Atheistic morality

[shickingbrits]

Who said "God hates fags"? You could make similar claims about God and puppies, small children, Jews, non-Jews. Wherein lies your interest to make such a claim?

Why is the world less than perfect? When a 7 year-old screams and throws a fit because they didn't get the gift they wanted for Xmas, was Xmas inherently bad or did the tantrum make it bad?

We do have free will. You have free will, which is yours and yours alone.

[shickingbrits]

I'm still wondering how allegedly "free markets" caused the seemingly nonexistent fluoride crisis.

Most people confuse "crony capitalism" with the free market.

They also think that fascism was a "right wing" ideology.

It can be rather funny at times.

No confusion.

I'm still wondering how allegedly "free markets" caused the seemingly nonexistent fluoride crisis. Aren't water standards under the purview of some government bureaucracy--be it national, State, or municipality?

And if "teh wealthy" wanted to lower IQs or whatever to make people easier to control, aren't there more efficient means? E.g. supporting government schooling? But then, how do they get the optimal number of stupid people? It's not like their businesses can run with 100% stupid people.

And as more people become dumber, more become less productive, thus have lower incomes--which is bad for business since they cannot buy as much. Why would businesses turn down greater profits? (How could they even collude successfully in the first place to implement a nationwide scheme? Collusion is suppose to increase profits for the few companies--not decrease them...).

Then, how does one relate the 'teh wealthy control us' argument with other factors which contribute to similar outcomes--e.g. broad support of more government schooling, quality and price controls on water, etc. by voters, politicians, bureaucrats, and even non-corporate lobbying groups?

Which is more likely: (1) They're all 'in on it' and somehow only shickingbrits and a few others have access to the Ultimate Truth of the matter, or (2) shickbricks and the few are wrong?

Declawing a cat.

Costs about $1000 in the US. There are roughly 75,000,000 cats and 25% are declawed. The alternative to declawing is to do nothing: free, or clip yourself, $25 for clippers, or paid to have them clipped. Clipping the claws takes about as much time as declawing.

Would the various vet societies encourage or discourage the clipping of claws? If it were based on the health of the cat, ie what a vet is supposed to care about, then the answer is no. In a study, it was found that 50-80% of declawed cats experience post-surgery medical complications. A pet owner looks to their vet for such info. On the other hand, it it were based on profits, then the answer would be yes. A vet can make $1000, whatever they can charge for clipping or nothing. If they declaw the cats, they can get further business from the complications that arise.

Even though the evidence is rather obvious of the effects, the cat is limping and is easily disseminated, vets act in their own financial self interest and encourage declawing. Schools teach declawing, legislation allows declawing, governing institutions unanimously promote declawing, pet magazines, etc encourage declawing.

The "free market" driven by profits ensures the greatest profit inherently. They just need to do one little thing...ignore the limping cat and their duty as a vet.

This is an example of a voluntary exchange. I understand that you feel eating is a voluntary exchange, but for the purposes of my post, I will ignore your delusions. I will further ignore them in the case of energy. Whereas declawing a cat is rather obvious, and there are cheaper alternatives available, energy has none on the market. As long as they competitors can be kept off the market, then there is no alternative available.

When general, non-essential products with obvious downsides are encouraged by the governing bodies, ignored by regulators, taught at schools, promoted in media, and provide a lot of bread and butter to practitioners, what would we expect to see in industries that dictate a nation's status in the world, that provides more jobs, more concentrated wealth, where competitors are cheaper to buy up than fail against?

You might see nuclear engineers graduating with almost zero knowledge of a potential competitor. You might see research buried or classified. You would see the dissenters fail to point out the solution and yet continue to dissent. You would find technology on ice.

Are there such examples of technology on ice?

When the mafia gets into the garment industry and creates a bottleneck, it's called extortion. When the government and "free market" engage in the very same activities it's called economic stimulus. At the end of the day, what holds true for those who declaw-that they must forego their purported intent to pursue the dollar- holds true for the energy sector as well.

