Posted: Aug 15, 2011 5:18 pm
Is that a Royal "us" & a Royal "our" ?
Moridin wrote:If you want to appear rational and credible, you need to respond to criticism with a rational defense that include scientific arguments. This has nothing to do with the FUA.No I don't. There's nothing in the FUA that members MUST respond to stupid questions. Or to ANY question.
As I said further down: I don't give a tinker's toss how I appear to you. You really need more humility.
It totally demolishes your argument, as others have also pointed out.Moridin wrote:This does not refute my argument. If water fluoridation reduces IQ as much as you say it does why is the average intelligence rising, even if we limit ourselves to places where water fluoridation exists?1- The Flynn Effect is not a measure of fluoride ingestion. Remember that most of the world doesn't have fluoride added to its water. Also there are other factors influencing intelligence, such as nutrition & education.
No you don't. I don't accept that only an American journal is bonafide knowledge. Criticize the article & the research, not where it happened to be published...which could have been due to several reasons unknown to you.Moridin wrote:The article you are referring to is published in a journal with an impact factor of 1.6. Compare this with the impact factor of, say, Nature (~31). If this is such a scientific breakthrough, why was it published in an obscure journal with an impact factor usually associated with journals that are either completely crank or relatively unimportant?
Moridin wrote:This shows that you have not understood the point. Toxic effects are dependent on dose, so relatively low concentrations are, for all intents and purposes, not toxic. In some case, such as water, it is vital.2- Yes, the degree of toxicity for most things is dosage dependent. Obviously a bucketful of fluoride would kill you instantly. But that doesn't mean that a gram is good for you. It's simply less toxic.
This shows that you didn't understand my response. a) toxicity for most things is dosage dependent. b) I wrote "a gram" which is actually quite high. You're seriously telling me that if I came across 1 molecule, I think it's toxic?
Moridin wrote:Now, they are not processed "from one to the other". Fluorine (F2) is a corrosive gas, so you breathe it in. It does not go through your digestive system at all. You would have failed an introductory university course in inorganic chemistry.3- Do YOU think it is intellectually honest to distinguish fluoride (F-) with fluorine (F2), when in the body they are processed from one to the other during metabolism?
You really need a good helping of humility. It's the failure of all bright sparks who think they now have the sum of all knowledge. YES, fluorine DOES go through the intestines: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... fTHpEugvUA
Why do I have to do your references for you? Because you assume too much. You assume that there is NO metabolic pathway between fluoride & fluorine. You assume that we KNOW ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING about metabolic pathways in organisms, because you did a few hours at uni, where they told you so. Since you're unlikely to be interested in my links, as you poo-pooed the Chinese research links, here's the quote from above:
"Fluorine enters the bloodstream through the intestines and lungs.". But of course they wouldn't pass a university entrance test, would they? But wait; there's more: http://www.jbc.org/content/241/23/5557.full.pdf That was just one pathway. Here's another: http://www.poisonfluoride.com/pfpc/html/prozac.html Oops, & yet another: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... VK-JVEnkCg
You think that because something is a gas, the organism has no way to use it & its derivatives in a bio-chemical reaction in the body? You've heard of red blood cells exchanging oxygen for carbon dioxide via the iron pathway? No? Never mind.
Moridin wrote:Being "forced" to pay (and even that is debatable), not forced to drink. You are also forced to pay for water purification and having your fecal waste separated from the drinking supply. Do you want to stop doing that too? The point is that it is reasonable to assume that people in general will consent to whatever a reasonable person who knew all the facts and where reasoning without fallacies or biases would consent to. Furthermore, bottled water also contain fluoride, so that point is moot.4- Are you competing with byofrcs in silliness? I was not speaking of going on hunger strike. It is 'forced' on us because we have to pay for fluoridation (an involuntary medicine) whether we like it or not. In other words, to clear the crap out we have to either get a) an expensive treatment device at our home, which still doesn't clear it when we are elsewhere. Or b) We always have to carry around bottled water which is far more expensive.
