Australia TV aires truth about Flouride.

reply to post by blankduck18


Congratulations, you've just demonstrated exactly why Wikipedia is mostly valid and accurate!

Thanks for that

Originally posted by misinformational
I can and I did - so ha!

What I mean is, you can't do that, and expect your point to be taken seriously.

Originally posted by misinformational
Wikipedia is a globally reviewed and sourced compilation of information. Through one's research of the sources to any given wiki article, one may draw a conclusion about the validity of any article - most are correct, sourced, and valid.

Wikipedia is written and edited by members of the public. It only has other members of the public to monitor it for quality control.

I've seen enough badly, wrongly sourced wikipedia articles ( or just plain fabrications ) to know that it's worthless for anything other than idle interest/curiosity.

Originally posted by misinformational
It means that each article should be individually assessed for its accuracy.

The problem with linking to it on here, is that the reader does not know whether the poster has checked all the sources provided in the article, which means that the reader themselves has to click on every single source that is linked in the article ( which can number 100+ ).

At least, if people are too lazy to research something properly, that they just resort to wikipedia, then they should just check and post the original links that are cited in the wikipedia article.

Originally posted by misinformationalMore to the point, Wikipedia's TodayTonight article is accurately and credibly sourced. In fact, sourced false reports by TT are verifiable - this is direct proof that TodayTonight is not credible and any information from them should be questioned.

So why on earth didn't you just post the links that wikipedia sourced ?
How are we supposed to know that:

1. You've checked the sources before you posted it.
2. ( Bearing in mind that we don't know the answer to ''1.'' ) Whether it's accurately sourced.
3. That someone hasn't edited it incorrectly since you posted the link.

Originally posted by misinformationalAnd where did we get this verifiable proof that TT is not credible? Come on, say it with me: Wikipedia.

''We'' didn't get any verifiable proof. I don't bother reading wikipedia links for the reasons stated above.
I have not formed an opinion on the credibility of Today Tonight one way or the other, because I have not looked into it.

The point I ( correctly ) made, was highlighting your monumental gaffe of using wikipedia to argue against someone or something's credibility.
You shot yourself in the foot there, mate.

Originally posted by misinformational
Did I imply you did either? Didn't you say something about comprehension and logic skills? Reassessing your statement above may require a bit of both.

LOL.

''With a name like that, Holmes, I'd expect better critical thinking and research. ''

At no point in my above post did I display any kind of lack of critical thinking nor was there any research to be conducted.

You lacked the comprehension and logic to ascertain that my comment was purely about your faux pas of using wikipedia to question something's credibility.

Why else would you post a link to an article from Today Tonight, when it had absolutely no relevance to the point I was making ?

We both know you misinterpreted and miscomprehended my comment, so I'd suggest you give up gracefully.


And need I remind you of your other terrible breakdown in logic ?
Yes I think I do:

''reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

And I'm sure if it was an MSM article, you'd all be screaming about how the PTB had influenced the media to run a smear campaign against TodayTonight because of their shocking exposes:''

As you were replying to me, then I must be included in the reference to ''you'd all be screaming''.

Now what do you base the fact that I ( by inference ) would be screaming that the ''PTB'' have influenced the media ?

Come on, give it up, man.


I think that's just about Game, Set and Match to Holmes.

Originally posted by misinformational
reply to post by blankduck18

 

Congratulations, you've just demonstrated exactly why Wikipedia is mostly valid and accurate!

Thanks for that

You just used Wikipedia, valid, and accurate in the same sentence.
We are now back to your first post
Do we have to go through this again
its really worse then a broken record

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

At no point in my above post did I display any kind of lack of critical thinking nor was there any research to be conducted.

Finally! You are correct sir. It was at every point.

The problem with linking to it on here, is that the reader does not know whether the poster has checked all the sources provided in the article, which means that the reader themselves has to click on every single source that is linked in the article ( which can number 100+ ).

If you make the claim that I am fallacious in my logic, then you have to source that claim - in your case, your source was quoting me. Now, just because you sourced your claim doesn't make your claim correct.

It is up to the observer to assess the merits of your source. He has to research your claim via your source. If that means reading through a number of articles, then that is what is necessary.