They bury it. All of them. And as such it is a legal conspiracy, or the "free market" doing its thing. In self-interest we don't find the concept of destroying your own market for the good of mankind. We find the perpetuating of a market for the good of those supplying the demand.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm still wondering how allegedly "free markets" caused the seemingly nonexistent fluoride crisis.

Most people confuse "crony capitalism" with the free market.

They also think that fascism was a "right wing" ideology.

It can be rather funny at times.

No confusion.

I'm still wondering how allegedly "free markets" caused the seemingly nonexistent fluoride crisis. Aren't water standards under the purview of some government bureaucracy--be it national, State, or municipality?

And if "teh wealthy" wanted to lower IQs or whatever to make people easier to control, aren't there more efficient means? E.g. supporting government schooling? But then, how do they get the optimal number of stupid people? It's not like their businesses can run with 100% stupid people.

And as more people become dumber, more become less productive, thus have lower incomes--which is bad for business since they cannot buy as much. Why would businesses turn down greater profits? (How could they even collude successfully in the first place to implement a nationwide scheme? Collusion is suppose to increase profits for the few companies--not decrease them...).

Then, how does one relate the 'teh wealthy control us' argument with other factors which contribute to similar outcomes--e.g. broad support of more government schooling, quality and price controls on water, etc. by voters, politicians, bureaucrats, and even non-corporate lobbying groups?

Which is more likely: (1) They're all 'in on it' and somehow only shickingbrits and a few others have access to the Ultimate Truth of the matter, or (2) shickbricks and the few are wrong?

Declawing a cat.

Costs about $1000 in the US. There are roughly 75,000,000 cats and 25% are declawed. The alternative to declawing is to do nothing: free, or clip yourself, $25 for clippers, or paid to have them clipped. Clipping the claws takes about as much time as declawing.

Would the various vet societies encourage or discourage the clipping of claws? If it were based on the health of the cat, ie what a vet is supposed to care about, then the answer is no. In a study, it was found that 50-80% of declawed cats experience post-surgery medical complications. A pet owner looks to their vet for such info. On the other hand, it it were based on profits, then the answer would be yes. A vet can make $1000, whatever they can charge for clipping or nothing. If they declaw the cats, they can get further business from the complications that arise.

Even though the evidence is rather obvious of the effects, the cat is limping and is easily disseminated, vets act in their own financial self interest and encourage declawing. Schools teach declawing, legislation allows declawing, governing institutions unanimously promote declawing, pet magazines, etc encourage declawing.

The "free market" driven by profits ensures the greatest profit inherently. They just need to do one little thing...ignore the limping cat and their duty as a vet.

This is an example of a voluntary exchange. I understand that you feel eating is a voluntary exchange, but for the purposes of my post, I will ignore your delusions. I will further ignore them in the case of energy. Whereas declawing a cat is rather obvious, and there are cheaper alternatives available, energy has none on the market. As long as they competitors can be kept off the market, then there is no alternative available.

When general, non-essential products with obvious downsides are encouraged by the governing bodies, ignored by regulators, taught at schools, promoted in media, and provide a lot of bread and butter to practitioners, what would we expect to see in industries that dictate a nation's status in the world, that provides more jobs, more concentrated wealth, where competitors are cheaper to buy up than fail against?

You might see nuclear engineers graduating with almost zero knowledge of a potential competitor. You might see research buried or classified. You would see the dissenters fail to point out the solution and yet continue to dissent. You would find technology on ice.

Are there such examples of technology on ice?

When the mafia gets into the garment industry and creates a bottleneck, it's called extortion. When the government and "free market" engage in the very same activities it's called economic stimulus. At the end of the day, what holds true for those who declaw-that they must forego their purported intent to pursue the dollar- holds true for the energy sector as well.

They bury it. All of them. And as such it is a legal conspiracy, or the "free market" doing its thing. In self-interest we don't find the concept of destroying your own market for the good of mankind. We find the perpetuating of a market for the good of those supplying the demand.

