• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | thegreenhand

Why is there fluoride in SSRIs

so I ask you again should vaccination be mandatory?

Although I'm aware that the question was posed to Dread, I'll respond with an emphatic, resounding "NO," but only as a rule. When it comes to essentially non-contagious pathology, like tetany, compulsory inoculation is utterly asinine, and not something that I would ever endorse. You cite disparate, multifarious instances in which other forms of vaccination could indeed be of dubious merit, and, contrary to intent, cause considerable patient harm. These cases perfectly illustrate my point of principle versus instance. In the case of fluoridation, there are no significant complications, it has been demonstrated to be efficacious within a decent therapeutic margin, and while quasi-mandatory, is not resisted, but welcomed and accepted by the majority.

for instance if you feel the need to medicate yourself i think that it is your human right to do so if you can e.g. buy toothpaste

Too facile. 1) No one has a "human right" to buy toothpaste. Unrestricted purchasing power is financial in nature and is thusly a civil right (or possibly an economic imperative, depending upon where you live and how your choose to look at it). 2) Illusions of self-medication sound convincing, but fall quickly apart when practically applied, at least in the case of water fluoridation and tooth decay, as the evidence has clearly demonstrated. Many areas in which fluoridation legislation was enacted were presumably beset by the same profusion of publicly accessible dental care products as those that weren't.
 
The suggestion is that if tap water is fluoridated then in order to avoid fluoride for what ever reason, say for irrational personal beliefs, people have to drink bottled water which is a privilege of the rich

Yeah, I got that bit. I was asking (and went on to speculate) what that observation intellectually entailed when its underlying principle was played out to its eventual conclusion within the context of public legislation. As for what you actually said: Given your essentially libertarian stance on this issue, I'm surprised that you would use such an ethically damning point of discussion (for most libertarians) as the wealth gap to further your point, something I won't belabor here. I think you posted this in direct response to my observation that not everyone is as mentally and/or financially well-off as you are, and as such stand to gain from fluoridation in ways that you do not.

What you've neglected to address with your supposed 'corollary' is the fact that the majority of both poor and rich people are in support of fluoridation; the practice is largely intended to directly benefit the poor in particular, and not necessarily those upper few who can, yes, afford to buy bottled water and drink it exclusively if they choose; and that an outlying iota of kooks does not deserve undue weight in the decision-making process with respect to the larger populus. So my answer to your rhetorical question is, in the end, unreservedly yes.
 
Yeah, I got that bit. I was asking (and went on to speculate) what that observation intellectually entailed when its underlying principle was played out to its eventual conclusion within the context of public legislation. As for what you actually said: Given your essentially libertarian stance on this issue, I'm surprised that you would use such an ethically damning point of discussion (for most libertarians) as the wealth gap to further your point, something I won't belabor here. I think you posted this in direct response to my observation that not everyone is as mentally and/or financially well-off as you are, and as such stand to gain from fluoridation in ways that you do not.

What you've neglected to address with your supposed 'corollary' is the fact that the majority of both poor and rich people are in support of fluoridation; the practice is largely intended to directly benefit the poor in particular, and not necessarily those upper few who can, yes, afford to buy bottled water and drink it exclusively if they choose; and that an outlying iota of kooks does not deserve undue weight in the decision-making process with respect to the larger populus. So my answer to your rhetorical question is, in the end, unreservedly yes.

The end result of this interesting discussion is that whilst I accept there is little harm in fluoridation I oppose it on ethical principles. You are not going to convince me otherwise because I have considered the arguments from your position and dread's more extreme utilitarian position and whilst they have merit they do not change my view.

now indulge me, remember the trolley experiment:

1- A runaway train is going down the tracks to a tunnel in which 5 workers are working. The train will kill all of them. You are the signalman, and able to change the points, so that the train goes through another tunnel in which only 1 worker is working. Will you do this yes or no?

answer question 1 then on to question 2:

2- The same train is going to kill 5 workers. You are not the signalman but an observer on a bridge over the tracks. There is a man next to you if you throw him over onto the tracks he will die when he is hit by the train, but his body will certainly stop the train saving the 5 workers in the tunnel. You can push him over the onto the tracks to avoid the death of 5 people. Will you do this? yes or no?

it has always fascinated me that most people answer yes to the first question but no to the second. whereas I have always answered no to both questions because in the first case 5 lives are not worth more than one life and it is not for me to decide who lives and who dies. exactly the same position applies in the second case making the decision easy.

