Simple fluoride question

[Without Rights]

No, you were trying to lead him into a good/bad scenario, with nothing in between. I was just mentioning that it was a false dichotomy. Sheesh.

No I wasn't. I was asking a simple question. You have no idea what a false dichotomy even is. Read up. http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/False_Dichotomy

Now show me an example of a false dichotomy as a yes or no question, you can't because you are completely wrong. I know you won't ever admit you are wrong because of the frequency in which you are wrong and the rarity of you admitting you are wrong so I'll drop it.

Really? Where did I jump to conclusions ? In fact, coming from you, it's rather funny, because you seem to be under the impression that I think that fluoride is harmless.

You jumped to the conclusion that I think other sources are the only problem just because I said fluoridation compounds the problem they cause.

I never said you think fluoride is harmless so there is another conclusion you are jumping to.

Rights, it was just a few hours ago:

I know what was said. I wanted you to reiterate. You are saying I am not paying attention just because I called you out on not paying attention. Before you start getting into a "I know you are but what am I" tirade, please point out where I was not paying attention to you. You know, like I showed you and you refuse to admit it so you joke instead of being a man and saying what is true.

Your what ? Your last line of defense to avoid admitting that you weren't paying attention.

show me where like I showed you.

 

[Without Rights]

No, you were trying to lead him into a good/bad scenario, with nothing in between. I was just mentioning that it was a false dichotomy. Sheesh.

You never showed an example on the proper way to ask a yes or no question in your world without it being your form of false dichotomy.

Here's my question I asked.
"do you think swallowing F in any form is beneficial?"

I never said is it beneficial or harmful. That is a false dichotomy. Ask my question properly then genius.

 

[Disbelief]

What is your point? Is is that since some people don't rinse properly we should go ahead and put it in the water supply?

No, prove that you get a more significant (i.e. dangerous) amount of fluoride through the water than through what you get from failing to rinse completely.

 

[Without Rights]

No, prove that you get a more significant (i.e. dangerous) amount of fluoride through the water than through what you get from failing to rinse completely.

And what would be the point? I'm sure some people swallow more than others but those same people go and drink the water and add to the fluoride they are swallowing. What is the point you are trying to make?

 

[Belz...]

No I wasn't. I was asking a simple question. You have no idea what a false dichotomy even is.

I know exactly what it is. You simply don't seem to understand what I'm saying.

Person A: "Income taxes are bad"
Person B: "Not necessarily"
Person A: "You think they're good ???"

So, essentially you're Person A. Sure, you can try to weasle your way out of it by saying you weren't trying to pull a "did you stop beating your wife" question, but the implication is pretty clear in the words you used.

If I'm wrong about this, then fine. You didn't mean to imply it. Just be clearer about your intentions, next time.

Now show me an example of a false dichotomy as a yes or no question, you can't because you are completely wrong.

Is "Titanic" a bad movie ? It's a yes or no question, but it's a false dichotomy, because one could like parts of a movie and not others. Asking this question, one would assume that it's a black-and-white thing.

I know you won't ever admit you are wrong because of the frequency in which you are wrong and the rarity of you admitting you are wrong so I'll drop it.

I know you won't ever stop beating your wife, either.

You jumped to the conclusion that I think other sources are the only problem just because I said fluoridation compounds the problem they cause.

Well, my mistake, then. You seemed to jump from one opinion to the other.

I never said you think fluoride is harmless so there is another conclusion you are jumping to.

You certainly implied that I thought we should fluoridate water, when I said no such thing ("Your right, fluoride touches the teeth on the way down the throat. Why is this an argument for fluoridation again?")

You are saying I am not paying attention just because I called you out on not paying attention.

Well, you aren't. Sorry.

You know, like I showed you and you refuse to admit it so you joke instead of being a man and saying what is true.

Joking is bad. Got it.

 

[Disbelief]

And what would be the point? I'm sure some people swallow more than others but those same people go and drink the water and add to the fluoride they are swallowing. What is the point you are trying to make?

You said the difference between industrial fluoride (that which is put into our water supply) and toothpaste is arsenic. That would lead one to believe that arsenic, a known toxin, was the reason you had heartburn with the fluoridation of the water supply. However, you replied that arsenic was not an issue, but the amount of fluoride swallowed through the water supply. Now, you should show that on average a person ingests more fluoride from the water than from toothpaste. If the average person does not, that would kind of damage your theory.

