Libertarian Party in Austin: Fluoride Debate at UT Nov 4th

[Parker2112]

Fluoride Debate at University of Texas: Should this be in our water?
Location:
University of Texas Thompson Conference Center (http://www.meetup.com/Austin-Liberty-Coalition/venue/1390735/?eventId=15255365&popup=true)
2405 Robert Dedman Dr
Austin, TX 78705
(512) 471-3121

Expert for and against water fluoridation have been invited to discuss their perspective on this important topic. The panel of experts will field questions from the audience.

Dr. Paul Connett, a world-renowned expert on water fluoridation, is flying in from New York for this event. His new book will be available for purchase and signing.

Parking is at the Corner of Red River and Dean Keaton.
A bio for Dr. Paul Connett: http://www.stlawu.edu... (http://www.stlawu.edu/faculty/profiles/connett.html)
A letter of concern by Dr. Paul Connett: http://www.fluorideal... (http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-statement.htm)



http://photos2.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/9/9/0/2/highres_19299170.jpeg

[Parker2112]

Anyone in Austin? Where are my fellow lovers of liberty?

[jack sommerset]

Anyone in Austin? Where are my fellow lovers of liberty?

LoL....I'm sure Chump will attend!!!

[Parker2112]

And for those clowns who claim that fluoridation isnt a constitutional issue, would you care to explain why the Libertarian party stands opposed to it?

[coyotes_geek]

In Austin.

Love liberty.

This "issue" is stupid and not worth my time.

[Parker2112]

"Love Liberty" was a reference to Libertarians. I thought it was self-explanatory. Sorry you didnt catch that.

[coyotes_geek]

Actually I did catch it. I vote Libertarian often. Did so just this past Friday. Still doesn't make this "flouride debate" any less stupid.

[Parker2112]

to each his own, but glad to hear someone else voted Libertarian.:toast

[Parker2112]

Actually I did catch it. I vote Libertarian often. Did so just this past Friday. Still doesn't make this "flouride debate" any less stupid.

Not sure how such an unconstitutional govt action can be considered "stupid" though :(

[Winehole23]

And for those clowns who claim that fluoridation isnt a constitutional issue, would you care to explain why the Libertarian party stands opposed to it?Maybe you could explain it again. I could use the laugh.

[Parker2112]

Maybe you could explain it again. I could use the laugh.

Im sure there are some materials out there that fit your bill. Odds are about 75-80% that I will be there. I will be the one going balls out, with no skin off my ass.

[Parker2112]

Martin vs. Reynolds Metals Turns 50
Fluoridation Litigation in Oregon, Then and Now (http://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/05augsep/martin.html)
By Antonia Giedwoyn
Fifty years ago this past August, legal history was made in the U.S. District Court of Oregon with a case involving exposure to fluoride. Half a century later, the heart of the case is still beating. Although the issue of human exposure to fluoridation chemicals in Oregon has changed shape, it remains capable of provoking litigation, now more than ever. The question is, would suits challenging mandatory water fluoridation in Oregon communities have a fighting chance?

The answer depends on whom you ask.

Towards the end of summer in 1955, the case Martin vs. Reynolds Metals proved for the first time in the United States that airborne particles from an aluminum reduction plant had caused illness to humans.

Rancher Paul Martin, his wife Verla and their daughter Paula had moved to their Troutdale, Ore. ranch in 1946. The approximately 2,000-acre property bordered the Columbia and Sandy rivers as well as Reynolds Metals Co., an aluminum factory whose major contaminants at the site included fluoride.1

Soon after moving to the ranch, Martin�s livestock became sick and died. In a letter to the family’s attorney, George Mead, Verla Martin described dead and sick horses on the property with backs “all blistered and burned from the fluorine fumes, so badly that they bleed.”

In a letter to then President Dwight Eisenhower, dated Feb. 4, 1953, Paul Martin wrote, “I own a beef cattle ranch which due to fluorine contamination has not been in operation for the past three years. Chemists found that the bones of these cattle contained fluorine in excessive amounts. Also that the liver, kidney and glands of these animals were damaged and high in fluorine content. The teeth of the animals were so diseased that a person could pull them out with their fingers. In the spring of 1950 I had over 100 head of grown cattle die, in fact the Western States Rendering Company picked up 13 dead cows in one day.”

Before long, the Martin family also became sick. Physicians diagnosed them with subacute fluorosis.2

“We were all three in good health before the Reynolds Metal Company opened this plant,” Paul Martin’s letter goes on to say. “After the plant had been in operation about a year, we all three started having digestive trouble, respiratory trouble and swollen, aching joints. We have written, signed reports from leading doctors stating that we all three have chronic fluorine poisoning, tests show that all three of us have damaged liver, kidneys and glands plus bone damage. I know you are a busy man, Mr. President, but I am hoping that you will be able to do something in regards to this mess, so that I may move back to my ranch and operate it.”

Prosecuting attorneys Mead and Irving Rand alleged that toxic gases emitted from the Reynolds plant had poisoned the family. The jury and appellate court ruled in favor of the Martins.

Since that time, Oregon lawmakers have argued about requiring statewide water fluoridation. Most dentists say fluoride helps reduce tooth decay and that artificial water fluoridation is a harmless way for Oregonians who can’t afford toothpaste to access fluoride. Dentists began using fluoride as a topical treatment in the late 1940s, and in 1950, Grand Rapids, Mich., became the first U.S. city to put fluoride in its water supply. It is estimated that two-thirds of the public water supply is now fluoridated, and there an emerging movement calling for fluoridation in all public water supplies. The Centers for Disease Control hails fluoridation of public water supplies as “one of ten great public health achievements of the 20th century.” Its most vocal supporter is the 150,000- member American Dental Association, which has long championed the effectiveness and safety of fluoride in treating tooth decay. In its 2005 publication “Fluoridation Facts,”3 the organization notes that fluoridation is endorsed by both the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Public Health Service. The ADA points to numerous scientific studies finding fluoride to be safe; in its most recent fluoride report, the ADA dismisses reports to the contrary as “pseudo-science.”

