Say no to bottled water

[brimstoneSalad]

The information you can find there is most of the time trustworthy, but you should always read it with skepticism because they sometimes are wrong indeed.

Any source can be wrong, so they should all be read with skepticism, right? Which is something she doesn't do with her conspiracy theory propaganda.

As you mentioned, Wikipedia cites its sources at the bottom, which you can follow up on to confirm- policies on Wikipedia forbid individual research.

However, those articles I posted were from rationalwiki, which is edited and controlled by a smaller group of individuals. She wasn't even right about my having references Wikipedia at all, which is hilariously revealing.
Rationalwiki is unrelated to Wikipedia, and has a distinct voice which is more critical of the irrational, although they do have a couple political biases on average (none of which were relevant in those articles, but would show up for example on the articles on Thunderf00t.).

When used by wingnuts, the phrase "bias in Wikipedia" is insider jargon for Wikipedia's aspirations to objectivity, citable fact and reality, rather than subjectivity, irrationality, and extreme points of view in the creation evolution of their encyclopedic articles. Naturally, they consider everything else (especially things that are neutral) to have a liberal bias. When one considers that anything not far-right is by its very nature, to the "left" of that conservative stance, their logic is impeccable.
When used by moonbats, the phrase "bias in Wikipedia" means the site is run by libertarian drone armies and controlled by the CIA.
When used by alties, the phrase "bias in Wikipedia" means that science that works has better references and this is unfair.

I'm guessing she's an altie moonbat, based on her wild assertions. Of course she won't consider anything Wikipedia has to say- it's run by the CIA and unfairly favors evidence based science.

The 'I'm not even going to read what you wrote because I thought you put a link to Wikipedia in your post somewhere' attitude is beyond unacceptable.
That's some hard core closed minded altie moonbattery.


As to the reliability on Wikipedia, the obscure articles that nobody smart is interested in, and articles on living people are the least reliable- actually pretty bad. Those subjects only have one or two authors (unlike in a popular article)- and a distinct lack of experts who care enough to check the articles (Scientists don't care how many children Justin Bieber has, or when he was arrested for selling crack).

A good test of the reliability of the article is this: "Would a professional scientist or academic historian care about this?"
If no, then the article is probably not reliable. If yes, then it will be overwhelmingly so.

You have to know which articles are going to be reliable, and which ones aren't going to be.

Articles on matters of science and politics which are intensely studied and debated are extremely reliable, because the editors form an adversarial back-and-forth over anything controversial: many of such articles are even locked to anonymous editing to prohibit vandalism. These articles are primarily written by experts and grad students, with sources that are beyond reproach.

[Volenta]

Any source can be wrong, so they should all be read with skepticism, right? Which is something she doesn't do with her conspiracy theory propaganda.

Yeah, absolutely. But you especially have to be aware of incorrectness reading from a source that pretty much everyone can edit. It's different from reading from an expert on the field. But you're right about the reliability of popular articles. I also wasn't aware of the controlled group of RationalWiki.

Edit:
By the way, I don't particularly like how you directly attack her personally because of her comment. Please try to stick with the contents.

[brimstoneSalad]

By the way, I don't particularly like how you directly attack her personally because of her comment. Please try to stick with the contents.

If she had any contents, I would have tried to do that. If she had been remotely respectful, I would have tried to level with her and help her understand why she is mistaken. A carrot is always preferable to the stick.

But I tried the carrot - she spat it in my face.

She was not only dismissive, but arrogant, hypocritical, and proudly closed minded- she bragged that she didn't even read the post because she assumed it had links to Wikipedia in it.
This is not just a problem with the ideas she has- this is a problem with her personality and general mindset.

Anybody who makes an honest attempt to engage deserves respect for that effort (I have quite a bit of respect for Christians and Muslims, for example, who will actually attempt to logically engage on the topic of their beliefs), and I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but at some point or another they may say and do things that remove all reasonable doubt and make it clear that they have no interest in honestly engaging in the subject.

I believe there is some place for ridicule for ridiculous ideas, and necessarily of those who steadfastly advocate them and who arrogantly refuse to engage in reasonable discussion.
When they won't engage in discussion at all, ridicule is unfortunately all that's left.

