Ok, I see the comment now. Yes, you seem to provide a source, but you claim that the source shows that humans are affected by prolonged exposure. Obviously that’s true, but comes with the obvious caveat that our exposure is nowhere near dangerous levels. I’m no expert, but I have some experiencing in parsing papers and trying to determine legitimacy so I’ll take a stab at what it’s saying.

In this review, it mentions that all the animals studied, problems arose when calculating the amount of fluoride measured against the body weight of the animal. Developmental toxicity occurs at ~13.2 mg/kg of body weight. A litre of water is advised to have .7 mg of flouride in the US. While some states have more or less, they’re all around there. Now, you tell how many litres of water you’d have to drink to actually reach that level of concentration in your body. I’ll give you a hint, it’s at least several times your body weight.

This review also mentions that most flouride is excreted through urine or feces, and 99% of what is preserved is found in the teeth. I didn’t read the studies on what the percentages that are excreted are, but since this review concludes that flouridated water is a non-issue, I’m gonna assume that it’s substantial enough to not be an issue when it comes to flouride buildup.

Here’s the thing though, this study is a review of other studies, why that’s relevant is because of some of the epidemiological data that’s brought up could still show that flouride is bad. However, All studies comparing populations that this review looks at have significant flaws, flaws that the review goes into. The review essentially concludes that all the epidemiological data from other studies are garbage. And rightly so, since a study trying to determine IQ between very different populations is next to impossible to make accurate.

Anyway, the short of it is that this review does not help your case. I’d say if anything, it makes it pretty clear that flouride is not an issue, and that if you’re looking for data to say otherwise, this study recommends much more substantial epidemiological research to be carried out, unlike the epidemiological data they reference in the review.

To get more on topic, I don’t believe most people would have looked more in depth at the article so perhaps they moved the goalposts when they were talking to you. That’s fair to criticize them, but then again, what you’re saying is also not entirely honest. Perhaps you didn’t mean to be dishonest, but still, that just falls under the category of “speak within your limitations”. Acknowledge that you don’t understand or can’t interpret the data. Maybe just ask for help clarifying points. Because what you had said was much too broad for the discussion you were having, and wasn’t remotely helpful, and was, for a lack of a better term, misinformation.

Honestly, the best tactic for catching yourself doing this is to assess others’ goals before attempting to comment on them. For example, don’t start with assuming that governments across the world are proactively poisoning their population. Assume the obvious and go from there. Like considering that governments want healthy populations that are good workforces and produce high quality goods in order for them to compete at the world stage for power, clout, and money. This means producing educated adults, not mindless labour drones. Thus, if there existed credible studies (because not all studies are credible, as this review and many others point out) to increase intellectual output and reduce costs of infrastructure by removing flouride from water (as you wouldn’t bother putting flouride in the water), you can bet that the government would be recommending or even forcing the elemination of flouridated water. There’s just nothing substantial to gain otherwise. Clean teeth or only so much of a positive, and governments, again, do not want a mindless population. We’re in the information age, manual labour is worth a fraction of the GDP output as high quality, educated work is.

There are a couple things that seem honest, but most of this is just rage baiting or spreading misinformation (fluoride, really? If you’re gonna talk about it being discussed you gotta bring scientific sources to the table). Like, I get it, there’re no decent places to actually discuss politics in this day in age because every space is an echo chamber, but you don’t have to actively goad people into engaging with you. Just try to act like an adult, do your research, and talk within the bounds of your knowledge. Keep in mind that the spaces you’re talking in are often echo chambers that come with some territorial behaviour, unfortunately.

All-in-all, if you want people to be nicer to you, you gotta be nicer to them. Also bring sources if you believe the audience won’t believe you.

Yah I mean, if your narrow understanding of what war is is Trumpets trying to take over the white house than yah, I guess one would hate the idea of using violence for the greater good.

Still, that sort of sacrifice should be expected if you want to make changes in your country (the US)

Lol. Us vs them mentality has stretched back since the beginning of the homo genus… probably before that. Racism is just an extension of that but with larger communities. It’s more accurate to say “The Christian Nationalist Views of Inferior People have Roots Stemming from the Concept of Race”. Which is kinda obvious and doesn’t make much of a headline.

I can’t see how relying on the preference from North Korea could possibly help one’s election campaign.

I hate pacifists, man. They always try to publicly shame you by making it seem like violence is never justified… stupid deontological thinking

While I’m sure there would be a net positive, it’s also a completely absurd hypothetical. To get rid of hateful and rightwing propaganda networks, you’d have to completely change the political donor system in the US. You’d have to change the political landscape, you’d have to change the population, the rules on election and numerous other things.

You can’t just get rid of something that’s so beneficial to those in power. You have to completely remove that power in its entirety.

What are you talking about dude? Have you read anything regarding the shooter?

Need a source on that or I’ll just assume you’re lying through your teeth. As literally every major news outlet is reporting he made that donation

If radical change is what’s necessary. Then civil wars should be on the table. Besides, I’m sure the shooter’s goal wasn’t to depolarize the masses.

I think, looking at what has been published on him, it’s pretty clear as to why he shot Trump. For one, his personality lended itself to a hero complex. He was really nice, shy, intelligent, informed, and helpful. He clearly had respect for the Republican party, but given the info on his friend group, it was likely due to peer pressure. This is mostly made obvious by his political donation to the Progressive Turnout Project he made. A project that no conservative really should want to encourage.

In all likelihood, this guy saw the direction the States was headed in and realized there was no way to stop it from imploding without resorting to extreme political violence. I imagined he was upset with the fact that he wouldn’t be able to do much through official channels in his life, so he made the ultimate sacrifice to will the change himself. That’s why this guy’s a hero in my books, not because he took a shot at Trump, but because he realized there’s nothing any of us normies can do about the States’ political situation through normal means, so he went above and beyond. He probably spent some time weighing the options as to whom to shoot, and realized Trump was the better pick.