On the other hand, critics point out that although the U.S. Food & Drug Administration has approved the use of fluoride products for topical application (such as toothpaste containing fluoride), it has never approved a fluoride compound for ingestion for the purpose of reducing tooth decay. (The FDA defines any fluoride product swallowed for a reduction in tooth decay as a drug.) Further clouding the issue is the fact that no federal agency currently regulates water additives, including fluoride. Finally, critics point to a growing body of scientific literature, including a recent Harvard study showing a strong link between fluoridaton and a rare but lethal form of bone cancer, that connects fluoridated water to health problems. Opponents of fluoridation believe that such evidence, along with the absence of FDA approval or a federal regulation scheme, might provide them their day in court.

In Oregon, legal activity spurred by concerns over water fluoridation has been modest since Martin. Oregon attorneys contacted for this article said they are unaware of any lawsuits that have challenged mandatory water fluoridation in Oregon communities. However, the current push by fluoridation proponents to fluoridate cities such as Portland and others that have resisted past efforts to do so could throw open the door to litigation.

“I definitely think there could be litigation if the legislature and dentists force fluoridation on Oregon,” said Brent Foster, a Mosier, Ore. attorney. “Given what the scientific and medical evidence now shows are the very real risks of drinking water fluoridation, both the state and cities would be legally negligent for adding these products into people’s drinking water.”

Foster was alluding to the distinction between what is known as the MCL (maximum contaminant level) and the MCLG (the maximum contaminant level goal). The MCL is the highest level of a regulated contaminant allowed in drinking water, whereas the MCLG, the goal, is defined as the level of a contaminant in drinking water at or below which there is no known or expected health risk. It’s the accepted scientific point of safety.

The distinction is discussed in detail in “Arsenic in Drinking Water 2001 Update,” a document written in response to the U.S. House Committee on Science in 2000 by NSF International, a company involved with the certification of water fluoridation chemicals. NSF provided data showing that manufacturers� samples had tested positive for lead and arsenic. In both cases, the levels were within the allowable limits (the MCL), but short of the EPA�s goal (the MCLG). The NSF document quotes the National Research Council, an organization whose research is frequently cited by both sides of the issue, as saying the levels of arsenic would result in more than one bladder or lung cancer per every 1,000 consumers.

Even though very low concentrations of arsenic in drinking water have been linked linked to cancer, not everyone agrees that mandating water fluoridation throughout Oregon could spur lawsuits, at least not successful ones. When asked whether Rep. Bob Jenson, chair of the Oregon House Water Committee, is concerned about the potential for litigation, an office spokesman dismissed the idea.

“That doesn’t appear very likely to us,” said attorney Shaun Jillions, addressing the topic on behalf of Jenson. “Communities throughout the nation have been fluoridated for over 60 years…and we have not been made aware of a single documented case that was successful…they can’t definitively demonstrate that fluoride is having that effect on them,” Jillions said, referring to health problems.

However, as Martin vs. Reynolds vividly demonstrated 50 years ago, it is possible to convince a court of fluoride-related harm to human health. Nowadays, because it’s not a matter of a sick family living near a polluting factory but rather one of adding chemicals to the public’s drinking water for claimed medicinal purposes, fluoridation litigation is trickier.

That’s the one thing everyone seems to agree on.

Courts in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas concluded after extensive expert witness testimony that fluoride in the water at 1 part per million has aggravated existing illnesses, caused adverse health effects and is linked to increased cancer deaths. But higher courts ruled in these cases that challenges involving representative government in the form that they were pleaded, as attacks on public policy, required a higher legal standard than proof.

“It’s hard to find the actual jurisdictional trigger. It would definitely be an uphill battle,” said Melissa Powers, (What do you know? My old professor! Small world sometimes.) a Portland attorney with the Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center. “The case law is really terrible; the constitutional challenges have failed across the board.”

One example is Coshow vs. the City of Escondido, argued in California’s Fourth Appellate District Court. The plaintiffs did not challenge the public policy of fluoridation, but instead claimed the government’s conduct permitting fluoridation was unconstitutional because it violated the constitutional right of bodily integrity and privacy under the Ninth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Articles 1 and 7 of the California Constitution.

The respondents argued that the city is required by California law to fluoridate the drinking water and that the city’s fluoridation plan was subject to review and approval by the California Department of Health Services in agreement with the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

“The city can’t do anything until the state gives us a permit to do so,” said Jennifer McCain, assistant city attorney for Escondido, speaking before the case was heard by the California appeals court. “Fluoridation in the state of California has been deemed constitutional for a long time, so we don’t believe the plaintiffs’ case has any merit based on existing legal authority.” The city’s response did not address the issue of harm.

Last month, the appeals court came to an unpublished conclusion affirming the lower court’s decision to allow fluoridation to continue. The plaintiffs are expected to ask the California Supreme Court to review the issue, according to Jeff Green, a spokesman for the plaintiffs and volunteer national director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, a group that actively participates with Oregon affiliates involved in water safety and standards.

