WldFyre

Splitting Chrome from Google wouldn't make Chrome not a monopoly, though, right?

Your response to me saying that adding fluoride is best until the US has complete and free dental healthcare was to mention two European countries with with better healthcare than the US. So I'll repeat myself since you can't read:

So you agree it’s better to add it to the water until literally every person in the US has health/dental care and free fluoride treatments?

If you live in the US then it should be obvious what will provide the best outcomes, since those other measures aren't in fucking place here.

Putting a poison

It's not a poison, this type of bullshit fear-mongering just highlights how hollow your arguments are. You're arguing that the delivery method of fluoride is wrong, and then you call it a poison. Stop taking cues from anti-vaxxers.

It may be a necessary evil

It's not an evil, just because there's a hypothetical better way doesn't mean this way is bad. It provably doesn't have worse outcomes! How the fuck can it be evil? All your links just show it has "negligible effects" if fluoride is provided another way, none of them show negative effects.

And yes, I don’t know any kids who actually are willing to drink tap water anymore

Than you either don't live in America or you live in a much more well-off area then me. Over half of Americans drink tap water, and more than that cook with the water.

brita, or filtered these days

Brita and other filters don't remove fluoride from water, so drinking filtered tap water doesn't affect adding fluoride to the water.

Yes, Kids these days.

Lol what a great discussion and not just arguing about "how you feel"

How much TAP water do kids drink?

What the actual fuck is your point here? All of my friends' kids drink mostly from the tap, or make food with water from the tap. Do you think children are only drinking cans of soda and Lunchables??

With the rise of Fluoride in toothpaste the differences are negligible

Literally not true, studies still show better outcomes for cities that add fluoride. A Canadian province that doesn't add fluoride has more cavities and issues than a neighboring province that does.

The mild fluorosis that is "risked" by adding fluoride is such a mild condition compared to teeth loss, weaker adult teeth, and cavities while growing up.

I am willing to look at and understand current studies and evidence

Being willing to understand doesn't magically convey the ability to understand. You sound like nurses that become anti-vax and think they know more about medicine since they had to memorize unrelated facts and know how to inject a needle.

I said it was a municipality issue, not a federal issue

It already is, fluoridization is not federally mandated. RFK is talking about federally banning it.

a municipality may find it necessary to fluoridate their water if dental care and oral hygiene is unavailable due to various factors like poverty, remoteness, cost effectiveness etc. But in the end it would ALWAYS be better to prescribe the treatment in measured amounts, instead of adding it to the water.

So you agree it's better to add it to the water until literally every person in the US has health/dental care and free fluoride treatments? I hope you're arguing for those, too, instead of just whining about how some utopian alternative that we are nowhere near to having would be better.

Just how much water do kids drink these days?

WTF kind of question/argument is this?

"Kids these days, amirite? They don't drink any water but thank god they can be trusted to have good brushing habits!"

The latest studies show a rise in flourosis

Along with a decline in having teeth rot and fall out, damn what a tough choice.

a decline in effectiveness since the widespread use of fluoride toothpaste

That isn't a decline in effectiveness you bozo.

It seems crazy to me to add a chemical to water that had no dose control

You realize we add literal chlorine to water, right? Not some scary chemical with "chloride blah blah blah" in the name, actual chlorine. It only seems crazy to you because you're making an uninformed opinion based on your gut feeling instead of trusting experts and people who actually studied and work with water treatment plants.

You literally are disagreeing with decades of evidence that it helps populations and especially children, disagreeing with experts in the field, and agreeing with fucking RFK, Jr. Maybe take a second to pause and evaluate whether your initial, uneducated emotional response should have any fucking weight on this decision.

I think it's stupid.

Literally why?? It's one of the most effective things we can do for the vast majority of our population. And every expert thinks it's a good idea. Some random bozo thinking it's "stupid" is fucking stupid, but apparently you're in good company with Kennedy here lol

The vast majority of Americans drink tap water.

You ignored nearly all of my comment and just repeated your logical fallacies.

it is possible to use a scientific approach to figure out what works and what doesn't.

Refer back to how this is meaningless. Every country in existence "works" and changing what you mean by "works" means it's not scientific (which it shouldn't be).

I haven't even brought up the low hanging fruit of how since the USSR failed and the USA still exists, then "scientifically" socialism doesn't work if you use that logic.

And something working doesn't mean it is scientifically correct or true, because that's conflating poor philosophy with poor moralizing. It also doesn't "prove" that it is the only thing that works, or that it's the best thing we could have, or that anything couldn't be better, or another way wouldn't be just as good, or...

Which is why enforcing conformity and punishing deviation because socialism is "scientific" is fucking stupid, because you can't prove or even know any of the above.

scientific approach to politics

It's not, because no approach to politics is. It's not reproducible, and there's no control. You can argue it's logical, but that's different.

Also, this means that literally any functioning state "clearly works" as well, many of which have been around longer than modern China. Any place that isn't pure chaos is a valid approach to politics with this argument, and if you (correctly) change what you mean by "works" to be some other criteria, then it's not a pure evidence based approach anymore since we've brought value judgements into it.

Politics can never be purely scientific because we have to make value judgements. Being purely "scientific" is what most communists criticize pure utilitarianism for.

Lol exact same outcome but since I ~~accepted Jesus into my heart~~ wanted to advance the party agenda it's okay

You honestly think citizens should be publicly punished and shamed for purely strategic reasons? I somehow don't believe that.

every Party member must uphold it

Sounds like a moral imperative to me tbh

But honestly this is just more examples of trying to weasel out of hypocritical positions like evangelical Christians do. Change some words around and act like it's a different thing even though the real world effect is the same, which is funny for a group that claims to deal in material conditions.

"I don't HATE you, I just think you deserve to go to Hell."

"We don't denounce deviation because deviating is immoral, we denounce it because it would be bad game theory not to."