The infinite monkeytypings will eventually produce a theorem proving it one way or the other, if such a theorem exists.

"anti-vax moron" is the ad hominem argument you used.

1) That wasn't me. 2) No, it's still really not an ad hominem. Maybe this will help.

as well, a straw man argument would be alleging that i was grasping at highly improbable straws to make my point. your lightning in the rain argument is like that. I was pretty clear in saying the harmful effects listed in the product monographs are highly probable, not highly improbable.

If you want to refer to the probable ones as being probable, do that. If you want to refer to the improbable ones as being improbable, do that. But don't mention only an improbable one and then use the statistic for the probable ones. That's just dishonest. The 20% statistic you referred to includes such adverse reactions as "redness at the injection site" and "headache."

But of course, your argument would have a lot less of an impact if you said, "You have a 20% chance of redness at the injection site and a vanishingly small risk of death!" So you selectively mixed and matched your data to construct a sentence that was technically true but totally misleading. Not good. Don't do that if you want people to take you seriously as somebody who makes honest arguments.

aside from that, the product monographs give ample reason to not want to have the vaccine, irrespective of any religious claims. efficacy of vaccines is much less than 100%, 60% they say now, and the best case scenario for timespan of immunity is 3 years or so.

If you're going to use numbers from now on, I'd appreciate a specific reference to what you're referring to and how you got the information. It sounds like you're mixing and matching the worst case values for certain specific vaccines and then waving your hand vaguely at all of them. Given your last use of statistics, I'm inclined to believe that's intentional.

a large percentage of vaccine recipients are communicable for some weeks after the vaccine.

What is a "large percentage" and for which vaccines? Again, this sounds like you're taking one particularly rare result out of context in order to confuse people. Because I guarantee that even if this is the case for certain vaccines, it's not the case for all of them, or even a bare majority.

aids from a vaccine cultured in west africa green monkey cells?

Did you just casually throw out AIDS without bothering to supply any data or context? Of course you did.

I'm not exactly excited about Hillary, but Kim Dotcom isn't where I usually turn for information about politics.

Sounds like he just misses being in the headlines.

Indeed. What they should have done was get the writer/director of the original film, who I gather had been trying to get a sequel made for over a decade, to come and write and direct the new one. Clearly whoever they got to write this didn't really understand Max's character at all.</sarcasm>

I was astonished to see it open at 9.0 on IMDB. I had read that it's just one big chase scene with no plot. Is it actually interesting?

Well, chalk one up for electrics, I guess.

Tesla's working on automated full-service battery swapping stations. And apparently also on charging cords that can plug themselves in:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/1...

Robots of that sort already exist, so you can see the sort of thing he's probably referring to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

That's what the Amazon drones are for. The truck just has to cruise through the neighborhood. Meanwhile, small drone aircraft that it carries will work to carry packages out of the truck and to front doors. A human will still be needed for heavy or bulky packages, or for deliveries that have to be brought inside or where there's no convenient place for the drone to land to deposit them, but those packages and destinations can be separated from the others at the local depot, and all put on a smaller number of trucks, therefore needing a smaller number of humans. You won't need a human for every truck if you work out the routes each day based on the nature of the packages you've got and where you're taking them.

ad hominem. read the product monographs. more than 20% of vaccine recipients report adverse reactions, including death.

Aside from the fact that that wasn't an ad hominem, that's a really weird way of phrasing things. It's like saying that 100% of people standing out in the rain experience rain-related effects, including being hit by lightning. It's technically true, but it's phrased in a way to imply that way more people get hit by lightning than actually do. The reality is that 100% of people get wet and a tiny fraction of a percent get hit by lightning. Lumping them together as "effects of rain" makes the statistic basically meaningless. Was that intentional?

Good. That's step 1 (although remember, VAERS is self-reported rather than records of actual confirmed cause-and-effect results). Step two is to ask how many vaccine doses were given over that time. For instance, they shipped over 150,000,000 doses of flu vaccine in 2015. Even if half of those doses go in the trash, that's a lot of doses. And that's just the flu vaccine, and just in one year. So how does the risk compare to, say, getting in a car and driving 100 miles?

If you tell them you're a turtle, maybe they'll 3dprint a damn for you to give.

Sorry, this postmodern English grates on my nerves.

Get Live at Leeds on one of the remastered CDs. You can get the whole concert now, or the whole concert sans Tommy, which still includes lots of stuff the LP didn't.

And they were phenomenal: Roger on lead vocals, John on lead bass, Keith on lead drums, and Pete on precussion guitar.

By the time I was old enough to hear them live they had keyboards, a horn section, and doo-wop girls. Not the same thing at all.

Apropos the top post, I've put on The Who in the last 24 hours, but I've also put on some Medieval and Renaissance music. I still listen to my teenage faves, but my tastes have expanded a lot too.

People like to point to the vaccine fund and VAERS reporting database, but they pretty rarely run the numbers on what that data means. Assuming that 100% of the people who get paid out from the fund were really hurt by the vaccines and assuming that 100% of the self reporting in VAERS is accurate, run the numbers on what percentage of people who use those vaccines are harmed by them.

Just about every substance will cause an adverse reaction in some small percentage of the population. It's unfortunate but true. But if you give a million people a particular vaccine and the same million people a teaspoon of peanut butter and the peanut butter kills way more of your test subjects, that's a pretty good illustration of the point.

I think the poster may be referring to stuff like this. Granted, that's an extreme case--more often it's just plain misinformation about how effective condoms are, but I think it's pretty reasonable to say that the church hasn't been helping.

I'm all for making real motivations more apparent, but I think you are not quite living in reality if you believe that getting rid of religion will suddenly put an end to concocting flimsy excuses to go to war. All the evidence suggests they will just find another excuse to whip up the hoi polloi to go fight their wars for them.

I just don't understand it. Make a relatively straightforward point that X frequently causes Y and doing away with X will eliminate some instances of Y and you're immediately innundated with arguments about the fact that Y will not be eliminated and you're foolish to say so. Yes, there will still be wars. Yes, people will still do stupid things. That doesn't mean that checking one stupid reason for people to do stupid things off the checklist isn't a positive step. I'm also a fan of healthy diet and exercise even though it doesn't solve all medical problems, and I support using good quality insulation in homes even though it won't eliminate all wasted energy.