Constitutional challenges are just one possibility, experts say. A suit for negligence is another possibility. According to Foster, legal challenges could be built around the fact that fluoride has never been approved as a drug by the FDA and that adding it to water for the purpose of treating human health is a violation of federal law.
“What creates a new opportunity for litigation on fluoride is not a change in the law, but the incredibly large body of science which clearly shows there are serious reasons to be concerned about adding fluoride (to drinking water),” he said.
Last year, Foster represented several Hood River residents challenging the city’s proposed ballot measure asking whether residents favor fluoridated water. Because the measure did not disclose the three fluoride compounds that would be used, they contended the city’s ballot language was unfair and misleading, and that the ballot measure needed to list the chemicals and clarify that they contain contaminants. Foster and the residents reached a settlement with the city attorney, he said, but the city council eventually pulled the measure.

Since then, voters of Hood River recently enacted a law that restricts the amount of contaminants that can be present in chemicals added to water to treat people. The vote essentially prohibits fluoridation chemicals from being added.

Nationally, the case of Doe vs. Rumsfeld may shed another light on the issue of current fluoridation litigation. The lawsuit, filed in 2003 in the District of Columbia on behalf of six military service members, concerned the right to informed consent as it related to anthrax vaccinations during a time of war.

The case parallels the fluoridation suits in that the anthrax vaccines were not FDA approved at the time they were mandated. The court ruled that the U.S. Department of Defense must halt the Anthrax Vaccination Immunization Program until or unless the vaccine was approved by the FDA. Within a month of the ruling, the FDA gave its approval, and the Anthrax Vaccination Immunization Program has resumed for service members who consent to the inoculation.

“Contrary to the lower court decision being appealed in the Escondido case, this District of Columbia court concluded that forced medication with a substance that was not approved by the FDA for the specific disease and manner in which it was delivered was an arbitrary act and is thus unconstitutional,” Green said. “The salient point is that the court’s decision to restrain government on this basis is not contested by the Department of Defense and further clarifies an issue that we believe will be an important consideration in cases involving the selection of fluoridation chemicals intended to treat humans.”

CONCLUSION
Approximately 20 percent of Oregonians currently drink fluoridated water. If the percentage of Oregonians drinking fluoridated water jumps high enough, particularly if it’s due to state or federal legislation or municipalities instead of voters having chosen it, court clerks may find themselves adding a growing number of fluoridation suits to the docket. And attorneys on both sides, arguing as heatedly as their Martin vs. Reynolds predecessors, will anxiously wonder whether they’ll hear echoes of that David and Goliath case.

ENDNOTES
1. Public Health Assessment of Reynolds Metals Company. January 14, 1997. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, Superfund Site Assessment Branch
2. Reynolds Metals Company vs. Paul Martin. Plaintiffs� direct examination, p. 492, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Ct. of Appeals, San Francisco, Court Case Papers and Printed Matter, Case # 14990, transcript of record in six volumes, Folders 14990-14992, Boxes 5888-5890, RG 276
3. From the website of the American Dental Association, http://www.ada.org/fluoride.aspx (http://www.ada.org/fluoride.aspx).

[RandomGuy]

And for those clowns who claim that fluoridation isnt a constitutional issue, would you care to explain why the Libertarian party stands opposed to it?

Why would we want to explain your stance for you? Isn't that your job?


Fallacy: Burden of Proof
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")

Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:


Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).


You claim flouride in the water violates the constitution. What part?

[Winehole23]

Im sure there are some materials out there that fit your billCan't explain it, huh?

Are you too lazy to crib the answer, or was there nothing there to support your thesis that fluoridation is unconstitutional?

Odds are about 75-80% that I will be there.Promise or threat?

I will be the one going balls out, with no skin off my ass.Balls on the floor where anyone can step on them, no skin left on your ass. I've seen this movie before. It doesn't end well for you.

[Parker2112]

Why would we want to explain your stance for you? Isn't that your job?




You claim flouride in the water violates the constitution. What part?

The fourteenth amendment. Now tell me why.

[Parker2112]

Can't explain it, huh?

Are you too lazy to crib the answer, or was there nothing there to support your thesis that fluoridation is unconstitutional?
Promise or threat?
Balls on the floor where anyone can step on them, no skin left on your ass. I've seen this movie before. It doesn't end well for you.

If you want a good laugh, why should I oblige? And if you want the info, why should I trouble myself? Your daily output is usually nothing more than insults and attempted wit, so what do I owe you for that, pardner? Answer: not enough to mandate me teaching you the scope of the 14th and the right to make medical decisions for self and family under the SC's recognized right to privacy. So I wont.

[Winehole23]

Just as I thought, it's the same bs you gave us before. Good luck finding a lawyer to take that case.

[ChumpDumper]

I am eager to hear Parker2112's constitutional argument as well.

Not someone else's.

[RandomGuy]

[Floridation violates the constitution.]


Please tell us how it violates the constitution.


The fourteenth amendment. Now tell me why.

Why would we want to explain your stance for you? Isn't that your job?


Fallacy: Burden of Proof
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")

Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:


Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Your claim, your burden of proof.

If it violates the constitution, then you can easily explain which section and how that is applied and understood.

[Parker2112]

Just as I thought, it's the same bs you gave us before. Good luck finding a lawyer to take that case.

BS? Which one: The 14th, the SC's delineation of a right to privacy, or the right to make medical decisions for self/family under right to privacy, or all the above?

[Parker2112]

Why would we want to explain your stance for you? Isn't that your job?



Your claim, your burden of proof.

If it violates the constitution, then you can easily explain which section and how that is applied and understood.

I already did, you are too slow on the uptake. Just that quick and you are already behind the game. Man, you must have made some intelligence officer! That might explain why the American people get fucked on a regular basis...the MIC puts dumb-asses behind desks to buy what they are told and do as little independent thinking/analysis as possible. That certainly fits your current profile.

Second sight flare up. sorry.

