3 ms·

> Because your whole argument is an example of an "argument to moderation" fallacy[1] that is only valid as long as there is some evidence that points to the fa

> Because your whole argument is an example of an "argument to moderation" fallacy[1] that is only valid as long as there is some evidence that points to the fact that the majority medical opinion on vaccines is wrong (and of course, the majority opinion is not "everyone should get every vaccine there is all the time"). > I mean, I get the point that name-calling doesn't help, but we can't just accept statements that contradict established scientific opinion without any strong evidence, otherwise there is no means to progressing as a society. There was nowhere in my arguments that I stated to accept anything from their arguments. I stated to disprove their arguments with science and to not engage in name-calling. I did state that the people labeled as "anti-vaxxers" support their claims with scientific studies. I am not addressing their claims, so I am not providing the evidence they use to support their claims. I am stating how they make their claims. Your claim that I am in line with the linked fallacy demonstrates that you do not understand what that fallacy is or where to apply it.

Tainnor 6y ago
With all due respect, if you defend a position you don't even agree with (or where you can't/won't even point to a single piece of evidence) makes for a very unfruitful kind of debate. I mean, for every fringe position you can find some crank that "supports" it with some badly designed study, but strong claims (e.g. contradicting majority scientific opinion) require strong evidence not just "there are studies" (without pointing to any such study; how should one even refute this?).
- generalpass 6y ago
  > With all due respect, if you defend a position you don't even agree with (or where you can't/won't even point to a single piece of evidence) makes for a very unfruitful kind of debate. > I mean, for every fringe position you can find some crank that "supports" it with some badly designed study, but strong claims (e.g. contradicting majority scientific opinion) require strong evidence not just "there are studies" (without pointing to any such study; how should one even refute this?). With all due respect, you are demonstrating a reading comprehension level of a 10 year-old. You have not even one time responded to my claims.
lpah4all 6y ago
It's his second false fallacy in one comment section. Dunning & Kruger states the obvious: idiots not only don't know they're idiots, they think they're smaaaart. Next, they're going to say we're mean.

Tainnor 6y ago

With all due respect, if you defend a position you don't even agree with (or where you can't/won't even point to a single piece of evidence) makes for a very unfruitful kind of debate. I mean, for every fringe position you can find some crank that "supports" it with some badly designed study, but strong claims (e.g. contradicting majority scientific opinion) require strong evidence not just "there are studies" (without pointing to any such study; how should one even refute this?).

generalpass 6y ago
> With all due respect, if you defend a position you don't even agree with (or where you can't/won't even point to a single piece of evidence) makes for a very unfruitful kind of debate. > I mean, for every fringe position you can find some crank that "supports" it with some badly designed study, but strong claims (e.g. contradicting majority scientific opinion) require strong evidence not just "there are studies" (without pointing to any such study; how should one even refute this?). With all due respect, you are demonstrating a reading comprehension level of a 10 year-old. You have not even one time responded to my claims.

lpah4all 6y ago

It's his second false fallacy in one comment section. Dunning & Kruger states the obvious: idiots not only don't know they're idiots, they think they're smaaaart. Next, they're going to say we're mean.