Rand Paul thinks vaccines cause mental illness

[Francisco Ferrer]

By the same token we can broaden "communism" to include fascism, the New Deal, Obamacare and the Golden Horde. We can also say "ugh" to cover everything that displeases us and thus save ourselves the trouble of having to be specific.

[Brant Gaede]

By the same token we can broaden "communism" to include fascism, the New Deal, Obamacare and the Golden Horde. We can also say "ugh" to cover everything that displeases us and thus save ourselves the trouble of having to be specific.

That wouldn't make much sense. I explained the sense of what I did. I reduced innumerable enemies to one. Fascism is what fascism does. It is not at the base an ideology at all. It's the essential nature of any government--force, as Geo. Wash. said.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

It wouldn't make sense to place fascism within the category of communism for the same reason that communists don't fall within the ranks of fascists. Both ideologies have some overlapping beliefs but are different in key philosophical and historical respects. Class conflict, central to communist doctrine, played little role in fascist movements. In fact, in Italy, Germany, and Spain fascist movements were helped by popular fear of the complete restructuring of society that the Bolsheviks had undertaken in Russia. Given the democides that followed communist takeovers in Russia and China, I agree with Mises that fascism in Italy was a far better outcome than the communist alternative. That would also apply to Spain and perhaps even to Germany.

To argue that fascism is the essence of all governments requires one to ignore any differences between 20th century fascist regimes, the governments they replaced and those that followed. To call both Hitler and Ludwig Erhard "fascist" is to reduce the word to gibberish.

If you seek a term that would encompass both communism and fascism, try "totalitarianism."

[Selene]

In the United States:

Measles was declared eliminated (absence of continuous disease transmission for greater than 12 months) ... in 2000. This was possible thanks to a highly effective vaccination program and better measles control in the Americas region. For more information, see Frequently Asked Questions about Measles in the U.S.

[Brant Gaede]

It wouldn't make sense to place fascism within the category of communism for the same reason that communists don't fall within the ranks of fascists. Both ideologies have some overlapping beliefs but are different in key philosophical and historical respects. Class conflict, central to communist doctrine, played little role in fascist movements. In fact, in Italy, Germany, and Spain fascist movements were helped by popular fear of the complete restructuring of society that the Bolsheviks had undertaken in Russia. Given the democides that followed communist takeovers in Russia and China, I agree with Mises that fascism in Italy was a far better outcome than the communist alternative. That would also apply to Spain and perhaps even to Germany.

To argue that fascism is the essence of all governments requires one to ignore any differences between 20th century fascist regimes, the governments they replaced and those that followed. To call both Hitler and Ludwig Erhard "fascist" is to reduce the word to gibberish.

If you seek a term that would encompass both communism and fascism, try "totalitarianism."

I'd call Hitler a Nazi. Stalin a communist. These ideological differences make sense. I used fascism as pre-ideological and in that context the fascism of Italy was fascism at another level off that base. In spite of its socialism Israel is predominantly free and I'd call it such, not fascist. I'd call Nazism totalitarianism incarnate, so too Soviet Russia. If we had minimal government but government that still took in revenue through taxes, I'd call that a fascist action of a free government, not a fascist government. Now, why all this nuance? I'm reducing the fight for freedom to the fight for freedom is the fight against fascism to tie the leftists up in knots and their good wars against fascists and their bad wars against communists (as gravy), but my main target is the totalitarian impulse in Islam but not the religion. That is, it's okay to fight its exported fascism and ignore its idiotic ideology and avoid ad hominem attacks on its prophet. Let the de-fascified Muslims deal with that. There's no winning a religious war by directly attacking the religion. You'll only radicalize more Muslims and make the Islamists' jihad more powerful. "The war on terror" needs to be the war on fascism, aka the war for freedom. It's a better expression of self defense. Iran is a fascist country with an ideology of a major Muslim sect trying to export that fascism with aggression. Ideologically Iran is not fascist. Practically speaking, it is. Italy was ideologically and practically. Red China was ideologically totalitarian communist and practically fascist. So too Cambodia under Pal Pot. Vietnam wasn't so bad and took care of him. I'm not really arguing with you all that much, just explaining a difference. It's partly semantic, but semantics can be very important.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

