SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
Whats the matter? Were the other claims to tough for you? You picked the least relevant claims and asked for proof? Proof of what.. That rich people can afford things that poor people can't? Don't make me laugh! I would not even respond to that except you guys would accuse me of cherry picking or dodging questions. Now how about you address those other 7 claims I made before that. Im going to the store so take your time.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
What is not in New Zealand... Rich people? Water filters?
hemi
Senior Member.
See previous.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
High five dude. Care to comment on my 7 claims (8 if you include ethics) that I made previous to this? I could use some input from someone here. I put some facts into the debate and now all I hear are crickets chirping!
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
Chirp chirp.
I predicted this accurately. I thought debunkers debunked facts, not debated... Well none of my facts have been addressed, let alone debunked. Is that because nobody has any answers? This was a lively debate before I put those facts out... What happened? Certainly you all haven't changed your minds, have you? It has been a week. Does anyone have any debunking for these facts? Can anyone confirm these facts and agree that they are correct? Is this one too tough?
Why exactly would someone comment on claims that are not backed with evidence?
Your seven claims are all quite debatable, and there's quite a lot of evidence stacked against many of them ("unsafe"), and many are somewhat matters of semantics ("inequitable"). I think the only one I'd somewhat agree with is #1, it's unnecessary. But then, seat belts and guns are also unnecessary.
Your seven claims are all quite debatable, and there's quite a lot of evidence stacked against many of them ("unsafe"), and many are somewhat matters of semantics ("inequitable"). I think the only one I'd somewhat agree with is #1, it's unnecessary. But then, seat belts and guns are also unnecessary.
MikeC
Closed Account
You made 3 specific claims in a post - I asked what your proof is.
What's the matter - got none??
so now you are changing your claims to affordability?
So yo are prepared to defend some claims, but not others??
OK - no problem - but if that's your position then why am I not allwoed to ask about some claims and not others?
In this case I am generally familiar with the evidence for your other 7 claims - there's a lot of it about, and some of those claims I agree with while others I think are arrant nonsense.
However in this message I chose to ask about the evidence for 3 claims you made that I had NOT seen the evidence for.
Sorry if that upset you.........but not much.
cheeple
Member
Agree, summed up unequivocally, and beyond the linear scope of healthy vs. unhealthy when you consider most people have no idea when they turn on their tap they are being medicated.That about sums it up.
Never forget the you are different from debunkers. Debunkers do not care about ethics or morality. Their goal is to have fun. Very different from you. Always keep that in mind.
SR1419
Senior Member.
Alas, both you and Chuck make broad generalizations that fail simply to suit your bias....
In my experience the vast majority of people ARE aware that there is fluoride in the water...especially since it came up for a vote at city council...
But whatever....we are all just "sheeple" and you got it all figured cuz you can defeat the Elites and the New World Order with just one more blog post based on fear and speculation.
Leifer
Senior Member.
"Why are we dosing babies with fluoride ?"
Because there is no compelling (and overwhelming) evidence that it harms infants, yet there is compelling (and overwhelming) evidence that it helps adolescents and adults.
Based on the notes stated (and links) here, additional F is also found in commercial food sources such as products manufactured with municipal tap water, beer, sea salt, among others....toothpaste being among the largest %.
My last recollection is that pre-teething infants don't brush non-existent teeth, eat high salt diets, nor drink beer.
The argument that an infants body-weight can be a factor in ingesting disproportionately large amounts of toxic substances above gov't recommended
levels, is interesting (not only related to F ).
Was there data posted here about that, that I missed ?
Can this possible proportion dilemma also be applied to all other substances/compounds found in local municipal tap water ?
Can this possible proportion dilemma also be applied to all other substances/compounds....found in the totality of an infants surroundings/other exposures ? (Mick: C0)
Also, I find the idea interesting, that parents (and others) that want F included in their tap water, that they add it themselves, "post tap".
Unfortunately, that would be a regime unattainable to most average households.....in terms of responsibility and accuracy.
It is much easier to remove (a variety of) unwanted substances from the tap...than it is to add them, post-tap. Water (even tap) often contains several
micro nutrients that are not harmful, but beneficial.
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutrientsindw.pdf
If I may note....very little has been discussed by Dr Kennedy, as to the end-result fear/conclusion....as to why F is being added...and the purpose for doing so.
Because there is no compelling (and overwhelming) evidence that it harms infants, yet there is compelling (and overwhelming) evidence that it helps adolescents and adults.
Based on the notes stated (and links) here, additional F is also found in commercial food sources such as products manufactured with municipal tap water, beer, sea salt, among others....toothpaste being among the largest %.
