gunner wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
gunner wrote:
"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
vikasm wrote:
http://changingminds.org/disciplines..._relevance.htm
This link could mean a lot of things. I presume this is your way of
accusing Billy of presenting a fallacy. If so what is the fallacy
and what is your reason for saying so?
David
Indeed it could, Mr. Hare-Scott, but there is no need to presume. billy
attacked the man, then used information out of context to make
the case that this was yet another evil chemical at work.
Well why not say so to start with rather than leave us with a shopping list
of things to choose from.
Two fallacies at minimum; the Ad Hominem and the Appeal to Emotion.
My question to you, is your question relevant to anything? I.E. is
it going to change anything you do? Research more? You going to fact
check better?
My question was relevant to getting you to say what you mean which you have
now done.
As to whether the chemical in question is toxic or not, that is not
the issue here. The issue is the use of fallacy agruments to portray
it as toxic.
The fallacies used in this knee jerk, starts typically and
predictably w/ billy leading off w/ his usual Ad Hominem attack; "Sniffing
your samples again or are you just naturally stupid?" Very
familiar opening for billy. Yet, this was a spammer for Pete's
sake!!! How bizarre does one need to get in establishing the pecking
order with a spammer trying to sell bulk product?
Yes he did use an ad hominem and yes he has done so previously. He also
quoted relevant material.
Throw in the Appeal to Emotion, perhaps the Appeal to Authority
fallacy also (or Appeal to Misleading Authority may be more
appropriate) billy gives a lot of cherry picked, fear mongering
"citations" ; "CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS, MUTAGENIC EFFECTS, TERATOGENIC
EFFECTS, and DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY" .
All very scary words AND he added MSDS links with voluminous amounts
of more scary words, scientific ones even, so it must be true!
But did you actually read any of the links? better yet understand
the theme of the person playing them? Or did ya just glance over them
and think you know what you read? If you actually read the links you
would have noticed the solution he referenced was 50% and 100% BAK. Never
are these great % put into the context of application Mr.
Hare-Scott.. These are just cut and pasted facts that are irrelevant
to everyday life unless you are a warehouse or a shipper.
To quote billy's own follow-up link : "MSDS's are not meant for
consumers." http://www.ilpi.com/msds/FAQ/parta.html . You need to be
able to understand the data relevance. Apparently that did not
happen here.
This toxic poison in question is Generally Regarded as
Safe (GRAS) by the FDA.
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dai...00/ack0001.pdf
Course this bit of information coming from the FDA will be discredited as
part of the covert super secret Government/Corporate
conspiracy designed to keep the working man down and kill the earth
off, a spin off of the military's surreptitious disposal of Agent
Orange in CA Orange groves. updated and now known as the Cheney
Option. The wingnuts use this type fallacy argument whenever they
do not have fact. Any bets it gets played?
You did note the FDA reference showed a GRAS OTC application as
.11-.13%, yes? So you're not going to use a BAK solution @ 50% or
even 100%, when the dosage in most application is well below 1%, are
you Mr. Hare-Scott?
example of low dose BAK concentrations in:
Neosynephrine is 0.01%
Artificial Tears is .005-0.01%
Visine is 0.01%
In Medicines:
Methotrexate it is 0.9%
Valium 1.5%
Compazine 0.75%
Also, I hope you noticed billy's MSDS scary word categories listed the
200 proof alcohol adjuvant in many, if not more, places than the
50% Benzalkonium Chloride Solution. This is admittely a chemical
billy like to self medicate with, again in lesser concentrations.
Must be organic alcohol! So go back and read them again.
Here is the first listing:
"CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: ...[Ethyl alcohol 200 Proof]." etc. etc
If you need further examples of using facts in context go look up the
MSDS for 30% Hydrogen Peroxide he
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/H4065.htm
"Health Rating: 3 - Severe (Life)
Scary words again, health rating of 3 - severe... would you use that
in your everyday household? Not likely! What you have is ~3% H2O2 in
your medicine cabinet, a slight bit of a difference, yes? H2O2 is
one of the safest ingredients around WHEN USED PROPERLY but it is
also a rocket fuel if you so wish/need to call it that to impress or
make a point!
Is this chemical evil? it is GRAS in eye drops, makeup &
toweletts, oh! and for cold sores and vaginal crème so billy can
add it to the home remedies advice he gives out for yeast infections
next time around, maybe he can use it when he can't find his
"red-eye" medicine.
You can rant ad nauseam here on many ingredients that are
used in daily households that would give all the dire warnings the Eco
fringe like to perpetuate. But let us keep the BS in context with the
application. Get beyond all the background drama, pecking order and
dirt scratching. these goggling pasties are NOT really scary stuff
when you see what is actually there.
So let's put these continuing "fear-up" tactics away and let's
stop playing into this Chicken Little BS. The world is not going to
stop and go back to the "Good Old Days" of feast and famine to let
some "old-think" get off. We use chemicals everyday, deal with it on
an intelligent level
Again, my point; two fallacy arguments, Ad Hominem and the Appeal to
Emotion, this last one can be debated as to category, maybe
Authority. he does like to google.
So to summarise you are saying the concentration of use is a key issue
regarding the degree of hazard and Billy didn't address that but substituted
scare tactics. It's a fair point. It would have been simpler if you said
so to start with.
And why so formal? Unless you feel the need to put some distance between us
call me David.
David