Reply With Quote
To each their own. Maybe whottt was more enjoyable before he fell in love with Palin. (shrug) I never saw it.
AFAIK, Matt Yglesias came up with the term first, so I'll link to his explanation.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com..._theory_of_ge/
WC, for instance, is a firm believer of the Green Lantern theory in warfare and economics.But a lot of people seem to think that American military might is like one of these power rings. They seem to think that, roughly speaking, we can accomplish absolutely anything in the world through the application of sufficient military force. The only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower.
What's more, this theory can't be empirically demonstrated to be wrong. Things that you or I might take as demonstrating the limited utility of military power to accomplish certain kinds of things are, instead, taken as evidence of lack of will. Thus we see that problems in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't reasons to avoid new military ventures, but reasons why we must embark upon them: "Add a failure in Iran to a failure in Iraq to a failure in Afghanistan, and we could supercharge Islamic radicalism in a way never before seen. The widespread and lethal impression of American weakness under the Clinton administration, which did so much to energize bin Ladenism in the 1990s, could look like the glory years of American power compared to what the Bush administration may leave in its wake."
I don't even know what else to say about this business. It's just a bizarre way of looking at the world. The wreakage that the Bush administration is leaving in its wake is a direct consequence of this will-o-centric view of the world and Gerecht takes it as a reason to deploy more willpower.
To each their own. Maybe whottt was more enjoyable before he fell in love with Palin. (shrug) I never saw it.
Enjoyable? Not the word I'd pick to describe Whottt.
Original, volcanically irascible and totally unpredictable? Yes.
The same could probably describe explosive diarrhea, but I wouldn't wish for that either.
1st: Imagine what it would take to get to the truth on fluoride. Financial records? Eyewitness accounts? Insider leaks? Interviews with top administrators/govt officials? Multiple scientific sources? A few dozen studies? Possible a plane ticket to Europe?
As far as I am concerned you guys saying prove it are silly.
2nd: I called out a couple of guys on issues totally outside the topic. I didnt accuse them of being wrong about fluoride, I accused them of not reading then bringing weak "conspiracy" accusations, which didnt have any thing to do with what I alleged. I cant even say alleged, because I was repeating info from an interview with an investigative reporter in post 1. However to verify or discredit him it might take the above.
Again you guys are silly.
Monkeys can't sell bananas, dude.
You never verified or refuted, but you expect us to.
See the cognitive dissonance?
one more mention: all the stuff I found is on that thread. Its been dismissed, but never dealt with. For all the skepticism, not ONE person has done a google search on the author/speaker/BBC investigative reporter and come back with discrediting info.
That actually speaks volumes
It's silly to posit something as fact and then lol @ proof.
Imagine what it would take to get the truth on flouride? Perhaps it's already there and you just don't like it. I guess it's not the truth you were looking for?
And by silly, I mean kinda re ed.
Actually, if you want to argue, argue. if you dont buy move on. I do it all day on this board. You dont find me on DarrinS muslim threads. I just move on.
I dont expect you to, but it would be nice to have an intelligent discussion rather than listening to pure-dee skepticism with no meat.
Normally thats the way it works: assertion, followed by acceptance or criticism, and if the criticism is worth a dime it will be backed up with some facts.
Yours wasnt on either account. you know this to be true.
Just as re ed as arguing about fluoride without ever talking about fluoride, perhaps?
I think RG utterly destroyed your quasi position-that's-not-a-position-until -you-want-it-to-be-a-position, on flouride. It's telling how you simply gloss over that.
You're not trying very hard. You've spent way more time/effort bantering with me than addressing your critics on the substance.
And yet, when people provide evidence that runs counter to your claims, you dismiss it, saying that "scientists can be bought off".
You ask for evidence, and then you dismiss it. In fact, you admit to the fact that you think it's nigh impossible to prove/disprove, yet still expect us to do so. The only way it seems you'd accept proof is if we physically showed up on your doorstep, performed the tests, and educated you enough to understand the results.
You admitted you don't even do your own research, but get pissy when people dismiss your arguments without research? GMAFB.
RG never addressed the cons utional issue. RG threw out numbers on SA water, which means less than 1% considering the national market. RG said science was incorruptable.
I dont doubt that you skeptics arent right, I dont claim to be right on the substance, because as I said proof or disproof would require more resources than Im spendig. However, Im starting to see the forest for the trees here.
You guys DO believe youre right without ever addressing the facts. You DO think you can cover the facts up with feces and the stench will make them disappear.
Just like there are certain pschological schools that deal with conspiracy beliefs, there are also lines that deal with the need to have the fundamental paradigm remain. The need of the avg joe to be able to buy what is sold. That is what drives such sloppy opposition.
youve never read the accounts. youre view is irrelevant. even if you say you are a reader, there is a page of "fluoridefacts" just for you. If youre not going to read, then why continue?
RG actually said that the scientific community was immune to corruption. Are you saying the same? And how full-of- is the nature of that statement? And your trying to bank RG?
Not really. There's a difference between us demolishing your lame inferences from the evidence and covering up for a conspiracy you never proved.
It's a pastime, and you are mildly amusing.
RG read, responded and backed his own up. Why do you continue to ignore him?
Oh, and btw RG did address your cons utional point, so your characterization that no one has done so is plainly false.
Would you be shocked to know that a buddy of mine who oversee's the water treatment of a large SoCal city also thinks you're full of ? You see, his city also does not treat their water with NaF.
There. That's two examples where you are demonstrably incorrect. How bout you pony up at least one that supports your unsubstantiated point of view. Oh that's right. When pressed, you'll gladly admit you have no idea what you're talking about and then, as if you never said it, demand proof!
As if you would understand proof if it bit you on the ass.
Again, RG utterly vaporized your position-that's-not-a-position-unless it really-is-a-position-until-somebody-pushes-you-and-it-ceases-to-be-a-position-again.
Guess you didn't read all the way through the thread. That didn't stop you from kicking all your critics into the same ditch though, did it?
It's in the thread where he handed you your ass. Go back there if you can.
That's alot of assumptions in one post.
I'm sure that what RG meant is that the scientific community, at large, is relatively immune to corruption. You can't bribe the entire scientific community.
As well, Occam's Razor (I doubt you're familiar with the concept) would lead one to believe that, just perhaps, the entire scientific community isn't being bribed.
But you love that idea, because that's your failsafe. No matter how much evidence comes up to disprove the idea that flouride is dangerous, you can back yourself up with the idea that those who say such are being bribed. It's a dishonest way to argue.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