[insert point-by-point analysis that illuminates omissions, contradictions, and gaps of logic in shickringbits' post]


shtickticks responds with:



[bask in the warmth of having minimized costs and maximized profits]

[BigBallinStalin]

Who said "God hates fags"? You could make similar claims about God and puppies, small children, Jews, non-Jews. Wherein lies your interest to make such a claim?

Why is the world less than perfect? When a 7 year-old screams and throws a fit because they didn't get the gift they wanted for Xmas, was Xmas inherently bad or did the tantrum make it bad?

We do have free will. You have free will, which is yours and yours alone.

I can't believe you worship a god that hates gay people.

[Metsfanmax]

Even though the evidence is rather obvious of the effects, the cat is limping and is easily disseminated, vets act in their own financial self interest and encourage declawing. Schools teach declawing, legislation allows declawing, governing institutions unanimously promote declawing, pet magazines, etc encourage declawing.

It's really not that simple. Declawing is not always against the interests of cats. Sometimes allowing this to happen prevents a much worse outcome, such as the cat being mistreated by its owner, or abandoned. Veterinarians do it because there's a greater benefit involved. Yes, it's terrible that people would adopt animals and then not adjust to a cat's scratching behavior, but these people are doing a good thing for the cat they adopt and for the population of cats as a whole. Also, a declawed cat can't murder the local wildlife... I just adopted a kitten and would never declaw her, but it's not fair for you to say that veterinarians are just doing it purely out of self-interest.

Incidentally, if you eat meat, then your stance is absurd.

[shickingbrits]

I encourage the large scale mistreatment of cats to prevent the small scale mistreatment of cats.

That sounds lovely. What wine would you recommend with that?

Incidentally, if you eat meat, then your stance is absurd.

You haven't convinced me on dessert, but I'd love to hear more.

[shickingbrits]

Who said "God hates fags"? You could make similar claims about God and puppies, small children, Jews, non-Jews. Wherein lies your interest to make such a claim?

Why is the world less than perfect? When a 7 year-old screams and throws a fit because they didn't get the gift they wanted for Xmas, was Xmas inherently bad or did the tantrum make it bad?

We do have free will. You have free will, which is yours and yours alone.

I can't believe you worship a god that hates gay people.

Such an understanding of the Bible is like a guy who walks into a bar:

Guy: I'll have your finest whiskey on the rocks.
Bar: Coming right up.

Bar takes out glass.

Guy: This glass is empty! What kind of fool do you think I am?
Bar: Patience, it's coming.

Bar puts ice in glass.

Guy: Deception! Fraud! Your finest whiskey is ice?! I shall warn my friends about you.

Guy storms off and tells the empty tale.

[AndyDufresne]

storms off and tells the empty tale.

Should be your signature?


--Andy

[chang50]

storms off and tells the empty tale.

Should be your signature?


--Andy

Lololololol.

[BigBallinStalin]

Declawing a cat.

Would the various vet societies encourage or discourage the clipping of claws? If it were based on the health of the cat, ie what a vet is supposed to care about, then the answer is no. In a study, it was found that 50-80% of declawed cats experience post-surgery medical complications. A pet owner looks to their vet for such info. On the other hand, it it were based on profits, then the answer would be yes. A vet can make $1000, whatever they can charge for clipping or nothing. If they declaw the cats, they can get further business from the complications that arise.

Even though the evidence is rather obvious of the effects, the cat is limping and is easily disseminated, vets act in their own financial self interest and encourage declawing. Schools teach declawing, legislation allows declawing, governing institutions unanimously promote declawing, pet magazines, etc encourage declawing.

https://www.avma.org/kb/policies/pages/ ... -cats.aspx

The AVMA strongly encourages client education prior to consideration of onychectomy (declawing). It is the obligation of the veterinarian to provide cat owners with a complete education with regard to the normal scratching behavior of cats, the procedure itself, as well as potential risks to the patient. Onychectomy is an amputation and should be regarded as a major surgery. The decision to declaw a cat should be made by the owners in consultation with their veterinarian. Declawing of domestic cats should be considered only after attempts have been made to prevent the cat from using its claws destructively or when its clawing presents an above normal health risk for its owner(s).