You haven't even begun to understand this thread. Read my earlier posts. WE don't have to drink it, but we have to drink something. Bottled water is 50 times the price. And as the Chairman & Strontium have pointed out, there's a lot of inconvenience & you have to shower in the stuff, breathing in the droplets. But all YOU have to do is take a friggin' fluoride tablet if you're desperate. Or brush your teeth with the stuff.
Moridin wrote:Most municipal water treatment facilities do have public tours or leaflets. The detailed facts about fecal waste from the water supply is not made generally available to people either. There are also detailed scientific evidence supporting some kind of water fluoridation.5- The facts were never made available to the people. The only things that the social manipulators & industrialists have ever said is that "fluoride is good for your children's teeth". The crap was then foisted on to us by dictat.
This is too weird. What the hell does sewage treatment have to do with forced medication? There's lots of scientific evidence AGAINST fluoridation. AND, I don't care if they put strawberries in the water. If it is not to do with water purity, it should NOT be there. If I want fluoride then I can take tablets. I can even suicide on it. But it is ILLEGAL to force it on to people.
Moridin wrote:No, they are not; both principles are applied routinely in all areas where bioethics is applied, regardless of duress or not.6- Don't play silly buggers & sophistry. Non-maleficence and benevolence are done in situations of duress.Rejecting autonomy as a context-free absolute and showing that trade-offs have to be made with other principles, such as benevolence and non-maleficence is the exact opposite of totalitarianism.You don't grab someone off the street & force them into hospital because you want to save them from themselves. The route you're proposing is towards totalitarianism.
Big, bombastic words, but meaningless. The situation is straightforward. Some fuckwit is forcing me, unless I go to the trouble of carrying bottled water everywhere, forcing me to drink an additive, specifically put in as a medication. I don't care if it makes me live forever, or grow bigger breasts. It is MY fuckin' choice, NOT yours!
Moridin wrote:Stop acting like a baby. If you actually read my posts, you will see that I did in fact agree that there is reason to change the current system and that the drive for personal freedom is a good one. We just disagree about methods to achieve these goals. You did not actually respond to my question: If you are genuinely interested in a free society, why are you peddling conspiracy theories that actively standing in the way of the drive towards individual freedom because it makes people take your position less seriously?7- I don't give a tinker's toss whether you like my debating style or whether you or anyone else agrees with the points I make. You evidently disagree with anything I say. Well, if you want to cut off your nose to spite your face, then so be it.
As I said; you use your methods to bring about a free society, & I'll use mine. And if it doesn't come about, I won't even give a shit. The whole world can become a goddam gulag for all I care. Plenty more fish in the sea.
Moridin wrote:Consent to medication is not a human right according to the UN.In fact, it may be argued that water fluoridation is a human right under Article 25: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." Furthermore, as I have carefully explained to you earlier, consent is not an absolute, but has to be balanced against other values and principles and that no one is forcing you to drink the tap water.This is truly a fucked up world when the most obvious human right, such as consent to medication, is a matter for ridicule & obfuscation. When the day comes that some authoritarian figure decides that YOU should be forcefully medicated, or life made complicated if you refuse, then you remember your attitude here.
I work in a realm above the United Nations. The highest form of liberty is that which belongs to the sentient being. Not to society, not to corporations, not to government, not to the UN. But the sentient being. Look at the track record of the UN & its sycophantic, pen pushing "general secretary". The UN is a tool of hegemonic powers, a 'front', a smoke & mirrors distraction. It's better than nothing, but only just. It certainly has no precedence over the widely encompassing mind.
Moridin wrote:Well done Galaxian, you did not actually respond to any of the critical questions. Instead, you just repeated already debunked arguments and compared the principles of bioethics with communism.
Well done Moridin. You keep leading from behind. Galaxian will keep leading from the front.
