"It is unlawful for any person, with intent to... annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device..."
I have a blog where I definitely intend to greatly annoy and offend certain self-deluded people by politely posting the truth that they want to deny and avoid.
Under this law, my polite posting of only the truth would be illegal and those I intentionally annoy and offend would certainly try to use this law to shut down such a blog.
Is any Arizona politician capable of any logical thought at all?
Actually, the police, and the government in general, must have more checks in place than the average citizen -- because the police and the government have so much more power than the average citizen.
The founders had it right, we citizens must have powerful checks against government/police abuse or we will lose all our freedoms.
And, if you see black mold growing up your walls, just paint over it! "Can't see it, problem solved!"
If "someone posts your credit record online, a nude picture of your daughter, or your copyrighted code that you worked on for ten years and hoped to sell to finance your retirement" how the hell does censoring Google change that in any significant way? Your credit record is still online, the pictures are still there, your code is still there.
So one search engine or maybe all search engines are censored. The problem is still there, just "painted over" so you feel good. This "solution" is for show, it doesn't even address the problem.
Define "thieves" so that an automated program can always determine a link goes to a "stolen" something and the automated program will never make a mistake and block (or tag) an innocent link. When you come up with that workable, infallible algorithm, you will become rich. I'm not attacking you, just pointing out the problem with what you are asking for. Please feel free to solve that problem.
I cannot believe that people still don't get it. Censoring Google's search results does nothing to correct bad data or remove embarrassing information. The data is still there. The only result would be that it is harder for a person to track down and correct the actual source of the data.
If people were able to censor Google, Google will become useless and people will use another search engine. Result, data is still there, search engines can still find it. Nothing has changed.
This difference, I think, is profound. The first scenario presumes everyone is guilty until they have proven their innocence. The second presumes innocence unless the government can (kind of) establish guilt.
These are significantly different approaches. It appears the UK government is taking the first approach, that everyone is guilty and must prove their innocence before getting fuel. This is directly contrary to long established concepts of justice.
England's justice system has, historically, been the basis for many other justice systems around the world. We can only hope that other countries do not follow this abusive example of "justice".
It just hit me. I'm trying to debate with someone who thinks logical fallacies make great arguments in a debate and uses them extensively. What's embarrassing is that I was still trying to have a debate.
I retire from the field. I'm done. You win. I am defeated.
Let's see. This gifts the government new, unprecedented power over everyone who uses a car: owners, drivers and passengers. Why?
Is the problem so widespread and so pervasive that it requires such new governmental power?
Is there no other solution that isn't quite so drastic?
Are current solutions not working?
Are there any independent controls in place to ensure this power won't be abused?
Are there any controls in place to ensure innocent people will never be harmed?
Are there procedures in place for rapid relief if someone is wrongly denied fuel?
Are there any procedures in place for emergencies?
I could go on but I'm sure you get the idea. Has the government even looked at the unintended consequences, the potential for problems and, yes, abuse? Or do they just want to grab more power?
I'd much rather the government is allowed to use technology to aprehend criminals rather than being forced to fight crime with their arms tied behind their backs...
in logic, that's called a "false dilemma" -- two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
And how long before that list gets expanded? "Uninsured cars", fine. "Unpaid parking tickets", well OK. "Terrorists", well sure! "Suspected terrorists", gee, of course. "Rabble-rousing protesters", "Suspicious people", sure, why not? Is there anything in place to stop the list from being expanded until the government can stop anyone from buying fuel?
Yes, I can see you're continuing to struggle with basic logical concepts here. It's not a strawman fallacy, because I did not say nor imply you said those things. I said those things as an example of the kind of ludicrous extreme you can take the slippery slope fallacy to if you really want to believe in that sort of stupid argument. I'm sorry you didn't get that.
No, that's exactly what you did. You created a strawman and based your entire response in arguing with your little strawman. You had your strawman use a logical fallacy and used that to negate your strawman's "arguments". You completely neglected to respond to my statements.
"When has the government NOT worked to expand their powers once they have been given some power?"
Quite a lot actually. More often than not.
You just don't get it, do you. You trust the government because they don't abuse their power "more often than not". You acknowledge that they do abuse their power you just trust them to abstain in this case.
You see, it's only newsworthy when they do do it because the most common status is that they do not. This doesn't mean we shouldn't becareful of the times they do, but this circumstance is not one where the likelihood is particularly high relative to much more pressing laws of concern such as calls to scrap or modify the UK's ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights.
