karl44 23,504
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 18 hr Timmee 9
Science News (Sep '13) Mon _Susan_ 3,985
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... Sun The Northener 642
More from around the web