And he spews more ad homs and persists with the Appeal to Authority. He doesn’t learn. But then, when one appeals to thuggery (ie fists) as one’s ‘argument’, ‘learning’ is not one’s goal. :)
RadCap
rad5cap
Interesting. I AGREE with you (those without vaccinations can properly be banned from schools) and you call that conclusion “tripe”. Logically that means you consider YOUR conclusion to be “tripe”, since they are the SAME.
Thanks for making that clear. :)
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
“I read this 5 times, and I am still not sure what you are trying to say... “We recognize the right of the individual to his life and his effort.””
I was drawing the distinction between recognizing a right and giving permission. They are opposite concepts.
““allowing” someone to do something isn’t giving them…
And now Sonic offers NOTHING but verbal abuse. What a surprise. When the rest of his fallacies are identified (and thus thwarted), vomiting curses is all that is left to him. :)
“Stay out of our schools.”
Interesting. Apparently you didn’t BOTHER to read my post to you, where I agreed schools have the right to ban those who don’t get vaccinated. Instead you blindly lashed out at a straw man. Your appeal to science and rationality rings HOLLOW given such blatantly irrational behavior.
“the difference between you and the slave is that the Abolitionist is forcing the slave to endure his reality at the threat of death”
LOL - Sonic thinks the length of the leash is what makes one a slave. Bwahahahah!
“You don’t like the law of the land? Fuckin’ leave already and shut up about it.”
And here is the brute…
“we allow personal choices that adversely affect the safety around us all the time!”
No. We recognize the right of the individual to his life and his effort. BIG difference. To “allow” someone to do something means that one is giving THEM permission to act - that one is OWNER of them. This is simply false. Men are not…
“showing me the legal document that protects said rights.”
The science proves it! For the good of the public health, your right to “sugar-sweetened beverages” MUST be violated. You must be DENIED the freedom to consume such drinks - for the good of society!
“The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”
Actually, YOU are the only one “swinging” anything in this example: your needle.
“The right to not vaccinate your kid ends where the school entrance begins.”
“I asked you to show proof that your rights were being infringed upon by showing me the legal document that protects said rights. That’s not an appeal to authority”
That you fail to recognize it as such doesnt change the facts (which is kinda the problem WITH your fallacy). An Appeal to Authority is the claim that…
Apparently Gawker has set a quota for swearing in its article ‘titles’.
“First, you find me the document that protects your right to disregard a public safety measure”
LOL - again with the Appeal to Authority - ie Mob rule. You REALLY like your logical fallacies. By this ‘principle’, before the Civil War, you would demand that the Abolitionist had to find you the document that protects the…
“The rights of one are always balanced against the rights of others”
This is false. Rights do not conflict with each other. If you find a conflict between things you call rights, one (or both) are NOT rights at all.
To “balance” rights is but a euphamism for violating rights wholesale. One does not “balance” the “right”…
“Science is not mob rule”
My point exactly. Which demonstrates why your appeal to ‘mob rule’ and ‘might makes right’ stands in complete contradiction to your claims to uphold “science”.
“in the interest of public safety and health, must mandat”
There is no such thing as “public” rights whatsoever. There are only…
And MORE ad homs in place of arguments. Thanks :)
“Your appeal is to a “right” that does not exist. I can refute you a million times”
One time would be enough. Ad homs don’t count though. Sorry. (Though I am certain that won’t stop you from continuing to spew banal curses at me as if that somehow makes your arguments…
“States and localities own the roads”
I didn’t debate this fact. I simply stated it is a violation of rights for them to do so.
“They don’t say “sober people only” at every intersection because they shouldn’t have to.”
No. They don’t say it at every intersection because the current owner of all those roads says it does…
“I am merely pointing out that IS the argument. This isn’t necessarily a horde of mouth-breathing idiots screaming about autism (although there are some)“
Don’t spoil The Narrative with facts. ;)
You have no rational argument as rebuttal so you resort to the logical fallacy of ad homs. Thanks! :D
“Unless you walk around with a blood test kit or something (in which case, I’m kind of impressed) there is NO WAY OF KNOWING whether the people you choose to interact with on a daily basis are vaccinated”