I'd call Hitler a Nazi. Stalin a communist. These ideological differences make sense. I used fascism as pre-ideological and in that context the fascism of Italy was fascism at another level off that base. In spite of its socialism Israel is predominantly free and I'd call it such, not fascist. I'd call Nazism totalitarianism incarnate, so too Soviet Russia. If we had minimal government but government that still took in revenue through taxes, I'd call that a fascist action of a free government, not a fascist government. Now, why all this nuance? I'm reducing the fight for freedom to the fight for freedom is the fight against fascism to tie the leftists up in knots and their good wars against fascists and their bad wars against communists (as gravy), but my main target is the totalitarian impulse in Islam but not the religion. That is, it's okay to fight its exported fascism and ignore its idiotic ideology and avoid ad hominem attacks on its prophet. Let the de-fascified Muslims deal with that. There's no winning a religious war by directly attacking the religion. You'll only radicalize more Muslims and make the Islamists' jihad more powerful. "The war on terror" needs to be the war on fascism, aka the war for freedom. It's a better expression of self defense. Iran is a fascist country with an ideology of a major Muslim sect trying to export that fascism with aggression. Ideologically Iran is not fascist. Practically speaking, it is. Italy was ideologically and practically. Red China was ideologically totalitarian communist and practically fascist. So too Cambodia under Pal Pot. Vietnam wasn't so bad and took care of him. I'm not really arguing with you all that much, just explaining a difference. It's partly semantic, but semantics can be very important.

--Brant

You say Stalin was a communist, but earlier you took issue with my statement that "Communism has killed more people in the past century than typhus."

Israel is not fascist, you say. Then by your own logic it must not have a government, for you have already stated that "Fascism is what fascism does. It is not at the base an ideology at all. It's the essential nature of any government--force, as Geo. Wash. said."

If your goal is to tie the left up in knots, you won't succeed if anyone on the left has a passing knowledge of the rise and fall of fascism in Europe. You are taking a term with a specific meaning and context and applying haphazardly and carelessly to tar any government you disapprove of. This is a linguistic fallacy.

One would be committing the same ahistorical nonsense by referring to Attila the Hun as an early Nazi warrior, or Woodrow Wilson as a neoconservative president, or Aristotle as a Greek philosopher of Objectivism.

Communism's death toll is far worse than fascism's. You're not doing history or the freedom movement any favors by claiming that it was not communism that killed people but fascism.

That would be a lie.

[Brant Gaede]

I explained myself, Frank, and you took no notice of the nature of my differentiations and why, but it's all in the thread for whoever has any interest. I'm not knocking your attitude or position, which is common and standard, I just don't have use for argument for the sake of argument or restating it all. I know you like to bore in on something like this the way a dentist likes to bore in on caries, but my teeth are fine, thank you.

I do agree it's okay to say "Communism has killed . . . ." It's good shorthand. If I said differently I retract it for I don't retract the shorthand. I'm never going to say fascists killed the Jews for an arcane philosophical point. The Nazis did that. All I'm trying to do is get purchase on Muslim powered jihad by driving a wedge between fascism and the religion and tearing up the fascism. This is fascism peculiar to that religion, not 1920s' Italy. It is not ideological--at least it's vulnerable as a practical expression of the religion. There is no winning a religious war as such aside from general, holocaustic annihilation. That's the danger for the Jews, not well over one billion Muslims.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

You are, of course, within your rights to use any word in the language in some idiosyncratic, arbitrary or "broadened" sense. What I objected to was being told that my use of "communism" was in error and needed to be replaced with a non-standard use of "fascism."

Your teeth are fine--for you, not me.

[Brant Gaede]

I apologize for that. I hope it wasn't quite that stark.

--Brant

"Never apologize. It's a sign of weakness." (John Wayne)

[william.scherk]

“When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.”

If you are on the fence, what kind of material or argument would convince you that the link has not been proven?

I'm not on the fence because I'm not part of the divide. I have no wish to be part, either.

Over the years you have spoken quietly and convincingly about the dangers of strictly dichotomous debate, debate that dehumanizes, evokes fear and anger and proceeds like a war, full of agitation and propaganda and shouting. I think we tend to agree on fundamentals more than we disagree (having used my gumption, I reviewed our previous exchanges on vaccines and autism, as well as conversations between you and others). Last year we came close to agreement on this much:

"It's fair to say that the causes of autism spectrum disorders are currently unknown."

I'm seeking agreement, agreement between rational minds at work, agreement by concerted effort. I seek agreement with reality, and I believe that reality can be best approached by reason. Ayn Rand said something about conflicts of interest between rational men. I think we have a harmony of interests. We each want an answer to the same question, "whether vaccinations are causally related to Dxes of autism."

The scope of the agreement may be limited here and there, but I think we share goals -- l want better treatment options for autistic children and adults, I want that a cure be found. I want early detection of autism, so that the earliest interventions can ameliorate or reverse deficits. I want research that is unbiased, well-designed, and methodologically above reproach, and I want that research to include all plausible models and theories of causation. I want parents to be able to access the most reliable information when making vaccination decisions. I don't want anyone forced to be vaccinated except under the direst conditions of danger.