 

[sackett]

Shoot, a feller could have a purty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.

 

[The Truth Hurts]

Without Rights, you have my full respect. Your patients and persistence is truly impressive. I would have (and did) give up on spoon feeding people on this issue. Sure this is a discussion forum but at the same time "you can only take a horse to water... you cant force it to drink" (especially if it is fluoridated!). It is up to people to use their own objectivity and to do their own investigations in order to determine their own position on the issue. Dont let me discourage you from continuing your attempt to enlighten others, just know that you are going above and beyond the call of duty in my opinion which is a good thing.

This statement is not meant to disrespect those who are skeptical of the fluoride issue however it is meant to point out that personal responsibility should be taken to educate yourself on any issue you feel deserves it. Consider yourselves lucky to have a resource like Without Rights available to answer your questions and do your investigations for you. Personally I think the page worth of scientific papers should have sufficed.

 

[Belz...]

Without Rights, you have my full respect. Your patients and persistence is truly impressive. I would have (and did) give up on spoon feeding people on this issue.

Since we're still a far cry from A) showing that the amount of fluoride introduced into the tap water is causing harm to the population at harm and B) that there's a conspiracy involved, I would say that Without Rights' efforts have yet to pay off.

 

[Without Rights]

No, prove that you get a more significant (i.e. dangerous) amount of fluoride through the water than through what you get from failing to rinse completely.

Why do I have to? If someone swallows toothpaste it's bad if they drink it in the water it's bad. Explain your point. I heard the question now three times. I keep asking for the point to it and you give none. If you want an answer to your question then fine, I am sure some people just swallow toothpaste willy nilly, but they are stupid and damaging their bodies. Then they go in the kitchen and drink a tall glass of fluoridated water that makes the fact they didn't rinse even worse. By your logic, If I eat fluoride and then eat toothpaste, just because the fluoride I ate was more dangerous then the toothpaste then the toothpaste was no problem.

 

[Without Rights]

Since we're still a far cry from A) showing that the amount of fluoride introduced into the tap water is causing harm to the population at harm and B) that there's a conspiracy involved, I would say that Without Rights' efforts have yet to pay off.

What about all your other arguments that you have abandoned when you're painted in a corner. You just forget about those and never admit you were wrong.

And by the way, I have sourced science that says fluoride builds up in the brain. I have showed studies that use 1 PPM and show ill effects. I have shown studies that show fluoridated water is unnecessary and damaging because most Americans get more fluoride then is recommended through other sources. I have shown studies that prove 4 PPM (the current allowable level) is too high and dangerous. I have shown that non-fluoridated countries caries have fallen at the same rate as fluoridated countries. I have shown a reduction in the IQ mean since fluoridation began. I have shown an increase in dental fluorosis since fluoridation began. I have shown proof that scientists have done studies and left out of the publication the damaging effects they found. I have shown proof that the EPA scientists have been forced to lie about the damage fluoride does at low levels and forced to say it has positive effects.

 

[Tomblvd]

What do you say to all those people who have naturally occurring fluoride in their water? There are many areas in the US, specifically western foothills and southeast, that have naturally high levels of fluoride. But these areas show no increase in disease or illness.

 

[Without Rights]

You said the difference between industrial fluoride (that which is put into our water supply) and toothpaste is arsenic. That would lead one to believe that arsenic, a known toxin, was the reason you had heartburn with the fluoridation of the water supply. However, you replied that arsenic was not an issue, but the amount of fluoride swallowed through the water supply. Now, you should show that on average a person ingests more fluoride from the water than from toothpaste. If the average person does not, that would kind of damage your theory.

First, I said arsenic was an issue.

If the average person swallows more fluoride from toothpaste than the water then the water compounds the fluoride intake and therefore increases the damage done. If eat chunks of fluoride then eat toothpaste then the toothpaste still hurts me. If I swallow fluoride from toothpaste and drink fluoridated water then the intake increases and does nothing to damage the fact that fluoride is bad to ingest.