"What you call "paranoid kook" is based on firm history"
Really? Where were you brought up? Nazi Germany? Soviet Russia? North Korea? Burma? Again, the UK for all it's faults simply isn't that fucked up. Certainly it's not based on OUR history, which is really what matters here.
I lived in the UK for many years and I, like you, know they do abuse their power like pretty much every government. Unlike you, I don't trust them to stop now.
"I'd much rather ensure that the government can't take that kind of abusive power than give them the power hope they don't abuse it."
That's great. I'd much rather the government is allowed to use technology to aprehend criminals rather than being forced to fight crime with their arms tied behind their backs...
Not quite what we're talking about. The police already have the power to apprehend criminals as long as they don't abuse their power. Police can already use technology. That's not what we're talking about here. Here the government is being given the power to deny fuel to people automatically based on... something which will undoubtedly change as time goes on. We all know the list will not be restricted to only "uninsured cars" for long.
... and leaving people like me to pick up the costs all because people like you think the UK is somehow on the verge of turning into a police state
Strawman again
- I know the kind of paranoid tosh that's rife on Slashdot might suggest that's not the case, but it's simply not true. We've got more freedom now than we had decades ago, perhaps still slightly below where we were in the mid - late 90s, but for the most part it's not nearly as bad as the naysayers like to pretend.
Just because you think things are wonderful doesn't mean they are for others. I imagine you are white, making a good living, living in a nice neighborhood and you figure, if anyone is experiencing abuse -- well, "they deserved it".
Oh, let's see: What is the difference between government surveillance and government control? What happens when the government can (with or without cause) deny you fuel without notice and without any immediate recourse? What is in place to ensure this is never abused? What is in place to ensure people are never falsely denied fuel?
You absolutely trust the government. Haven't you been paying attention?
"If you're against this expansion of government power, you must be guilty of something. Shut up or we'll come after you!"
Yeah, no honest person would ever be against this ridiculous expansion of government power. The government is always good and would never abuse such power.
The existence of CCTV does not mean that this kind of potentially very abusive power is "the same thing". This is not just surveillance, this is a major step in the direction of abusive government control. They don't want you to see the difference.
Sure! And when a computer glitch kills your car and you lose your job or you can't get to the hospital in time, that's no problem! We trust the government and we trust computers. "It's a great idea".
And that's what we call a "Strawman fallacy". I never said those things nor did I imply them. Your strawman does not negate my argument. Nice try, though.
Do you actually believe that, having been given control of the fuel pumps, the government wouldn't start using it for more than just "uninsured cars"? Here's my question: When has the government NOT worked to expand their powers once they have been given some power? What you call "paranoid kook" is based on firm history. Your opinion is based on... nice, hopeful thoughts.
I'd much rather ensure that the government can't take that kind of abusive power than give them the power hope they don't abuse it.
Oh, and the government would never, ever seek to expand the list of people to those with unpaid parking tickets or those behind in child support, or those on "the list" or people who were "parked near the area of unrest" or, or, or. Nope. That power would only and forever be used only for uninsured cars. Trust them. Give them power.
As long as there is a "good reason" for the government to take control of gas pumps, then "it's OK", right? You've done nothing wrong so "you have nothing to fear". They'll only refuse fuel to only those who are verified to be without insurance. They would never abuse that power. Trust them. Give them more power and more control. They would never refuse fuel to innocent people (who were "suspicious" or on their way to a protest or have the wrong "look"). Don't worry! The government is good and kind and benevolent.
Sure! Why worry? You've already "agreed" that the government can track your car's movements, what's wrong with this next step: Allowing the government to control your car's movement. With this system they can automatically deny you fuel, what could possibly go wrong? You are "not doing anything wrong" so "you have nothing to worry about", right?
It's all controlled by computers and they never have glitches, they never have bad data. No government employee would accidentally or on purpose screw with your data. The government would never use this to deny fuel to innocent (but "suspicious") people. No!
Your fascinating comments ignore the simple fact that an act of terrorism is an act of terrorism, and it does not need to be backed up by a history of similar acts by the same person/people to count as such.
God! I so hate such useless rhetoric! "act of terrorism is an act of terrorism", "a loaf of bread is a loaf of bread". Yeah? So?
We are talking about a non-existent "group" with no leaders, no membership, no agenda. Do you get that?
You cannot call "Anonymous" a "terrorist group" because it doesn't exist. It has no leaders and no membership because it is ONLY an idea. It is the idea that, if you can get agreement from others to do something about it (whatever "it" is), then you can organize and take action. If you have enough agreement, your actions can have a significant effect. It is not a new idea, but it is fantastically empowered by the Internet and that is new.
