Should We Deny Public Schooling to "Risky" Children?

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[HoughMade]

And denying that something which clearly fits the textbook definition of a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy is not the basis upon which to have an intelligent conversion based in reality.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. It does not fit the textbook definition of a logical fallacy.

It fits the textbook definition of several logical fallacies, among them (a non-exhaustive list):

Straw Man,
Appeal to Emotion,
Slippery Slope,
Bandwagon (here, certainly),
Genetic,
Black or White

 

[steveh_131]

And denying that something which clearly fits the textbook definition of a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy is not the basis upon which to have an intelligent conversion based in reality.

Still waiting for you to point out the fallacy. Should I hold my breath?

 

[rambone]

In principle it's a good thought. Practically speaking, the majority will decide who has to stay home. When you put your kid in public school you're subject to the public's whims.

Practically speaking, the government is claiming ownership over our children's bodies. There is no way forced medication is compatible with a free society.

...uneducated, homeschooling, gun totin', back woods livin', two toothed, bible-in-hand, bitter clingers....

...upper middle class, educated, crispy, liberal, twig eating, organic food buying, Prius driving, democrat voting, progressive, vegetarian, republican hating, tree worshiping, left wing, obamagasmic moon beams...

Why resort to these derogatory stereotypes AT ALL? Its not a party issue. People of all backgrounds can see the value of self-ownership. Anybody can feel the harmful side-effects of vaccines.

 

[bradmedic04]

Still waiting for you to point out the fallacy. Should I hold my breath?

Keeping gun owners' children out of school = keeping unvaccinated kids out if school

 

[hornadylnl]

I can't wait til vaccines are printed on microchips.

 

[jamil]

Practically speaking, the government is claiming ownership over our children's bodies. There is no way forced medication is compatible with a free society.




Why resort to these derogatory stereotypes AT ALL? Its not a party issue. People of all backgrounds can see the value of self-ownership. Anybody can feel the harmful side-effects of vaccines.

you are confusing principle with practical. No one is interested in a free society.

And I'm saying if the press is going to characterize with stereotypes it should at least pick the right demographic.

 

[steveh_131]

Keeping gun owners' children out of school = keeping unvaccinated kids out if school

Where did my reasoning fail? I see some very similar underlying principles.

Here is the reasoning for both sides:

Unvaccinated Kids
1. Vaccine rejection carries risks to children and classmates
2. The medical establishment concurs that the risks to the Common Good of vaccine rejection outweigh the risks of vaccines
3. We trust the medical establishment more than the "anti-vaxxer" conspiracy nuts.
4. Therefore, public schools should ban unvaccinated kids.

Gun Owning Kids
1. Gun ownership carries risks to children and classmates.
2. The medical establishment concurs that the risks to the Common Good of gun ownership outweigh the risks of ever truly needing a gun.
3. We trust the medical establishment more than the "bitter clinger" gun nuts.
4. Therefore, public schools should ban children of gun owners.

Please point out which specific point fails the test of logic.

 

[Dead Duck]

I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer! I will not drink the last beer!


Just because you repeat something, doesn’t mean it's going to happen...........or make it true..........or make it right.

You bet your ass I drank that beer, and I'd do it again!





But keep it up.........Fenway could use the gas money for the G5.

 

[jamil]

Where did my reasoning fail? I see some very similar underlying principles.

Here is the reasoning for both sides:

Unvaccinated Kids
1. Vaccine rejection carries risks to children and classmates
2. The medical establishment concurs that the risks to the Common Good of vaccine rejection outweigh the risks of vaccines
3. We trust the medical establishment more than the "anti-vaxxer" conspiracy nuts.
4. Therefore, public schools should ban unvaccinated kids.

Gun Owning Kids
1. Gun ownership carries risks to children and classmates.
2. The medical establishment concurs that the risks to the Common Good of gun ownership outweigh the risks of ever truly needing a gun.
3. We trust the medical establishment more than the "bitter clinger" gun nuts.
4. Therefore, public schools should ban children of gun owners.

Please point out which specific point fails the test of logic.

Point 1. You have not demonstrated that the first points are equivalent, that the mainstream medical establishment believes gun ownership carries the same risk as unvaccinated children to other classmates. Furthermore, most literature supports that the problem the medical establishment has with gun ownership pertains to home life and not so much to the risk it might pose to classmates.

Point 2. You have not demonstrated that the second points are equivalent, that the medical establishment has the same consensus about risks to the common good with gun ownership as vaccines. Many gun owning physicians advocate vaccinating children, for example.

Point 3. In both cases point 3 are truisms, that have no bearing on the argument. Of course most people don't trust fringe groups.

Point 4. It does not follow that if public schools should ban unvaccinated kids, public schools should also ban children of gun owners.

 

[steveh_131]

Point 1. You have not demonstrated that the first points are equivalent, that the mainstream medical establishment believes gun ownership carries the same risk as unvaccinated children to other classmates. Furthermore, most literature supports that the problem the medical establishment has with gun ownership pertains to home life and not so much to the risk it might pose to classmates.

I didn't say it was the same risk, nor did this point rely on any consensus among the medical establishment. I said it carried risk. The amount of risk is not quantifiable, but considering that the number of kids who have brought their parents gun to schools to kill other kids (> 0) is greater than the number of unvaccinated kids who have killed other kids (0), the risk is real.

Point 2. You have not demonstrated that the second points are equivalent, that the medical establishment has the same consensus about risks to the common good with gun ownership as vaccines. Many gun owning physicians advocate vaccinating children, for example.

