The government isn't forcing chemicals into people, the government is putting something in the water at the request of the people.
Just like the government makes everyone wear seatbelts or limits how much you can drink before driving or puts warnings on cigarettes or a million other ways the government interferes with our lives.. or rather we all interfere with our own and others' lives through the government.
That's the kind of society we live in.
-100% evidence that wearing a seatbelt is logical and safe
-100% evidence that cigarette smoke is unhealthy
-much less than 100% evidence that fluoride is healthy
So people who want Fluoride in their water should be provided said water free of charge at every working tap in the city but people who do not want Fluoride in their water should have to go out and purchase water from a third party retailer at further expense (because their tax dollars already pay for the fluorinated water) to themselves? And the reasoning? A 15 year old plebiscite!?
Yep, solid logic at work on CP today.
__________________
"Man, so long as he remains free, has no more constant and agonizing anxiety than to find, as quickly as possible, someone to worship."
Fyodor Dostoevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
The Following User Says Thank You to kipperfan For This Useful Post:
Tit for tat. The following was one of the most stupid and asinine things I have ever read in my entire life:
ok let's get this straight so you understand what is going on. I formed an opinion on logic and live my life in the healthiest possible way given the means available to me, I wish to not have chemicals forced into my body. You on the other hand do not provide any counterpoint founded by logic, speak entirely from a place of hatred and wish death upon me. So maybe it is time to look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are really as smart as you think you are (hint: the answer is something you will not like). I have yet to read one sentence founded by logic from you, not one, so until that happens I am going to have to assume that your sole purpose here is to piss people off and I will have to ignore you.
Yes, perhaps a better way to put it is to look at the quality and weight of the evidence, and not whether anyone is an expert (appeal to authority). If the overwhelming, science-based evidence points in one direction, I support that.
True, and I should reform my definition of an expert. It seems the conventional definition of expert is accepted by the masses as being an authority, which in this context, is a paradoxical condition.
And though I would agree that if scientifically based evidence were overwhelming, we may reasonably accept its conclusions. I have not found this to be the case with fluoridation. Additionally, in quantifying the evidence that currently exists, I am still appropriately susceptible to my values, which will associate a "weighting" to the evidence that exists.
Basically, I am biased; but am still curious to know of any reasonable alternatives to tap water.
-100% evidence that wearing a seatbelt is logical and safe
-100% evidence that cigarette smoke is unhealthy
-much less than 100% evidence that fluoride is healthy
do you see the difference?
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.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
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.
The government isn't forcing chemicals into people, the government is putting something in the water at the request of the people.
Just like the government makes everyone wear seatbelts or limits how much you can drink before driving or puts warnings on cigarettes or a million other ways the government interferes with our lives.. or rather we all interfere with our own and others' lives through the government.
That's the kind of society we live in.
I brought this idea up in one of my earlier posts, it is called the "tyranny of the majority".
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Stuart Mill
The limitation, therefore, of the power of government over individuals, loses none of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community, that is, to the strongest party therein. This view of things, recommending itself equally to the intelligence of thinkers and to the inclination of those important classes in European society to whose real or supposed interests democracy is adverse, has had no difficulty in establishing itself; and in political speculations "the tyranny of the majority" is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard.
If you want more concept of this idea, you can follow this link:
I hope that it helps you amend the following statement:
"...the government is putting something in the water at the request of the people."
And as I understand, the most recent plebiscite demonstrated that 53% were in favour... A tenuous majority enforcing itself on the remaining 47%. Majority rule is not the superlative political determinant; especially by a slim margin.
The Following User Says Thank You to something For This Useful Post:
So people who want Fluoride in their water should be provided said water free of charge at every working tap in the city but people who do not want Fluoride in their water should have to go out and purchase water from a third party retailer at further expense (because their tax dollars already pay for the fluorinated water) to themselves? And the reasoning? A 15 year old plebiscite!?
Yep, solid logic at work on CP today.
The criterion specified for an alternative was that it be "reasonable". I don't think anyone suggested what you are proposing.
Here is a scientific look at Fluorine. Most of the video shows how reactive Fluorine is. However, fast forward to 5:20 when the Chemist explains how Fluoride helps prevent tooth decay
And as I understand, the most recent plebiscite demonstrated that 53% were in favour... A tenuous majority enforcing itself on the remaining 47%. Majority rule is not the superlative political determinant; especially by a slim margin.
I believe that in a democracy majority rule is indeed the superlative political determinant subject only to the reasonable expectation of a minority to not be unreasonably interfered with in their liberties that are not socially maladaptive or unreasonable to accomodate.
i.e. I would not support government mandated "whites only" lunch counters even if more than 50% of the population supported it because that would be an unreasonable infringement on minority rights of freedom of association, and there is no inherently unreasonable cost for the government to support that minority right.
On the other hand, there are all sorts of impositions on minorities that are supportable. The imposition of taxes on everyone, despite the loud objections of a small minority against any taxation is a perfect example. Social utility supports the government collecting taxes to benefit everyone even if a minority feels this to be an unfair imposition on their liberty. Fluoridation is a similar situation in my opinion. There are arguments for and against, but ultimately it is incumbent upon the minority to shift public attitude, not for the majority to give up the benefits they have become accustomed to based on a minority's lobbying ability.
I sent an email to my alderman in this regard this morning.
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
Last edited by onetwo_threefour; 02-09-2011 at 12:36 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to onetwo_threefour For This Useful Post:
the difference being taxes don't effect the chemicals that go into the population. That's why I think the argument transcends the rule of the majority. Should it be the right of the majority to force a certain chemical upon a minority that they do not wish to ingest?
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.
Assuming that there is actually contrary evidence, and that the contrary evidence applies for the concentration we're talking about.
Just because people claim there's contrary evidence doesn't actually mean there is.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
So people who want Fluoride in their water should be provided said water free of charge at every working tap in the city but people who do not want Fluoride in their water should have to go out and purchase water from a third party retailer at further expense (because their tax dollars already pay for the fluorinated water) to themselves? And the reasoning? A 15 year old plebiscite!?
Yep, solid logic at work on CP today.
So people who don't want Fluoride in their water should be provided said water free of charge at every working tap in the city but people who do want Fluoride in their water should have to go out and purchase fluoride from a third party retailer at further expense?
The logic works both ways.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
So people who don't want Fluoride in their water should be provided said water free of charge at every working tap in the city but people who do want Fluoride in their water should have to go out and purchase fluoride from a third party retailer at further expense?
The logic works both ways.
lol
A:I pay for something you want, don't use it, have to go out of my way and spend more money so I don't have to use it
B:You pay for something you want, use it and leave me out of the equation.
these are logically equivalent now....
The Following User Says Thank You to robocop For This Useful Post:
ok let's get this straight so you understand what is going on. I formed an opinion on logic and live my life in the healthiest possible way given the means available to me, I wish to not have chemicals forced into my body. You on the other hand do not provide any counterpoint founded by logic, speak entirely from a place of hatred and wish death upon me. So maybe it is time to look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are really as smart as you think you are (hint: the answer is something you will not like). I have yet to read one sentence founded by logic from you, not one, so until that happens I am going to have to assume that your sole purpose here is to piss people off and I will have to ignore you.
I have no intention of wading into this debate, as I do not care either way, but that line right there is absolutely absurd.
The Following User Says Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
