Attacks on scientific expertise have been increasing, especially in politics. Health and Human Services nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is among the more prominent people who have done that.
I find your way of thinking troubling, it assumes that people are not capable of understanding nuanced information and that only academics in ivory towers are qualified to understand it, which is false in most cases. From my point of view that line of thinking is what has wrought the crisis of misinformation and mistrust.
If I were to take your side I would have to believe that people need babysitting and then I would also argue that those kid of people should not be allowed to participate in democratic society. I refuse to give in to that line of thinking.
There are some people that can’t afford X thing is so tired man, it represents such a tiny part of the population who could also reach out to other resources to get what they need. That’s really not a serious argument. Again the best European countries do not fluoride their water, and these are countries that very often if not always do what’s best for the population.
Let the people decide if they want fluoride or not. More choice is better than no choice.
Most of Europe has fluoridated water. And I’m sorry you don’t care about poor people, that says more about you than the country though. There are things we do because they are unmitigated positives. There is no conversation to be had here. It isn’t a matter of ivory tower academics versus the common man. It’s science. It’s well proven science. These arguments you’re using are the ones used to make people question actual science. If you want to be respected in academic circles then take the time to find something not well proven and work on it. It’s that simple. They aren’t going to ask for your degree if your work is good.
That’s patently false. Most of Europe does not have fluoridated water. I hate posting Wikipedia links so I won’t but only around 13 million Europeans have fluoridated water. What they do is put it in the salt, which I think is way better because anyone can choose to buy salt with or without fluoride.
I never said I dont care about poor people, I said that people who are so poor they cannot afford toothpaste are extremely rare in the US and there are many organizations that would be willing to help them when they exist. In fact I doubt someone that poor would have access to potable water anyways. It’s frankly an argument that people resort to when they don’t have one but still want to defend government imposition.
I’m not saying that you should question it because I question it. I’m saying you should question it because science still questions it, and studies are still being made. You’re basically dismissing every argument I’ve given you by simply brushing them away with strawmans instead of engaging with them. You still have not even explained why you are so opposed to the idea of people democratically choosing whether a chemical gets added to their drinking water or not. But whatever, I won’t continue to argue with you, you’re clearly entrenched in your side of the argument despite backing it up with 0 facts.
You’re right it is chosen democratically at least in some counties. I was not aware of that because there’s also often state legislatures that impose it. My bad.
And I do not post Wikipedia because I do not think it is a serious source of information in which to base an argument , but sure I’ll post it because it still doesn’t show that the majority of Europe has fluoridated water.
I find your way of thinking troubling, it assumes that people are not capable of understanding nuanced information and that only academics in ivory towers are qualified to understand it, which is false in most cases. From my point of view that line of thinking is what has wrought the crisis of misinformation and mistrust.
If I were to take your side I would have to believe that people need babysitting and then I would also argue that those kid of people should not be allowed to participate in democratic society. I refuse to give in to that line of thinking.
There are some people that can’t afford X thing is so tired man, it represents such a tiny part of the population who could also reach out to other resources to get what they need. That’s really not a serious argument. Again the best European countries do not fluoride their water, and these are countries that very often if not always do what’s best for the population.
Let the people decide if they want fluoride or not. More choice is better than no choice.
Most of Europe has fluoridated water. And I’m sorry you don’t care about poor people, that says more about you than the country though. There are things we do because they are unmitigated positives. There is no conversation to be had here. It isn’t a matter of ivory tower academics versus the common man. It’s science. It’s well proven science. These arguments you’re using are the ones used to make people question actual science. If you want to be respected in academic circles then take the time to find something not well proven and work on it. It’s that simple. They aren’t going to ask for your degree if your work is good.
That’s patently false. Most of Europe does not have fluoridated water. I hate posting Wikipedia links so I won’t but only around 13 million Europeans have fluoridated water. What they do is put it in the salt, which I think is way better because anyone can choose to buy salt with or without fluoride.
I never said I dont care about poor people, I said that people who are so poor they cannot afford toothpaste are extremely rare in the US and there are many organizations that would be willing to help them when they exist. In fact I doubt someone that poor would have access to potable water anyways. It’s frankly an argument that people resort to when they don’t have one but still want to defend government imposition.
I’m not saying that you should question it because I question it. I’m saying you should question it because science still questions it, and studies are still being made. You’re basically dismissing every argument I’ve given you by simply brushing them away with strawmans instead of engaging with them. You still have not even explained why you are so opposed to the idea of people democratically choosing whether a chemical gets added to their drinking water or not. But whatever, I won’t continue to argue with you, you’re clearly entrenched in your side of the argument despite backing it up with 0 facts.
Because it’s already chosen democratically. And you don’t want to post the wiki because it has the fluoridated water map.
And yeah I get it, you think poor people should just fuck off and die.
You’re right it is chosen democratically at least in some counties. I was not aware of that because there’s also often state legislatures that impose it. My bad.
And I do not post Wikipedia because I do not think it is a serious source of information in which to base an argument , but sure I’ll post it because it still doesn’t show that the majority of Europe has fluoridated water.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country
Look at that, only 1% to 20% of the population has access to fluoride in the water supply according to that map.
You know damn well I never said anything like that about poor people but you’re just a bad faith arguer. Have a good one.