Please see this post, and the conversation that follows.
Ridicule achieved a 180º on the topic at hand where all of the prior polite attempts failed. What he decides to do about this new knowledge is up to him, of course, and will probably require some personal introspection on his part, but now he at least is beginning to think rationally on the subject.

People can be shamed into good behavior, and rational thought. And when they won't engage in rational discussion, that's often the only option available.

Take, for example, the people who think Elvis is still alive… What’s wrong with this claim? Why is this claim not vitiating our academic departments and corporations? I’ll tell you why, and it’s very simple. We have not passed laws against believing Elvis is still alive. It’s just whenever somebody seriously represents his belief that Elvis is still alive – in a conversation, on a first date, at a lecture, at a job interview – he immediately pays a price. He pays a price in ill-concealed laughter.

[Volenta]

What I'm rejecting is personal attacks, not the ridicule of certain held beliefs. And I've read the other conversation, and wouldn't say it worked out that well over there too, although you're right that it might set him to thinking.

[brimstoneSalad]

What I'm rejecting is personal attacks, not the ridicule of certain held beliefs.

I'm just concerned with results. If calling people stupid-heads shocks them enough to make them think when they were refusing to before hand, then is it wrong?

The same issue comes up with more in-your-face or offensive atheist campaigns, like Smut-for-Smut which Hemant blogged on Here, or even many of PETA's campaigns. There's a question of whether the tactics positively influence efficacy (I would argue they do), or if efficacy justifies those elements of rhetoric if they do (which, again, I would argue it does).

The means: Slightly offend somebody
The Ends: Promote rational thought

I think all kinds of outreach have their places- the friendly carrots, and the in-your-face sticks. I try to use a mix, based on my best judgement given my past experience of what works. And also based on who else is present arguing along side me.

I start by trying to be reasonable and nice. If they throw that in my face, I go nuclear and shame them, and then when they start inching toward reason to defend themselves from the attack, I complement them (as is only appropriate).
It doesn't always work, but it's more effective than talking to a wall or giving up.

And I've read the other conversation, and wouldn't say it worked out that well over there too, although you're right that it might set him to thinking.

When he finally answered my questions, he didn't even realize anybody had asked them already because he completely ignored everything everybody else was saying.

There is the idea that these questions people ask, even if they are ignored, seep into a person's subconscious later to germinate like a seed of rationality.

I don't believe that- unless those people acknowledge the questions and grapple with them a little (even if it's just for a few minutes), or the question or its context was so offensive that they couldn't help noticing or remembering it, it falls right out of their heads.
Our subconscious minds are not vaults that store unlimited amounts of information; if we didn't spend time really thinking about something, or it didn't emotionally affect us, it's gone forever.


The best possible method uses two parties, in a good-cop bad-cop tactic.

The bad cop insults, and degrades the person's character, making him or her defensive.
The good cop defends the person (does not attack the bad cop for the insults) by dangling justification in front of him or her with friendly encouragement.

Bad cop: "You murdered her, and you did it because it was fun. You enjoyed it you sick son of a bitch."
Good cop: "I'm sure it was just an accident. It wasn't his fault, right? It wasn't your fault."

The push creates an emotionally heightened state of defensiveness, and the pull opens a way out and away from the accusation or ridicule, which the subject is more likely to take because of having been pushed.

If the same person opens the way out, it's a little less effective because of the ongoing negative interaction with that actor (people are more inclined to close down rather than taking that out, or distrust it because of the adversarial situation).

If you were to play "good cop" here, you'd go about that by complimenting and defending her character, but only in a very precise and conditional way. Like:

I'm sure she's not a moonbat, but was just mistaken on this one tiny issue. It's easy to get incorrect information on these kinds of things, and it's not her fault. She seems like a very rational and ethical person- she is atheist and vegan, after all! I'd bet anything that after she reads those articles, she'll realize she was mistaken about the fluoride and "toilet to tap" stuff, and we'll all have a good laugh about the misunderstanding.

I would have said that too... but I'm not two people.