I provided a quote from the Academy of Pediatricians demonstrating this. The group of physicians that deals specifically with children certainly advocates harsh gun control.

Point 3. In both cases point 3 are truisms, that have no bearing on the argument. Of course most people don't trust fringe groups.

They certainly do have a bearing on the argument, even if they shouldn't. Any discussion on INGO of vaccines inevitably includes the argument that the CDC and medical establishment knows best and anyone who disagrees is an idiot. The same happens among the gun grabbers when discussing gun nuts such as ourselves.

It sounds to me like the only difference you're trying to show here is a matter of degrees, not a matter of a failure in logic. So let's dispense with the degrees and look at it as a hypothetical. Let's say the mainstream scientific community did reach this consensus, would you have any argument against their logic other than to disagree with their numbers?

 

[MisterChester]

Yes. We already do that anyway.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

All things being equal, if I had a choice between a school (public, private, otherwise) that required vaccinations to attend and one that did not, I'd choose the one that required the students be vaccinated.

Just thinking out loud: The people of the city/county/states should be free to decide how they wish to run their schools. Same for people that wish to set up their own private schools. I want there to be choices and competition among options. We should be free to decide where we wish to place our kids and we should do our homework before selecting a place to live. I want people to have the freedom, if they so choose, to live in a place more closely aligned with their values. I don't necessarily want to force my preference of vax/no-vax on your school. We should bear the weight of our decisions.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Whether you choose home school or public school. Make sure your kids get to know these:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

If you do, you may prevent them from doing things like claiming not vaccinating and gun ownership are equivalent.

Thank you for being more eloquent than me.

i predict steve_h helps this thread go to 6 pages and makes 70% of the posts, quoting an average of two posts per reply.

 

[bradmedic04]

Thank you for being more eloquent than me.

Oh no! It's one of those establishment doctors here to inject us with poisons and steal our livestock!

 

[MisterChester]

All things being equal, if I had a choice between a school (public, private, otherwise) that required vaccinations to attend and one that did not, I'd choose the one that required the students be vaccinated.

Just thinking out loud: The people of the city/county/states should be free to decide how they wish to run their schools. Same for people that wish to set up their own private schools. I want there to be choices and competition among options. We should be free to decide where we wish to place our kids and we should do our homework before selecting a place to live. I want people to have the freedom, if they so choose, to live in a place more closely aligned with their values. I don't necessarily want to force my preference of vax/no-vax on your school. We should bear the weight of our decisions.

I agree with the sentiment, the problem is that so many people have different values. What happens when someone's value becomes an infringement on someone else's value?

 

[steveh_131]

After a quick glance, I'm guessing that I am closer to 25% of the posts, including my OP, quoting an average of 0.5 posts per reply. You're as bad at statistics as you are at spotting logical fallacies. Not one has been accurately identified yet.

 

[bradmedic04]

Thank you for being more eloquent than me.

i predict steve_h helps this thread go to 6 pages and makes 70% of the posts, quoting an average of two posts per reply.

Be nice, doc. Defending pseudoscience is hard work.

 

[jamil]

Steve, for each set of points to be equal, each individual point must also be equal enough to its counterpart to support the conclusion. They aren't.

I didn't say it was the same risk, nor did this point rely on any consensus among the medical establishment. I said it carried risk. The amount of risk is not quantifiable, but considering that the number of kids who have brought their parents gun to schools to kill other kids (> 0) is greater than the number of unvaccinated kids who have killed other kids (0), the risk is real.

Point 1 absolutely does hinge on it being an equivalent risk because you are asserting that the risk in both cases must be at least enough to support an equivalent conclusion, that if one should be banned from school, the other should be as well. Merely asserting they both have a common characteristic doesn't demonstrate that both points are equivalent. You stripped away enough of the detail that makes the two points different so that they appear equal. You might as well say, A is greater than zero. B is greater than zero. Therefore A and B are equal. A might be 1. Be might be 5280. That they're both greater than zero does not establish a logical equivalency.

I provided a quote from the Academy of Pediatricians demonstrating this. The group of physicians that deals specifically with children certainly advocates harsh gun control.

Point 2, harsh gun control isn't your conclusion. The quote from the AoP doesn't say anything about advocating banning children of gun owners. They just want to ban the guns. They logically don't have the same consensus view about the risk of gun owning parents as they do about parents who don't vaccinate. Or they'd be advocating your very conclusion.

They certainly do have a bearing on the argument, even if they shouldn't. Any discussion on INGO of vaccines inevitably includes the argument that the CDC and medical establishment knows best and anyone who disagrees is an idiot. The same happens among the gun grabbers when discussing gun nuts such as ourselves.

Those truisms surely support many conclusions, but they do not support your conclusion. I suspect you've added them for some other purpose.

It sounds to me like the only difference you're trying to show here is a matter of degrees, not a matter of a failure in logic. So let's dispense with the degrees and look at it as a hypothetical. Let's say the mainstream scientific community did reach this consensus, would you have any argument against their logic other than to disagree with their numbers?

The failure in logic is the false equivalency. The first set of points is not equivalent to the second set of points such that your conclusion is proven. When you strip enough detail away so that each point sounds equivalent to its counterpart, when the equivalency depends on those missing details, it does not follow: if one, then the other.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I agree with the sentiment, the problem is that so many people have different values. What happens when someone's value becomes an infringement on someone else's value?

It's unavoidable that at some point you'll have to interact with, do business with, be subordinate to somebody(s) with whom you'll think are infringing on your rights. Do the best you can, let your conscience be your guide, and learn to pick your battles.