It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The basic idea of ethical subjectivism is that moral judgments are fundamentally subjective, i.e. based on feelings. This says nothing about what is right or wrong. So subjectivism does not allow (or forbid) anything, and it is nonsense to talk about how things would be if subjectivism were our guide or were put into practice. So you cannot criticize subjectivism by talking about the bad effects it would have. It is (meant to be) merely a description of the meaning of words such as 'right' and 'wrong'. It either gets the meaning right or it doesn't. So it is true or false, not good or evil.
Originally posted by Viral
I don't understand what a 1950's propaganda leaflet has to do with me?
The definition of 'excessive' in the context of fluorosis falls on the order of parts per million (ppm) and is generally accepted to mean significantly higher than the 0.7 to 1.2 ppm amounts recommended for fluoridated water. Fluoride in small amount is considered by most dentists to be beneficial to teeth (see Fluoride therapy).
Originally posted by americandingbat
I think Viral was just saying that it's frustrating to believe something, have a friend ask for information and seem to share the belief, and then behave in a way that makes clear the friend doesn't believe you.
Which is pretty understandable. I hate it when people "go along" with what I'm saying and I learn later that they actually disagree. If I present an argument and someone sees flaws in it, I wish they would educate me.
In this case I think maybe the friend is more convinced than Viral sees, because I don't think that having an occasional glass of tap water means that you agree with the fluoridation of our water. But I think Viral was just using that as an example (which is why this is in Education and Media, instead of Medical Conspiracies).