[Parker2112]

LMAO at you spending more time cutting and pasting than following the conversation...

[Parker2112]

In human-computer interaction (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Human-computer_interaction), cut and paste and copy and paste offer user-interface (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/User_interface) paradigms for transferring text, data (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Data_(computing)), files (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Computer_file) or objects (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Object_(computer_science)) from a source to a destination. Most ubiquitously, users require the ability to cut and paste sections of plain text (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Plain_text). This paradigm has close associations with graphical user interfaces (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Graphical_user_interface) that use pointing devices (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Pointing_device) such as a computer mouse (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Computer_mouse) (by drag and drop (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Drag_and_drop), for example).

[ChumpDumper]

The privacy issues seems to fall apart once it is established that folks may choose to not drink the water.

[Parker2112]

It has its problems sure, as the article pointed out as well. But that doesnt make the argument laughable. For a certain segment of the pop, there is no choice but to drink it. Its a matter of finding the right plaintiff. Think about the litigation againnst tobacco, and how long it took to produce a ready-made client to crack what had been years of failed lawsuits.

Stay tuned. And if you want to see me in the flesh, lets do this chump.

[RandomGuy]

The privacy issues seems to fall apart once it is established that folks may choose to not drink the water.


Does fluoride kill? No.

Even more so since the "due process" clause for "life, liberty, or property" that is used as the basis for the "privacy clause" that Parker is so vaguely referring to, also does not stand up to the scientific or even legal useage of that.

Depriving someone of life has the meaning of the state applying a death penalty. Doesn't apply, by Parker's own admission.

Depriving someone of "liberty" generally means incarceration.

Depriving people of "property" generally means seizure of goods.

[Parker2112]

you have to find a plaintiff who 1. has no alternative to public water, 2. who actually has damages, 3. which can be attributed and proven to directly result from fluoridation, and 3. who has the resources to carry the case forward, unless attys take it pro bono.

[RandomGuy]

BS? Which one: The 14th, the SC's delineation of a right to privacy, or the right to make medical decisions for self/family under right to privacy, or all the above?

Please tell us how the "right to privacy" is commonly understood and applied in Constitutional law.

Using buzzwords like "right to privacy" or "privacy clause" will not stand judicial review. It has about has much validity as getting in front of a judge and expecting to win by shouting "cheesecake!".

You now have the "what" but not the how. Make your case.

[Parker2112]

Even more so since the "due process" clause for "life, liberty, or property" that is used as the basis for the "privacy clause" that Parker is so vaguely referring to, also does not stand up to the scientific or even legal useage of that.

Depriving someone of life has the meaning of the state applying a death penalty. Doesn't apply, by Parker's own admission.

Depriving someone of "liberty" generally means incarceration.

Depriving people of "property" generally means seizure of goods.

So vaguely refers to? Are you still talking? Search SC cases dealing with the right to make private medical decisions. Inform yourself of your rights. Then maybe you'll understand your right to refuse meduical treatment, your right to make medical decisions for a child or immediate family member, your right to do so without having to inform others or be unduly burdened by procedures beforehand, etc.

You dont seem to have much handle here. Please stop.

[Parker2112]

Please tell us how the "right to privacy" is commonly understood and applied in Constitutional law.

Using buzzwords like "right to privacy" or "privacy clause" will not stand judicial review. .

Oh. Fuck.

Your Supreme Court has found for claimants based on the right to privacy alone. please quit. you are arguing about shit of which you have no clue whatsoever.

Buzzwords? Thats the fucking law in this country. What a crackpot. Go back to tracking saddams missles why dont you.

[Parker2112]

"Now the right to life has come to mean the right to enjoy life, -- the right to be let alone."
-- Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, 1890.34 (http://www.shmoop.com/right-to-privacy/citations.html#34)

[Winehole23]

^^^melting down again. what a treat.

[Parker2112]

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
-- United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 1973.37 (http://www.shmoop.com/right-to-privacy/citations.html#37)

[Parker2112]

I have nothing intelligent to add....

As usual

[Parker2112]

Justice Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut:
“Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.”

“We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights — older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions

[ChumpDumper]

Who doesn't have an alternative to drinking fluoridated water?

[Parker2112]

http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/7343/original/pwned.jpg?1249244484

[ChumpDumper]

And fyi, quoting other decisions without explaining how they apply to the issue at hand is failure.

[Parker2112]

Who doesn't have an alternative to drinking fluoridated water?

poor /elderly without access to to ground water where they live (urban areas), those

[Parker2112]

And fyi, quoting other decisions without explaining how they apply to the issue at hand is failure.

They dont have to apply...RG is making statements about the right to privacy not being recognized under the bill of rights in a court of law. Then he was pwned.

[Winehole23]

As usualI said my piece in the other thread. You're just rehashing in this one.

[Parker2112]

anything else before i go? quickly?

[ChumpDumper]

poor /elderly without access to to ground water where they live (urban areas), thoseIf they have access to a grocery store or market, they have access to unfluoridated water.


They dont have to apply...RG is making statements about the right to privacy not being recognized under the bill of rights in a court of law. Then he was pwned.He did no such thing. I suggest you read his post again.

[Parker2112]

I said my piece in the other thread. You're just rehashing in this one.

against rehashed bullshit conspiracy accusations. Thanks RG. Anything else?

[Parker2112]

If they have access to a grocery store or market, they have access to unfluoridated water.

.

you need the ideal plaintiff, who cant afford the water. which explains why no cases are successful as of yet. because these arent the types of folks that are suing over water quality.

[Parker2112]

Portland may break the impasse. There are enough environmentally minded folks/attys to create a backlash if the City mandates fluoridation. dont fuck with a hippies water, as the saying goes.