What this asinine argument is, is "skeptics" reaching and reaching and never giving up. 20 different arguments have been shot down and abandoned and now we get this crap. If I drink six cups of water that have progressive increases in fluoride then guess what, all six hurt me. Not just the one with the most fluoride. So if people get more fluoride from swallowing toothpaste then they get in the water then that doesn't make the fluoride in the water insignificant, it makes it even worse.

 

[Tomblvd]

BTW, my question/comment was addressed to any of the anti-fluoridationists.

Thanks.

 

[Mr.D]

Without Rights,

I guess we've hit an impasse again and I don't really see a way forward.

I'm content to leave at this; "They must be making a profit, otherwise they wouldn't do it," is insufficient evidence for me to buy into your theory that 'Water Fluoridation' is a the result of a financially motivated conspiracy of Aluminum and Phosphate companies," but it is sufficient for you.

Is that a both reasonably succinct and complete conclusion to our little side-discussion?

If not, please feel free to offer up your own. If so, I have another question for you (which shouldn't result nearly as protracted a discussion as my first)

 

[Tomblvd]

Heck, I didn't think my question was that difficult.

 

[Marius vanderLubbe]

I am currently doing battle with some of these anti fluoridation ....., er people on this site.
http://www.borderwatch.com.au/forum/read.php?3,35I am posting as Pyrrho.

Any suggestions?

 

[Belz...]

What about all your other arguments that you have abandoned when you're painted in a corner.

What arguments ? I've been asking YOU questions about YOUR arguments.

And by the way, I have sourced science that says fluoride builds up in the brain. I have showed studies that use 1 PPM and show ill effects. I have shown studies that show fluoridated water is unnecessary and damaging because most Americans get more fluoride then is recommended through other sources. I have shown studies that prove 4 PPM (the current allowable level) is too high and dangerous. I have shown that non-fluoridated countries caries have fallen at the same rate as fluoridated countries. I have shown a reduction in the IQ mean since fluoridation began. I have shown an increase in dental fluorosis since fluoridation began. I have shown proof that scientists have done studies and left out of the publication the damaging effects they found. I have shown proof that the EPA scientists have been forced to lie about the damage fluoride does at low levels and forced to say it has positive effects.

Good, good. Then we're all in agreement. No, wait! You also said that it was a big conspiracy for mind-control. I guess we're still waiting for you to show that.

 

[Disbelief]

First, I said arsenic was an issue.

If the average person swallows more fluoride from toothpaste than the water then the water compounds the fluoride intake and therefore increases the damage done. If eat chunks of fluoride then eat toothpaste then the toothpaste still hurts me. If I swallow fluoride from toothpaste and drink fluoridated water then the intake increases and does nothing to damage the fact that fluoride is bad to ingest.

What this asinine argument is, is "skeptics" reaching and reaching and never giving up. 20 different arguments have been shot down and abandoned and now we get this crap. If I drink six cups of water that have progressive increases in fluoride then guess what, all six hurt me. Not just the one with the most fluoride. So if people get more fluoride from swallowing toothpaste then they get in the water then that doesn't make the fluoride in the water insignificant, it makes it even worse.

Your whole argument hinges on fluoridation of the water causing numerous problems. You have yet to prove that the fluoride we get from water builds up to any type of toxic level and that we actually retain it. You have not shown what the average intake by water is. Now, if the normal person gets 2 ppm per day though water, yet gets 10 ppm (completely made up stats since WR is not backing a claim) per day through brushing their teeth, why are you going after the little fish? Campaigning against fluoride in toothpaste
would be more useful than going after fluoride in water.

As for "reaching", I am trying to better understand your reasoning. If you do not want to be asked questions, don't post on a public forum.

 

[Tomblvd]

I am currently doing battle with some of these anti fluoridation ....., er people on this site.
http://www.borderwatch.com.au/forum/read.php?3,35I am posting as Pyrrho.

Any suggestions?

If you get into the "dueling studies" debate, it'll get you nowhere. Ironically, it is the fact that fluoride has been so intensely studied that gives them some shred of hope. Obviously there is no way every study is going to go the right way.

I've found that merely pointing out that a non-trivial amount of the water supply in the world is naturally fluoridated makes the most sense. People who like to tell you how dangerouse fluoride is find it almost incomprehensible that it is the 13th (?) most common element on the planet, and that people have been drinking it since the very beginning with no ill effects.