Re:Retracted autism/vaccine study an 'elaborate fraud,' Brit...
by davidj on Wednesday January 05, 2011 @11:14PM
(#2073941)
those posts are my honest replies. I don't invoke name calling and try to backup everything with sources. I do get downvoted a lot here, I do not have multiple accounts or use my account "as a troll account." My postings are sincere and I honestly have a dissenting viewpoint in general both online and offline. My friends often remark that I like debates. If you disagree with me, let me know. My philosophy in debating is that I either abandon my argument by learning new facts about what I was wrong about, or my argument stands. I live in the Portland Oregon area and if you would like to meet me for a beer I can attest to this. Thanks
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Retracted autism/vaccine study an 'elaborate fraud,' Brit...
by nl on Thursday January 06, 2011 @12:51AM
(#2074228)
Debate is pointless if you ignore contrary evidence.
For example, it's pretty clear that you are anti-vaccine. It's fine to hold that opinion, but as I'm sure you've seen the overwhelming evidence against your point of view I don't see any need in re-hashing the arguments.
In cases like this you may not be consciously trolling, but in my view arguing a dissenting view in the face of such overwhelming evidence exhibits the same damaging behavior patterns that a troll engages in. Given that, I think the appropriate response is exactly the same as the response to a troll, ie: a perfunctory link to counter evidence on Wikipedia (for the sake of casual readers), and a downvote.