[ChumpDumper]

you need the ideal plaintiff, who cant afford the water. which explains why no cases are successful as of yet. because these arent the types of folks that are suing over water quality.Do people even need to drink water alone? Could they not get it in the other liquids they drink?

[Winehole23]

They dont have to apply...RG is making statements about the right to privacy not being recognized under the bill of rights in a court of law. RG said no such thing. He did say he thought your argument wouldn't pass judicial muster.

Generalize from the particular, much?

Then he was pwned.Motif: premature touchdown celebration. It becomes you.

[Parker2112]

Do people even need to drink water alone? Could they not get it in the other liquids they drink?

cooking, hygiene, household use, and if you had a plaintiff with kidney problems, who were high risk, you could probably show a need to have access to water

[Parker2112]

RG said no such thing. He did say he thought your argument wouldn't pass judicial muster.

Generalize from the particular, much?
Motif: premature touchdown celebration. It becomes you.

I never made an argument, so who is putting words in whos mouth?

fieldgoal.

[Winehole23]

against rehashed bullshit conspiracy accusations. I see no conspiracy accusations in this thread.

Guilty-minded? :lol

[Winehole23]

I never made an argument, so who is putting words in whos mouth?Backing away from your own posts again. Good instinct.

[Parker2112]

I see no conspiracy accusations in this thread.

Guilty-minded? :lol

this is why the issue gets muddled, you cant discuss on topic. its all your butthurt, all day.

then you claim failed argument when in reality you never let the discussion take place. Chump is providing intelligent opposition, while you continue with the burning-buttring asides. why dont you sit this one out. You really are just in the way here.

[Parker2112]

the piranha crew. Winehole23 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14613), ChumpDumper (http://spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=153), Blake (http://spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=3460), RandomGuy (http://spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1813)

They can smell the letters f-l-u-o-r-i-d-e from a mile away.

[Parker2112]

but funny how when the personal attacks cease, the place gets real quiet.

[ChumpDumper]

cooking, hygiene, household use, and if you had a plaintiff with kidney problems, who were high risk, you could probably show a need to have access to waterIf a person can't afford water, he's not going to be able to afford a house for household use or food for cooking.

[ChumpDumper]

the piranha crew. Winehole23 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14613), ChumpDumper (http://spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=153), Blake (http://spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=3460), RandomGuy (http://spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1813)

They can smell the letters f-l-u-o-r-i-d-e from a mile away.You don't wish to discuss fluoride?

[Winehole23]

@Parker:

Why don't you just present your case and ignore me?

I'm not in your way at all. Judging from the pattern of your own posts, you seem to actually prefer burning-buttring asides, shunning the reasonable conversation otherwise occurring at the margins.

[Blake]

Dr. Paul Connett, a world-renowned expert on water fluoridation, is flying in from New York for this event. His new book will be available for purchase and signing.


will he also have t-shirts and coffee mugs for sale?

Apparently Connett is renowned in the anti-fluoride circles for his "Fluoride: A Statement for Concern" article written back in 2000.

Points 1-12 were/are mostly about how poor and questionable the initial studies of the benefits of fluoride and fluoridation are.

After points 13-14, I stopped reading when he stated:


"13. John Colquhoun's work is both revealing and inspiring.

14. In May 1998, I had the privilege of making a videotaped interview with Dr. Colquhoun in his Auckland home less than a year before he died. Seldom have I been so impressed with the integrity of anyone as I was with Dr. Colquhoun. I simply cannot believe that any dentist or scientist who watches this taped interview with an open mind could continue to promote fluoridation. (This taped interview can be obtained from GG Video, 82 Judson Street, Canton, NY 13617). "

http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-statement.htm

[Blake]

A Parker2112 thread.

the letters e-n-t-e-r-t-a-i-n-m-e-n-t can be seen from a mile away.

[Parker2112]

If a person can't afford water, he's not going to be able to afford a house for household use or food for cooking.

think about retired diabetic on dialysis with paid for house on a fixed income who cant afford *bottled* water and who, through no fault of his own (he is not disobeying a dr. who advises him not to drink fluoridated water) actually gets fluorosis or has organ failure of some sort,

- and you must get expert testimony to show causation,
- which must overcome the defendants expert witnesses who will cite mountains of evidence on the other side showing the water is safe3 to drink, though not necessarily addressing general public members who are sensative to fluoride, like your plaintiff,
- but who nonetheless will muddle the issue for the jury,
- who no doubt believes as you, that the govt would never harm us, and that fluoridated water is fine.

If you look at the first big time plaintiff winner vs tobacco it was a dream scenario like the one stated above. but when the wall fell, the defendant crumbled. and how long did that wall stand? 50+ years or so?

[Parker2112]

You don't wish to discuss fluoride?

actually, chump, gotta go, but let me know if you wanna go. you to, WH. I am going to talk to my wife, the water quality professional, tonight about attending. It may be good for laughs. you guys can tell her how much I talk about my genitals on Spurstalk.

[Blake]

think about retired diabetic on dialysis with paid for house on a fixed income who cant afford *bottled* water and who, through no fault of his own (he is not disobeying a dr. who advises him not to drink fluoridated water) actually gets fluorosis or has organ failure of some sort,


how many doctors advise patients not to drink fluoridated tap water?

how many retired diabetics have developed fluorosis from fluoridated tap water?