My last recollection is that pre-teething infants don't brush non-existent teeth, eat high salt diets, nor drink beer.
The argument that an infants body-weight can be a factor in ingesting disproportionately large amounts of toxic substances above gov't recommended
levels, is interesting (not only related to F ).
Was there data posted here about that, that I missed ?
Can this possible proportion dilemma also be applied to all other substances/compounds found in local municipal tap water ?
Can this possible proportion dilemma also be applied to all other substances/compounds....found in the totality of an infants surroundings/other exposures ? (Mick: C0)
Also, I find the idea interesting, that parents (and others) that want F included in their tap water, that they add it themselves, "post tap".
Unfortunately, that would be a regime unattainable to most average households.....in terms of responsibility and accuracy.
It is much easier to remove (a variety of) unwanted substances from the tap...than it is to add them, post-tap. Water (even tap) often contains several
micro nutrients that are not harmful, but beneficial.
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutrientsindw.pdf
If I may note....very little has been discussed by Dr Kennedy, as to the end-result fear/conclusion....as to why F is being added...and the purpose for doing so.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
The claims are backed with evidence. They are claims from that website... which has further information. You erased them earlier from my post because it was copied and pasted from that site and you posted the link instead because it was shorter, remember?
Rich people can have a well. Even poor people can. No proof needed. Common sense.
Those are common sense statements, not claims. Going over them is a waste of time. You are wasting my time.
With that attitude, how can I take any replies you make seriously? I think our debate here is done Mike.
MikeC
Closed Account
lol - you CLAIM they are common sense ....rofl....
lol - why are you now blaming me for wasting your time on a topic you raised??
We were not having a debate - you made claims you refuse to back up - you aren't LHO are you?? 'cos we've seen your kind of "debate" before - your reply I quoted above is absolutely classic myth-peddling - when called on something you raised then suddenly you claim that it is a waste of time - so why did you make those claims??
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
The claims were addressed in the last post, I did not refuse to back anything up. I chose not to "back them up" because I did not need to until you started badgering me. I refuse to have an argument about irrelevant issues. Now, you are not addressing anything even related to the subject and you are being argumentative and confrontational. You have demonstrated the point I made about wasting time(yours too). Seriously, is your argument really reduced to "you CLAIM that rich people can afford things is common sense."? At least you made me laugh... but I am still unfulfilled in my appetite for a serious rebuttal.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
This is a multi-faceted answer. I will just say that some people have good intentions, and some people have bad intentions, but the end result is the same. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is best to not make decisions for other people against their will by the use of force, even if you THINK it is good for them.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
Most people are engaged in groupthink. It is sad. It is part of a wave in the trend of history though, and thankfully the trend is reversing. If you people thought like individuals more often, then you would realize that YOU are the authority. Instead you are acting irresponsible and are wards of the state. If the state puts ANYTHING in the water, then you will be ok with it. THEY did it. THEY are in charge. THEY are the experts. The saddest part is that I really don't care if you put poison in your own water... hell stick something small in your ear while you are at it... but you all think it is ok for them to put poison in my water as well... and instead of agreeing that they should have a choice... you all side with the state as the "group" of statist citizens and literally ENDORSE the use of force against other people. It is a SICK and disgusting, gross abuse of power and you should be ashamed of yourselves for advocating it.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
Bad comparison.
Seat belts and guns are not being added to the water supply. You can choose whether or not to get into a car, and you can choose whether or not to own a gun. I am not going around and adding things to peoples seatbelts or guns. You cannot choose to not drink water. even if you buy your own water, you are being FORCED to buy your own water because THEY have poisoned EVERYONE'S water supply.
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
THEY have fluoridated everyone's water supply because the people want their water fluoridated.
Once again... the decision to fluoridate water is made at a municipal level. The MAJORITY within a municipality must want their water fluoridated in order for their water to be fluoridated. If the majority does not want their water fluoridated then it is not fluoridated. In other words, if the water in your municipality is fluoridated, it's because your community wants it. You are one voice, you don't get to chose for everyone. In how many ways and how many times must this be explained to you?
If you don't want fluoridated drinking water then talk to your city council, force a plebiscite and try to rally a majority. If that doesn't work then clearly you're part of a minority. That's democracy.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
SD said:
There is no "my water" you speak of, except that water which you CHOSE to pay for. You are free to buy whatever water you want, from any source you choose. Only after you buy it can you say it is "my water". Nobody forced you to buy it. You CHOSE to buy it.
Hell, you can get plenty of great water for free. For many years I collected rain water from the roof and saved it in a 30,000 gallon cistern under the house. Now I get it out of the ground for free either from a spring or well. On the ship I make fresh water out of sea water.