At least, if people are too lazy to research something properly, that they just resort to wikipedia, then they should just check and post the original links that are cited in the wikipedia article.

Agreed! If people are too lazy to click through and verify the claims of any Wikipedia article perhaps then they shouldn't be assessing the merits of the claim to begin with.

So why on earth didn't you just post the links that wikipedia sourced ?

Because it was a single source of information that allowed the observer (person reading the OP) to verify whether or not THEY found merit to my claim that source of the OP was not credible.

How are we supposed to know that:
1. You've checked the sources before you posted it.

You're not. You're supposed to research for yourself

2. ( Bearing in mind that we don't know the answer to ''1.'' ) Whether it's accurately sourced.

Because the researcher (AKA observer) should be prepared to fully and adequately research the topic at hand. As a critical thinker, this researcher may then start to draw a conclusion on the topic at hand.

3. That someone hasn't edited it incorrectly since you posted the link.

Because the researcher, as a critical thinker, has understood my claim and possesses the necessary cognitive ability to process information that would substantiate my claim through the article and through its sources.

At no point in my above post did I display any kind of lack of critical thinking nor was there any research to be conducted.

Yes, there was research to be conducted. I questioned the credibility of the OP's submission. I provided a source to my claim - for the researcher to verify through research of the article provided and its sources.

Why else would you post a link to an article from Today Tonight, when it had absolutely no relevance to the point I was making ?

To show that on their front page are many sensationalized articles - allowing the observer to further observe the submission's source credibility.

I think that's just about Game, Set and Match to Holmes.

If so, I think they should reopen all those "closed" cases.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by misinformational]

Originally posted by misinformational
Finally! You are correct sir. It was at every point.

I'm correct that in the fact that I didn't display a lack of critical thinking ?
You've changed your tune quickly.

Originally posted by misinformational
If you make the claim that I am fallacious in my logic, then you have to source that claim - in your case, your source was quoting me. Now, just because you sourced your claim doesn't make your claim correct.
It is up to the observer to assess the merits of your source. He has to research your claim via your source. If that means reading through a number of articles, then that is what is necessary.

You are correct that just because a claim is sourced doesn't, it mean that the claim is correct. That is obvious.

You researched my claim through a direct and reliable source that I provided. That is completely different to wikipedia.

No-one is denying that you can have a look through a wikipedia article, and check all their sources to see whether they are correct.

The problem is, seeing as it's such an unreliable source of accurate information, people do not necessarily want to read through and check the veracity of a multitude of sources, when the poster could just cut out the middle-man and post a direct link to the relevant sources.

Originally posted by misinformational
Agreed! If people are too lazy to click through and verify the claims of any Wikipedia article perhaps then they shouldn't be assessing the merits of the claim to begin with.

You're a right Oscar Wilde, aren't you ?
There is no laziness on the part of the reader. It is entirely on the part of the poster that is too lazy to research what he is posting, so he just cops-out and posts the wikipedia entry, rather than properly and accurately researching the point that he wants to make.

Originally posted by misinformational
Because it was a single source of information that allowed the observer (person reading the OP) to verify whether or not THEY found merit to my claim that source of the OP was not credible.

LOL,
Look, we know you've got a hard-on for wikipedia, but this is becoming embarrassing.

Why waste people's time providing information from a single source that you know may well be erroneous ?

By your peculiar logic, everybody could knowingly post links to hoaxes, smear-stories, libellous allegations and fallacious claims about anybody or anything.

After all, the onus is on the reader to verify the veracity of the claims, isn't it ?

Originally posted by misinformational
You're not. You're supposed to research for yourself

Thankfully, ATS tends to ban hoaxers. So, you should watch your step with that attitude.

The burden falls on the poster to research the material he's providing, and to make sure what he's posting is done in good faith.
Due to it's nature, this is an impossibility with wikipedia.

Originally posted by misinformational
Because the researcher (AKA observer) should be prepared to fully and adequately research the topic at hand. As a critical thinker, this researcher may then start to draw a conclusion on the topic at hand.

You're starting to sound like a stuck record.