The following points are the foundation for full understanding and disclosure regarding declawing:

Surgical declawing is not a medically necessary procedure for the cat in most cases. While rare in occurrence, there are inherent risks and complications with any surgical procedure including, but not limited to, anesthetic complications, hemorrhage, infection and pain. If surgical onychectomy is performed, appropriate use of safe and effective anesthetics and perioperative analgesics for an appropriate length of time are imperative. Pain management is necessary (not elective) and required for this procedure. Multimodal pain management is recommended, and there should be a written aftercare plan. The surgical alternative of tendonectomy is not recommended.
• Scratching is a normal feline behavior, is a means for cats to mark their territory both visually and with scent, and is used for claw conditioning ("husk" removal) and stretching activity.
• Owners should provide suitable implements for normal scratching behavior. Examples are scratching posts, cardboard boxes, lumber or logs, and carpet or fabric remnants affixed to stationary objects. Implements should be tall or long enough to allow full stretching, and be firmly anchored to provide necessary resistance to scratching. Cats should be positively reinforced in the use of these implements.
• Appropriate claw care (consisting of trimming the claws every 1 to 2 weeks) should be provided to prevent injury or damage to household items.
• Temporary synthetic nail caps are available as an alternative to onychectomy to prevent human injury or damage to property. Plastic nail caps are usually applied every 4 to 6 weeks.
• Declawed cats should be housed indoors and allowed outside only under direct supervision.
• Scientific data do indicate that cats that have destructive scratching behavior are more likely to be euthanatized, or more readily relinquished, released, or abandoned, thereby contributing to the homeless cat population. Where scratching behavior is an issue as to whether or not a particular cat can remain as an acceptable household pet in a particular home, surgical onychectomy may be considered.
• There is no scientific evidence that declawing leads to behavioral abnormalities when the behavior of declawed cats is compared with that of cats in control groups.

Any potential consumer can read that and get discouraged from declawing the cat. How does this message from the American Vetinarian Medical Assocation of America jive with your characterization of them? Not well. Does their literature review confirm your 50-1000% bullshit claim? No. Any concerned consumer can get this information at practically zero marginal cost, but this would reject your worldview about mindless consumers controlled by evil capitalists who are evil because profits.

You'll say something like, "yeah, that's what they WANT YOU TO THINK BUT I KNOW THE TRUTH BECAUSE I NEED NO SOURCES NOR ANY CONTRARY INFORMATION< SIR!"

[shickingbrits]

I wouldn't add the SIR!.

50%-1000%

No, no it does not.

It confirms my actual claim: 50-80%.

Tobias KS. Feline onychectomy at a teaching institution: a retrospective study of 163 cases. Vet Surg 1994; 23:274-280.

[BigBallinStalin]

Declawing a cat.

Costs about $1000 in the US. There are roughly 75,000,000 cats and 25% are declawed. The alternative to declawing is to do nothing: free, or clip yourself, $25 for clippers, or paid to have them clipped. Clipping the claws takes about as much time as declawing.

Is the average price of declawing about $1000?
No, it ranges from $100 to $450--depending on the procedure and if you opt for overnight care.
http://www.vetinfo.com/what-does-it-cos ... w-cat.html

Does clipping claws over the entire lifetime of a cat take about as much time as dropping the cat off at the vet, doing something useful while waiting, and then getting on with life? No. Obviously not.

What are the alternatives? (i.e. what is the opportunity cost?)

In Austrian economics, there's this thing called "methodological individualism," which basically states that people value things subjectively. It's a pretty simple idea, but it has broad implications that go beyond many people's imaginations. Let's apply it:

The opportunity cost is subjective; it depends on the person--not shickingbrits alleged omniscience. The opportunity cost is the foregone value of the most highly valued alternative.