[PrincessPeach]

Wow geesh you guys are harsh how does me saying that one should be wary and avoid fluoride make me a conspiracy theorist?
Fluoride is banned in almost every other country just look it up there are reasons for this.
http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/countries.pdf

[brimstoneSalad]

Wow geesh you guys are harsh how does me saying that one should be wary and avoid fluoride make me a conspiracy theorist?

That's not all you said, and you know it.

Saying stuff like this is extremely ignorant, rude, arrogant, lazy, and closed minded:

In response to brimstonesalad,
I stopped reading your post after I saw that you referenced wikipedia not once but TWICE!
Did you not learn in middle school to never reference anything from wikipedia, that just proves to me you only know what you've googled...

You would have been better received if you had cussed me out, but at least read my post.

I was friendly with you, and you spit in my face like this.

If you ever want any respect from me, you will apologize for that post, and you will read the reply I wrote to you and respond to it honestly.

If you have even an ounce of intellectual honesty, you will engage in this conversation like a rational human being- something you have as of yet refused to do.

Read my post.

Fluoride is banned in almost every other country just look it up there are reasons for this.
http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/countries.pdf

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

That site is filled with bullshit and scientific ignorance. If you would like me to explain what's wrong with it, then read my post first and prove that you have enough of a brain to understand and consider what I say.

I'm not going to waste my time debunking something if you're too lazy, closed minded, and arrogant to even read what I write.

[PrincessPeach]

You would have been better received if you had cussed me out, but at least read my post.

I was friendly with you, and you spit in my face like this.

If you ever want any respect from me, you will apologize for that post, and you will read the reply I wrote to you and respond to it honestly.

If you have even an ounce of intellectual honesty, you will engage in this conversation like a rational human being- something you have as of yet refused to do.

Read my post.

That site is filled with bullshit and scientific ignorance. If you would like me to explain what's wrong with it, then read my post first and prove that you have enough of a brain to understand and consider what I say.

I'm not going to waste my time debunking something if you're too lazy, closed minded, and arrogant to even read what I write.

Why would I have cursed you out, I am not angry with you I am just being logical anyone that started middle school in the 21 century knows to never use wiki anything as a reference.
I took the time to read the articles you used as a reference to 'de-bunk' my thoughts on fluoride.
Those articles are most certainly written with a bias point of view, also look at the references they used....!
You want to talk about the science of things, well lets look at the science and history of fluoride.
FACT
Fluoride is highly toxic before being used as a teeth whitener it was used as rat poison.
FACT
Fluoride is a pollutant - a by-product of copper, iron and aluminum manufacturing. The problem of how to legally dispose of fluoride was solved in the 1930's when a study (funded by one of the country's largest aluminum companies) concluded that fluoride prevented tooth decay. A successful public relations effort, helped along with some cooperative government cronies, resulted in the good news going out: this miracle chemical, when added to water supplies, will give everyone healthy teeth and brighter smiles.
Does fluoride actually prevent tooth decay? Not according to the largest study ever conducted on fluoridation and oral health. 39,000 school children in 84 areas around the U.S. were studied in the mid-80's, and the results showed no statistical difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated cities.
FACT
Fluoride helps your body absorb aluminum which causes people to have Alzheimer's.
Fact
Fluoride helps your body absorb other harmful chemicals better!


Where I live my county reconstitutes the water. I used to live right outside a pump where shit and piss would be streaming out of it to be chemically altered just a half mile down the street at the water treatment facility. I will take a picture of it and post it here shortly. Do you think that the water you flush down the toilet goes some where else than the water that comes out of your tap? They go to the same place and they get reused again in your drinking water.

http://www.fluoridation.com/c-country.ht
is this a better link for you?

A conspiracy would be something that can not be proven by fact....
I can prove over and over again that fluoride is not good for you!
The real conspiracy is all the false information the American government is feeding us to believe as truth.


