396 replies to this topic

[badeskov]

Little Fish, on 09 March 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

so nobody can find any evidence that reducing the infant mortality rate with vaccinations will reduce population growth.

there are many things at play as a society develops that play a part in population declines, to assume that vaccinations are part of it is absurd. it is primarily industrialisation, economics, education, emancipation of women, contraception, opportunity. to state that one of the advances (vaccination) that is an offshoot of some of those things mentioned is a causal factor of another offshoot (declining population growth) is putting the cart before the horse.

it is quite extraordinary how people correctly dismiss my little pseudoscience experiment and yet are unwilling to dismiss the same pseudoscience that bill gates is promoting. correlation does not mean causation, the reasons for declining population growth are well understood, declining population growth has about as much to do with growth in vaccinations as it has to do with growth in fridge ownership.

Seriously, you do not understand how to read scientific data or are you being deliberately obstinate?

It is a known fact that vaccines reduce infant mortality.

It is a known fact that reduced infant mortality reduces the birth rates.

I mean, how hard can it be? From Tmars78's excellent link (you should look at the scientific references in that link, by the way):




It is a well known fact that developed countries benefit from vaccines and the subsequent low infant mortality and birthrates. Even though some European countries now have declining populations was it not for immigration. What is the big mystery in this?

Cheers,
Badeskov

[Little Fish]

badeskov, on 09 March 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Seriously, you do not understand how to read scientific data or are you being deliberately obstinate?

It is a known fact that vaccines reduce infant mortality.

It is a known fact that reduced infant mortality reduces the birth rates.

I am asking you to show scientific proof. you are using your premise to show your premise - circular reasoning. you're not answering the question.

Quote

I mean, how hard can it be? From Tmars78's excellent link (you should look at the scientific references in that link, by the way):




It is a well known fact that developed countries benefit from vaccines and the subsequent low infant mortality and birthrates.

Even though some European countries now have declining populations was it not for immigration. What is the big mystery in this?

Cheers,
Badeskov

again you are just asserting your premise when you are being asked to prove it.

plot the declining sperm rates on that graph, what would that tell you?
precisely nothing.

plot the uptake of fridges on that graph, what would that tell you?
precisely nothing.

plot the vaccination rates on that graph, what would that tell you?
precisely nothing.

Edited by Little Fish, 09 March 2012 - 01:06 PM.

[badeskov]

Little Fish, on 09 March 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

I am asking you to show scientific proof. you are using your premise to show your premise - circular reasoning. you're not answering the question.

again you are just asserting your premise when you are being asked to prove it.

plot the declining sperm rates on that graph, what would that tell you?
precisely nothing.

plot the uptake of fridges on that graph, what would that tell you?
precisely nothing.

plot the vaccination rates on that graph, what would that tell you?
precisely nothing.

OK, this is apparently incredibly hard to comprehend, so lets take it in smaller bites, shall we?

Do you acknowledge that lower infant mortality rates lead to lower birth rates (no matter the reason of the lower mortality rates)?

Cheers,
Badeskov

[Little Fish]

badeskov, on 09 March 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

OK, this is apparently incredibly hard to comprehend, so lets take it in smaller bites, shall we?

Do you acknowledge that lower infant mortality rates lead to lower birth rates (no matter the reason of the lower mortality rates)?

Cheers,
Badeskov

you are being asked to show scientific evidence that lowering infant mortality rate with vaccines will reduce population growth, merely repeating and framing your premise in the form of a question is not proof of your premise.

if you cannot do that, which you clearly cannot, then what are you doing? admit defeat and move on.
next!

Edited by Little Fish, 09 March 2012 - 09:52 PM.

[badeskov]

Little Fish, on 09 March 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

you are being asked to show scientific evidence that lowering infant mortality rate with vaccines will reduce population growth, merely repeating and framing your premise in the form of a question is not proof of your premise.

if you cannot do that, which you clearly cannot, then what are you doing? admit defeat and move on.
next!

Ok, you do clearly not understand even your own question, or simply do not want to see your belief overthrown.

