this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
423 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19634 readers
2908 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I find your way of thinking troubling, it assumes that people are not capable of understanding nuanced information and that only academics in ivory towers are qualified to understand it, which is false in most cases. From my point of view that line of thinking is what has wrought the crisis of misinformation and mistrust.

If I were to take your side I would have to believe that people need babysitting and then I would also argue that those kid of people should not be allowed to participate in democratic society. I refuse to give in to that line of thinking.

There are some people that can’t afford X thing is so tired man, it represents such a tiny part of the population who could also reach out to other resources to get what they need. That’s really not a serious argument. Again the best European countries do not fluoride their water, and these are countries that very often if not always do what’s best for the population.

Let the people decide if they want fluoride or not. More choice is better than no choice.

[–] Maggoty 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Most of Europe has fluoridated water. And I'm sorry you don't care about poor people, that says more about you than the country though. There are things we do because they are unmitigated positives. There is no conversation to be had here. It isn't a matter of ivory tower academics versus the common man. It's science. It's well proven science. These arguments you're using are the ones used to make people question actual science. If you want to be respected in academic circles then take the time to find something not well proven and work on it. It's that simple. They aren't going to ask for your degree if your work is good.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That’s patently false. Most of Europe does not have fluoridated water. I hate posting Wikipedia links so I won’t but only around 13 million Europeans have fluoridated water. What they do is put it in the salt, which I think is way better because anyone can choose to buy salt with or without fluoride.

I never said I dont care about poor people, I said that people who are so poor they cannot afford toothpaste are extremely rare in the US and there are many organizations that would be willing to help them when they exist. In fact I doubt someone that poor would have access to potable water anyways. It’s frankly an argument that people resort to when they don’t have one but still want to defend government imposition.

I’m not saying that you should question it because I question it. I’m saying you should question it because science still questions it, and studies are still being made. You’re basically dismissing every argument I’ve given you by simply brushing them away with strawmans instead of engaging with them. You still have not even explained why you are so opposed to the idea of people democratically choosing whether a chemical gets added to their drinking water or not. But whatever, I won’t continue to argue with you, you’re clearly entrenched in your side of the argument despite backing it up with 0 facts.

[–] Maggoty 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because it's already chosen democratically. And you don't want to post the wiki because it has the fluoridated water map.

And yeah I get it, you think poor people should just fuck off and die.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

You’re right it is chosen democratically at least in some counties. I was not aware of that because there’s also often state legislatures that impose it. My bad.

And I do not post Wikipedia because I do not think it is a serious source of information in which to base an argument , but sure I’ll post it because it still doesn’t show that the majority of Europe has fluoridated water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country

Look at that, only 1% to 20% of the population has access to fluoride in the water supply according to that map.

You know damn well I never said anything like that about poor people but you’re just a bad faith arguer. Have a good one.

[–] Maggoty 1 points 21 hours ago

Oh you know it's not a popular position, so instead you minimize the fact that they exist and advocate to remove their supports.