Originally Posted by Mahtob
Yes it is. I understood. I think you don't really see that you are begging the question. You say that you don't have any proposition to support, which I find odd, because in that case, what exactly are you posting about? I'll keep this short and simple: you say it is not a valid example because it doesn't support a particular premise that is at the very heart of the debate. It doesn't matter whether you believe the premise or not. This is circular reasoning, begging the question.
No, based on your reply, you don't understand. I'm not saying it's not valid because it doesn't support a premise that's at the heart of the debate. I said I didn't think
it was valid because it doesn't seem to be true
. That having the flu this year doesn't protect you from a different flu next year seems to be true. I didn't say it wasn't valid because it doesn't support the premise. I said it wasn't valid because it's not true
. Huge difference. I probably could've phrased it differently, but I was not
saying it wasn't valid just because it didn't prove that disease strengthens the immune system. Besides, as I already explained, I consider the issue of general immune "strengthening" completely separate from the issue of whether or not having a particular
disease multiple times makes you more resistant to that particular
disease and that particular disease only
. Since they are completely separate issues to me
, then I
would not believe that one is related to the other. Therefore, my
commenting on whether or not an example of one is valid has nothing to do with any proposition related to the other. I post because it's a message board. We converse
here and I was explaining that having the flu multiple times doesn't protect you, since she mentioned it.
I have explained multiple times that I have no strong opinion on the issue. If you care to look back over my old posts, you'll find this is true.
Okay, Mahtob, to clarify this for you....I should have said simply that her example wasn't true, rather than that it wasn't "valid". Like I said, I could've chosen a better way to say it, but that doesn't change my basic intention, which I explained to dymanic in my first reply to him.
Or if you still aren't exactly sure what I am trying to say, if having the flu this year protected you from the flu next year, I would've said that this wasn't evidence that the immune system had been "strengthened" in any general
sort of way. Just like being immune to rubella after infection (or vaccination) doesn't mean that the immune system has undergone some generalized
"strengthening". If there is other evidence to suggest that rubella or influenza infection has an overall beneficial effect on the immune system, then so be it, but resistance to one particular pathogen does not suggest an overall strengthening effect to me
. Therefore, had
I been commenting on the validity of the comment's relationship to the proposition that disease strengthens the immune system (a rather difficult to define idea which I already explained I wasn't commenting on) then I still
would've said it wasn't valid.
Can't really explain it any more than that.