Wellington Florida, and Pinella's County Say, "NO!" to Fluoride!

reply to post by Phage


Sure, you could call it a strawman argument but it still highlights the logical fallacy in your argument.

This is in fact closer to the scientific method then it is a strawman argument. Lets take a look shall we..


Science buddies

It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.

I used the same ideaology your using but i only changed the variables which are adderral, and fluoride. Thats not strawman thats scientific. You already know this though dont you...

Wiki

A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of the topic of argument. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having denied a proposition by replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then deny it ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[3][4]

Im not mis representing your argument im taking the same exact idea and applying a different set of variables. As an alleged scientist you should understand that.

onequestion
reply to post by Witness2008

 

Because its cheaper to treat obesity by adding adderal to the water and preventing many diseases lets do that too. Kids will get better grades and it will improve overall production as well its a win win for soceity.

Good idea i love the direction this way of thinking it bringing us.

edit on 20142America/Chicagoq000000America/Chicago4428562014 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

Right on!!

Perhaps we could throw a few SSRI's in the soup along with the adderal and fluoride. No more mass shootings. The obesity problem could be resolved with putting meth amphetamines in the water, I think the adderal would take too long for folks to drop unwanted weight, more instant gratification, the way we like it here in the west.

I do believe we are on our way to solving all of our societal ills.

reply to post by onequestion

Im not mis representing your argument im taking the same exact idea and applying a different set of variables. As an alleged scientist you should understand that.

What experimental procedure were you conducting?

Your statement was a strawman argument, creating a false equivalency between Adderal and fluoride, as well as an example of reduction ad absurdum.

reply to post by Phage


No, i took your exact premise and changed the variables and your refusing to acknowledge that.

Explain in detail exactly how its a false equivalency.

Were testing the value of the logic behind your argument.

reply to post by onequestion


That works in science experiments which are examining a specific hypothesis.

It doesn't work in logical argument. In logical argument you argue a point on it's merits, you don't change the argument to fit your whim.

Explain in detail exactly how its a false equivalency.

Adderal is a prescription amphetamine. for which doses must be strictly controlled. Fluoride is a substance, found naturally in many water supplies which in low concentrations has been demonstrated to be harmless. There is no equivalency. There is also no call to put Addreal in the water supply by anyone in the medical profession because it is a foolish proposal. There is strong advocacy for fluoridation in the medical profession because it works.

You created a strawman.

reply to post by Phage


I didnt change the argument the hypothesis. I used the very same idea and applied it to obesity and adderral.

You add fluoride to the water to prevent dental problems.

You add adderal to the water to prevent obseity.

Highlight the differences and explain to me what they are or your flat out wrong and just cant admit it.

Forget the free market that doesnt even matter at this point because your cant apply the same mathematical principle to a different set of variables.

reply to post by Phage

As pointed out, hexafluorosilicic acid has many uses, it is useful, it is not considered a waste product. It is a byproduct.

By product or waste product, it's still not something that I want in my body.

You do realize the difference between naturally occurring calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride as a waste/by product?

Sodium Fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) is primarily added to public drinking water as a fluoridation agent. This same compound is also used as an insecticide and a wood preservative. It is a classified hazardous waste by-product of phosphate fertilizer manufacture which, if not put into our drinking water, must be disposed of at hazardous waste facilities. Other names for it are Sodium Fluosilicate and Sodium Silica Fluoride.

fluoridedetective.com...

reply to post by onequestion

Highlight the differences and explain to me what they are or your flat out wrong and just cant admit it.

See above.

reply to post by Witness2008


Hes an obvious shill incapable of thinking outside of the parameters defined for him through his education its almost pointless to continue the conversation.

I wonder how do other countries compare with there water I mean humanity didn't always flouridate their water why start this as a thing I suppose nature needs additives humanity cant be humans unless humans change nature wtf.

reply to post by Witness2008

You do realize the difference between naturally occurring calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride

Not really. Never mind the fact that when both are dissolved in water all you get is fluoride ions, which are...fluoride ions


Calcium Fluoride sounds real benign:

Special Remarks on Chronic Effects on Humans: May affect genetic material (mutagenic). May cause adverse reproductive effects and birth defects (teratogenic) based on animal test data.

Special Remarks on other Toxic Effects on Humans: Acute Potential Health Effects: Skin: May cause skin irritation. Eyes: May cause eye irritation. Inhalation: Causes respiratory tract irritation. Ingestion: May cause gastrointestinal irritaiton with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, salivation, thirst, abdominal pain, fever, labored breathing (respiratory depression, apnea, dyspnea). Exposure to fluorides may also cause disturbed color vision, hypocalcemia, hyperkalemia, and hypomagnesemia, and may result in systemic toxic effects on the heart/ cardiovascular system (hypotension, tachycardia, arrhythmia, weak pulse, cardiovascular collapse), liver (hepatic enzymes increased), and kidneys (abnormal renal function, renal damage). It may also affect behavior/Central Nervous System (CNS depression - headache, dizziness, weakness, somnolence, ataxia, loss of conciousness). Other neurological symptoms of acute fluoride ingestion may include muscle weakness, difficulty speaking, fitfulness(hyperreflexia), tetany, numbness or tingling of the extremities. Chronic Potential Health Effects: Skin: Prolonged or repeated skin contact may cause dermatitis. Inhalation: Prolonged or repeated inhalation may cause bronchitis, asmtha, silicosis, increase in respiratory infections, pulmonary lesions. Ingestion: Prolonged or repeated ingestion cause diseases of the blood, teeth, bones and other organs (osteosclerosis, fluorosis). (Fluorisis is characterized by vomiting, diarrhea or constipation, weakness joint stiffness, loss of appetite, anemia).

www.sciencelab.com...

See, the thing is, we aren't talking about high concentrations of raw chemical compounds. We are talking about low concentrations of elemental ions. Fluoride ions. The source of those ions is irrelevant.

reply to post by onequestion


For me, the adding of fluoride to the water for my own good is just as ludicrous as adding any other drug to the public water supply.

It is a drug, and it should not be in the water.

There is nothing straw man about your argument. Be careful of the gerbil wheels around this joint.

reply to post by Brotherman

Artificial fluoridation was started after it was discovered that in areas with naturally fluoridated water there was a lower incidence of tooth decay, and its associated problems than in areas without.

reply to post by Witness2008

It is a drug, and it should not be in the water.

It is not a drug anymore than water is a drug.
It is no more a drug than salt is a drug.

onequestion
reply to post by Witness2008

 

Hes an obvious shill incapable of thinking outside of the parameters defined for him through his education its almost pointless to continue the conversation.

And there it is, the last resort.
Cry Shill!

reply to post by Phage


Its not my last resort are you crazy?

I very accurately described my position.

People will read our debate and come to their own conclusions.

Weather its good for you or not isnt the point. You cannot see the flaws in your logic. Its really sad.

reply to post by onequestion

Its not my last resort are you crazy?

You call me a shill then say continuing the discussion is pointless.

Notice, btw, you have now resorted to an ad hominem approach.

reply to post by onequestion


Freedom to choose what drugs we take is the matter at hand in this thread. Perhaps some of us can keep it there.

The fluoride debate could end immediately, if we just left it up to the individual. Save the individual tax payer $3.00 per year on top of it.

reply to post by Witness2008


No the debate is weather or not its good for you not weather or not it should be your choice.

DUH.

reply to post by Phage

It is not a drug anymore than water is a drug. It is no more a drug than salt is a drug.

Then why is it dumped into public water supplies?