Look at what was called "the Arab Spring". That's the idea!. Look at the ACTA, SOPA, PIPA protests. That's the idea. Some people like to say they are "Anonymous" but, increasingly, they don't take any name at all.
If what a person advocates is good, they do get a lot of agreement. If it is harmful, few will sign on - but some will. You see only the minority harmful events because YOU have an agenda. You ignore the majority helpful actions because YOU have an agenda. YOU want to paint "Anonymous" with a black brush because citizen action is "dangerous" to you.
This is what YOU fear. This is what you are fighting. This is what you are spreading lies about. This is all the citizens of the world fighting for their rights. And this is you and all repressive governments and corporations losing.
They are terrorist because they are a large organization that attack infrastructure, and the use fear as a form of coercion.
Like or not, they fit the very definition of terrorist.
While the broader definition of terrrorize is debated, Anon is center, far away from the gray edges.
ineluctably political in aims and motives
violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.
Unfortunately for your opinion, you haven't a bloody clue what you are talking about. Have you seen someone claiming to be a member of Anonymous? Have you ever talked to someone claiming to be a member?
OK, here's the primary piece of information that you either don't know or you don't want others to know: Anonymous is leaderless, unorganized, random and constantly shifting groups. No one is an official member of Anonymous. No one is a leader.
Anyone who wants to pretend that Anonymous is "dangerous" or "terrorist" simply logs into any site that accepts comments and makes the appropriately incendiary anonymous comment and signs it "Anonymous".
That "agent provocateur" is no more (and no less) Anonymous than you or I am. There is no membership. There is no leadership. There is no "agenda". There is no political agreement. If you don't understand those basics, then you do not understand "Anonymous".
At the most basic level, "Anonymous" is any temporary group of people who agree that "something must be done" about some problem, outrage, crime or whatever. They agree to take action and perhaps they carry it out. It may be peaceful, it may be destructive, it may be silly, it may be anything. They are probably not related to other "Anonymous" groups with other concerns.
Your whole screed is based on completely not understanding what "Anonymous" is. So learn. And, until you learn, don't make such stupid remarks.
Simple, the assumption is based on the fact that any use of a phone in a moving vehicle means less attention to driving. Driving is hard. It takes a lot of brain resources to do it. Taking some of it away will result in not processing some things. An accident happens in a split second.
So hands-free calling, which is pretty much identical to talking to a passenger, is "dangerous" enough to be lumped in with texting? Nice! Let's outlaw everything that "means less attention to driving": Like talking to passengers, listening to the radio, thinking and, especially, looking away from the immediate road/cars/traffic-signs to look for a parking space, look for an address, look for a specific store, etc. If anyone is doing anything except paying total attention to road, cars and traffic signs, arrest them!
Yeah, that's not an over-reaction. That's reasonable.
Some idiots text while driving and let's just get down on every single possible action by every single person that just might "mean less attention to driving".
But exactly how will this stop the idiots from doing idiotic things??
However, all of the most common uses have been investigated and found to be highly dangerous.
This one statement I would object to rather strenuously. I sincerely doubt that "all" were found to be "highly dangerous".
"Some are highly dangerous" I would buy. "Most are highly dangerous" would have me questioning the science. "All"? No. That's not good science -- and I doubt any real scientific research would ever make such a claim.
That's just my point. A statement that "all were found to be highly dangerous" is just FUD. FUD always comes with an agenda that you're not supposed to inspect very closely.
Slashdot Mirror
"It is unlawful for any person, with intent to... annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device ..."
I have a blog where I definitely intend to greatly annoy and offend certain self-deluded people by politely posting the truth that they want to deny and avoid.
Under this law, my polite posting of only the truth would be illegal and those I intentionally annoy and offend would certainly try to use this law to shut down such a blog.
Is any Arizona politician capable of any logical thought at all?
Actually, the police, and the government in general, must have more checks in place than the average citizen -- because the police and the government have so much more power than the average citizen.
The founders had it right, we citizens must have powerful checks against government/police abuse or we will lose all our freedoms.
And, if you see black mold growing up your walls, just paint over it! "Can't see it, problem solved!"
If "someone posts your credit record online, a nude picture of your daughter, or your copyrighted code that you worked on for ten years and hoped to sell to finance your retirement" how the hell does censoring Google change that in any significant way? Your credit record is still online, the pictures are still there, your code is still there.
So one search engine or maybe all search engines are censored. The problem is still there, just "painted over" so you feel good. This "solution" is for show, it doesn't even address the problem.
