Some issues when discussed can cause a range of reactions. Sometimes they can lead to an awakening, the beginning of a journey to discovering something new, or they can can cause a certain type of reaction in a person who may not like what they hear. I think that it's all about how we choose to deal with the info we're hearing and how we process it.
Take the issues of let's say .... fluoride and mobile phone tower radiation. The government has allowed the fluoridation of our water and they have allowed the construction of mobile phone towers in residential areas. Does that mean the water is safe to drink and it causes no ill affect? Does that mean that the mobile phone towers are safe? What about the handsets. Are they safe for children to use and hold against their heads?
Well, we discuss these things and some people do react angrily to the people discussing these issues. Does this mean that we have to stop discussion that challenges the supposed official stance or challenges what we are told is the mainstream belief? Do we have to self-censor or have this in a [private group? I have noticed that in discussion forums or the media that racist beliefs are a;allowed a platform and yet issues that many folk feel that need to be addressed because of health concerns are not given the same platform. To me racism is abhorrent and yet in the media, it gets the pass ticket while issues that some call important to health freedom do not! Why is that? Could it be political? What are your thoughts?
This is a discussion that some people here would be interested in while others may not be. Folks with opposing views are welcome as always. Please, if someone has an issue with these topics being discussed or another member, could they refrain from any attacks on others or deliberately flooding this thread with off topic filler.
Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts
In a very large majority of cases (approximately 100%) people who want to "discuss", eg, fluoridation or phone towers, want to forget about the second half of that principle.
Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts
In a very large majority of cases (approximately 100%) people who want to "discuss", eg, fluoridation or phone towers, want to forget about the second half of that principle.
"everybody" might note be "entitled to their own facts', but plenty still adhere to their "own facts" , deriding or scorning the actual facts.
Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts
In a very large majority of cases (approximately 100%) people who want to "discuss", eg, fluoridation or phone towers, want to forget about the second half of that principle.
Now that could be true with some yes. I believe there are a few folks who just like to be anti everything. But I believe the majority of people in opposition to water fluoridation and mobile phone towers in residential areas have facts to back their viewpoint up. With water fluoridation there are scientists and doctors who have the evidence in their corner to support their opposition to it. When we have industry, politicians and media we have a strong force + a compliant participator + a conduit. Often the conduit (media) is related to the strong force (industry). The weakest part of the three mentioned is the politician. He / she becoimes the compliant participator because they want their pension, they love their perks or someone owns their butt.
It was Malcolm Fraser who said that when some people who leave university look for a career in either the unions or politics. They get a leg up and for the rest of their career they pay back the person or persons that gave them the leg up.