[ChumpDumper]

think about retired diabetic on dialysis with paid for house on a fixed income who cant afford water and who, through no fault of his own (he is not disobeying a dr. who advises him not to drink fluoridated water) actually gets fluorosis or has organ failure of some sort,

- and you must get expert testimony to show causation,
- which must overcome the defendants expert witnesses who will cite mountains of evidence on the other side showing the water is safe3 to drink, though not necessarily addressing general public members who are sensative to fluoride, like your plaintiff,
- but who nonetheless will muddle the issue for the jury,
- who no doubt believes as you, that the govt would never harm us, and that fluoridated water is fine.

If you look at the first big time plaintiff winner vs tobacco it was a dream scenario like the one stated above. but when the wall fell, the defendant crumbled. and how long did that wall stand? 50+ years or so?I don't understand why you need to resort to ad hominems after whining that others have done the same to you.

If a person is going to dialysis and is at a higher stage of kidney disease, his doctor should tell him about fluoride and the person can obtain unfluoridated water.

[Blake]

actually, chump, gotta go, but let me know if you wanna go. you to, WH. I am going to talk to my wife, the water quality professional, tonight about attending. It may be good for laughs. you guys can tell her how much I talk about my genitals on Spurstalk.

give us a report on what you find at the seminar.

I'm ready for some good laughs.

[Parker2112]

I don't understand why you need to resort to ad hominems after whining that others have done the same to you.

If a person is going to dialysis and is at a higher stage of kidney disease, his doctor should tell him about fluoride and the person can obtain unfluoridated water.

$$$$. he must be unable to afford. The other scenario is Plaintiff who is uneducated about the possible affects and trusts the city (as most everyone does) regarding the safety of the water for all. Then if he gets sick, where the doc doesnt warn him there can be no contributory negligence claim.

Doctors know about fluoridated water exacerbating certain conditions. You act like thats news. Roll into the doc with a kidney ailment, and a good doc will tell you to stop using tap water.

[ChumpDumper]

$$$$. he must be unable to afford. The other scenario is Plaintiff who is uneducated about the possible affects and trusts the city (as most everyone does) regarding the safety of the water for all. Then if he gets sick, where the doc doesnt warn him there can be no contributory negligence claim.

Doctors know about fluoridated water exacerbating certain conditions. You act like thats news. Roll into the doc with a kidney ailment, and a good doc will tell you to stop using tap water.Right. You described a malpractice case, not a landmark fluoridation decision.

[Parker2112]

Right. You described a malpractice case, not a landmark fluoridation decision.

comparative negligence, apportioned among the two defendants.

[ChumpDumper]

comparative negligence, apportioned among the two defendants.No. Nestle has never been successfully sued by a diabetic whose doctor neglected to tell him to ease up on the Crunch bars.

[Parker2112]

No. Nestle has never been successfully sued by a diabetic whose doctor neglected to tell him to ease up on the Crunch bars.

causation is the key there. your aim is off. you would have to prove plaintiff only ate Nestles, that the candy was the sole cause (he only eats whole grain cardboard otherwise?)and that there wasnt sufficient ken to provide for contrinutory negligence.

Chocolate does not = medication. easily distinguishable scenario.

[ChumpDumper]

causation is the key there. your aim is off. you would have to prove plaintiff only ate Nestles, that the candy was the sole cause (he only eats whole grain cardboard otherwise?)and that there wasnt sufficient ken to provide for contrinutory negligence.

Chocolate does not = medication. easily distinguishable scenario.Those are differences without relevance to the argument. You missed the point entirely.

There is a substance out there a doctor has a duty to tell his patient to avoid. It could be fluoride or chocolate or ibuprofen.

What is "sufficient ken"?

[Parker2112]

ken is short for knowledge

[ChumpDumper]

Sufficient Ken sounds like an anatomically correct doll.

[RandomGuy]

but funny how when the personal attacks cease, the place gets real quiet.

You have pretty much been the only person making personal attacks here.

Go back, re-read the thread and tell me that statement is incorrect.

[Parker2112]

Those are differences without relevance to the argument. You missed the point entirely.

There is a substance out there a doctor has a duty to tel his patient to avoid. It could be fluoride or chocolate or ibuprofen.

What is "sufficient ken"?

Im telling you why nestles hasnt been sued successfully. But even with dr.'s existing duty, municipality can be found responsible for x amount of damages to old poor diabetics liver and kidneys. In a comparative negligence state such as texas, one tort doesnt bar recover from second tortfeasor, it means apportionment.

So breach of doctors duty has no bearing here.

And further, chocolate is not toxic without overconsumption, which is the fault of the plaintiff. so that argument will always be too attenuated.

[Parker2112]

ken
</SPAN itxtvisited="1">
n.

Perception; understanding: complex issues well beyond our ken.

Range of vision.
View; sight.


v. Scots, kenned, or kent (kĕnt), ken·ning, kens.
v.tr.

To know (a person or thing).
To recognize.
v.intr.
To have knowledge or an understanding

[ChumpDumper]

Im telling you why nestles hasnt been sued successfully. But even with dr.'s existing duty, municipality can be found responsible for x amount of damages to old poor diabetics liver and kidneys. In a comparative negligence state such as texas, one tort doesnt bar recover from second tortfeasor, it means apportionment.So the makers of Advil can be sued according to you.


So breach of doctors duty has no bearing here.:lmao It has everything to do with why this guy has the problem.

[Parker2112]

So the makers of Advil can be sued according to you.

:lmao It has everything to do with why this guy has the problem.

unless the city has issues warnings to those at risk, they wont be relieved of liability because the doc failed to warn. They put the thing in motion (fluoride) that caused the actual injury..

Advil?

[RandomGuy]

against rehashed bullshit conspiracy accusations. Thanks RG. Anything else?

I also have not re-hashed any "conspiracy accusations" here.

What I have done, is simply try to get you to outline your case, mostly because I wanted to be fairly informed as to the basis of your claims.