I ask again, this very very simple question: do you acknowledge that lower infant mortality rates lead to lower birth rates?

We will get to the vaccines later, but this obviously has to be taken in baby steps with you, and even those seem pretty hard for you.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[aquatus1]

Little Fish, on 09 March 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

if you cannot do that, which you clearly cannot, then what are you doing? admit defeat and move on.
next!

Little Fish, you have made it very clear that you refuse to discuss the subject at the level you were previously at.  If you cannot agree to a more basic premise in order to find a common starting point, there is little purpose in pretending this is a discussion.

What premise can you agree that both you and the opposite camp would agree on?

[Tmars78]

Little Fish, on 09 March 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

so nobody can find any evidence that reducing the infant mortality rate with vaccinations will reduce population growth.

there are many things at play as a society develops that play a part in population declines, to assume that vaccinations are part of it is absurd. it is primarily industrialisation, economics, education, emancipation of women, contraception, opportunity. to state that one of the advances (vaccination) that is an offshoot of some of those things mentioned is a causal factor of another offshoot (declining population growth) is putting the cart before the horse.

it is quite extraordinary how people correctly dismiss my little pseudoscience experiment and yet are unwilling to dismiss the same pseudoscience that bill gates is promoting. correlation does not mean causation, the reasons for declining population growth are well understood, declining population growth has about as much to do with growth in vaccinations as it has to do with growth in fridge ownership.

If you bothered to read the link I posted, you might have seen that stage 2 mentions vaccinations. Is it the only thing that leads to population decline? Not really, as there are plenty of factors, but to deny them helping, is just asinine. So yes, vaccinations, do play a part in the decline of population, but it doesn't happen overnight. Reading the link I posted, and a little common sense would easily tell you what you want to know. I am starting to wonder if you just disagree with everything just for the sake of disagreeing.

[Little Fish]

aquatus1, on 10 March 2012 - 01:07 AM, said:

Little Fish, you have made it very clear that you refuse to discuss the subject at the level you were previously at.  If you cannot agree to a more basic premise in order to find a common starting point, there is little purpose in pretending this is a discussion.

What premise can you agree that both you and the opposite camp would agree on?

rubbish. you are asserting. you prove. that is the basis of a discussion.
waterboarding me does not prove your assertion.

[aquatus1]

I assert nothing.  I am telling you that if your only response is going to be continued denial of discussion, you will not be allowed to open any more threads.  There is no purpose to opening a thread and then refusing to acknowledge anything that anyone posts.

If you do not agree with someone, fine.  Give a counterpoint that they might agree with.  If they can agree, great, if not, they will give another counterpoint.  Somewhere along the line, you can find a common point of agreement, and from there you can actually proceed to discuss the topic.  That is the basis of discussion.  Actual back and forth between people.  Not stonewalling.

[Little Fish]

Tmars78, on 10 March 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:

If you bothered to read the link I posted, you might have seen that stage 2 mentions vaccinations.

what context does it mention vaccinations? certainly not decline in population. vaccinating the third world will not lower the population growth, it will still be the third world.

Quote

Is it the only thing that leads to population decline?

stating the premise as a fact in the form of a question does not prove the premise.

Quote

Not really, as there are plenty of factors, but to deny them helping, is just asinine.

why is it asinine? you have accepted the premise without any evidence, it's not ass-like to ask for evidence of a declared "surprising fact".

Quote

So yes, vaccinations, do play a part in the decline of population

merely stating your premise does not prove your premise. where is your evidence?

Quote

, but it doesn't happen overnight. Reading the link I posted, and a little common sense would easily tell you what you want to know. I am starting to wonder if you just disagree with everything just for the sake of disagreeing.

so now its just "common sense" that vaccinations lower population growth??? bill gates called it a "surprising fact", so gates is surprised yet for you it is "common sense", are you saying bill gates is an idiot?