Most people are yes in the first case because they believe 5 lives are worth more than 1, and no in the second case. Making an illogical distinction between throwing the man and switching the points despite the fact in both cases the action has killed someone who would not otherwise have died.

PA what are your answers and I wonder what are Dreads?
 
The end result of this interesting discussion is that whilst I accept there is little harm in fluoridation I oppose it on ethical principles. You are not going to convince me otherwise because I have considered the arguments from your position and dread's more extreme utilitarian position and whilst they have merit they do not change my view.

This is all perfectly understandable. Your position indicates to me that you're simply a highly principled individual that won't be persuaded by any appeal to the special case. This is a point at which the conversation could easily end and upon which we would predictably agree to disagree - but therein lies another, even more fundamental question, one which is likely far beyond the scope of this thread (and probably belongs somewhere in the neighborhood of P&S and/or Politics): with respect to overarching ethical considerations underpinning decisions of public policy, is it best to be primarily a 'principled' person or a 'practical' one?

Regarding the trolley scenarios: I absolutely love these thought experiments for their simplicity and universality, among other endearing features. I've been subjected to this particular set of hypotheticals a number times, and have never found any among the proposed dichotomous outcomes to be convincingly preferable. Having considered the implications of each response to the dilemmas, and the ethical leanings of which they're indicative, I remain steadfastly uncertain and completely unable to procure an answer for which I could confidently vouch. In other words, if my hand were to be forced, here and now, with no conceivable alternative, I would make no decision. I would ethically hedge, so to speak, assuming that something so obtuse is even possible. This is the unstated third position, although anyone could see that its practical outcome is identical to the answer "no" for both queries posed. It's here that I'm forced to clarify - I don't consider the absence of a decision to be the logical equivalent of a negative one. Rather than explicitly choosing one outcome over the other, I would do what I believe to be the only sensible thing: walk away, and leave my hands clean. I'm not aware whether this indecision on my part owes more to a simple weakness of constitution, or to thoughtful consideration of the dilemma(s) and the roiling uncertainty that results.

I am aware that my proposed 'alternative' answer may very well be redundant, as it is fundamentally homologous to the answer "no," perhaps with the exception of my proposed reasons (or lack thereof), which are decidedly different from yours. So if you would prefer a less contortive/weaseling response: I would react to both dilemmas posed in a practically identical fashion as you would.

it is not for me to decide who lives and who dies

Within the parameters set by these scenarios, it's just not that easy for you. Who makes it out of the tunnel and who survives their impending peril upon the tracks is ultimately up to you. This is the "point," and the very reason these questions are so incredibly difficult for anyone who gives them any serious thought, since the culpability incurred by either decision ineluctably falls upon you in specific.
 
Last edited:
Uh, lots of replies. This thread has certainly become an interesting mental excercise if nothing else... let's see, where do I start...

vecktor said:
Treatments should always be in the [ B]] treated individuals' best interest,[/b] sometimes this also gives benefits to a wider community but this should never figure in the calculation whether to treat the individual. There must also always be informed consent.

So what about the criminally insane, violent serial killers... is it absolutely wrong to forcefully medicate them?

so I ask you again should vaccination be mandatory?

I'd have to say, I agree with PA, it depends on the situation - it's not a clearly-cut case for me. No, I wouldn't support mandatory vaccinations for things that are not contagious like tetanus. But, for example, let's say there's an epidemic of an extremely dangerous and contagious virus, and the government has the vaccination for it... would you consider mandatory vaccinations as a means to save lives?

The reason I am poking at the collective good versus the rights of the individual arguments is of course the illegal status of drugs which are justified on the principle of protecting society over the innate rights of the individual, I find it interesting I see utilitarian positions being taken by people on a drug discussion forum.