So, people are looking at a price of $100-$450 compared to some mix of these possible opportunity costs:

(A) the price of the damage incurred by a having a declawed cat. (All that money over all that time could've been spent on more useful goods).

(B) constantly clipping the cat, which might be feisty, thus too annoying to deal with. (Instead of spending those total labor-hours over all those years of clipping toenails, that time could've been spent on something better. And this solution isn't as effective as declawing, so insert part of (A)).

Also, some people might feel bad about constantly subjecting their cat to toenail maiming--either because they're not good at clipping, or they really don't like it. May as well opt for a one-time fix. This bad feeling toward constant clippings raises the full price of clipping--beyond the $25 on clippers and the labor-hours.

(C) anti-scratch stuff, anti-scratch lessons and trial-and-error, etc.


The full cost of not-declawing can be employing other means and much trial-and-error to discourage your cat from scratching your stuff, replacement costs of capital (furniture), possibly feeling about clipping your cats' nail--and possibly hurting it unintentionally, dealing with an extra feisty cat, dealing with random cat attacks + claws, etc.


It's not as simple as chickbricks claims to know. Basic economics provides much more sensible (and possible) answers.

[BigBallinStalin]

I wouldn't add the SIR!.

50%-1000%

No, no it does not.

It confirms my actual claim: 50-80%.

Tobias KS. Feline onychectomy at a teaching institution: a retrospective study of 163 cases. Vet Surg 1994; 23:274-280.

" In a study, it was found that 50-80% of declawed cats experience post-surgery medical complications."

So, if you bother skimming through the lit. review, you'll see how broad "post-surgery medical complications" is. lrn2read. Besides, what explains their large margin of error (30%)?? I'm sure your summary was accurate; however, your point doesn't help your stance as much as you strongly believe.

[shickingbrits]

My point exactly BBS,

Vets won't make any money off of clipping a cat's claws, so with the blessing of the profession, regulators, clubs and schools, they are allowed to maximize their profit at the expense of their morals.

And you cheer them on for it. And this is the "free market" where positive solutions are denounced so that the few may earn more, claiming they are preventing abuse. Where the might of the vet association may decree what laws they may.

How much worse in the energy sector? When it is up to the vet to explain declawing in a way that earns him 0 or several hundred dollars, what information will he choose to be dandy with? When the US is an oil-based economy, when the US gets a massive advantage from the Petrodollar, when the Climate Scientists get their earnings from the big bad wolf, when it gives us a competitive advantage in transport, trade, military power, the service sector, who is going to say we need thorium?

There are an abundant of "good" reasons to keep thorium buried, but they are not truly mine. You say that wealth trickles down upon me and that I get to enjoy a society bubbling goods, why do you complain?

Because I and everyone else would have greater wealth with thorium, but the nature of the product, it's great abundance makes it antithetical to power and wealth.

In the end, morals come down to making such decisions. Do I elevate the rabble to my level or tower above them? Tower says science. Tower says self. You couldn't tower if you wanted to says God.

[shickingbrits]

I wouldn't add the SIR!.

50%-1000%

No, no it does not.

It confirms my actual claim: 50-80%.

Tobias KS. Feline onychectomy at a teaching institution: a retrospective study of 163 cases. Vet Surg 1994; 23:274-280.

" In a study, it was found that 50-80% of declawed cats experience post-surgery medical complications."

So, if you bother skimming through the lit. review, you'll see how broad "post-surgery medical complications" is. lrn2read. Besides, what explains their large margin of error (30%)?? I'm sure your summary was accurate; however, your point doesn't help your stance as much as you strongly believe.

80% to 1000%. What explains your large margin of error? Learn two read.

[AndyDufresne]

Oh yeah? I've got your free markets right here?!?




--Andy

[OScoder]

Thorium is a good example. Classified as a waste byproduct of rare earths mining, it is used as an example of the destruction caused by mining. Nuclear engineers hear nothing of it in school. We hear that solar panels, windmills and hybrid cars require rare earths and they are insufficient to meet the markets demand and therefore not a readable solution. And they only mention thorium in a negative context. India has been engaged in thorium research for a brief period and yet are building a plant. We are taught about the non-solutions and the actual solutions aren't mentioned.