We agree: "As you point out, there is plenty of passion and a hard dose of extremism (or perhaps better called extreme disempathy) in a few pockets, and the passion on either 'side' is not an indication that this position or that position is credible or ratified by scientific investigation."

I wish the very best to your stepson and you and Kat in your daily struggles and triumphs with the boy that you dearly love.

As to how you and Bob got your confidence, I have no idea. I do know if I had not preempted the snark, it would have been far worse by now. I say that from years of dealing with things like this. And, in fact, just look at this thread as it is already. It probably will get there before too long.

There are a few words slung about that might sting, I think ... I got stung over being accused of "pretzel" logic and 'blah blah blah.' But that wasn't snark. Neither was the idea that I am bludgeoning folks over the head with my agenda. I tried to lay out how I arrived at my own confidence.

(Like when one tries to dissect a metaphor as confrontational rhetoric. )

I pointed out the error in your analogy to Bob's statements.

I demonstrated (at boring length) that your analogy was false.

Your analogy was a 'gotcha' moment, meant I thought to make Bob's reasoning silly. You invited readers to mock his conclusion by comparing it to a ridiculous similar-seeming conclusion.

Comparing the two and figuring out the difference between them was a tricky logical puzzle for me. I can apologize for the boredom resulting from trying to show my work. But after a couple thousand posts here I figure there will always be failures to communicate.

But let me finish by scoping out a few more areas of agreement on the issues that snarl about the Autism/Vaccination association.

I agree that there is a lot of bigoted kind of thinking about this issue and not always so much common sense. I agree that discussion has in some places degenerated into 'monsterizing' the erstwhile opponents on the other side. I agree that parents who are cautious about vaccination can be deemed 'enemies' and that those who support 'the system' of vaccines deemed enemies in return.

You and I are not enemies of reason. We are not enemies in conversation here, nor motivated to fight or argue merely to fight or argue. Sometimes we seem combatants in extended argument, seem to be disagreeable as well as disagreeing.

As here, disagreement often arises from misunderstanding. Although we can be skeptical of a person's declared motives, we needn't infer additional malign motives, but instead explore the possibility of misunderstanding or other accident of communication before we suggest bad faith.

So my advice is to look at the information. First hand. As much as you can. All sides. Think it through. Yeah, it's a slog, it's boring, but your kids deserve that effort. At least you will give it your best informed shot.

Good advice for any issue.

Edited February 11, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

I love "pretzel logic." If only I knew how to use it rhetorically.

--Brant

I don't even know what it is

[william.scherk]

I love "pretzel logic." If only I knew how to use it rhetorically.

--Brant

I don't even know what it is

The whole quote was this:

I admire your gumption. But you wasted it because you are squarely on one side of the fence and used the wrong tool. Persuasion-wise, it was clever pretzel of blah blah blah, but I seriously doubt it was effective.

The worst thing you can do with a metaphor is try to dissect it and make it make sense.

I looked up gumption, which means shrewd or spirited initiative and resourcefulness -- "she had the gumption to put her foot down and head Dan off from those crazy schemes" ...

I tried to find a dictionary definition of 'pretzel logic,' but only found an Urban Dictionary mention: fallible, twisted or circular reasoning that when dissected is wrong, does not make sense or does not explain the situation rationally.

It's just another way of denoting or describing something that is wrong, the wrongness discovered by dissecting the reasoning.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I just caught up with this thread. (Sorry, I have been really, really busy.)

The "pretzel logic" was in reference to trying to logically dissect a metaphor after it has made it's impact. That's always a hell of a bad form of rhetoric. Bad in this context means ineffective. And the more one dissects such a metaphor, the more the logic looks like a pretzel.

It was not in reference to your good intentions re autistic kids. I believe in your sincerity, although I suspect this disagreement would get quite nasty if you ever sent the government authorities after my kid because you presumed you had to protect him from my ignorance. Especially when there is a crapload of hamhanded money, power, propaganda, diseases and side-effects to children flowing all around.

I would never do that to you with a child under your care. I would trust you to use your mind to the best of your experience, knowledge and ability, even if I disagreed with the treatment you chose. Also, I realize big government supporters don't see the ramifications of this issue clearly.

On the gumption front, I admire the gumption of people who attempt to debunk in earnest the logic of a metaphor. It reminds me of screenplays by William Goldman where the heroes at the end, once all is lost, jump into the face of glory.