[Little Fish]

aquatus1, on 10 March 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

I assert nothing.  I am telling you that if your only response is going to be continued denial of discussion, you will not be allowed to open any more threads. There is no purpose to opening a thread and then refusing to acknowledge anything that anyone posts. If you do not agree with someone, fine.  Give a counterpoint that they might agree with.  If they can agree, great, if not, they will give another counterpoint.  Somewhere along the line, you can find a common point of agreement, and from there you can actually proceed to discuss the topic.  That is the basis of discussion.  Actual back and forth between people.  Not stonewalling.

I see badeskov's post as an avoidance of the question. he could have shown his evidence that lower infant mortality leads to population reduction, which would have been evidence for vaccinations lowering population growth. but he didn't he merely asked me if i accepted the premise. it's a simple question, adding a nuance to the question and wrapping it in exasperation does not change the question, nor does it prove the premise. all this rhetoric skirting the question tells me there is no evidence and all those that are challenging know it. its a simple question - where is the evidence that vaccines (or lowering infant mortality) will reduce population growth?

[liteness]

I hate it when I click the Post button, after I realize I've lost my internet connection and forgot to copy what I wrote.

What a downer.

I support the idea that the Illuminati and organizations like them (or cults) are scheming to do away with populations.
I did not first have this opinion.

I spent a lot of time going through the bs and the evidence and the so called "evidence" to reach this conclusion.

I chose not to go into debate on my opinion though.

After a long ride through the conspiracy I started to think. If there is an 'evil' elite. Where are those against them?
Normally, there is a side to combat the other.
There exists many that are against the Illuminati, very rich and powerful people/families.

Like the Dragon Family of Japan.

Seriously, the world does not want western countries of puppet-politicians to take over and create a new world order and kill off population.
There's no way they will succeed if it is 100% true they are planning this.

As of now, it seems. A quiet war has been waged against the Illuminati and their counterparts.
And it would seem this war is an old school West vs East.

[badeskov]

Little Fish, on 10 March 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

I see badeskov's post as an avoidance of the question. he could have shown his evidence that lower infant mortality leads to population reduction,

What?! I clearly pointed to Tmars78's excellent post, which had that exact evidence, scientific if you actually bothered to look in the references in his Wiki link. I even posted this image showing exactly that:




I guess you didn't get that. So here it is again.

Quote

which would have been evidence for vaccinations lowering population growth.

No, it wouldn't be. Vaccinations are only part of the equation, but it is important to get the premises nailed down first and then the various parts of it can be discussed.

Quote

but he didn't he merely asked me if i accepted the premise.

It was kinda necessary, as aquatus1 correctly pointed out, you haven't exactly been willing to discuss this.

Quote

it's a simple question, adding a nuance to the question and wrapping it in exasperation does not change the question, nor does it prove the premise. all this rhetoric skirting the question tells me there is no evidence and all those that are challenging know it. its a simple question - where is the evidence that vaccines (or lowering infant mortality) will reduce population growth?

See above on the lowering of infant mortality rates and lower birth rates. It is really simple. What is so hard to comprehend in that? I will ask again, do you or do you not acknowledge that lower infant mortality rates lead to lower birth rates? Simple yes or no will suffice.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited for typo.

Edited by badeskov, 10 March 2012 - 09:06 PM.

[Little Fish]

badeskov, on 10 March 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

See above on the lowering of infant mortality rates and lower birth rates.

you mean the graph? how does that show that lower infant mortality rates means lower birth rate?

[RaptorBites]

Little Fish, on 06 March 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

if you look up the numbers you'll see male sperm counts have been dropping since 1940.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....2?dopt=Abstract

if you compare this increasing male sterility to the increasing quantity of vaccines since 1940, you'll learn the surprising fact that increasing the number of vaccines actually reduces sperm counts, so there is a strong connection between the number of vaccines you take and your sperm count.

Sorry coming back in after afk for a while.

Little, if coincidence is your idea of having a "strong connection" I would hate to want to know your stance on other subjects.

In any case, you have yet to show scientific evidence that your theory is correct, which I had asked you to supply us with a while back.  Looked through 2 pages of updates and nothing yet.

At this point, I really think your trolling.