6 ms·
This sort of reactionary perception against dumb people yelling about stuff is just as emotionally driven as the yelling itself. Just because someone makes a ba
by rozap 2y ago
This sort of reactionary perception against dumb people yelling about stuff is just as emotionally driven as the yelling itself. Just because someone makes a bad argument, doesn't mean the inverse position is true by default, it just means they made a bad argument. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while :)
I don't know if fluoride in the water is bad. But you cannot let yourself be driven to a position because the wrong type of people are taking the other position. That type of decision making is devoid of all logic, even though you got there by reacting against a position that was devoid of all logic. You need to get to a position by tuning the emotion out.
- Retric 2y agoThe number of untrue things vastly outweighs the number of true things. So the public can ignore ideas championed solely by idiots. Not because idiots are necessarily wrong, but simply because looking at random noise isn’t productive use of time. A similar argument counters Pascal’s wager. There’s hypothetically infinite potential ways to end up in eternal suffering and for any ways to avoid it there’s the possibility that doing to opposite is in fact required. Thus the potential downside alone isn’t enough to compel action without some other reason to suspect a particular belief system is correct.
- reducesuffering 2y ago> So the public can ignore ideas championed solely by idiots Is that the case here? Solely? Most of the world doesn't fluoridate their water.
- Retric 2y agoWater naturally contains fluoride in much of the world. So you need to look at the actual levels in drinking water not just assuming a location not adding it doesn’t approve of it. Cost is also a real concern for much of the world.
- stouset 2y agoMost of the world not fluoridating their water isn’t inherently a scientific position as much as it is a political one.
- outworlder 2y agoAlso an economic one. Although the 'developing' country I was born at does fluoridate its water supply.
- seanmcdirmid 2y agoMost of the world doesn't have potable water at all from their water systems, so what would be the point of adding flouride to that water if you are not even supposed to use it to brush your teeth.
- reducesuffering 2y agoSure, but I take issue with "ignore ideas championed solely by idiots" as if this issue is just the fringe lunatics as opposed to 90% of the world. Multiple people are bringing up the economics / cost when countries like Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Czechia, Italy, Switzerland, Japan, and Portugal don't fluoridate. You'd think if there was such a clear benefit / risk profile it would be unanimous. I can't take seriously arguments that it's such a big win with no risk when these very developed countries have decided against it. Sure, that's not scientific (I haven't deep dived into the science), but it is a useful heuristic against bad science. For 50 years, the science in the US was no evidence many industrial chemicals added to food were harmful, even though they were banned in most of the EU and Japan. Lo and behold, CA finally bans them: https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2023/10/new-california-law-bans-four-common-chemicals-in-food https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2023/10/new-califo... Oh wow, FDA just banned Brominated Vegetable Oil 2 months ago... (banned in UK / EU since 1970)
- stouset 2y agoIt is just fringe lunatics. There are plenty of reasonable arguments against fluoridation of water that countries can fall on various sides of: lack of proper water infrastructure in the first place, moral/ethical/political arguments around mass-medication of citizens, overall net economic value for their specific populations, etc. Individuals and nations can reasonably come to different conclusions based on both data and philosophy. Those aren't the arguments being opposed here.
- coldpie 2y agoYes. Fluoridated water significantly reduces tooth problems and causes no known health problems, despite rigorous study.
- aisifnfickd 2y agoIt’s pretty well established that larger entities (governments especially) will push loads of bogus theories out there to drown out the few credible ones. Idiots will be drawn to both. Your line of thinking is the exact reason they use that strategy. Again like the parent said, you have to evaluate each issue on its own merits.
- Retric 2y ago> have to evaluate Evaluation isn’t free, where I can remain undecided at effectively zero cost. I am not in the market for a new GPU therefore I don’t need to have an opinion on what’s good value for money.
- rozap 2y agoMaybe I wasn't super clear in my post, but this is my point, and I agree, tune out the noise. Actually reacting against the noise is bad, because at that point noise is causing a change in behavior. The only reasonable thing to do is to tune it out.
- stouset 2y ago> Just because someone makes a bad argument, doesn't mean the inverse position is true by default No, but when the opposing side only ever seems to provide (and appears to entirely rely on) innumerate, scientifically illiterate, illogical, or otherwise bad arguments, at some point you have to stop listening.