Do Vaccines Cause Autism?

David Wright wrote:

I'm sorry about your illiteracy problem, jdeere, but I said quite
explicitly in my last posting that it was fine with me if we supplied
them with all of that information.

"It's fine with me" is immoral. If you wanted to claim
any shred of morality, you had to say "I don't care who
is right and who is wrong, but it is finally and totally
WRONG to withhold information when selling medicines".

You totally failed to say that, in any way, shape or form.

Your statement is like "well, shucks, I guess it's ok
with me if those guys go ahead and decide not to
murder and steal."

Of such lukewarm statements, morality is not made.

In article .com,
wrote:
David Wright wrote:

I'm sorry about your illiteracy problem, jdeere, but I said quite
explicitly in my last posting that it was fine with me if we supplied
them with all of that information.

"It's fine with me" is immoral.

Don't you try throwing "morality" at me. There's no objective
definition of morality anyway. I never claimed to be pushing
morality. I leave that to self-aggrandizers like you.

If you wanted to claim any shred of morality, you had to say "I don't
care who is right and who is wrong, but it is finally and totally
WRONG to withhold information when selling medicines".

You totally failed to say that, in any way, shape or form.

So what? I didn't advocate withholding information, either. It's not
like I personally am withholding any information from anyone. Anyone
can read a package insert. The Health Ministry of Lower Slobovia is
welcome to do it as far as I'm concerned.

Your statement is like "well, shucks, I guess it's ok
with me if those guys go ahead and decide not to
murder and steal."

Of such lukewarm statements, morality is not made.

I start feeling my gag reflex engage when someone like you tries to
wrap himself in the flag of "morality."

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

David Wright wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
David Wright wrote:

I'm sorry about your illiteracy problem, jdeere, but I said quite
explicitly in my last posting that it was fine with me if we supplied
them with all of that information.

"It's fine with me" is immoral.

Don't you try throwing "morality" at me. There's no objective
definition of morality anyway. I never claimed to be pushing
morality. I leave that to self-aggrandizers like you.

What "self-aggrandizer"? I have just been using
simple reasoning here.

Most people have a sense of moral vs immoral. It's
not that hard.

And I don't like clearly immoral people, that's all. For
instance, I don't like people who would happily kill and
maim others for a bit of money, or who would happily
refuse to put themselves at the other side from
such practices.

If you like yourself for these things, I have to say
you must have rather strong rationalization powers.

In article .com,
wrote:
David Wright wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
David Wright wrote:

I'm sorry about your illiteracy problem, jdeere, but I said quite
explicitly in my last posting that it was fine with me if we supplied
them with all of that information.

"It's fine with me" is immoral.

Don't you try throwing "morality" at me. There's no objective
definition of morality anyway. I never claimed to be pushing
morality. I leave that to self-aggrandizers like you.

What "self-aggrandizer"? I have just been using
simple reasoning here.

Simplistic is not the same as simple. And your attacks on my
perceived "immorality" clearly imply that you see yourself as
"moral."

Most people have a sense of moral vs immoral. It's
not that hard.

It's also societally determined and has no objective definition.

And I don't like clearly immoral people, that's all. For instance, I
don't like people who would happily kill and maim others for a bit of
money, or who would happily refuse to put themselves at the other
side from such practices.

If you like yourself for these things, I have to say you must have
rather strong rationalization powers.

No, the problem is that you have rather weak reading comprehension
skills. You so desperately want to see me as "immoral" that you
ignore what I'm saying and instead respond to what you wish I was
saying.

It's not up to me to supply anyone with information about
vaccination, pro or con. I think if I were a health minister of some
desperately poor third world country, and on the one hand I heard that
there was a vaccine that was highly effective against measles, which
is a deadly disease in my country, and on the other hand, I heard that
there is a small group of noisy loons who claim that the vaccine may
occasionally cause autism, I'd say "give me the vaccine."

I'm not keeping information from anyone and I'm not advocating keeping
information from anyone. I'm saying that you have the luxury of a
type of fearmongering that many people in this world do not.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

David Wright wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
David Wright wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
David Wright wrote:

I'm sorry about your illiteracy problem, jdeere, but I said quite
explicitly in my last posting that it was fine with me if we supplied
them with all of that information.

"It's fine with me" is immoral.

Don't you try throwing "morality" at me. There's no objective
definition of morality anyway. I never claimed to be pushing
morality. I leave that to self-aggrandizers like you.

What "self-aggrandizer"? I have just been using
simple reasoning here.

Simplistic is not the same as simple. And your attacks on my

It's just that I don't blindly believe something just because
it comes from complex sources or because it has complexity.

perceived "immorality" clearly imply that you see yourself as
"moral."

Well, duh?

Most people have a sense of moral vs immoral. It's
not that hard.

It's also societally determined and has no objective definition.

Do you know there is no objective definition of
the taste of salt? Yet it exists as a subjective
experience. It can be objectively studied through
various indirect means (e.g. by asking people about
their experience with different proportions of
salt in their food.)

Similarly, morality is a part of the human experience.
Each human experiences it subjectively, yet
the experience objectively exists.