Well, like I said earlier, I'm not so much into extreme utilitarianism as you seem to think. Like I've said multiple times, I think it depends on the circumstances, and neither extreme is good as an absolute. But I do believe that legalization of drugs can be justified from a utilitarian point of view: I believe that society as a whole would benefit from decriminalization of drug use, along with total legalization of milder drugs such as cannabis and certain psychedelics. If you look at it rationally, society as a whole suffers because of the war on drugs - first of all all the money and resources being wasted on prosecution of drug users, then the economical impact of channeling loads of money to criminal organizations and the lost tax revenues of legalized drugs... all those, IMO, are good points for drug legalization in the utilitarian point of view.

PA what are your answers and I wonder what are Dreads?

If I'm totally honest, I'd say it depends... are there anyone I know in that tunnel? And yes, I realize it's probably not the most ethical position, but honestly, I would probably act differently based on if I knew the people in the first tunnel but not the guy in the second one. As for the 2nd question, it doesn't even make sense... if dropping one human in front of the train would be enough to stop it, then there's no way that train could kill 5 people in the first place... ;)
 
Uh, lots of replies. This thread has certainly become an interesting mental excercise if nothing else... let's see, where do I start...

So what about the criminally insane, violent serial killers... is it absolutely wrong to forcefully medicate them?
the argument can be made that the insane cannot give informed consent therefore the point regarding forceful medication is moot. with respect to serial killers and the like the use of the chemical cosh as it is known, has serious ethical implications unless it can be argued that the recipient is not mentally competent to give informed consent then it is clearly unethical, instead the primary motivation for the use of it becomes a driven by the convenience of others.

I'd have to say, I agree with PA, it depends on the situation - it's not a clearly-cut case for me. No, I wouldn't support mandatory vaccinations for things that are not contagious like tetanus. But, for example, let's say there's an epidemic of an extremely dangerous and contagious virus, and the government has the vaccination for it... would you consider mandatory vaccinations as a means to save lives?

short answer no. if as you state there is an lethal epidemic and leaving aside the risks of any vaccine, if any, then surely it is easy to obtain informed consent in the vast majority of cases because people would see it is in their own best interests to submit. if some people choose not to even (if in absolute terms it is in their own best interest to choose vaccination) then that is their choice and must be respected as it is the right to corporeal sovereignty. if they die as a consequence that is their choice too. it is not for someone else to make that decision and impose that decision upon them.
This hypothetical situation would raise serious issues, for example if I did the calculation and worked out that it was clearly not in my personal advantage to have the vaccine then I wouldn't and I would use whatever necessary means me to prevent me from being compelled.

If I'm totally honest, I'd say it depends... are there anyone I know in that tunnel? And yes, I realize it's probably not the most ethical position, but honestly, I would probably act differently based on if I knew the people in the first tunnel but not the guy in the second one. As for the 2nd question, it doesn't even make sense... if dropping one human in front of the train would be enough to stop it, then there's no way that train could kill 5 people in the first place... ;)

the whole point of the though experiments like these is that you take the situation at face value, and make the choice,
however to deal with you objections in the second case it is generally argued that throwing the man on the track well away from the tunnel would derail the train and prevent it from reaching the tunnel whereas the first guy in the tunnel who is hit would derail the train but the derailed train would continue on to kill the other 4 because there would not be the time or space for the train to stop before killing the others.
but in any case the point is not to pick practical holes in the situation presented but look at the moral and ethical situation alone.

another question if you knew the one guy but didn't know the 5 would you allow the train to kill the 5 to save the one you knew? is the value of the one person you know worth 5 lives of people you don't?
how about killing 250,000 innocent people in a far of land to save a few thousand lives in your country and perhaps by some very remote chance the life of someone you know?

