Oy, I have returned from a nice christmas celebration (that's right, you don't have to be religious to celebrate christmas... for the record) and what do I see... the discussion was getting interesting and rational when I left, and now it has deteriorated back to more manual manure propulsion from the anti-science front. BTW, cheers PA for taking up the frontline while I was gone...
Where should I begin? I'll go over most of the posts that catch my eye, if there's something any of you want my comment on don't hesitate to bring it up...
asecin said:
Im not going to tell you of what i see as alternative since you seem ungrateful and very bitter in your arguments
That's a cop-out if I ever saw one. You're just making up more excuses. To put it simply: put up or shut up.
asecin said:
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
Like said, this is an open board, and this is an open discussion, not a debate. You're making more excuses not to defend your arguments. Why?
asecin said:
asecin said:
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 !
asecin said:
(mostly filled with personal attacks by some people)
Funny. You're constantly accusing everyone else of "personal attacks", but it looks to me that the only one using personal attacks and ad hominems is you.
Could it be that you can't really support any of your arguments, and thus resort to trying to "turn the tables"... I'm constantly amazed by this tactic, which I have also observed from the religious fundamentalists (for all I know, you could well be one of them, your mannerism and debating style - not to mention distrust to science - certainly is similar) where you first make an outlandish claim, and when support for the claim is called for, you resort to throwing insults and then suddenly accuse everyone else for making personal attacks...
Perhaps it's just the mentality that religious indoctrination makes your brain used to, but here in the real world, repeating something over and over doesn't somehow make it true, even if you really really wish it to be.
--- and now for something completely different - I hope ---
rickolasnice said:
It's also accepted knowledge that tap water with fluoride concentrations of <1ppm shouldn't be given to young babies..
And do you not think it's possible that somebody could drink twice as much water per day than the average person? Therefore putting them at risk.
Accepted by whom? Don't use weasel words.
As for the 2nd part, it doesn't quite work like that. Increasing the water intake does not necessarily increase fluoride intake proportionally.
vecktor said:
there is an absence of evidence showing that fluoride at low levels causes harm, that is not evidence for absence of harm.
True, but studies have been done on the harmfulness of fluoride, and no real evidence of harm has been presented. So at this point, I feel that we have sufficient information to assume that fluoride is
most likely relatively harmless, and the burden of proof is on the one claiming such harmfulness to exist.
I'm just saying.
My position is that the principle objection against fluoridation is ethical not practical.
So... do you also object naturally occuring fluoride?
rickolasnice said:
Also, bear in mind that the scientifically "safe" dose used to be 4ppm i believe..
Even if this is true, what exactly is the relevance of this?