If you buy public water knowing it has flouride in it, no use complaining about that, you CHOSE to buy it. Why did you spend money on something you don't like, and then complain about it?
This is not a difficult thing to understand. You have full choice over what water you buy, you can get water for free.
You made your bed, but now you don't want to lie in it.
That's the saddest part.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
Oh, i forgot that I can choose my water company... oh wait... no I cant! There is a monopoly! Oh wait I forgot that I can drill a well in the city.. no wait... no I can't! Its illegal! but thats ok because I forgot that it was legal to collect rain water in the city... no wait.. its not legal! But then there is the Ocean? In the midwest?
Choice? LMFAO! Wrong.
Choice? LMFAO! Wrong.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
Sorry, that does not apply to me. I live in a republic, not a democracy.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Now you are playing the victim game. You have a choice in where you live. If you don't accept the conditions where you live, just pack up and move.
I've done this several times in my life, and got it better every time.
You aren't a helpless Prisoner, are you?
Choose Freedom, or choose to be a Prisoner of your own shallow thinking!
LMFAO!
"I'm not a NUMBER, I'm a FREE MAN!"
-all he had to do was prick the balloon to be free-
Pffffffftttt!
-all he had to do was prick the balloon to be free-
Pffffffftttt!
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
Is that your fallback position?
Whether you live in a representative democracy or a constitutionally based federal republic with strong democratic traditions or just the widely accepted abbreviated term "democracy", the point you side stepped is that municipal water does not belong to you. It's not yours. You don't own it. You don't get to decide what's done with it. So you don't get to claim that the state is "poisoning" your water.
Water districts are managed by elected board members that answer to elected district representatives. They process drinking water on behalf of municipalities. After a debate and vote, if the municipality decides to fluoridate water, then the district must do so according to federal standards or face breaking state laws. The fact you don't agree with the outcome is really a poor reason to get riled against a system you chose to live in. If your water is fluoridated, it's because the majority want it because they understand the benefits.
2 weeks ago I told you that decisions regarding water fluoridation are made at a municipal level. It turns out it can also be mandated at a state level. Anyway, in the past two weeks, what have you done about your outrage at being "poisoned" by the government except repeatedly post the same misguided complaints on this blog? Have you contacted your local representatives and told them your concerns? Sent an email? Made a phone call? What did you ask them? What did they say?
GregMc
Senior Member.
So SD, you claim that this water you talk about is poisonous because it has fluoride ions in it. And so what do you think the long term effects of such fluoride concentrations would be over many generations of drinking it? Dogs and cats (not the robotic kind) also drink it the same as humans. What do you think the effect on other animals would be? Have you thought about the effect of fluoride on other species?
I know you are not a scientist nor have much scientific knowledge but just speculate for a while. Imagine what would happen if the whole large areas of the world for hundreds of years had the same sort of levels of fluoride as in municipal water supplies. For example just think the world's surface is about 74% water.
Imagine the scenario where the whole of the world's oceans had the same sort of fluoride ion concentrations as fluoridated tap water!
imagine seals, whales, dolphins, otters, sharks, bony fish, jellyfish, octopus, corals, plankton etc etc all not only drinking and consuming all their meals in water you call poisoned by such fluoride concentrations but living in it, immersed in it 24/7 !!!!!
Just what effect would that have? Would they be poisoned in a few days? Months? Dead before christmas?
How could life possibly go on??
Love to hear your thoughts.
I know you are not a scientist nor have much scientific knowledge but just speculate for a while. Imagine what would happen if the whole large areas of the world for hundreds of years had the same sort of levels of fluoride as in municipal water supplies. For example just think the world's surface is about 74% water.
Imagine the scenario where the whole of the world's oceans had the same sort of fluoride ion concentrations as fluoridated tap water!
imagine seals, whales, dolphins, otters, sharks, bony fish, jellyfish, octopus, corals, plankton etc etc all not only drinking and consuming all their meals in water you call poisoned by such fluoride concentrations but living in it, immersed in it 24/7 !!!!!
Just what effect would that have? Would they be poisoned in a few days? Months? Dead before christmas?
How could life possibly go on??
Love to hear your thoughts.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
LOL! Can I move in with you?
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
I don't think ions would be an issue, as they are already everywhere in large quantities. It the other stuff in the fluoride mixture.... that i cant really explain.... that is poison... I don't think that statement has much scientific knowledge or anything... maybe the first part has a little... but I tried my best to speculate in the second part. What do you think?
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
If I participated in endorsing a representative, that would mean I consent to their authority, and therefore any decision they make even if I do not agree with it.