I’m curious as to which side I was taking before I submitted this discussion. Because I think it’s quite clear that I simply thought this was just another battle in the middle east sparked by land and racial tensions, and despite one side being much better equipped for extermination than the other, it wasn’t particularly notable. My language doesn’t feel pro Hamas, maybe It could be seen as pro Israeli because of that though. But I feel like that’s exactly what everyone in this thread has been pointing out, that there aren’t just two sides, and people aren’t picking between Israel and Hamas (or even Palestine for that matter).

Heck I’m not even arguing with anyone here except you, so what do you think I could possibly be trying to achieve? Let me remind you the community we’re currently discussing this in is !outoftheloop@lemmy.world .

Ah, I see. Given those numbers it’s pretty clear that Isreal is pretty much going scorched earth when it comes to Gaza. Good to know, thank you. I had just assumed the damages to infrastructure weren’t as extensive as they were.

Edit: I also hadn’t known about the active blocking of humanitarian aid, so that alongside some of those numbers really speaks volumes.

Edit 2: also no need to apologize, I mean I’m the one asking all the questions and you’re graciously taking your time to answer them. The fact that you’re splitting them makes sense to me. You’ve overall been very helpful and I can imagine that anyone that stumbles across this entire thread will likely also leave equally as informed as I have after reading most of it.

Alright, some of the side taking makes sense to me now.

Yes, I get that, but at what point do you start considering future children over the current children? Accelerationists are not deontologists, they are consequentialists. A child lost now is valued against the amount of children saved at some calculated point later.

No, the best way to convince an accelerationist that accelerationism is not the right play is to show that there will be no decently positive outcome. Which I’m inclined to agree with, since I can only imagine the continual election of populist figures such as Trump will only increase the divide between voters of the two parties. This’ll create more violence, possibly destabilize the US, and could destabilize large parts of the western world due to policy, military vacuum, and emboldening of alt right groups. Now measure all those consequences against the possibility of an improvement in the political system and multiply that by likelihood. This, to me, seems like a very low gain, for the high likelihood of increased losses. So it should be preferable for accelerationists to go with Biden, since he’s likely to bring about accelerationists goals too, but with less risk, but much slower.

Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s incredibly hard to vote earnestly rather than strategically.

Ok, from what I can tell, most of what people care about regarding the current conflict doesn’t really involve around belligerents. So I think we can safely put that on the back burner. At least for the current wave of side taking. My one question after reading most of the comments is this, how many of Israel’s violent actions against civilians directly target civilians vs targeting Hamas and have civilians stuck in the crossfire? Because I’ve heard of Hamas using civilian areas as staging grounds as an attempt to ward off enemy fire. Is Israel going and killing civilians outside of these instances?

Slightly unrelated question, are many people taking sides in the general occupation of Palistinian land, or is this newest wave side taking mostly focused on the civilians in Gaza vs Israeli force.

I was kind of under the impression that Hamas was a defacto ruling party in Gaza. Given their support (according to some in this thread) that Isreal has given to them previously to maintain Gaza, and their previous political standing in West Bank, as well as all the coverage surrounding the conflict. Perhaps I shouldn’t of over generalized by referring to Palestine. Because Gaza seems to be the only Palestinian state actually involved in this war. But then again, I’m also attempting to use the same language to describe the scenario as I see it as many of the media sources and supporters of either side do.

Would you say Hamas isn’t attempting to eradicate Israelis when convenient? Obviously they’re not as effective as Israel’s attempt to eradicate Gazans, but to me it seems like they want Israelis dead even more so than the Israelis want Gazans dead just due to the actions they have taken.

Idk if I’m back on the accelerationist train or not yet. Not that I can vote in the States, so it doesn’t matter. Regardless, I feel like it would be hard for anyone that even slightly cares about the future to vote for either of these two earnestly. As a progressive, you’d have to weigh the pros and cons of the value of the Dems possibly reevaluating and restructuring if Trump gets back in, vs the absolute abysmal reactions and policies that Trump will cause if he does, especially outside the US. But then if you vote the Dems in again, the neo-nazis around the world will feel less empowered, and there will be less terrible decision making in the short term. All at the cost of Dems not having to change the status quo, and effectively being the lesser evil for the foreseeable future.

Actually, I don’t envy the American voter. And I certainly wouldn’t want to vote in this election.

There’ plenty of reasons, most of which have to do with the human psyche and error. I imagine it’s largely due to convenience. And then one may rationalize that initial thought by assuming that most of their potential audience uses Discord anyway, so they won’t consider other options due to just how damn easy to setup and monitor their community via a Discord-like app is. They may not consider searchability, or information access at all. They may give very little weight to the fact that their entire potential community is subject to Discord’s whims. They simply may not be aware of how beneficial other options are.

Humans do not act based on reason. They act on a mixture of emotion and intuition, and only reinforce their initial position with reason, of one form on another. There is no point of attempting to apply logic to why the people (generically) do anything because of that. On the other hand, attempting to look at this scenario from why something should be done a certain way, as opposed to why it is done a certain way, has merit, as it allows us to influence a decision before it is made in the instant it is conceived.

I don’t think participation is the problem. If you think about it, you wouldn’t want just anyone to post something on a platform without first engaging in said platform. That can only have a neutral or negative effect. People asking stupid questions or people cursing out users. The act of signup ensures that the would-be poster has to signup first and rationalize their post during that process.

Therefor, the problem must be something else, it is the information gateoff (amongst other things) that makes Discord and similar apps unfavorable for community management and information distribution.