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

[Parker2112]

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

• Perception; understanding: complex issues well beyond our ken.
• 1. Range of vision.
  2. 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.

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

[Parker2112]

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

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 bull 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...e-is-medicine/

Some patients say no:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/n...ry_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 cons ute 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 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: 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]

[RandomGuy]

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 ish 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)