One does not simply get energy from Thorium! No really, it's actually hard. A single research reactor which isn't finished yet isn't proof that it will be a useful energy source, and definitely not proof that it will be a more useful energy source than conventional nuclear energy.

That's not to say that there is any evidence that it would not be a miracle power source, and thorium research may well have been underfunded. Just, I'm sure you could find some better examples than this of the "free" market making bad things happen. For instance, there are definitely examples of tragic cost-cutting involving conventional nuclear fuel...

[BigBallinStalin]

My point exactly BBS,

[BigBallinStalin]

I wouldn't add the SIR!.

50%-1000%

No, no it does not.

It confirms my actual claim: 50-80%.

Tobias KS. Feline onychectomy at a teaching institution: a retrospective study of 163 cases. Vet Surg 1994; 23:274-280.

" In a study, it was found that 50-80% of declawed cats experience post-surgery medical complications."

So, if you bother skimming through the lit. review, you'll see how broad "post-surgery medical complications" is. lrn2read. Besides, what explains their large margin of error (30%)?? I'm sure your summary was accurate; however, your point doesn't help your stance as much as you strongly believe.

80% to 1000%. What explains your large margin of error? Learn two read.

RE: the rest, no explanation necessary? Gee, let's file that under the "shickbricks is being stupid again" pile as more evidence.

Yeah, I'm doing science. How's your crap-N'-strut strategy working?

[Phatscotty]

If God hates fags as some christian bigots would suggest. God hates himself, with man being made in his image.

God hates Christians, as some Muslim 'bigots' would suggest.
God hates Jews, as some Muslim 'bigots' would suggest.
God hates pork.....and on and on and on

One day maybe you will understand, that's just what PEOPLE said God said....

It's not God, it's people and how they use it...even you, it's being used on you to control you, right here right now. You base your beliefs on what people say God said. What if what people say God said is the real lie??? The people who harp about 'God hates gays' are Liberals and Democrats. Oh, sure, a couple people in westboro church say that all the time too, but they don't 'report the news' on a nationally broadcast medium now, do they? What if the Liberal media and politicians are using religion to control you.

hmmmm

[TA1LGUNN3R]

A person chooses their own God and the morals associated with that God. They choose to follow them or not. I choose God as presented by Jesus, and follow his lead as I see fit. I obviously haven't given up all and followed him, brushed the dust off my feet when not welcomed, removed my hands and body parts to prevent sin. I have chosen merely to follow the central command to the best of my ability.

I choose to do so because it is a logical, equal, encompassing standard that I would hope others also live by. It also suits me.

I believe in eternal life. It's the echo of existence through the halls of eternity. Once something exists, it is. If we consider time doesn't exist then existence takes place at the same time, always. Our acts will reverberate around the universe forever. From a personal perspective, I have only known existence and I will know existence until the end of time. Knowing I will exist until the end of time, I should know that the actions that I do must reflect that. If I choose to use the few actions I have to bring cruelty in the world, oppression, hate, disgust, or love, fellowship, joy, and comfort, that is the eternity I have created.

Believing that my actions are eternal, that I exist, and that I will exist forever in the world I create, I choose to create the best world I can. To do so, I don't have to reinvent the wheel, I can choose to follow the examples of people who created beautiful eternities for themselves and listen to what they say about how they did it. Jesus had some pretty eternal actions that he could feel comfortable living with, he has a pretty sound moral philosophy which he himself upheld, believes in eternal life, says God created us all as equals. If I could emulate him and create as beautiful an eternity, then it's not a harmful endeavour.

No harm can come to me except the harm I choose to create. If I had to die for what I believe, it would not bring shame on me or darken my world.

