If Biden can rule you have to be vaccinated to work, he can take your guns the same way

[beefwithcheese]

Fallacy, argumentum ad hominem: I am not the topic of this thread.

It was a serious question. There was nothing ad hominem about my response.

 

[RobMa]

Informative.

Oy!

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

It was a serious question. There was nothing ad hominem about my response.

Yet I still remain not the topic. Hence, your fallacy.

 

[wired]

Just following suit...

If you used most in a news article to describe a 52-48 result, your editor would fire you on the spot. 52-48 is what's known in the professional parlance as a slim majority, or a narrow victory. Calling it anything else is hyperbole.

No. Most is defined as a majority. What ever you do with the word in your colloquial neighborhood is your own doing.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

No. Most is defined as a majority. What ever you do with the word in your colloquial neighborhood is your own doing.

Yes, I know the dictionary definition. My point stands.

 

[beefwithcheese]

@GripItAndRipIt I thought we made up last night with "agree to disagree".

 

[beefwithcheese]

Yet I still remain not the topic. Hence, your fallacy.

You're not the topic. The article was.

 

[Cavedweller]

Sorry, but no: it is the opposite of what you said.

How so?

Your second sentence appears to contradict your first.

No contradiction at all. Mutation would occur in the presence or absence of immunity. It is immunity which provides the selective pressure. There is a difference between driving mutation and driving evolution. This seems to be the concept which is escaping you.

I stated no such thing. Please go back and re-read my post.

Your post #219:

... vaccines themselves are a leading driver of viral mutation as the microbe reflexively alters its DNA in response to a threat (the host's white blood cells activated by the vaccine) in a desperate attempt to replicate -- which is its sole function.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

@GripItAndRipIt I thought we made up last night with "agree to disagree".

I didn't know we had anything to make up for.

Does not change the fact that your quip regarding your impression of what I read or did not read is immaterial to any argument you may offer, hence your fallacy. I would encourage a factual rebuttal.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

You're not the topic. The article was.

NB: You made me the topic when you questioned whether or not I read the article.

 

[Soccerjones]

So Australia had the right to bear arms written into their constitution? I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Perhaps you're taking what I said out of context.

I'll help. You said Australia can't happen here because we (USA) have the Second Amendment. I quoted Joe saying you don't have a Second Amendment either. To be more specific, he said the United States Second Amendment does not apply to everybody. I do not agree with him. ok?

 

[beefwithcheese]

I'll help. You said Australia can't happen here because we (USA) have the Second Amendment. I quoted Joe saying you don't have a Second Amendment either. To be more specific, he said the United States Second Amendment does not apply to everybody. I do not agree with him. ok?

Ok

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

How so?

You stated the opposite position of the conclusion of the NPR piece I cited.

No contradiction at all. Mutation would occur in the presence or absence of immunity. It is immunity which provides the selective pressure. There is a difference between driving mutation and driving evolution.

The net result is the same: Variations of a virus that render a vaccine less-effective or ineffective due to the virus selecting for resistance to the antibody.

This seems to be the concept which is escaping you.

Fallacy: Argumentum ad hominem. I am not the topic of this thread. A factual rebuttal would better support your argument.

Your post #219:

Where I absolutely did not state "white blood cells are responsible for immunity" as you erroneously claim.

 

[sobo]

Oy!

Oy ve!

 

[beefwithcheese]

I didn't know we had anything to make up for.

Does not change the fact that your quip regarding your impression of what I read or did not read is immaterial to any argument you may offer, hence your fallacy. I would encourage a factual rebuttal.

From the article:
"
The new coronavirus variants have raised concerns about whether vaccines will remain effective against this disease. So far, the vaccines still seem to work. Although, scientists are keeping a close eye on a variant first seen in South Africa. But the vaccines themselves could drive the evolution of more mutants. However, NPR science correspondent Richard Harris reports, that's not cause for alarm.

RICHARD HARRIS, BYLINE: You may have heard that bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics and, in a worst-case scenario, render the drugs useless. Something similar can also happen with vaccines, though, with less serious consequences. This worry has arisen mostly in the debate over whether to delay a second vaccine shot so more people can get the first shot quickly. Paul Bieniasz, a Howard Hughes investigator at the Rockefeller University, says that gap would leave people with only partial immunity for longer than necessary.

PAUL BIENIASZ: They might serve as sort of a breeding ground for the virus to acquire new mutations.