I represent myself as a sovereign who is accountable only for the actions I take.
The problem is choice. There is none. I am forced to use city water, or move. Is moving a choice? Only if it is allowed. Can I choose to live safely on land without buying it? I wish. So I have to pay someone money, who claims that they somehow OWN something trillions of years older than they are... in order to live.... or else they will remove me by force which can escalate to deadly force if I do not comply... that does not seem like a choice at all. Pay me or die? That's society!
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
Am I free to take any water that I want that does not belong to anyone else? No. The city forces you to use municipal water supplies, or pay for bottled water. If you have to pay for it, then there is no choice. You are DEPENDENT on someone else to supply your water. dependents do not have choices, they have privileges that can be revoked at any time.... for example.. you lose your job, and your money to buy water... well it looks like you have to drink whatever the city gives you. Beggars cant be choosers right? Except you are not begging... You are being extorted. It's not like you can't go get your own water by drilling your own well or collecting rainwater... it's like THEY WON'T LET YOU!
Choice.... DEBUNKED.
Danny55
Senior Member.
"can't go get your own water by drilling your own well or collecting rainwater"
Seen this posted a few times, that you are not allowed to collect rainwater. What are the facts behind this ?
Can see the reasoning behind not being allowed to drill holes in the city, it's just the collecting rainwater part.
Seen this posted a few times, that you are not allowed to collect rainwater. What are the facts behind this ?
Can see the reasoning behind not being allowed to drill holes in the city, it's just the collecting rainwater part.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
Do a google search on rainwater collection in the city, or laws governing this. They allow you to do it if you purchase expensive systems to collect it.
You put a bucket under your drain gutter though, and you can get a big fine. Once again, if you have to PAY for something, it is a privilege, not a choice.
EDIT: Oh, I guess you can collect the rainwater in a bucket... but it's illegal to drink it or use it for anything other than watering a garden... Wow I can choose to collect rain water, but cannot choose to personally drink it.... I can use the privilege of paying to have it treated... no wait there is a faucet for that already. Uhm, what are my choices? Oh yeah, open my mouth when it rains.. oh crap... that's illegal!
Untreated rainwater collection can only be for sub-surface outside irrigation. For indoor uses, such as toilet-flushing, follow the treatment standards detailed in The City of Berkeley's Rainwater Policy: Guidelines For Rainwater Harvesting (.pdf).
No choice in water if you live where most of the population of the world lives. (in the cities)
You put a bucket under your drain gutter though, and you can get a big fine. Once again, if you have to PAY for something, it is a privilege, not a choice.
EDIT: Oh, I guess you can collect the rainwater in a bucket... but it's illegal to drink it or use it for anything other than watering a garden... Wow I can choose to collect rain water, but cannot choose to personally drink it.... I can use the privilege of paying to have it treated... no wait there is a faucet for that already. Uhm, what are my choices? Oh yeah, open my mouth when it rains.. oh crap... that's illegal!
Untreated rainwater collection can only be for sub-surface outside irrigation. For indoor uses, such as toilet-flushing, follow the treatment standards detailed in The City of Berkeley's Rainwater Policy: Guidelines For Rainwater Harvesting (.pdf).
No choice in water if you live where most of the population of the world lives. (in the cities)
Danny55
Senior Member.
Seems that rainwater collection is legal,and encouraged, in places. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainwater_harvesting Can you give me a link to the laws which say it is illegal?
I can only find a TV interview of a man in Portland Oregon, who was found guilty, but seems there is some legal challenge against it.
I can only find a TV interview of a man in Portland Oregon, who was found guilty, but seems there is some legal challenge against it.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
They are allowed... if you purchase the permit for it. Starting to get my point here?
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
My bad dude... its not the actual collection of the water that is illegal, it is the usage of the water that is illegal. Untreated rainwater collection can only be for sub-surface outside irrigation. For indoor uses, such as toilet-flushing, follow the treatment standards detailed in The City of Berkeley's Rainwater Policy: Guidelines For Rainwater Harvesting (.pdf).
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
So you believe the government is poisoning you and still have not done anything about it. Well, except make up excuses as to why you're not doing anything.
You could run for office or board member. You might have some luck convincing people you're more informed regarding fluoride than the majority of the scientific community. Or, you could purchase a $87 filter (free shipping) that removes fluoride. Would installing a water filter somehow offend your sovereign ideology? You could build or purchase a solar still. Moving is an option, New Jersey only fluoridates 20% of its water supply.