This thread has now gone a mile off topic but nevertheless it has been very interesting. =D
 
how about killing 250,000 innocent people in a far of land to save a few thousand lives in your country

This leaves far too much room for ethical speculation, and is certainly unfair, as it confers far too much hypothetical power to a single person. Also, the magnitude of either choice is likely impossible for any individual to contemplate, leaving me in doubt as to whether or not this is an adequate ethical question to begin with. I could pose an equally improbable scenario: what if you were in a similar set of circumstances, but the gulf in relative size was much greater - say, in the territory of 1,000,000 foreign lives to a thousand of your nation's. My answer to such dilemmas will almost always be a weak "yes" (i.e., sacrifice the foreigners to preserve the smaller group in your state) but not without great hesitation. I'm of the belief summarized by the proverb 'take care of your own first,' since I see such a maxim as more realistically reflective of innate human values than the slavishly selfless altruism of the utilitarian ethic. That said, this claims nothing as to those foreign lives' "value" when compared to those spared, but rather whether or not the person with their hand on the red button would be willing to accept the burden of slaying his/her own countrymen/-women (or whether such a distinction has any meaning to them at all). Like you, Vecktor, I find myself incapable of confidently positing that 100 human lives are somehow inherently superior to one, and would thusly conduct myself without much consideration of relative magnitude. However, yet again, I must stress that much of this uncertainty stems directly from my position as an individual and should therefore not be extended to my beliefs regarding collective action and public policy, which are (generally) entirely separate matters of discourse from individual ethical leanings.
 
the whole point of the though experiments like these is that you take the situation at face value, and make the choice,

Well then, is it acceptable to say that I'd just throw myself in front of the train?
 
Well then, is it acceptable to say that I'd just throw myself in front of the train?

Unfortunately, no. You're being too creative, either because you're incapable (as am I) of committing yourself to one particular outcome over the other or because finding 'creative' solutions ("outside of the box") is simply a habit to which you're predisposed. Or both.

Either way, you have to realize that within bounds of these scenarios one answer must be chosen.
 
I was away for a week and I comeback to this shit.
Anyway, I replied back in your own post with BOLD


what exactly is wrong about that statement? Are you saying people who believe in chakras and crystal healing are not gullible? How is that?

where did i say this? We were discussing scam based on science and you were fast to give examples that people get scammed by completely different things on regular bases

there's just so many things wrong with your arguments that i don't even know where to start.


maybe do not begin at all because clearly by now you are just arguing for the lols


ok, for example, many years ago smoking tobacco was thought to have various health benefits. Then science marched on and it was found that it is incredibly harmful and causes lung cancer. If you had been alive at that time you'd probably been all "oh evil science has tricked me into smoking! Now they say it's bad for me, i'll never believe in science again!"


why would scientists claim tobacco was ever good ? Oh wait, maybe they get paid off well by the tobacco companies. Proof you cannot rely on science because it always gets donations from powerful players in the economical industry


let's see if i can make this simple for you...

that is pretty simple. I understood it well, but its incomplete

scientists are not perfect nor infallible, nor does any real scientist claim to be. Scientists make observations based on experiments, and publish their findings based on the available data and methods. When new inventions are made, and new and better methods are found, obviously sometimes scientist discover that earlier scientists, working with older methods and tools, have been wrong. Here's what's great about science: They will point out the mistake and let people know the new information, no matter how long the contrary has been believed. So when time goes on, we know more and more about how things work. This is a good thing.


i agree with this except if scientists aknowledge mistakes, they should always release their medical journals with caution and be responsible for what happens. They do it way too often releasing statements not yet verified 100% and they do it so often, it can confuse everyone. Bottom line, responsibility, honor and dedication must be applied


what a childish and simplistic argument.

not sure what you refer to but this one right here is pretty childish



i'm facepalming so hard here i don't even...

you strike me as too emotional to discuss anything. Maybe you are a girl ?


so you want a convenient scapegoat. You want to blame an abstract entity, "science", for your own mistakes? It doesn't work that way.

you do the same thing with religion.


yes, there are people who do "bad science". People who publish results from sloppy experiments. If some "scientist" comes ahead with a study that says "eating 10kg of pineapple a day will make you immortal" and you go ahead and start doing it. Then, a few days later, groups of other scientists - this time, hard working professional scientists - review those results and refute the first study, and they let you know that eating that much pineapple is actually harmful and will probably kill you. Now, who is at fault here: Science or you for jumping to conclusions too quickly? Hint: It's not science.

so science jumping to conclusions too quickly is not responsible at all ?