HARRIS: That's because the virus is always mutating. And if one happens to produce a mutation that makes it less vulnerable to the vaccine, that virus could simply multiply in a vaccinated individual. But even if that happens, that's only one step in the process.

BIENIASZ: What's really unclear and really quite important for the virus to evolve is whether those people let - having been vaccinated and infected, whether they have sufficient levels of virus replication to pass the virus on to other people.

HARRIS: If the vaccine keeps virus levels low, even mutated viruses, the infected person won't produce enough to spread to other people. Unfortunately, at the moment, scientists can't answer the most basic questions about this process. How much does the virus actually replicate inside a person who has been vaccinated with either one dose or two? And how effective is that vaccine at limiting infection enough so that the virus levels stay low and prevent the spread to other people? Andrew Read at Penn State University says, whatever the answers may be, vaccine resistance or escape, as it's called, isn't nearly as scary as bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics.

ANDREW READ: I know everybody's worried about it. But I would say history shows us that vaccine escape does not erode to zero. It does not erase vaccine protection.

HARRIS: A vaccine may become less potent. But in other cases where this has happened, it still works.

READ: It's often got very strong anti-disease properties. So you get less sick even with the viruses that are around.

HARRIS: And this evolutionary pressure is present for any vaccine that doesn't completely block infection. So it's not just an issue for people who are between their initial shot and a booster. Many vaccines, apparently, including the COVID vaccines, do not completely prevent a virus from multiplying inside someone even though these vaccines do prevent serious illness.

READ: I do think there are a lot of options here for trying to deal with any evolution should it occur.

HARRIS: One thing that helps is that dozens of vaccines are being developed. And more than half a dozen are already in use.

READ: One of the great things about having a lot of vaccine options is we might end up with a population which is heterogeneously vaccinated. You might get the AstraZeneca. And I'm going to get one of the mRNA ones. That'll really help hinder the spread of mutants that are good at any one of those.

HARRIS: A virus that has evolved to get around one vaccine is likely to be stopped by another. And that will limit the spread of mutant strains. Drugmakers are also keeping a close eye on mutants and are already formulating new vaccines that will be more effective if it turns out the original vaccines weaken too much. Paul Bieniasz says, this is not a crisis."

My big takeaway from the article you shared, is that We should be freaking out about antibiotic resistant bacteria. That sounds terrifying.

 

[sobo]

NB: You made me the topic when you questioned whether or not I read the article.

I've been following this discussion and your replies.
I notice you preface many of your remarks with terms from the art of argumentation theory and debate.
I am, however, unfamiliar with the acronym NB in that context.
What does that mean, when used prefacing a reply?

 

[billdeserthills]

Duluth Votes To Remove “Chief” From All City Leadership Positions – IOTW Report

iotwreport.com

Berkeley got that beat

I got my posts banned 3 times on FB for this link

Berkeley, California eliminates term ‘manhole’ in push to remove gendered language

Oh, sibling! The famously liberal city of Berkeley, Calif., is scrapping all “gendered” words from its municipal code and replacing them with politically correct alternatives — including changing “…

nypost.com

 

[bbbass]

You're not the topic. The article was.

You're arguing with a law school (grad?) Ever read/hear the saying about wrestling a pig in the mud (no disrespect meant)... sooner or later you come to realize they are enjoying it.

 

[Cavedweller]

You stated the opposite position of the conclusion of the NPR piece I cited.

The article states, "The virus is always mutating..." This is essentially what I said, that mutations arise randomly from errors in replication. The process of mutation is not immunity driven. The article further stated that individuals with partial immunity could cause the evolution of vaccine resistant strains. Again, this is essentially what I said. That immunity was responsible for natural selection.

The net result is the same: Variations of a virus that render a vaccine less-effective or ineffective due to the virus selecting for
resistance to the antibody.

Your post was an incorrect description of the process.

Fallacy: Argumentum ad hominem. I am not the topic of this thread. A factual rebuttal would better support your argument.

Factual rebuttal is what I have been trying to do. You don't seem to grasp that your post was in error. Stating so is not a personal attack.

Where I absolutely did not state "white blood cells are responsible for immunity" as you erroneously claim.

I was paraphrasing. You definitely stated the equivalent. The above are weasel words.

This is starting to feel like self-flagellation. I will not respond further.

 

[billdeserthills]

Oooh, somebody triggered