Continually avoiding providing evidence to support claims.
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
A recent Twitter exchange between a medical student and some anti-vaxxers. Both sides committed fallacies, but the anti-vaxxers continually avoided providing evidence to support their claim that the COVID-19 vaccine alters DNA. Which specific fallacies are committed? Thanks everyone sorry I know it's long.
Person A: They're planning on replacing your DNA using mRNA. The first of its kind. Even MSM admits this now.
Person B: You forfeit your soul when you alter DNA.
Person C (student): It doesn't alter your DNA!
Person A: It does. Do you know what mRNA is?
Person C: Yes I do thanks. You clearly don't
Person A: So you're familiar with CRISPR CAS9?
Person C: CRISPR CAS9 isn't in the vaccine. I am a student doctor so I do know a little about genetics.
Person A: I never said CRISPR CAS9 was in the vaccine. It's called genome editing. Even MSM is calling this the first of its kind. They call it a genetic vaccine using mRNA. What do you suppose that means, med student?
Person C: I don't really understand your point. The vaccine contains mRNA. Nothing in the vaccine affects your DNA at all. Genes are present on DNA nor on mRNA, which is denatured in a matter of minutes.
Person A: What do nanoparticles do with DNA?
Person C: You need to be specific about your claims. Exactly what nanoparticles are in the vaccine?
Person A: It's pretty obvious you don't really know what you're talking about. *youtube link to academic talking about DNA editing*
Person C: Don't patronize me. You cant provide any proof at all that the vaccine alters your DNA. The only genetic material present is mRNA which doesn't interact with DNA at all. DNA editing is not the same as using mRNA in a vaccine. Stop spreading fear and misinformation.
Person A: You're right and I'm wrong.... even tho evidence is EVERYWHERE. It's literally a matter of putting 2+2 together. Good luck in med school. Hopefully you don't end up a brainwashed drug pusher working for the pharmaceutical companies like all the rest of the Dr's.
Person B: You cannot reason with the indoctrinated 2/3rds with fall, forfeiting their souls and their salvation. I felt you had a sound argument.
Person C: Stop attacking me and answer the question. If it alters your DNA, give me one piece of evidence that supports your claim. What is the DNA-altering ingredient called. Send me a study link which proves it, for example. It should be easy if there's so much evidence as you claim.
Comments on Question
Answers
2Person A is using appeal to fear augmented by argument from false authority (MSM).
Person C is correctly demanding evidence, and your log shows it is being ignored by A.
Person A is avoiding the issue
It's worth noting (though not vital to the question) that CRISPR does not alter adult DNA in any lasting way, and A's arguments are based on half-understood information.
Fallacies, as defined by Dr. Bo, are applicable only to arguments. In the dialog presented there are no arguments but merely unsupported claims. Therefore, no fallacies.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
This is an example of what is called Ultracrepidarianism, which is the habit of giving opinions and advice on matters outside of one's knowledge. I think we all do it in this know-it-all, cut and paste, wikipedia internet era in which we live.