Olog-hai wrote: “No; it is argumentum ad hominem. Saying something is a vaccine merely because a group of people say it is something else does not make it a vaccine.”
Please refer to the definition of ad hominem.
Olog-hai wrote: “Not to mention you having hijacked the thread to express bile at the object of your spite, whuch is the red herring fallacy. Conservatives champion logic while liberals eschew it.”
The anti-vaxxers are the ones who’ve hijacked this thread. the subject is “No evidence boy’s death was linked ot COVID or vaccine, inquest hears”, yet you want to debate the definition of vaccine.
“Ad hominem” literally means “to the man”. My question was (to reiterate yet again) how you know the substances claimed to be vaccines produced by Pfizer (particularly in this instance) and others can be considered vaccines particularly when their production was so radically unlike how vaccines are produced (for starters); and your reply (repeatedly) seems to be that they must be vaccines because a subset of people firmly insist that these substances are not vaccines but instead harmful substances, and attacking their sanity, which is not an answer but actually two logical fallacies in one, namely the attack on person and the distraction tactic while saying absolutely nothing about the substances claimed to be vaccines at all.
Your apparent animus against so-called “anti-vaxxers” has left you unable to answer my question and instead retreat into liberal-like emotionalism. I’m sorry to see that you do not want to answer my question dispassionately without descending into tirades about “anti-vaxxers” whom I did not mention. Have a nice day.