Lol, it's not a trick question. It's a RL situation that came up in LC. A white guy asked what people would think if he named his expectant son Ravi in real life.

It just came into mind, when I saw your handle, and was wondering what a poster named Vishnu would think. Especially since one of the responses was something like, "Might as well name him White Vishnu."

What would you think about that name choice for a white boy, if you saw/encountered it?

I know many Ravis/Ravinders, and if I met a white child with the name I'd think it's a nice enough name. I have a friend of Korean descent named John and don't call him "Yellow John", and an Indian friend named Neil and don't call him "Brown Neil".

Understandable. Thx for answering. And do you live in America, in a majority white population?

Btw, I am not trying to trick or troll or do anything silly. I am honestly asking, and have nothing up my sleeves. Was just curious about your opinion, that's all.

For example, to me, as a part-Asian man living in America among a majority white population, I would find it strange if my white friend named his white son Yao Ming Smith. But that's just me.

I live in the middle of Britain. It is diverse in my area, but more white people than any other ethnic group. I didn't say it wouldn't be unusual to meet a white boy named Ravi. I said I wouldn't really think anything about it. In other words, a judgment as to what to make of this unusual fact is not necessary.

Coffee, I see a lot more empty words, most of which avoid the questions asked to you and the rebuttals given and still don't support your argument. In the interests of a slightly shorter wall of text, I'm not going to requote, but I will still respond.

1) I didn't add anything to the argument. Can you state what I added? If it's public policy, do you think that this is not a public policy issue? Do you think that context was never present, even in Barking's bolded question?

2) I don't read the Israel-Palestine thread. For a different drug administered to an unknowing and uninformed population, under a doctor's (or better, the overwhelming consensus of doctors) orders, I would have to evaluate the situation. It is not a blanket answer. For example, in the water chlorination discussion, if we are talking about a case where chlorination is somehow the only practical effective way to treat water, I would support it. Even though I think chlorine in water is potentially harmful. Because the benefits outweigh the risks, overwhelming medical consensus, treating the water vs adding drugs for a different purpose, etc. But if it were in a case where there are better options available, I would not support water chlorination and would support a safer way to treat water.

3) Regardless of the above, you have been arguing that I and others are making illogical arguments, while you are not. However, I keep bringing up your Advil argument as an irrelevant, bad argument that does not logically address the question. I point out why, and you avoid replying to that part, while still trying to attack whatever else you can.

Can you finally just admit that your Advil argument was bad? Or if not, answer the many questions posted previously that show why it is a bad argument?

Vishnu, got it. Understandable viewpoint. Nice and non-judgmental of you. Thanks for answering.

That was an awkward exchange.

You got off track. Let me help you out. I never said I thought there was a correlation between a doctorate level education and believing that deficits don't matter. What I DID say was you don't need a doctorate level education to understand that debt has consequences. Switch to fluoride free toothpaste and bottled water for a few days and you'll see the difference.

When I read your demand for a link I knew it was a nice fat pitch, so I will play along just for fun. Here's a link.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...ith_Doctorates

I didn't spend much time studying that list , but I did notice a couple of California Democrats in there. I'm sure that they would agree with former Vice President Dick Cheney's famous quote - "deficits don't matter". Of course Dick Cheney never finished his doctoral studies.

BarkingMad how do you respond to the point that someone who uses debt/deficit interchangeably probably shouldn't be lecturing the sheeple on economics?

Oh look, hey there, it's our pal zikzak!

Zik, although you didn't come in here and retract and admit that you were wrong, at least you're not flailing around and AIDSing up the thread like coffee. Thanks!

I'm not feeling too broken up about getting caught up in that detail. When you're looking for a reason to be a snarky, sharp shooting, smart alec on the interwebs, that's about as good a reason as any.

Nod,

You say that NaF (please use NaF, as SF is Sulfur fluoride) is a legitimate and increasing scientific debate. Can you please provide a link to a recent peer-reviewed study showing that NaF may be more dangerous than previously thought at levels found in drinking water? That is the standard for a legitimate scientific debate.

Wookie, it has been extensively reported on at HolisticGaia.info, in between the in-depth profile piece 'MSG: The Silent Killer' and their ongoing coverage of the dangers of vaccinating children.

Asked and answered x5

And I want to make one more note here...It shows a lack of critical thinking skills to assume that if I am looking at and calling an anti-NaF argument incorrect that I must be anti-anti-NaF. Critical thinking involves examining all arguments on their merits, and not just based on their conclusions.

