Re: Depression (NBC)


"Evolution" <myname@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MaudnXTzLtgEUwHanZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The point is, only 2 countries in Europe have fluoridation. 25 who HAD a
program or considered one, have since rejected it. See how that works?

If you want to argue the point that we are one of a handful of countries
which puts poison in our water, fine, but to quibble over the wording is
childish. I'm sorry if that offends you, Robert, but it just is.

See, I know that language isn't important to you. And that's fine - that's
your preference and it makes no difference to me.

And I know that you think that words don't really matter, so long as you're
making the point you want to make. Which is where the problem lies.
Because when you're communicating with people -- which I think is what
you're trying to do when you post here -- words ARE important. They're the
way other people know what you're talking about, what argument you're trying
to present.

See, I agree with you about fluoride, it's definitely a matter of concern.
However, when you say, as you did to start, that "All other
civilized nations in the world have banned fluoride in the water" your point
is not only easily refuted, but patently ridiculous (and, frankly, in
tinfoil hat territory - hence my response). So you then downgrade to "Do
you honestly think that all Western European countries (except for
the UK), Japan and China, amongst others, banned fluoride in water
because of a conspiracy theory?", and then to "almost all" when presented
with data counter to your argument, and then to "there are only 2 which have
fluoridation. I guess we can assume that the rest have neither rejected nor
developed such a program."

Do you see what's happened here? You've moved from asserting that all
countries aside from the US have banned fluoride to being shown that little
more than half of European countries have rejected fluoridation, some with
bans.

Now, to your mind the difference between those two points is negligible and
doesn't do anything to change your underlying point. But to me, and I
suspect the majority of people still reading, there is a world of difference
between the two points, and that difference significantly undermines your
credibility.

Which is unfortunate, because you've been backing up your points with a lot
of data and statistics, and that's a good thing, but you're fighting an
uphill battle, solely due to your lack of interest in the words you use.
It's not quibbling to say that "All other civilized nations in the world
have banned fluoride in the water" is not the same as "Twenty-five countries
in Europe, with bodies of health professionals, scientists and public health
agencies of their own, reject fluoridation, some with outright bans." And
it's certainly not childish to draw attention to blatant, unsupported
hyperbole and distortions of the facts.

It's unfortunate that you still don't see this simple fact: your lack of
interest in "wording" and language makes you your own worst enemy.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Depression (NBC)
    ... Countries and geographic regions with extensive ... civilized nations in the world have banned fluoride in the water." ... scientists and public health agencies of their ... banned fluoride in the water" is simply untrue. ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: More Great News from Socialized Medicine: NBC
    ... civilized nations in the world have banned fluoride in the water", ... "Freedom is about authority. ... Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do." ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)