but the fact is, just because some people do bad science, does not make science itself any less valid as a method of acquiring information. Your argument is basically like this:
Some x is y, therefore, all x is y.

yes but the existence of some x being y is still worrisome enough


can you see the error here? "some scientific study is wrong, therefore, all of science is wrong" does not compute.

science has too much influence on modern society and simple mistakes can be costly. I said it many times over and over, there must be responsibility and some moral values enforced in science community not to be in a hurry to publish quick researches without 100% proof



why don't you look up logical fallacy in wikipedia - oh i'm sorry, is that too scientific for you?

unrelated



this is just more drivel.


not sure what is this about



this is a common tactic of you nutjobs. You present one half-assed argument that doesn't even hold water, then you follow with "i can give a 100 more of these". Well, i'm sorry to inform you, but whether it's a baby-finger sized nugget you dug from your panties or a truckload of manure from the old farm, shit is still shit, and it won't be any less smelly.


us nutjobs ? Paranoid much ? Im not part of any organization unlike you it seems.
Overall i shouldnt even reply to this. Seems very personally oriented try for an insult



do you have a better alternative to science, then? I'm curious to know how you propose us to gather information if not by the scientific method and research. Although at this point i'm pretty convinced you're just trolling, and i'm not really expecting you to come up with anything resembling sentience, but hey, you never know.


not trolling, but im pretty you tried to troll few times here and there.
If you are not expecting, then you will not receive. Im not going to tell you of what i see as alternative since you seem ungrateful and very bitter in your arguments




--------


next patient! <--- are you imagining you are a doctor now ? First it was a scientist, now a doctor. In science and medical community they call this schizophrenia !


---------






bullshit. There's no statistically significant study that would show such a thing, that would rule out other factors, such as the prevalence of fluoridated toothpaste. The only argument you could possibly make is that since fluoridated toothpaste is so common, maybe water fluoridation is not strictly necessary. But that's again, with regards to the topic at hand, a total non-sequitur. As for these:



You posted the same link over and over, and each link points to pubmed search page with no search arguments.



You're damn right it hasn't, since the links you posted had no substance whatsoever.



How convenient for you that you refrain from posting links to the actual studies. Unfortunately for you, i managed to find the study in question. It's here: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=s0102-311x2007001600018&lng=en&nrm=iso

the studies linking fluoride with low iq have been largely discredited, btw. They usually only show the effect with much higher dosages of fluoride than is recommended for tap water.

The same applies for this particular study you cite here. From the study:



Moctezuma is the only one here where the fluoride levels are within the recommendations. The other 2 sample areas have 5.3mg/l and 9.4mg/l, way over the recommended fluoride content - so in other words, this study sets the lowest point of reference to a place where fluoride contents are (near to) recommended levels, and two other sample areas with way higher levels, so for the purpose of proving the harmfulness of fluoride on recommended dosages this study is absolutely worthless. So, it shows fluoride can be harmful if the dosage is 5-9 times the recommendation. Big deal! Almost anything is harmful if you take 5-9 times the recommended amount.

Next case:



The same applies also to this study: http://www.sid.ir/en/viewpaper.asp?...f dental medicine;summer 2006;19;2 (47);80;86



the recommended levels are around 1-1.5 mg/l. This study is also done with 2.5 times the recommended dosage. Thus, proving exactly nothing. And look at the error margins on those mean iq:s...

Need i go on?



Ok, the same study says on page 4:



Are you starting to see a pattern here?



This is just a repeat of the last one. The same obviously applies here.


Conclusion: All your studies show that fluoride can be harmful in concentrations that are way over the recommended 1-1.5 mg/l. So what? This is nothing new. The dosage makes the poison. I have yet to see a single study that would question fluoride's safety on the dosage levels that are usually recommended for tap water.