I am not a lawyer, and this is not my case to make. I will be fair, and "refusing medical treatment" is probably the best argument you have made.

At the point where I said you were being vague, you had not cited a single legal case, nor even really said specifically how it applied. You have now done so, after some chest-thumping and vitriol.

Next time, could you just give the outline without having to be harangued, please?

[Parker2112]

I need attention, look at me, over here

Quiet. grown folks talkin'.

[Winehole23]

Chocolate does not = medication. easily distinguishable scenario. Interesting question, perhaps not so clear cut as one might think.

Some doctors say maybe:

http://health.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/09/02/chocolate-is-medicine/

Some patients say no:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_102120.html

[RandomGuy]

think about retired diabetic on dialysis with paid for house on a fixed income who cant afford *bottled* water and who, through no fault of his own (he is not disobeying a dr. who advises him not to drink fluoridated water) actually gets fluorosis or has organ failure of some sort,



Customers can purchase reverse osmosis filtration systems that can remove fluoride from the water.

If this is the case, then that person has Medicare.

If the doctor says "this person can't have floride in their water", then they simply get Medicare to pay for it, in much the same manner as Medicare pays for scooters.

Further, even without purposeful floridation, this would take place, since some areas have groundwater with floride above recommended levels.

Do we then force government to pay to remove ALL floride compounds from water on the basis that ANY floride could cause harm under this theory and constitute an unwanted medical procedure?

[RandomGuy]

[this place is quiet without the personal attacks]

Here are the balance of personal attacks. I left out a few on the part of Blake, mostly because he was referring less to you personally, than to the quality of your arguments.


those clowns


Are you too lazy


, Your daily output is usually nothing more than insults and attempted wit,


you are too slow on the uptake.


you are already behind the game


Man, you must have made some intelligence officer!


[you] do as little independent thinking/analysis as possible


LMAO at you



You dont seem to have much handle here.



you are arguing about shit of which you have no clue whatsoever.


What a crackpot.


Go back to tracking saddams missles why dont you.


^^^melting down again.


he was pwned.


you cant discuss on topic.


its all your butthurt, all day.


the piranha crew.

[Parker2112]

Here are the balance of personal attacks. I left out a few on the part of Blake, mostly because he was referring less to you personally, than to the quality of your arguments.

nice effort.

[Cry Havoc]

nice effort.

Is that the best retort you can manage when your hypocrisy is made that obvious?

[Parker2112]

Is that the best retort you can manage when your hypocrisy is made that obvious?

RG gets plenty of abuse from me. No excuses.

[Parker2112]

theres history there. it didnt happen out of the blue

[TeyshaBlue]

I have a perfectly good reason to be a hypocrite!

[Parker2112]

I have a perfectly good reason to be a hypocrite!

How hypocritical of me! but honestly: fuck RG.

[Winehole23]

^^^ all your butthurt, all day. Pobrecito.

[Parker2112]

actually, I dont need to make apologies, because in a fluoride thread I actually discussed the topic. Even amongst the abuse. which I engaged in too.

My point about you and RG was that between the two of you (in my best hillbilly tenor) "if it weren't fer insults, I'd have no posts at all...oh, namecalling, despair, is all thats left for mee-yeee"

[Parker2112]

FQ5ob9B9yD4

[RandomGuy]

fuck RG.

Then I will simply respond by continuing to be polite as I have done here.

I will wage a relentless campaign of respectful questioning and patient, honest answers, regardless of any spittle-flecked invective you deem fit to throw my way.

That will enable me to honestly claim that the only reason you don't like me is that I have the temerity to disagree with your cherished beliefs.

Whatever reasons you may invent in your mind to dislike me, will all boil down to that, and you will know that, deep down in the places of your mind where people like you don't like to explore.

[Parker2112]

politeness has nothing to do with your dickish nature, RG. As a matter of fact, it exacerbates the problem iMHO. If you were blunt and open like WH I would tolerate you much better. as i do with WH. you have an insidious nature, which maybe you picked up in military intel IDK, but I have known for quite some time that engaging you is a dead end proposition.

Call it a gift.

Put bluntly: You would be that wormtongue dude in LOTRs.

[Cry Havoc]

actually, I dont need to make apologies, because in a fluoride thread I actually discussed the topic. Even amongst the abuse. which I engaged in too.

My point about you and RG was that between the two of you (in my best hillbilly tenor) "if it weren't fer insults, I'd have no posts at all...oh, namecalling, despair, is all thats left for mee-yeee"

The difference is, no one else is crying about the injury to their ego by words being slung around. That's all you.

You are doing more than your share of ridiculing people and making ad hominem attacks, yet you're the one whining about how mean and nasty it is.

Take your medicine. Don't rip on people and then play the victim when others do the same to you.

[Winehole23]

actually, I dont need to make apologies, because in a fluoride thread I actually discussed the topic. Even amongst the abuse. In that thread, as in this one, you cried about crosstalk interfering with your message. Now you're patting yourself on the back for having risen above it all.

Change your tune much?

[Winehole23]

(it's hard to be a stoic philosopher and a crybaby at the same time)

[Winehole23]

(it's hard work)

[Winehole23]

(just look at Parker's threads in this forum)

[Cry Havoc]

(it's hard to be a stoic philosopher and a crybaby at the same time)

:lol

[Parker2112]

The difference is, no one else is crying about the injury to their ego by words being slung around. That's all you.

You are doing more than your share of ridiculing people and making ad hominem attacks, yet you're the one whining about how mean and nasty it is.

Take your medicine. Don't rip on people and then play the victim when others do the same to you.