Though I have seen many people on 2+2 make that mistake of sloppy thinking. And many, many more people refuse to critically think and examine arguments that are supporting their preferred conclusion (or who are unable to critically think at all).

Hi Wookie,

I'd be happy to answer your question from my viewpoint. And I appreciate the more civil tone (which I also have usually been having, apart from coffee and zik). However, before I do, can you please explain why you attacked me before, and when I replied, you failed to answer the question?

Also, I was simply using SF to abbreviate the English words, and I don't think anyone here mistook it as sulfur fluoride as opposed to sodium fluoride, since we are discussing one and not the other. I didn't think that SF was sodium fluoride's chemical formula name and don't think it's necessary to use chemical formula names, but for the sake of harmony, I will go ahead and use NaF.

"Assertion". Is that how it's done? So again, you are ignoring the questions. You haven't answered intelligently without being debunked. Yes, that is now my own assertion, but I have provided quotes and evidence above many times, and am happy to do so again if you like.

How about you? Can you simply quote your intelligent answers to the above questions that have not been debunked?

I agree with this sentiment. Hey, look, I can be agreeable and admit when you say something intelligent!

However, this is not what I was doing. I don't feel like reviewing every post made on this topic, but I don't believe I said that you were strongly pro-NaF and anti-anti-NaF. What I said was things like "your side" to indicate opposition to the anti-NaF arguments being made. Were you anti-anti-NaF arguments being made? Yes. Are you anti-anti-NaF irl? I do not know, and haven't tried to say so. If it came across otherwise, then it was because of sloppy English, and I apologize. Also, if you notice, I haven't even been strongly anti-NaF actually, I have been anti-"anti-NaF automatically = conspiracy theory" and anti-some of your posts and arguments.

I support: "Critical thinking involves examining all arguments on their merits, and not just based on their conclusions."

Our argument has been because you criticized my post as illogical and that your arguments have been relevant and good logical arguments. I disagree. I believe that I have supported my stances, while you have not. You tend to ignore questions you cannot answer, or fail to properly address them, and then move on to attack something else. Yes, this is assertion, but one that I believe has been evidenced in this thread.

Also, I am not attacking you as a person, or your overall intelligence, or anything else, but having fun having an argument on the Internet where I believe there are errors in another's post and I believe I am correcting those. To me, it is all in the spirit of good fun, as well as knowledge, and not being an *******. If you take it otherwise, I apologize. That being said, I stand by my above stances and against yours.

Yes, I think the vast majority of the population is aware of fluoridated water.
But I don't think there's increasing evidence of harm, as you have not provided a single citation of a recent peer reviewed study.

its funny do you think so much money would be spent on water fluoridation just so we get less cavities? It's proven to be more harmful then helpful. can't always believe "them"....


Stoney: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's evidence that has been denied to the American people. Governments must never lie to the people. For no reason."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vA29K4ttS0

Thank you for this post. I think you have made the argument in favor of adding fluoride to the water better than I ever could.

Okay, I find this statement pretty laughable. The vast majority is probably not aware of many things that you or I may have learned in school or are on public record or the Internet.

To clarify, I do not believe that the vast majority of Americans are aware that most municipalities put sodium flouride into the public water supply. Common sense and interaction with a wide swath of Americans would lead to this belief. Citation would be needed either way, but in the absense of such polls, anecdotal and common sense must suffice.

Euros and other populations may differ, as there may be more publicization there, as water fluoridation was discontinued in many countries.

Again, I am not myself trying to prove that NaF is bad for you. I'll let Barking do that if he wants to. He probably is aware of many more studies than I and can describe them much more easily. If Barking wants to, he is welcome to provide links for such studies.

As a layman, I have said that being anti-NaF does not automatically make you a conspiracy theorist, and there is scientific debate (or at least, dissension) on the matter. To that end, here are are a few quotes from other sources:


American Cancer Society: "Their concerns are based on everything from legitimate scientific research, to freedom of choice issues, to government conspiracy theories.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerc...nd-cancer-risk

"Some of the controversy about the possible link stems from a study of lab animals reported by the US National Toxicology Program in 1990. The researchers found “equivocal” (uncertain) evidence of cancer-causing potential of fluoridated drinking water in male rats, based on a higher than expected number of cases of osteosarcoma (a type of bone cancer)."