I heard him talk about this once. He said as a kid he read a story about a polar bear during an avalanche. When the snow was almost on the bear, it turned around, raised on its hind legs and threatened the avalanche with a roar. He said this kind of blind courage in the face of overwhelming disaster always got to him, so he always tried to include it in his stories.

For some damn reason, arguing by dissecting a metaphor that has discharged its emotional payload hits me the same way.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

On the gumption front, I admire the gumption of people who attempt to debunk in earnest the logic of a metaphor. It reminds me of screenplays by William Goldman where the heroes at the end, once all is lost, jump into the face of glory.

I heard him talk about this once. He said as a kid he read a story about a polar bear during an avalanche. When the snow was almost on the bear, it turned around, raised on its hind legs and threatened the avalanche with a roar. He said this kind of blind courage in the face of overwhelming disaster always got to him, so he always tried to include it in his stories.

For some damn reason, arguing by dissecting a metaphor that has discharged its emotional payload hits me the same way.

Then you are the ghost of Hamlet's father?

--Brant

how awful

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hell, Brant.

I can still chomp down on fence posts and spit out nails.

So I'm still a long way from a ghost.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Communism has killed more people in the past century than typhus. Should people be "vaccinated" against Marx's ideas by banning his writings?

Do you assume ideas, any old idea is "catching"?

[Selene]

Should people be "vaccinated" against Marx's ideas by banning his writings?

The more you ban the more folks will read it.

[Brant Gaede]

Hell, Brant.

I can still chomp down on fence posts and spit out nails.

So I'm still a long way from a ghost.

Michael

Your dentist bills must be through the roof.

--Brant

you need to audition for the next James Bond villain

[william.scherk]

William,

I just caught up with this thread. (Sorry, I have been really, really busy.)

The "pretzel logic" was in reference to trying to logically dissect a metaphor after it has made it's impact. That's always a hell of a bad form of rhetoric. Bad in this context means ineffective. And the more one dissects such a metaphor, the more the logic looks like a pretzel.

Thanks for the reply, and for taking the time to review this thread.

I don't know how to assess the general effectiveness of my posts above. I showed to myself how the mirror-image of Bob's statement failed to actually parallel Bob's logical point.

I think you committed an error, using a false analogy in order to invite mockery of Bob's argument. You think I committed an error in analysis -- or that the analysis as such was a "clever pretzel of blah blah blah" even if it was correct.

The pith was: "I wasn't dissing you, but pointing out that your analogy didn't hold because you mistransposed the elements of Bob's argument."

It was not in reference to your good intentions re autistic kids. I believe in your sincerity, although I suspect this disagreement would get quite nasty if you ever sent the government authorities after my kid because you presumed you had to protect him from my ignorance. Especially when there is a crapload of hamhanded money, power, propaganda, diseases and side-effects to children flowing all around.

There's nothing for me to say about your kid -- I have never suggested you have done anything wrong in his care -- I defer to you as a parent and I have no doubt that you and Kat will continue to be most excellent parents. The broader issues of 'vaccine controversy' don't to my mind have any effect on your care or love, and I certainly do not think Sean needs 'protection' from your ignorance.

About the crapload of yadda yadda, this has little to do with me or Sean or my appraisal of a failed analogy, as far as I can tell. It seems quite silly to propose a scenario where William sends government 'after your kid.' I know you are not serious about that.

I would never do that to you with a child under your care. I would trust you to use your mind to the best of your experience, knowledge and ability, even if I disagreed with the treatment you chose. Also, I realize big government supporters don't see the ramifications of this issue clearly.

I could never do that to you with a child under your care -- and I can't imagine any 'treatment' of Sean that is any of my business.

On the gumption front, I admire the gumption of people who attempt to debunk in earnest the logic of a metaphor. It reminds me of screenplays by William Goldman where the heroes at the end, once all is lost, jump into the face of glory.

I heard him talk about this once. He said as a kid he read a story about a polar bear during an avalanche. When the snow was almost on the bear, it turned around, raised on its hind legs and threatened the avalanche with a roar. He said this kind of blind courage in the face of overwhelming disaster always got to him, so he always tried to include it in his stories.

For some damn reason, arguing by dissecting a metaphor that has discharged its emotional payload hits me the same way.

I'll admit my failure. I didn't convince you that my analysis was useful. You think your analogy was fair, that it exposed a crazy illogic in Bob's argument. I think your analogy was unfair, that it invited mockery where mockery was not justified.

I pointed out the error in your analogy to Bob's statements.

I demonstrated (at boring length) that your analogy was false.

Your analogy was a 'gotcha' moment, meant I thought to make Bob's reasoning silly. You invited readers to mock his conclusion by comparing it to a ridiculous similar-seeming conclusion.