I believe there is a significant risk associated with drinking water from untreated sources like wells and open collection systems. Lead, arsenic, copper, E Coli, fibreglass are only a few of them. The entire southwest seems to have excessive amounts of natural occurring fluoride in its ground water. Rain water can be contaminated from airborne pollutants. You have to know what you're doing and typically permits are required to ensure proper installation. Any way you slice it, drinking water should be treated before consumption. You either pay to do it yourself or you accept city water.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
SD, you are not a sovereign, you are a helpless victim by choice and consent. Should I feel sorry for you?
Here is sovereignty, by choice, and lots of hard work:
My water source, a spring:
My pump is solar powered:
1500 gallon storage tank inside the metal located on a mountain supplies gravity pressure for two houses:
Twenty years ago, I had spent the past 12 years with my only water source a rain collection system on the roof with an under-house cistern. All homes use this in the Virgin Islands, and are chronically short of water. When we repatriated, one of our goals was to never be dependent or short of water again. We chose a property which has a spring and a year-round spring-fed creek with sufficient water for extensive farm irrigation, 2" line, 50 gal/minute. We also have drilled a well because the spring flow does diminish during some summers. The 1500 gal tank is sufficient to get through power outages of several days, even if the weather is cloudy. I just added two more larger solar panels to my array and can now pump water even on fairly cloudy days. I spent 3 backbreaking weeks digging through rock and roots to bury the pipeline through the forest up to the mountain. I'm not superhuman, but chose to be sovereign with my water. At a minimum, if you don't like the qualities of the water you chose to buy, you should have invested in a filter like the one suggested above, but I doubt that you have done so.
Here is sovereignty, by choice, and lots of hard work:
My water source, a spring:
My pump is solar powered:
1500 gallon storage tank inside the metal located on a mountain supplies gravity pressure for two houses:
Twenty years ago, I had spent the past 12 years with my only water source a rain collection system on the roof with an under-house cistern. All homes use this in the Virgin Islands, and are chronically short of water. When we repatriated, one of our goals was to never be dependent or short of water again. We chose a property which has a spring and a year-round spring-fed creek with sufficient water for extensive farm irrigation, 2" line, 50 gal/minute. We also have drilled a well because the spring flow does diminish during some summers. The 1500 gal tank is sufficient to get through power outages of several days, even if the weather is cloudy. I just added two more larger solar panels to my array and can now pump water even on fairly cloudy days. I spent 3 backbreaking weeks digging through rock and roots to bury the pipeline through the forest up to the mountain. I'm not superhuman, but chose to be sovereign with my water. At a minimum, if you don't like the qualities of the water you chose to buy, you should have invested in a filter like the one suggested above, but I doubt that you have done so.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
You sure do assume a lot. First off I was talking about the city. Do you think every person in the city lives there by choice? They either need to work to get money, or have no money and can't get out. Were those solar panels given to you? What about the land itself? if a person had "purchased" their own property, but it was confiscated, stolen, destroyed... etc then would that be choice and consent if they had nothing to do with it? Sure you can just save more money and buy more property... right? Can you do that immediately? No. It's called being a serf. Wage slave is slave nonetheless, and slaves have little choices.
You miss the main point anyway. Your CHOICE to buy ANYTHING it limited by the amount of money you have. Purchasing power limits your choices if you are buying things. Having money is not a choice, it is a privilege which must be earned. Is this too complicated of a concept for you? because you seem to be missing the point here. There is no FREE choice where you get your water in the city. Just like voting for candidate A or candidate B is not a choice if you did not nominate either one of them. Sure you can earn privileges and choose the limited benefits that they may be offering, but you are still limited by this choice. Some more than others.
Good job on using your privileges to be more independent. I mean that too. Not everyone has those same privileges though... and even if they do they could lose them. How much is the property tax on your land there Jay?
P.S. this video applies more to you than it does to me. It illustrates my point.
So where is the choice if you do not have money? What if you are not allowed to work for some reason or another? You should know as a sovereign Jay, that every INDIVIDUAL is limited in their choices, not only by their means, but by their RESTRICTIONS by oppressors. Not every individual who is restricted, is a lazy hippie. Some people are disabled, some have ruined credit... some can't find a job because nobody is hiring. Some can't earn enough income who do have a job, to save to "get off the grid" etc etc.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
Which I would like to get back to.
Anyone care to address and/or attempt to debunk these claims?
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
You can't afford a $78 fluoride filter (free shipping) that will prevent the oppressive government from "poisoning" you, but you can afford a computer and internet connection that will allow you complain about how the oppressive government is "poisoning" you.
SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
I do not remember saying that it was ME in this position. I was talking about free choice, vs privilege and clarifying what they were. I got money dude.
Similar threads
