grow up- ADD shouldn't be a place where people bitch and moan at each other.
I find it cute that you doggedly persist in fulfilling your incessant need to admonish my supposedly deficient level of maturity amidst exchanges that 1) In some way concern me; 2) In no way concern you; and 3) Involve petty disputes in which
I'm never the first aggressor and am simply responding in kind to others' unwarranted faggotry. Perhaps you should try extending your sincerest critiques to Navarone, whose jeering, drink-sodden ejaculations provoked the quoted response in the first place? Oh but nonono, that would be unfair to your silly little A.D.D. butthurt clique of in-group fuckwits, wouldn't it?
Again comes to mind the witty aphorism to
mind your own fucking business and find a new outlet for your preachy flouting. Thank you for your input. Now kindly fuck off, Hoe.
Really? I've seen no such studies proving it's not a health risk
Oh dear. You must realize that you're clutching at pretty feeble straws here. It can hardly be considered Dread's - and, of course, the non-quack medical establishments' - responsibility to procure
negative evidence on your fringe behalf for the sole purpose of investigating a hypothesis inconsistent with both the current scientific consensus and all available evidence. So just to put your stance in perspective, with all qualms of efficacy aside: unless the unholy biomedical/dental/governmental trinity conduct multiple rigorously controlled multicenter, extremely costly, lifetime-spanning longitudinal studies investigating the safety and merit of the carefully measured addition of minute quantities of naturally-occurring elemental fluorine derivatives to the municipal water supply
that doesn't already contain it (which is assuredly the case with many "natural" water sources), you will continue to be strung along by the far less substantiated claims of quack doctors and their tedious 'whistle-blowing' hysteria? The bluepill analogy doesn't even come close to describing such slavish intellectual deference to your trite, self-affirming conspiratorial ideologies.
Democracy does not override ethics
While I may be in tentative agreement, you must realize the politically and philosophically loaded assumption that this premise entails, especially for those partial to common rule by the collective vote. Further, to invoke the term 'ethics' in this case is rather vacuous unless adequately qualified, as the formal ethical discipline is hardly free of internal disagreement and controversy - to the contrary, it's fraught with contention. But you do go on to mention the thought-provoking question of the moral import of directly benefiting another in the absence of their fully-informed consent. While being distally related to the topic at hand, this says nothing directly about the issue of state-sponsored fortification of food and water municipalities - of which the public is fully aware and generally accepts. By invoking 'ethics' and arguable hypotheticals, you're conflating issues by overlapping concerns of safety and efficacy with the palpable reality of the pertinent circumstances, illustrated thusly:
But has any such vote taken place?
I live in a state. It is a democratic republic. I am bound by the laws of my state's constitution and my local/federal publicly elected representatives. If the officials appointed and overseen by my publicly elected representatives (or the elected representatives themselves) see it fit to act within their power to [insert verb], I may very well get to sit around and bitch on my soapbox because the [insert decision] wasn't in accordance with my opinions and/or worldview, but none of that bears any relevance to whether or not the decision was necessarily ethical.
Such was the case with fluoridation, though I believe that this decision was made exclusively on the federal level. So no, Rickola, no en masse public 'vote' took place per se, but this doesn't in any way invalidate Dread's point, as the 'vote' (in the U.S., at least) was essentially an indirect one, and the decision was authorized by democratic proxy, as per the accepted sentiment of the modern republic. Conversely, this does nothing to morally condone municipal fluoridation morally nor ethically. I believe Vecktor
did eventually go on to qualify his adage regarding ethics and democracy by invoking the Hippocratic Oath, which I think is pretty irrelevant here, as I understand that the Oath does not strictly pertain to prophylactic measures officiated by democratic governments, but rather to individual physicians, and thus isn't directly pertinent.
Also, Vecktor, don't you think it's more than a little hyperbolic (and hypocritical) to claim in one breath that fluoridation could be comparable to supplemental lithium, whilst in the other dismissing Dread's chlorine analogy as moot?
not having fluoride in tap water does no harm
not having chlorination does severe harm
No. You can't dismiss the entire discussion in two sentences. If fluoride was indeed efficacious for preventing cavities that would otherwise occur in its absence, its removal
would clearly be harmful. And by your own analogy, I could just as easily contend that if one wished to have clean water, they could simply add their own chlorine, eschewing the necessity of 'forcibly medicating' the general population (or whatever) with minute concentrations of an effective antiseptic.
) And that is what has been so hilarious about this thread....it seems in essence it is an ethical argument that is being confusedly fought with the "tools" of "science". And hence it spilling into 6 inflamed pages. The scientific argument is pretty cut and dry....but those pesky ethics....