Comparing the two and figuring out the difference between them was a tricky logical puzzle for me. I can apologize for the boredom resulting from trying to show my work. But after a couple thousand posts here I figure there will always be failures to communicate.

Edited March 5, 2015 by william.scherk

[BaalChatzaf]

or some damn reason, arguing by dissecting a metaphor that has discharged its emotional payload hits me the same way.

I'll admit my failure. I didn't convince you that my analysis was useful. You think your analogy was fair, that it exposed a crazy illogic in Bob's argument. I think your analogy was unfair, that it invited mockery where mockery was not justified.

Not everyone who is vaccinated is autistic and not everyone who is autistic has been vaccinated. We have instances showing that vaccination does not invariably lead to autism. And we have instances of autistic who were not vaccinated so their autism is not the result of vaccination. This should be sufficient to refute there is a not cause-effect relationship between vaccination and autism.

The only remaining things to determine is the degree of correlation between vaccination and autism. If we look at the percentage of people who were vaccinated and became autistic we should find that it is very low. If we further find that among the population of non-vaccinated people the occurrence of autism is also law then we can dismiss any causal link between vaccination and autism.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Not everyone who is vaccinated is autistic and not everyone who is autistic has been vaccinated. We have instances showing that vaccination does not invariably lead to autism. And we have instances of autistic who were not vaccinated so their autism is not the result of vaccination. This should be sufficient to refute there is a not cause-effect relationship between vaccination and autism.

The only remaining things to determine is the degree of correlation between vaccination and autism. If we look at the percentage of people who were vaccinated and became autistic we should find that it is very low. If we further find that among the population of non-vaccinated people the occurrence of autism is also law then we can dismiss any causal link between vaccination and autism.

This does not compute.

There are many types of vaccines and there are many types of autism.

Making an all or nothing generalization (no types of vaccines can cause any types of autism) is not founded on any logic I can see in this post--or in reality.

(Or even the government, which pays out money for such damage--not much, but it does.)

When either-or thinking is used for entire categories of such large data sets in a relatively new area of study, all I can see are blinders against looking.

This is storytelling at its finest.

Note: The real issue for the government board (vaccine court) is money. If it allowed a blanket admission of the possibility of causality for just one type, instead of the current case-by-case system where the language in settlements gets watered down to CYA levels, it would be flooded with lawsuits, including class action. This is a dam I predict will burst over time. And time will tell. There are lots of legal heavy-hitters on both sides of this issue.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

for some damn reason, arguing by dissecting a metaphor that has discharged its emotional payload hits me the same way.

I'll admit my failure. I didn't convince you that my analysis was useful. You think your analogy was fair, that it exposed a crazy illogic in Bob's argument. I think your analogy was unfair, that it invited mockery where mockery was not justified.

Not everyone who is vaccinated is autistic and not everyone who is autistic has been vaccinated. We have instances showing that vaccination does not invariably lead to autism. And we have instances of autistic who were not vaccinated so their autism is not the result of vaccination. This should be sufficient to refute there is a not cause-effect relationship between vaccination and autism.

The only remaining things to determine is the degree of correlation between vaccination and autism. If we look at the percentage of people who were vaccinated and became autistic we should find that it is very low. If we further find that among the population of non-vaccinated people the occurrence of autism is also law then we can dismiss any causal link between vaccination and autism.

Ba'al Chatzaf

No doubt "we" will find the data "we" want considering how badly "we" want it.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

No doubt "we" will find the data "we" want considering how badly "we" want it.

--Brant

Not so. In a properly constructed test you find what is there, whether you like it or not.

One thing for sure: the nut cases who claimed vaccines produced autistic children never proved their case with a properly randomized and double blind study.

And we do know some vaccines work wonderfully. For example the two anti-polio immunizations. Polio is virtually disappeared ion the industrial countries. When I was a kid, every summer was "Polio Hell" because everyone was out and about in the summer and the swimming pools were busy, that was the time of year when most new cases developed. Thousand of children a year would either die or end up paralyzed. Many had to be put in electro-mechanical respirators, "iron lungs". Now, the only place you see an "iron lung" is in a medical museum.

And then there is small pox. Virtually disappeared in the industrial world. Ditto for whooping cough. Measles is very rare now with the availability of the vaccine. The only people who are catching it the the unfortunate children of anti-vaccine fanatics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I started to answer this, but deleted my post before publishing.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No doubt "we" will find the data "we" want considering how badly "we" want it.

Brant,

Some of "we" seem to want it so bad they can't stand it.

You can tell by the name-calling.

Michael