It is with sincere humility that I apologize for not responding earlier.
Memoryshock, to you I owe the first and most important apology. You trusted me to continue and conclude this debate, in a manner appropriate to the
quality of the debate forum, thus far I have failed twice. I will do my best to make amends. However the process of research has shown me a new
rabbit hole (for me.) This topic may have been my undoing.
I offer only an assurance that my intentions to the subject matter and ATS are honorable.
My offer of apology to the noble fighter chissler:
With a heavy heart, (and a hefty chunk of disappointment) I offer my conditional
surrender. I can not concede your position in this debate
is valid, and I do believe I can convince you to 'look into it again' once the stage that is the debate no longer constrains us to the forms and
processes which are in place.
I understand that 'validity' is an irrelevancy in the exercise of competitive debating as an activity
; but most importantly, I initially
believed the topic was representative of some larger phenomenon, like an ill-defined 'social paranoia' afflicting the generally 'conspiratorially'
inclined community. Until, I went back, to earlier sources for corroboration.
I have missed two deadlines, and want to not offer the appearance of any disrespect or disregard for the effort that you has put forth. You deserves
the win, in my opinion, based on that technicality alone.
I accept the limitations given within the debate, but this subject has proven significant beyond my original understanding, and surprisingly
revealing, overwhelming my focus. I have begun to piece together a puzzle, which is developing into a strong circumstantial case belying the trite
meme apparently propagated to characterize the subject of the general 'fluoride' conspiracy theory.
I have entered a rabbit hole it seems, and it is my nature to continue the exploration until I have satisfied the objective of seeing it through to
the end. I will be developing a thread which will demonstrate the case as I have synthesized it thus far. I humbly submit the importance of this
subject transcends this debate.
I am compelled to consume yet a bit more space before proceeding with what remains of my opportunity to respond. My opponent paints a picture which
reflects not only the subject at hand, but the use of criticism of his opponent's form as a function of the debate. That is fair (in fact, sometimes
even unavoidable). In doing so, the opponent, in this case me, can often be drawn to dilute their case by responding to the criticism. Often, but
To make the most of my attempt to remedy my apparent lack of attention to this matter I will fulfill my mandatory obligations to respond to explicit
questions, and may touch upon questions, unless they seem rhetorical in nature.
I will now move forward with my Socratic questions for my opening reply:
1. Who is this external agency that promotes the fluoridation of water?
2. Can you show me documentation that supports your position that water fluoridation is promoting passivity in its citizens?
3. Has your drinking water been fluoridated?
4. Do you agree that the fluoridation of water prevents tooth decay?
1. The external agency, is not readily definable in terms of nomenclature. I refer to the Webster definitions number 2 and 4 of the word
agency (note lower case)
; namely, 1. the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of
; as well as 2. an establishment engaged in doing business for another
'Agencies' in the intended sense, embraces the colloquial use as a general noun relating to a formally structured government entity, but is not
limited to such a body. Circumstantial and coincidental policy execution is often indicative of connections that the 'reigning' order maintains.
To define it by name you would have to have information that is easily rejected unless the connections are made clear.
2. Absolutely not. In the cyber-medium in which we reside at the moment, it is patently impossible to demonstrate any documentation that can be
examined and judged on its face value.
I can provide you with very specific on-line sources I used to compile support for the assertion, thus far, they exceed the level of hundreds. In
order to understand this case you must begin your search starting in the late 17th Century, you must include economic history, the social structures
of the industrialization of the old and new world, patent cases from the 1800's through to the 20th century, and more still. This case will not be
handed to you on a single source platter. At this moment, it can't happen. As I stated earlier I will strive to see that it will, eventually.
3. Irrelevantly, no. However, water fluoridation is no longer a function of how much fluorine-compound exposure a person has any longer. In fact,
we, as a species, have always
been exposed to some degree, but then - the choices of men came into play, and viola! There is unnaturally
sourced fluorides in the blood of every living human being, it would appear.
4. Fluoridation of water prevents tooth decay as effectively as death does. Any attempt to validate fluoridation of water as the means towards this
end is a surrender to the notion that fluoride compounds are necessary for good dental health. Such is not the case. And even if it were, does that
necessarily validate the disregard for the neurological impact the toxin has over the population? If such were the trade off, I'll just take better
care of my teeth, thank you.
As a firm believer in propaganda, (in fact, it was part of my analytical experience for 12-years) I can tell you, that it is everywhere, the easier it
is to get to, the more likely someone worked to make it so. There is a plethora of links, organizations, and interests which confidently tell us just
how safe and beneficial and DESIRABLE it is to fluoridate water. More than can be counted easily.
The tricks of the trade include phrases like - 'there have been no published studies that prove....' (meaning, it must not be true if it wasn't
'published'); and also 'the most studied ...', and 'it was determined that...', all can be reduced to the logician's null-set because the
structures are passive and not revealing of premises.
I do not wish to waste my remaining time exposing sources and agendas in propaganda.
Fluorides were so named because, before the element was even discovered, it was known as a useful substance to help in the separation of the
constituent components of substances. For example, without flourides, Aluminum cannot easily (industrially) flow separately from bauxite - for
The hunt for the element itself, it's isolation and even its effect on living beings was spearheaded by European chemists and physicists. By the
way, in 1844 the French dentist Antoine Malagou Désirabode recommended the use of "fluates" (as fluorides were still called then) for the
preparation of dental fillings. Walter Hoffmann-Axthelm, author of a book on the history of dentistry claims that Désirabode probably was the first
to think about a caries - preventive use of fluoride. So much the the dental hero Fredrick McKay. It is a recurring tendency of American-sourced
history to imply
that America is the alpha and omega of the universe of knowledge and progress - see what I mean about propaganda?
During the decades that followed much protesting took place in the community about apparent illnesses associated with fluoridation, especially in
France, but they pretty much fell silent when in 1903 then leading French scientist Grosseron, defended its application for anti-bacterial use in
canning concluding: "Sodium fluoride is an indispensable auxiliary to commerce and one cannot prohibit its use without causing to the French
industry damage as considerable as unjustified.
" (Bolding mine)
I point out that statement to exemplify that the myth of 'public welfare' as excuse for policy is as old as humanity's experiment in
It is noteworthy that the scientists during that time were not living in a glass bubble, they were subsidized, publicly honored, and bestowed social
eminence buy the very same interests we see in place now. The 'power-class.' Royalties, Industrialists, Elitists, Financiers; all had there hand
in various places, affecting the lives of the productive citizenry, with no consideration of them as having rights commensurate with their own.
If you cannot accept that as a social reality of historical relevance than presumptively you don;t believe it could be true today.
1. Is it representative of your position to state that you deny the relationship of those empowered to affect and effect policy with their social
circle are relevant?
2. Do you believe that studies and investigations can not be suppressed or corrupted by extenuating circumstances?
3. If a report is contrary to a power agency's agenda, can they effectively counter it, or nullify it's significance.
4. Given that the framework behind the scenes if one of the officially recognized 'laws', do you deny that the 'laws' can be molded to benefit
one party's interests?
5. Were you aware that the fluorine ion is instrumental in pharmaceuticals specifically targeting areas of the brain?