Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Only if you see the third one as true.
There are rare times when a seatbelt makes things worse rather than making them better (for example), but the benefits outweigh the risks enough to warrant making them mandatory.
"How dare you tell me to wear my seatbelt, my uncle was killed because he was wearing his seatbelt!"
Heck you can even find people publishing studies about the dangers and risks of wearing seat belts! Does that mean the issue isn't settled and there should be no law until every single person agrees?
Of course not.
Same thing with fluoridation.
|
ahh... hence why I worded it the way I did. when I said safe I meant it does not pose any major health threats while passively being used (I.E. the car is not moving). To find a foundation for a universal argument that says it is illogical to wear a seat belt while operating a motor vehicle would be very difficult. Thus while in one circumstance (such as you mentioned with the uncle) it may not have functioned as it should have, it is logical to assume that society benefits from the use of seatbelts with the alternative being none being used. This is where the fluoride argument contradicts this principle, as something (the user) points out more eloquently than myself because it is not possible to logically conclude that fluoride is safe with so much contrary evidence.