Not really close, Cry Havc. Im not crying cause I cant take it. Ask WH: I take his bullshit all day. I am crying because with RG, and many times WH too, thats all that is offered is attack, bacause they either refuse or are unable to engage the subject matter.

So reconsider.

[Winehole23]

I am crying

[Cry Havoc]

Not really close, Cry Havc. Im not crying cause I cant take it. Ask WH: I take his bullshit all day. I am crying because with RG, and many times WH too, thats all that is offered is attack, bacause they either refuse or are unable to engage the subject matter.

So reconsider.

So your solution: Cry about it. :lol Nicely done. You stating that you aren't is confirmation that, indeed, that's all you're doing.

:lol at RandomGuy or Winehouse initiating an attack on anyone. If you can't take the fact that they are very good at breaking down arguments to make someone who over-generalizes look foolish, well, that's a personal problem. No use in crying about it though. Take your medicine.

[Blake]

I am crying because with RG, and many times WH too, thats all that is offered is attack, bacause they either refuse or are unable to engage the subject matter.


http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo14/nemesiswontdie2/goodgood.jpg

[Cry Havoc]

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo14/nemesiswontdie2/goodgood.jpg

"They disagree with my opinions so that reflects on me personally! Stop attacking me! LEAVE PARKER2112 ALONE! :cry"

[TeyshaBlue]

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo14/nemesiswontdie2/goodgood.jpg

:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Parker2112]

"They disagree with my opinions so that reflects on me personally! Stop attacking me! LEAVE PARKER2112 ALONE! :cry"

Not even close. Better check your math.

[Parker2112]

Its funny how Blake and Cry Havoc stay out of the fray when I am here to field the pot-shots (probably wise on your parts, btw), then fill the thread with insults when the insulted isnt around to check you. What filthy little scrambling cowardly bitches you are. :nope

yellow suits you both! :toast

Luv ya,
Parker

[Winehole23]

(Some people have other things to do besides keeping track of when you're logged on/off. But by all means, feel free to cry about that too.)

[Parker2112]

(Some people have other things to do besides keeping track of when you're logged on/off. But by all means, feel free to cry about that too.)

Funny thing...they were both here for my back-n-forth with Chump earlier and never said shit till I made my exit.

I guess they were waiting for the combined might of you and Chump to bring me down. Then it never happened, so they had to get their rocks off somehow.

I guess we are all here for entertainment.

:wakeup

[Winehole23]

Funny thing...they were both here for my back-n-forth with Chump earlier and never said shit till I made my exit.I forgot, it's all about you. Monomaniacal, much?

I guess they were waiting for the combined might of you and Chump to bring me down.Waiting is completely unnecessary. You melt down at the slightest challenge. Not much to do there but point and laugh, really.

[Parker2112]

I forgot, it's all about you. Monomaniacal, much?
Waiting is completely unnecessary. You melt down at the slightest challenge. Not much to do there but point and laugh, really.

liar! I never sent verbal attacks toward anyone but RG.

[Winehole23]

lol

[Winehole23]

You just called Blake and Cry Havoc cowards and bitches.

On this page.

lol

[Winehole23]

...What filthy little scrambling cowardly bitches you are. :nope

yellow suits you both! :toast

Luv ya,
Parker

[Winehole23]

You're a terrible liar, Parker.

[Winehole23]

(You just kicked your own ass. Again.)

:lmao

[Blake]

Its funny how Blake and Cry Havoc stay out of the fray when I am here to field the pot-shots (probably wise on your parts, btw), then fill the thread with insults when the insulted isnt around to check you. What filthy little scrambling cowardly bitches you are. :nope

yellow suits you both! :toast

Luv ya,
Parker

apparently insults directed towards Parker2112 only appear when he is logged off.......or so he thinks........even though he still saw them.....

[RandomGuy]

politeness has nothing to do with your dickish nature, RG. As a matter of fact, it exacerbates the problem iMHO. If you were blunt and open like WH I would tolerate you much better. as i do with WH. you have an insidious nature, which maybe you picked up in military intel IDK, but I have known for quite some time that engaging you is a dead end proposition.

Call it a gift.

Put bluntly: You would be that wormtongue dude in LOTRs.

So, in essence, you are advocating that I stoop to your level, so I can appear to be more "honest", despite the fact that I am, in person, a very polite person.

I have been "blunt", your reaction was the same. Given that, I feel it is reasonable to conclude that you don't like me simply because I disagree with your political dogma.

You can continue to ask me to eat DLTs, that is fine with me. It erodes your credibility when it comes to the occasional browser of the political forum.

Honestly, the fact that someone of your bent thinks I am Wormtongue is something of an honor. It lets me know I am being an honest skeptic.

[Blake]

liar! I never sent verbal attacks toward anyone but RG.

:cry


What filthy little scrambling cowardly bitches you are. :nope

yellow suits you both! :toast



:cry :cry

[Winehole23]

...

[RandomGuy]

liar! I never sent verbal attacks toward anyone but RG.

Actually you did. About 1/3 to 1/5 of these were directed at either Chump or WH.


those clowns


Are you too lazy


, Your daily output is usually nothing more than insults and attempted wit,


you are too slow on the uptake.


you are already behind the game


Man, you must have made some intelligence officer!


[you] do as little independent thinking/analysis as possible


LMAO at you



You dont seem to have much handle here.



you are arguing about shit of which you have no clue whatsoever.


What a crackpot.


Go back to tracking saddams missles why dont you.


^^^melting down again.


he was pwned.


you cant discuss on topic.


its all your butthurt, all day.


the piranha crew.

[RandomGuy]

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo14/nemesiswontdie2/goodgood.jpg

Thanks man. I added that to my album here. Expect to see it again.