"A partial report of a study from the Harvard School of Public Health, published in 2006, found that exposure to higher levels of fluoride in drinking water was linked to a higher risk of osteosarcoma in boys but not in girls."


National Kidney Foundation: Downgraded it's position on water fluoridation from supports it to no position, does not support it (or oppose it). Recommends notification of health risks.

https://www.kidney.org/atoz/content/fluoride.cfm

"The potential health risks are a rare bone disease called skeletal fluorosis, bone fractures and severe enamel fluorosis."

"Individuals with CKD [Chronic kidney disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure by providing information on the NKF website including a link to the report in brief of the NRC and the Kidney Health Australia position paper."


There are others, but a simple Google search can help you find them if you wish.

I don't think 9/11 was an "inside job" but if it WAS deliberate, it was probably done someone or something much greater than a "Bush administration". However, there are a lot of legitimate questions and concerns:

1. The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain by a free fall speed "collapse."
2. They underwent mid-air pulverization and were turned to dust before they hit the ground.
3. The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers.
4. The rail lines, the tunnels and most of the rail cars had only light damage, if any.
5. The WTC underground mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends. There were reports that "The Gap" was looted.
6. The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition.
7. The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up.
8. The demolition of WTC7 was whisper quiet and the seismic signal was not significantly greater than background noise.
9. The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.
10. The upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.
11. One file cabinet with folder dividers survived.
12. No toilets survived or even recognizable portions of one.
13. Windows of nearby buildings had circular and other odd-shaped holes in them.
14. In addition to the odd window damage, the marble facade was completely missing from around WFC1 and WFC2 entry, with no other apparent structural damage.
15. Fuzzballs, evidence that the dust continued to break down and become finer and finer.
16. Truckloads of dirt were hauled in and hauled out of the WTC site, a pattern that continues to this day.
17. Fuming of the dirt pile. Fuming decreased when watered, contrary to fumes caused by fire or heat.
18. Fuzzyblobs, a hazy cloud that appeared to be around material being destroyed.
19. The Swiss-Cheese appearance of steel beams and glass.
20. Evidence of molecular dissociation and transmutation, as demonstrated by the near-instant rusting of affected steel.
21. Weird fires. The appearance of fire, but without evidence of heating.
22. Lack of high heat. Witnesses reported that the initial dust cloud felt cooler than ambient temperatures. No evidence of burned bodies.
23. Columns were curled around a vertical axis like rolled-up carpets, where overloaded buckled beams should be bent around the horizontal axis.
24. Office paper was densely spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often along side cars that appeared to be burning.
25. Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust, and into Vesey Street in front of WTC6, plus a cylindrical arc was cut into Bankers Trust.
26. All planes except top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes (120 seconds) after WTC 1 had been destroyed.
27. Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways, during the destruction of the Twin Towers.
28. The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and adjacent buildings.
29. More damage was done to the bathtub by earth-moving equipment during the clean-up process than from the destruction of more than a million tons of buildings above it.
30. Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged and destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix.
31. The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared.
32. For more than seven years, regions in the ground under where the main body of WTC4 stood have continued to fume.
33. The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the total mass of the buildings.
34. The WTC7 rubble pile was too small for the total mass of the building and consisted of a lot of mud.
35. Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball, electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, and the sound of explosions.
36. Eyewitness testimony of Scott-pack explosions in fire trucks and fire trucks exploding that were parked near the WTC.
37. There were many flipped cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex near trees with full foliage.
38. Magnetometer readings in Alaska recorded abrupt shifts in the earth's magnetic field with each of the events at the WTC on 9/11.
39. Hurricane Erin, located just off Long Island on 9/11/01, went virtually unreported in the days leading up to 9/11, including omission of this Hurricane on the morning weather map, even though that portion of the Atlantic Ocean was shown on the map.
40. Sillystring, the appearance of curious cork-screw trails.
41. Uncanny similarities with the Hutchison Effect, where the Hutchison Effect exhibits all of the same phenomena listed above.

Dr. Judy Wood has a good theory about how it possibly happened which makes a lot of sense and also opens up a lot of questions. Anyone who is also confused about this must watch the following incredible video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqbcsU0_RjU

All governments should lie about all different kinds of things. The average population has the intelligence of a moist rock, its not helping anyone to give transparency.

@playbig
TBH, Your WTC post is useless without links to proof or sources, Ill just do one;
The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain by a free fall speed "collapse."
Says who ?

Has anyone changed their views on conspiracies after reading and/or posting in this thread?