411
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
411 points (100.0% liked)
politics
23115 readers
3074 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Two days from now timelines are going split. I don't know what will happen in both, but I can tell you for sure I'd like to avoid the timeline where Trump wins. If for no other reason than all the bad breath this single choice will cause.
It’s like Back to the Future’s alternative Biff-world versus the saner reality.
I’ll take the:
…over your:
You have anything says that ingesting or actually helps? That's the part I find kinda weird, and that quote doesn't address that specific issue. Using it on the surface of your teeth is shown to be helpful, I get that; but drinking it is a whole different ballgame... Besides, I thought the fluoride in the toothpaste was the reason you're not supposed to swallow?
You can always use examine.com to start base level research on most substances. It tries to cover the most common questions and link the research papers most relevant to that question if available. Excerpt below, but I recommend scrolling through the whole page. It also discusses maximum safe daily levels, toxic levels, and symptoms when you exceed those levels.
Casually states without evidence that fluoride was only introduced to keep people docile, then demands citations on rebuttals. Looks like we got ourselves a full blown case of the MAGA.
Are you so singularly interested in proving you are right that you don't bother to read or try to genuinely comprehend what other people write when they are calling you out for your bad behaviour?
The source you posted doesn't mention anything to support your statement about fluoride originally being used to test if it could keep the working class docile. The fact remains that you are asking others to source themselves despite being unwilling, unable, or disinterested in doing so yourself.
Still I am glad you're voting for Harris 🙂
That’s a fair question. I Googled around and arrived at a couple different gov health websites (National Institutes of Health, Cleveland Clinic) which mention that, while high levels of fluoride can be harmful, the amount put into the US drinking supply doesn’t approach that threshold.
Fluoride, when swallowed, can be distributed throughout the body, which includes being in the saliva that covers the teeth. Nevertheless, fluoridated water has been shown with more than enough evidence to improve the quality of teeth in humans compared to its risks (if any) and removing it in water will reduce those benefits.
This is a good take, I liken it to iodine in salt.
However, I worry about the effects of fluoride in groundwater. I don’t know if I should be too concerned about that per se, but I hear some plants hate it and that and it says in the ground for like forever.
Good bait
The reason why you're being downvoted is because you've provided some outlandish claims without any source.
I honestly remember my parent's talking about these exact things in the 80s. It's absurd to claim that in the interceding decades no reputable science has supported these claims.
Science is sometimes wrong, and from time to time we have to improve our understanding of things, but great claims require great evidence.
I'm not suggesting that you care about down votes, but you seem to think the down votes imply people are angry or have "lost their minds" whatever that means.
... but I found a blog post saying the earth is flat, and it had very thorough citations.
Bold claims require irrefutable evidence.
The weight of evidence in support of fluoridation is overwhelming. It's the greatest public health intervention in the history of human kind.
If you want to say it makes people docile then you need large double blinded peer reviewed longitudinal studies supporting that claim. If you don't have that then you're going to get downvotes because you're just parroting nonsense.
Well, you actually begin with a good example of another outlandish claim. They are right? I don’t suppose you can back that up? If not, that’s just an unbacked claim. Outlandish, of course, is subjective, but I’d say it sure is just that.
The one you claim is outlandish, is, indeed, outlandish. I agree with your point that this is what the ruling class would do, if we remove this thought experiment from any context and real-life bounds. They 100% would. If they knew they’d get away with it.
I don’t believe they would, in reality, though, get away with it.
So while that point is logical in a detached sense, it still is as outlandish as everything else.
Edit: What’s up with this .ee instance by the way? Has anyone else noticed that a lot of commenters and comments like this happen to be from there? Contrarians, completely weird takes, oddly common “I’m a leftist, BUT…” comments, and a lot of third party voters and enthusiasts. I’ve noted it earlier but this finally made it hit. Does anyone know some context that they’d have time and energy to share?
Coward can't admit he was wrong
Good, glad you were able to bring yourself to admit it.
Have a good one!
You don't care so much you deleted your post, very cool
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9542152/
I've always heard ingesting flouride makes developing teeth stronger, and does nothing for adults. Found a review of studies: https://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_does-adding-fluoride-water-supplies-prevent-tooth-decay