Flouridation: Calgary reaps what the crazies sowed

[Nice Squirrel]

Slippery slope. Lead is known to be harmful and has been know to be permanent brain damage for thousands of years. Fast food can be beneficial. Equating the two is a false equivalence and an irrational appeal to emotion. It is good to know the libertarian position is that it is up to the parents regardless of the health and safety of the child.

Fast food can be very dangerous and you could say that it doesn't gain anything besides empty calories when you need calories. Asbestos for a whole had good properties until they found out it caused other problems. Fluoride has been linked to lower IQs and other neurological diseases. So it's a trade offs of parents between cavities and potential harmful side affects.

And these are the same as lead's damaging effects we've known about for thousands of years.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Fast food can be very dangerous and you could say that it doesn't gain anything besides empty calories when you need calories. Asbestos for a whole had good properties until they found out it caused other problems. Fluoride has been linked to lower IQs and other neurological diseases. So it's a trade offs of parents between cavities and potential harmful side affects.

And these are the same as lead's damaging effects we've known about for thousands of years.

So yes, giving a kid poison would be vary hard to defend. But you are okay with the government putting lead in housing or water if they find a benefit for it?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And these are the same as lead's damaging effects we've known about for thousands of years.

So yes, giving a kid poison would be vary hard to defend. But you are okay with the government putting lead in housing or water if they find a benefit for it?

I'm not sure how this follows from my questions. Are you say that giving a kid poison (such as lead) would be hard for the parents to defend, but it is still their decision to do so?

 

[coloradoatheist]

So yes, giving a kid poison would be vary hard to defend. But you are okay with the government putting lead in housing or water if they find a benefit for it?

I'm not sure how this follows from my questions. Are you say that giving a kid poison (such as lead) would be hard for the parents to defend, but it is still their decision to do so?

No. I don't think they could defend in any way giving them lead.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

We have reached common ground.

 

[bilby]

We have reached common ground.

Excuse me, but this is the Internet.

Just because you agree with somebody is no reason for you to stop arguing with them.

 

[fromderinside]

We have reached common ground.

Excuse me, but this is the Internet.

Just because you agree with somebody is no reason for you to stop arguing with them.

We agree.

 

[Malintent]

So what was agreed? that any amount of lead can be put into a child's body by a parent, but not by the state? How much lead? I have a whole box of .22s right here. Can I put those in your child? is that too much lead or not enough lead?

 

[coloradoatheist]

So what was agreed? that any amount of lead can be put into a child's body by a parent, but not by the state? How much lead? I have a whole box of .22s right here. Can I put those in your child? is that too much lead or not enough lead?

That a parent can't put something in a body of a child that is strictly harmful. But as I said there are grey areas, where does someone draw the line for fast food. What happens if a parent doesn't make a child exercise? Can a parent weigh the risks of something and decide that the side effects are too dangerous even if they are now, etc?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

And these are the same as lead's damaging effects we've known about for thousands of years.

So yes, giving a kid poison would be vary hard to defend. But you are okay with the government putting lead in housing or water if they find a benefit for it?

You can't be serious. In Detroit, Snyder et al screwed the pooch. They were warned their actions were dangerous and ignored the experts.

 

[Malintent]

So what was agreed? that any amount of lead can be put into a child's body by a parent, but not by the state? How much lead? I have a whole box of .22s right here. Can I put those in your child? is that too much lead or not enough lead?

That a parent can't put something in a body of a child that is strictly harmful. But as I said there are grey areas, where does someone draw the line for fast food. What happens if a parent doesn't make a child exercise? Can a parent weigh the risks of something and decide that the side effects are too dangerous even if they are now, etc?

There should be punishments for adverse consequences of actions, not laws prohibiting the actions. That is one of the major difference in philosophy of government, IMO.
So, no law that says you can't feed fast food to your child - but a law that says if your child is medically at risk due to their diet that you as a parent have created, then you are guilty of a form of abuse. No law should say that an upstanding citizen can't own a gun. but a law that says you will be shot if you shoot anyone else would be a good one to have.

 

[credoconsolans]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...hemophobes-over-fluoridation/article28814768/

Congratulations on +2 cavities.

Idiot canucks. Guess there are dumb rednecks even in Canada.