Fact is... You can't get reliable facts from fear-mongering nutjob sites.






ps
stop including other people's quotes in same quote reply as to me. Learn to be respectful little boy
 
That's an issue of relative magnitude, which is in this case a flaming red herring. <- ridiculous beginning of a statement
You argued from a general principle, not a specific case. <- in order to reach understanding through the examples used, you have to start on general principle first then go to specific case as you build in on your argument

Thus, you don't get to scoff <- are you his boss ? who are you to say he cant "get to scoff" at and ignore an argument that extends your proposed principle to another, closely-related domain. <- wtf dude are you an autist ? i think you have been hanging out with your dictionary a bit too much as a kid instead of having healthy social relationships with people. this is how people communicate. this is acceptable. what you are saying here is some strict linear rules based on your own troubled mind

.


overall PA, you are a young man and I see potential in you, but your ability to confuse language with chemistry ,which is strictly based linear, is alarming.
 
I was away for a week

Translation: you were vigorously pwnt by the mods for being a douche, amirite? Regardless, the bulk of your replies to Dread were misplaced, selective, and responded predominately to his frustration and rhetoric, not his central points of contention.

they should always release their medical journals with caution and be responsible for what happens. They do it way too often releasing statements not yet verified 100% and they do it so often, it can confuse everyone.

Have you ever actually read from a medical journal? Journals are nothing more than for-profit literature aggregators that compile recent studies to be submitted for public access and peer review. 'Caution' on the part of the researchers is completely irrelevant here. The proposed studies may be accepted or rejected based upon their apparent quality in methodology, contribution to collective understanding, and adherence to modern standards of research. This new literature is then subjected to (sometimes harsh) review by fellow scientists as a further check upon any errors or deliberate data tweaking. Or is this too permissive for you?

On the other hand, your mention of scientists' 'releasing of statements' betrays a complete lack of understanding of this relatively simplistic process. The only 'releasing' that ever occurs within the context of scientific enquiry occurs by the talons of the rabid hawks of a far distal profession - sensationalist journalism. The vast majority of articles that you have ever read regarding the various unsubstantiated (or as-yet unproven) claims vacuously attributed to wise old 'science' have assuredly been trumped-up, distorted, and/or completely overblown by a journalist, as is so typical of their haranguing profession. Show me a single article or news clip featuring an active research scientist claiming unreservedly that "vitamin E cures cancer" or "tobacco is wonderful for you." And no, I don't mean out-of-context quotes ripped from others' mouths and cleverly transmuted secondhand within the pages of a silly internet quack site, nor an unabashed sales pitch for a nutritional supplement company. And furthermore, if you do happen to find some disembodied voice on a radio program from the fifties claiming to be an eminent member of the bioscience community touting the health-promoting wonders of the cigarillo, I would sincerely doubt that he had the full support of his colleagues. The same goes for many similarly indulgent researchers who are today being frequently quoted (or misquoted) in support of [unsubstantiated claim X] by the many 'educational' pieces in which they're featured.

us nutjobs ? Paranoid much ?

Yes, you nutjobs. No, not paranoia. Just a simple recognition that you are indeed a member of an ever-swelling group of easily mislead and determinedly convicted fools unfamiliar with the scientific method. You argue questionable hypotheses vehemently and disregard contradictory evidence. No one suggested that you're part of some organization - just that you're remarkably typical of other nutjobs like yourself. tl;dr You're not nearly as unique a minority as you think you are; your half-baked conspiracy theories and poor attempts at rational argument make you easy to predict and classify accordingly (i.e., as a nutjob).

Im not going to tell you of what i see as alternative since you seem ungrateful and very bitter in your arguments

Or you're justifiably nervous that your 'alternative' will be ripped to shreds when exposed to any serious critique, and are feigning offense in a vain attempt to prove a point. Science has proven itself to be the most reliable systematized method of interrogating the natural world for insight into its most deeply entrenched secrets. It's techniques have been honed for centuries and have been employed consistently for about that long - if you have truly been so shockingly (and uncharacteristically) brilliant as to have independently invented an entirely novel naturalistic philosophy capable of usurping such a time-honored, well-validated tradition as the scientific method, pray, do tell.

so you want a convenient scapegoat. You want to blame an abstract entity, "science", for your own mistakes? It doesn't work that way.

you do the same thing with religion.

