Reply With Quote
You're all over the place, Parker. I don't think you have any clear idea what you've argued for. That you seem to think this makes you look reliable and all of us silly is, well, pretty silly.
we used to call that a "false call" on the gradeschool basketball courts. that meant we get ball.
You're all over the place, Parker. I don't think you have any clear idea what you've argued for. That you seem to think this makes you look reliable and all of us silly is, well, pretty silly.
you think I'm selling.
most of the most argumentative exchanges on this thread revolve around me not buying mindless skepticism. But I dont need to sell.
You walked it back. We get that.
You're a fake skeptic/conspiracist who likes having it both ways. We get that too.
I havent walked back from . I have cited certain sources here, and made certain arguments, some as recently as today. When I can review this thread and put together a cohesive review of the contents of the thread for non-readers like yourself, I will. Till then its on pause.
I assume your feathers are riled over losing a couple of rounds hard, and I assume that you are trying as hard as you can to rack up some points and get back to break-even, but I'll give you a hint: until you actually know what I have posted, dont expect to take the spoils with any of your generic "youre a conspiracy theorist" arguments.
Im not a skeptic or a CT, I'm open minded. You seem to think there is something wrong with that concept. I think only a fool would mindlessly march to the beat of someone else's drum. And you sir, whether you want to admit it or not, have done that all thread long. The beat of someone else's status-quo.
Just because I have complained about the poor quality of your posts, doesn't necessarily mean I believe or disbelieve anyone else's.
The information disclosed in the thread is generally fine as far as it goes, but did not sustain the inferences you were selling us earlier.
again, how would you know anything about posts you never read?
[insert B. Whiteshoes pic here]
Pretending you got nothing for sale is a juke.[insert B. Whiteshoes pic here]
you're clueless brother.
Maybe, but who's taking your word for anything around here?
And you and Cry Havoc have big cred after the great showing earlier?
Yr posts speak for themselves.
You can't just put on a funny hat on the thread (that you created, btw, as a platform for your own reckless inferences) at the 11th hour, and claim to be above it all. You had an angle, and you were working it.
I never claimed any cred. I just questioned yours. Your brazen lie about your own role in this thread makes it plain to anyone so unfortunate as to read all the way through.
Honestly, I feel like the points/arguments were made, and none of the substance was discussed beyond 1st mention. Dismissed completely prior to even reading.
You never read the I posted.
But more important, you never made any other argument other than "conspiracy theory."
Do you really believe this puts you in a position to critique my posts?
why dont you tackle the issues presented. Then you can talk.
I read some of it. It doesn't lead where you think. RG pantsed you on that.
Because your presentation was absurd.
Why should you be immune to criticism?
Bottom line, there's not a well-demonstrated risk to people. If you want to say there's not a well-demonstrated health benefit, that's the European view, and it may even be the right one for all I know. But acknowledging that doesn't make any of the bs you were trying to sell us any less stinky.
the fact that govt is putting something extra in the water "for our own good" is really the only argument I would validate.
so lets have the govt start putting random medicines in the water that have been fda approved. There would be no risk right?
They shouldnt be doing it in the first place. If youre going to put the stuff in public water, lets have a well-demonstrated benefit THAT EVERYONE CONSENTS TO. Regardless what Winehole might think, it is not enough to say "you have no right to refuse the dose, because it wont hurt you."
That is why your arguments fail. You skip out on the important .
America. The Beautiful.
It's not a random medicine.
Fluoride in low doses has been proven to prevent tooth decay.
There are places in the world where they actually have to de-fluoridate the water because the natural concentration levels are too high.
The water in SA already has fluoride levels at .3 parts per million and they add more to reach .8 parts. Since it's already a natural occurrence, I really don't have much of a problem with them adding it to the levels that researchers have deemed appropriate to prevent tooth decay.
As it costs San Antonio Water System $.01 per 1000 gallons to fluoridate the water, I still see no tangible evidence of any type of conspiracy to which any corporations are keeping themselves from going bankrupt thanks to fluoridated water.
For those that don't want to drink the fluoride, a reverse osmosis filter system can remove it.
Since when have we ever done anything that required 100% voter approval?They shouldnt be doing it in the first place. If youre going to put the stuff in public water, lets have a well-demonstrated benefit THAT EVERYONE CONSENTS TO. Regardless what Winehole might think, it is not enough to say "you have no right to refuse the dose, because it wont hurt you."
That is why your arguments fail. You skip out on the important .
America. The Beautiful.
The majority of voters in this city approved the proposal. It's not something that was done without the public's consent.
Your argument that you have at least confirmed there are some concerns about fluoridated water fails.
If you read through the info in this therad you'll find this is highly disputed. Countries that dont fluoridate experience the same decrease in cavities. If you read more about it, you'll find that this stems from better dental care, flouride tootpaste, and access to dentists most likely explains the drop...not flouridated water.
If you'll read the info in this thread, you'll find that the difference between naturally occurring fluoride and sodium fluoride is explained, as well as the sources for each, and the dangers of each.
they arent adding calcium flouride to the water...they are adding industrial products (NaF). There is a huge difference in the two. Read more about it.
where do base your conclusions on corps? You dont even discuss costs to dispose of waste from industrial scrubbers. You point to Buyers, and make a conclusion about sellers. No logic here.
And even such a relatively small cost as you claim, which results in hundreds of thousands in expense to the city, would put 20-25 additional people to work in San Antonio. And as we have already said the process has been shown to be worthless. So why arent we putting people to work instead of putting medicine in the water? This is not to say how it might affect the economy nationwide if it was stopped completely
true. But what about poor families, especially those with children for whom parents have to mix formula? Did you know that the federal govt warns the public against giving fluoridated water to babies? If you didnt, then how do we know that all families with little ones taking formula know? And the ultimate question, WHY THE DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, IF IT PUTS ANY SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION AT RISK?
I have just succinctly summarized at least 5 different holes in your knowledge on the issue. You didnt know:
1. difference in naturally occurring fluoride and NaH
2. uniform drop in cavities has occurred even outside of fluoridated countries
3. That disposal costs are avoided by polluting corps when they can sell their waste as NaH to municipalities (not directly so far as I can tell)
4. that it is not recommended for infants on formula
5. that the cons ution provides us with the fundamental right to consent to medical treatment, a right which is infringed through mass medication in the water supply
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