Originally posted by misinformational
Because the researcher, as a critical thinker, has understood my claim and possesses the necessary cognitive ability to process information that would substantiate my claim through the article and through its sources.

LOL.
You're flailing around like a wounded animal.

Originally posted by misinformational
Yes, there was research to be conducted. I questioned the credibility of the OP's submission. I provided a source to my claim - for the researcher to verify through research of the article provided and its sources.

No, there was no research to be conducted.

My comment was ( correctly ) pulling you up for your gaffe of citing wikipedia to question something's credibility.

That was that. No research needed, mate.

Originally posted by misinformational
To show that on their front page are many sensationalized articles - allowing the observer to further observe the submission's source credibility.

Which just prove my point about your lack of comprehension skills in reading my posts.

At no point have I ever queried whether Today Tonight was credible or not, yet you chose to reply to me by providing an irrelevant link to show me something that I wasn't even debating.

Despite your frenzied denials afterwards, this just shows that you got the wrong end of the stick about my original comment and miscomprehended my post.

Never mind. Chin up, eh ?

Originally posted by misinformational
If so, I think they should reopen all those "closed" cases.

Give it up, man, we're just about to hit the showers ( separately ) after my decisive victory !

You guys still arguing? It's simple. If you don't agree that fluoride is poison then that's fine. Ignore this thread and go about your business.

If you aren't sure whether it's poison or weren't aware then this thread is directed towards you to raise awareness. At that point to can simply accept that you shouldn't be putting bad metals into your body and simply agree with the thread or do your own research for find out for yourself.

If you agree that fluoride is poison then great! You simply agree.

reply to post by SeeingBlue


Agreed SeeingBlue. Apologies for derailing your thread.

On topic: I understand that sodium fluoride has a toxicity. However, I have never seen evidence that shows toxicity to humans exists at or below the CDC's defined "safe-level".

Through my own research, I have found that fluoride naturally reaches the water supply in many geographical regions (in many instances, this natural water fluoridation is above the CDC's "safe-level"). This would substantiate claims that people have been poisoned through water-fluoridation. This does not however substantiate claims that water fluoridated within the defined safe-levels has a harmful effect.

Remember even water itself can be toxic at a certain threshold (this is known as hyper-hydration).

I earlier linked a peer-reviewing study of the dangers of water fluoridation. I haven't bought the paper, and obviously haven't reviewed it, but I'd be interested in hearing its findings.

Until I am presented irrefutable scientific data, I will remain skeptic (as with anything).

[edit on 6-8-2010 by misinformational]

:-( I was looking for intelligent debate. So I looked up flouride. My teeth are broken. Tonight i chewed a caramel and my tooth disintegrated, it was the last molar I had on the left top side. I am 34 years old and I have always tried to look after my teeth. Is the flouride not working for me because I don't BELIEVE in flouride? I dont have many teeth left.
But its in our water, its in my toothpaste, my mum says my teeth are crumbling because I buy the "flouride-free" toothpaste- dont tell her, but I have started buying the commercial brand again. It contains flouride. You guys were talking about Australia. All I know is that the first town here where they started mining aluminium(bauxite) was the first town where they started dumping flouride in the water. And telling us it was good for us. And by the way. we are watching Kenneth Copeland. It comes on after "pro-active solution". FFS

reply to post by cluelessnoob


Wow! Run to the dentist! It sounds like you might not be getting enough Calcium in your diet. I think flouride in the toothpaste should be enough to strengthen teeth. Don't swallow it, and brush two to three times a day.
I bought Gelcam tooth paste to help my child's small cavities close back up. It has more flouride in it. We live in a house on well water. No Flouride added to the well or our diets. Brushing our teeth keeps them cavity free.
When my son was one we lived in Powhatan, Virginia and the pediatrician wanted him to take flouride drops. I instinctively cut the dosage in half, because we did not know how much natural flouride was in the water of our well. He got one brown spot on his tooth from the flouride, so I stopped using that and bought Act floruide rinse you spit out instead. I don't believe in ingesting flouride drops and tablets, from that experience.
I can't imagine why the government would want to poison everyone.
How could anyone live with themselves intentional hurting others? They
would have to be criminals or physciopaths I guess.