No he doesn't. The two aren't even remotely comparable. Most of the world's religions are intricate systems of belief based upon demonstrably non-factual claims, hearsay, and 'revealed' wisdom. Science is just a well-honed tool with which we can ask questions, acquire insight, and develop further inquiry. Blame placed upon religions for any number of their alleged atrocities is just as warranted as placing culpability upon the collective membership of any other largely homogeneous group, be it a nation, a terrorist organization, or whatever. Science is nothing of the sort.
 
Last edited:
PA, with all due respect, i enjoyed what you wrote but next time i reply to someone else discussing this with them specifically, do not reply to me answering for them, ok ?
i am sure he doesnt need a defender. i dont know if he is cute or not, but still let him answer for himself

ktnx :p
 
Go back to your ban, pl0x

your ability to confuse language with chemistry ,which is strictly based linear, is alarming.

This sentence is as nonsensical as it is grammatically infeasible. Chemistry? Lolwut? Try again.

are you his boss ? who are you to say he cant "get to scoff"

...what an idiot. :|:|:|

wtf dude are you an autist ? i think you have been hanging out with your dictionary a bit too much as a kid instead of having healthy social relationships with people. this is how people communicate. this is acceptable. what you are saying here is some strict linear rules based on your own troubled mind

I'm sorry that my comprehension and use of the English language are far in excess of yours in proficiency, but there's no need to get defensive if this threatens or bothers you in any way.

Also, if having 'healthy social relationships' entails being as utterly fuckwitted as you, I would probably be quite content to be an 'autist.'
 
overall PA, you are a young man and I see potential in you, but your ability to confuse language with chemistry ,which is strictly based linear, is alarming.

Overall, acesin, you are a condescending man, and I see another potential ban for you. Your ability to confuse language in general is both tedious and annoying.

PA, with all due respect, i enjoyed what you wrote but next time i reply to someone else discussing this with them specifically, do not reply to me answering for them, ok ?
i am sure he doesnt need a defender. i dont know if he is cute or not, but still let him answer for himself

No. This is an open discussion board, and I'll feel perfectly free to respond when and how I like, within the confines of the forum rules. Kaykay?
 
Overall, acesin, you are a condescending man, and I see another potential ban for you. Your ability to confuse language in general is both tedious and annoying.


its asecin btw. your ability to misspell simple nick right in front of your eyes is tedious and annoying ;)
 
This sentence is as nonsensical as it is grammatically infeasible. Chemistry? Lolwut? Try again.



...what an idiot. :|:|:|



I'm sorry that my comprehension and use of the English language are far in excess of yours in proficiency, but there's no need to get defensive if this threatens or bothers you in any way.

Also, if having 'healthy social relationships' entails being as utterly fuckwitted as you, I would probably be quite content to be an 'autist.'


your ability to use the English language is only as good as people who can understand it. so try again moron.
and yes, im so defensive about a person who comes here not to concentrate on the issue raised and explain himself clearly, but decides to go with using overrun sentences, and as many contradictory words as possible.
perhaps you need to let go off your dictionary once a while since it wont help you construct proper sentences.


and also i guess you are one of "those" who is superbly antisocial and prefers to be an autist as you stated, yet you are addicted responding to people online. interesting !
 
its asecin btw.

Typos? Oh, come on.

your ability to use the English language is only as good as people who can understand it. so try again moron.

Ass-backwards.

overrun sentences

Sorry that you can't keep up. Back to 10th grade grammar for you, then!

contradictory words

Such as...?

and also i guess you are one of "those" who is superbly antisocial and prefers to be an autist as you stated, yet you are addicted responding to people online. interesting !

You have responded to me as often as I have responded to you. Interesting!
 
PA I was told not to stray off topic in this thread, and since I am apparently the bigger man in the situation, Ill kindly stop here.

If you really have problems with me, take it to PM. I wont let you down being the bigger, kind man that I am.


cheers !
 
since I am apparently the bigger man in the situation, Ill kindly stop here

Yeah okay, sure, dood. It's been an immense pleasure.

If you really have problems with me, take it to PM

I don't really have problems with you, as I don't particularly care about you.

I wont let you down being the bigger, kind man that I am

Lol. You were banned from this site for being a total ass. You are no bigger, kinder, or better a man than anyone else. /petty squabble
 
Top