"Societally derermined" is incorrect. Societies pervert
basic morality for various reasons. Morality is determined
from the existence of pleasure and pain in humans, and
from the human need to coexist which at some point results
in development of the ability to see "other" as a version
of "self". Since humans exist both in co-operation
and competition with each other, the moral sense may conflict
with one's own desires, and therefore generates a behavioral
tension. But once a child can perceive "other" as a kind
of "self", the child has all the basics for moral behavior.
Organized religions or other group dynamics may then pervert
it (because groups exploit the co-operative instinct for
the group, but ultimately in a competitive fashion agsinst
other groups,) but usually fail to totally overcome it.

In article .com,
wrote:
David Wright wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
David Wright wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
David Wright wrote:

I'm sorry about your illiteracy problem, jdeere, but I said quite
explicitly in my last posting that it was fine with me if we supplied
them with all of that information.

"It's fine with me" is immoral.

Don't you try throwing "morality" at me. There's no objective
definition of morality anyway. I never claimed to be pushing
morality. I leave that to self-aggrandizers like you.

What "self-aggrandizer"? I have just been using
simple reasoning here.

Simplistic is not the same as simple. And your attacks on my

It's just that I don't blindly believe something just because
it comes from complex sources or because it has complexity.

Neither do I.

perceived "immorality" clearly imply that you see yourself as
"moral."

Well, duh?

Yeah. But who says you're right?

Most people have a sense of moral vs immoral. It's
not that hard.

It's also societally determined and has no objective definition.

Do you know there is no objective definition of
the taste of salt? Yet it exists as a subjective
experience. It can be objectively studied through
various indirect means (e.g. by asking people about
their experience with different proportions of
salt in their food.)

But there is an objective definition of salt. Taste may be
subjective, but salt isn't.

Similarly, morality is a part of the human experience.

No, morality is a societal construct, mostly used to manipulate the
masses.

Each human experiences it subjectively, yet the experience
objectively exists.

Hogwash. There is no phenomenon I can point to and say "that is
morality."

"Societally derermined" is incorrect.

On the contrary, it's central. Is it moral to chop the hands off of
thieves? Is it moral to put murderers to death? Go ahead, take a
position and prove to me you're right. This will be fun (for me, but
not for you).

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

David Wright wrote:
Simplistic is not the same as simple. And your attacks on my

It's just that I don't blindly believe something just because
it comes from complex sources or because it has complexity.

Neither do I.

That's hard to tell apart from the "if it comes from
the 'right' sources, it must be right" reflexive thinking.

perceived "immorality" clearly imply that you see yourself as
"moral."

Well, duh?

Yeah. But who says you're right?

Your comment was about how I see myself. Who else can
be more right about that?


Most people have a sense of moral vs immoral. It's
not that hard.

It's also societally determined and has no objective definition.

Do you know there is no objective definition of
the taste of salt? Yet it exists as a subjective
experience. It can be objectively studied through
various indirect means (e.g. by asking people about
their experience with different proportions of
salt in their food.)

But there is an objective definition of salt. Taste may be
subjective, but salt isn't.

But we are talking about "taste", not about salt. Vision
is a separate entity from what you see. It's reasonable
to talk about vision or study vision, separate from the
objects themselvs. If somebody needs glasses, it's not
because the objects they see have changed.

Vision may be subjective, but it exists. That is
a fact, not an opinion. Taste may be subjective, but
it objectively exists. While "this item is salty"
is an opinion, "things can taste salty" is a fact.
It can be objectively studied.

Similarly, morality is a part of the human experience.

No, morality is a societal construct, mostly used to manipulate the
masses.

Each human experiences it subjectively, yet the experience
objectively exists.

Hogwash. There is no phenomenon I can point to and say "that is
morality."

Is there a taste of salt that you can point to and say "that
is the taste of salt"? (I know this is confusing, so I should
clarify that pointing to the salt is not the same as pointing
to the taste of salt.)

"Societally derermined" is incorrect.

On the contrary, it's central. Is it moral to chop the hands off of

I think you are confusing legality with morality. While legality
(ideally) is based in morality, they are not the same.

thieves? Is it moral to put murderers to death? Go ahead, take a
position and prove to me you're right. This will be fun (for me, but
not for you).

Ok here is a position: it's not immoral to smoke marijuana, but
it is illegal in the USA in 2005.

Go ahead, have your fun.

In article . com,
wrote:
David Wright wrote:

thieves? Is it moral to put murderers to death? Go ahead, take a
position and prove to me you're right. This will be fun (for me, but
not for you).

Ok here is a position: it's not immoral to smoke marijuana, but
it is illegal in the USA in 2005.

What else is criminal law but an attempt to codify morality? That was
the excuse to pass the anti-drug laws in the first place, including
anti-marijuana laws. the "moralists" were arguing that this was
necessary. Who are you to say they were wrong? Totally subjective on
your part.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

David Wright wrote:

What else is criminal law but an attempt to codify morality? That was

I am not disagreeing with that, but am disagreeing that
they are always successful. The laws are powerful once
effected, so naturally there are attempts to hijack
or at least affect them, by special interest groups. Thus
the original purpose of codifying morality is in tension
against special interest groups, and morality loses in

many situations.

the excuse to pass the anti-drug laws in the first place, including
anti-marijuana laws. the "moralists" were arguing that this was
necessary. Who are you to say they were wrong? Totally subjective on
your part.

Apparently these particular "moralists" were actually racists
(in this case acting from bias against latino immigrants).
In that case, it would seem clear they were not really
acting from "morality", but as a special interest group.