Why don't you stop drinking fluoride and see how you feel then come and talk to me...
The best way to try and de bunk me would be to go fluoride free, right? Why don't you wake up and stop drinking fluoride, do you still have trust in our government? Having trust in the American government is a conspiracy within itself it saddens me that you still believe what they say. You want to know another harmful chemical that is legal for consumption in America but out lawed and banned in every other country? That is right bovine growth hormones rBGH and rBST. Hmm, so we allow the use of chemicals and hormones that all other countries have deemed unsafe for human consumption... We are the only country that approves growth hormones, we also legally allow the presence of e-coli in our meats too, it's okay once you cook the meat it will kill the e-coli.

Would you rather drink water that came from a mountain spring, or would you rather drink water that is reused from the sewers and is filled with lots of good chemicals and chlorine to whiten and clear it out for yah too

I do believe America is trying to dumb us all down through the water we have to drink and the food we have to eat ! I mean think about it what are America's three largest sources of income? Produce, livestock, and pharmaceuticals...

I am not going to apologize to you for anything, I was not rude or mean to you in any way I may have a bit of a bitchy tone but I am a girl
Avoiding giving my son a substance that I know could be harmful to him makes me a good mom, not a naive dumb woman who puts trust and faith her American government. It was not at all in my head it was very very true my mind is not clogged by animal products and I was not the only one to notice a change in his behavior everyone in the family did(I have a big family). He was glitchy right before I took him off, by this I mean he was very twitchy and jerky.. Not normal, not paying attention, he would just sit there dull and duhhh and would be mean when I would try to interact with him, he was even throwing his toys around which he does not do any more.. I know my son better than anyone else.

Compare the mental stability of people in America to people everywhere else, oh yah most Americans are crazy and need constant medical attention for mental and physical diseases the proof is in our people.

[brimstoneSalad]

I am not going to apologize to you for anything, I was not rude or mean to you in any way I may have a bit of a bitchy tone but I am a girl

You don't owe me an apology for being a bitch, you can be as bitchy as you want (cuss me out if you want, that's less rude than what you did), you owe me an apology for ignoring my entire post. Noticing that somebody posted a link to a web page you assume you disagree with on some basis is not a justification to ignore everything they say and dismissing everything thereafter- that's a logical fallacy. And that's what you have to apologize for.

I posted that link for your benefit, because it's a good overview of the issue, and contains a lot of other actual sources linked from within it. But it shouldn't have mattered where those links went, even to some company selling Fluoride, my post stands on its own: Most of which addressed your "toilet to tap" claim, which is a malicious lie and mischaracterization.

When you apologize for your incredibly rude and lazy post before, then I will give you the consideration of replying to your last post, and responding to the points you think you made.
If you can't even recognize what you did wrong by ignoring my entire post, then you don't deserve the respect of anybody considering what you have to say on anything- because you are a fundamentally closed-minded moonbat without a rational thought in your head.

Admit that you made a mistake, apologize for it, and don't do it again. The basic standard of intellectual honesty demands we at least have a basic understanding of the arguments against our positions before dismissing them- refusing to even read them when somebody takes the time to present them is the lowest of arrogant ignorance. Apologize for doing just that, or suffer the contempt you have rightly earned.

[thebestofenergy]

@PrincessPeach, you probably didn't know that what you did was considered rude here, in the daily life people don't make a big deal out of this.
But different places have different standards of what's considered polite or rude.
When hanging out with your uncaring old-time friends, you could probably cuss all you want and being rude without them having a problem; but if you ordered them what they should so, they would have probably not accepted such a thing.
Instead, if you were a teacher in school, ordering something to someone would be fine, but swearing wouldn't be accepted.

You probably weren't aware of this, or you simply didn't give it much importance, but here in the skeptic community dismissing entire posts other people made in such a cheap way and unapologetically making logical fallacies is way more rude and causing frustration than cussing; this is probably different from elsewhere, so you might be a bit shocked.

It seems that you have some interesting things to say about this topic, and I'm interested in them; I hope you'll acknowledge why we care about this sort of things and join in on the community standards, so we can all move on from this little misunderstanding.
If you ignore and dismiss what other people say (and if you don't acknowledge why that is wrong), you'll probably get the same treatment, and that'd be a shame because I'm sure we all have a lot to talk about.
You don't have to take it personally when apologizing; you're not in a community where people will remember your mistake and give your arguments less validity because of it.