People who cannot create their own beauty exist and they are intent to drag you with them. Like an ungrateful kid receiving a great gift they shout, this isn't what I asked for. They rebel against existence and in their rebellion turn it dark. They cry over spilt milk, destroy the atmosphere with their tears, and then say the party sucks. Well, that was it. That was your 8th birthday forever, that is who you were and the world you created forever.

When you put actions into the perspective of eternity, a moral code becomes quite easy. Heaven and hell become quite clear. No one would want to shoot a person over some Nikes for eternity. Such actions become possible and are encouraged in a passing world of instant or near instant gratification.

My problem with atheists is that they feel their existence is random and transient and they will act accordingly.

Precisely. It is so precious because it is transient. I recognize that in myself and in the lives of others.

Consider two people who spend their money differently. Each has $100, but one has a line of credit for some greater amount, say $500. Who appreciates the $100 dollars more? Who spends it more wisely and with greater care? Who uses it to spend on food and essentials (or maybe a gift for a loved one) and who just says, "oh, that's just 1/6 of my total purchasing power atm?"

-TG

Suppose there were two guys who each had 10,000. One guy thinks he only has one week to spend it, the other guy thinks he needs to stretch it as long as possible. The first guy goes to whores, sleeps in nice hotels, does coke. The second guy gets married and settles down with a princess and they live happily ever after.

So each gets what they wanted out of life.

...
From another site:

After reviewing 27 of the human IQ studies, a team of Harvard scientists concluded that fluoride’s effect on the young brain should now be a “high research priority.” (Choi, et al 2012). Other reviewers have reached similar conclusions, including the prestigious National Research Council (NRC), and scientists in the Neurotoxicology Division of the Environmental Protection Agency (Mundy, et al).

Indeed, the two studies that controlled for the largest number of factors (Rocha Amador 2007; Xiang 2003a,b) reported some of the largest associations between fluoride and IQ to date.

Second, the association between fluoride and reduced IQ in children is predicted by, and entirely consistent with, a large body of other evidence. Other human studies, for example, have found associations between fluoride and neurobehavior in ways consistent with fluoride being a neurotoxin. In addition, animal studies have repeatedly found that fluoride impairs the learning and memory capacity of rats under carefully controlled laboratory conditions. An even larger body of animal research has found that fluoride can directly damage the brain, a finding that has been confirmed in studies of aborted human fetuses from high-fluoride areas.

So it would seem that at the time of the review, no good evidence was found either way, but since, only negative evidence has been found.

What other site?

As for the animal studies in rats, those were in your last link, and they were dosing the rats with at least 5x the maximum allowed U.S. levels (which isn't utilized in most parts of the U.S., and globally, the recommended level is even smaller). Are these "other human studies" using the sodium fluoride or fluorosilicic acid that is used in water fluoridation? Remember, things like sodium fluoride are different than fluoride (sodium chloride is regular table salt, straight chloride will kill you).

-TG

[shickingbrits]

Wiki:

Fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is the most commonly used additive for water fluoridation.[34] It is an inexpensive liquid by-product of phosphate fertilizer manufacture.[31] It comes in varying strengths, typically 23–25%; because it contains so much water, shipping can be expensive.[32] It is also known as hexafluorosilicic, hexafluosilicic, hydrofluosilicic, and silicofluoric acid.[31]

From another site:

http://cof-cof.ca/hydrofluorosilicic-acid-origins/

Dr. J. William Hirzy (2000) Senior Chemist at the U.S. EPA Headquarters states:
“If this stuff (hydrofluorosilicic acid) gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the lake, it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right straight into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant. That’s amazing.”

[shickingbrits]

BBS,

I spend time trying to convince folks to be nice.

You spend time arguing cat torture for profit.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS,

I spend time trying to convince folks to be nice.

You spend time arguing cat torture for profit.

Still can't explain that error margin, huh?

Never mind that, TG has a chessboard with plenty of pieces to smack around. Have it, child!

[shickingbrits]

Would anything I say change anything you think?

50-80%,

Changes in behavior? PTSD? Erectile dysfunction?