Define "thieves" so that an automated program can always determine a link goes to a "stolen" something and the automated program will never make a mistake and block (or tag) an innocent link. When you come up with that workable, infallible algorithm, you will become rich. I'm not attacking you, just pointing out the problem with what you are asking for. Please feel free to solve that problem.
I cannot believe that people still don't get it. Censoring Google's search results does nothing to correct bad data or remove embarrassing information. The data is still there. The only result would be that it is harder for a person to track down and correct the actual source of the data.
If people were able to censor Google, Google will become useless and people will use another search engine. Result, data is still there, search engines can still find it. Nothing has changed.
Stupid politicians!
WARNING: Politicians have been linked to the creation of useless, pointless, and harmful laws.
This difference, I think, is profound. The first scenario presumes everyone is guilty until they have proven their innocence. The second presumes innocence unless the government can (kind of) establish guilt.
These are significantly different approaches. It appears the UK government is taking the first approach, that everyone is guilty and must prove their innocence before getting fuel. This is directly contrary to long established concepts of justice.
England's justice system has, historically, been the basis for many other justice systems around the world. We can only hope that other countries do not follow this abusive example of "justice".
It just hit me. I'm trying to debate with someone who thinks logical fallacies make great arguments in a debate and uses them extensively. What's embarrassing is that I was still trying to have a debate.
I retire from the field. I'm done. You win. I am defeated.
Let's see. This gifts the government new, unprecedented power over everyone who uses a car: owners, drivers and passengers. Why?
Is the problem so widespread and so pervasive that it requires such new governmental power?
Is there no other solution that isn't quite so drastic?
Are current solutions not working?
Are there any independent controls in place to ensure this power won't be abused?
Are there any controls in place to ensure innocent people will never be harmed?
Are there procedures in place for rapid relief if someone is wrongly denied fuel?
Are there any procedures in place for emergencies?
I could go on but I'm sure you get the idea. Has the government even looked at the unintended consequences, the potential for problems and, yes, abuse? Or do they just want to grab more power?
I'd much rather the government is allowed to use technology to aprehend criminals rather than being forced to fight crime with their arms tied behind their backs...
in logic, that's called a "false dilemma" -- two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
And how long before that list gets expanded? "Uninsured cars", fine. "Unpaid parking tickets", well OK. "Terrorists", well sure! "Suspected terrorists", gee, of course. "Rabble-rousing protesters", "Suspicious people", sure, why not? Is there anything in place to stop the list from being expanded until the government can stop anyone from buying fuel?
Yes, I can see you're continuing to struggle with basic logical concepts here. It's not a strawman fallacy, because I did not say nor imply you said those things. I said those things as an example of the kind of ludicrous extreme you can take the slippery slope fallacy to if you really want to believe in that sort of stupid argument. I'm sorry you didn't get that.
No, that's exactly what you did. You created a strawman and based your entire response in arguing with your little strawman. You had your strawman use a logical fallacy and used that to negate your strawman's "arguments". You completely neglected to respond to my statements.
"When has the government NOT worked to expand their powers once they have been given some power?"
Quite a lot actually. More often than not.
You just don't get it, do you. You trust the government because they don't abuse their power "more often than not". You acknowledge that they do abuse their power you just trust them to abstain in this case.
You see, it's only newsworthy when they do do it because the most common status is that they do not. This doesn't mean we shouldn't becareful of the times they do, but this circumstance is not one where the likelihood is particularly high relative to much more pressing laws of concern such as calls to scrap or modify the UK's ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights.
"What you call "paranoid kook" is based on firm history"
Really? Where were you brought up? Nazi Germany? Soviet Russia? North Korea? Burma? Again, the UK for all it's faults simply isn't that fucked up. Certainly it's not based on OUR history, which is really what matters here.
I lived in the UK for many years and I, like you, know they do abuse their power like pretty much every government. Unlike you, I don't trust them to stop now.
"I'd much rather ensure that the government can't take that kind of abusive power than give them the power hope they don't abuse it."
That's great. I'd much rather the government is allowed to use technology to aprehend criminals rather than being forced to fight crime with their arms tied behind their backs...
Not quite what we're talking about. The police already have the power to apprehend criminals as long as they don't abuse their power. Police can already use technology. That's not what we're talking about here. Here the government is being given the power to deny fuel to people automatically based on ... something which will undoubtedly change as time goes on. We all know the list will not be restricted to only "uninsured cars" for long.
... and leaving people like me to pick up the costs all because people like you think the UK is somehow on the verge of turning into a police state
Strawman again
- I know the kind of paranoid tosh that's rife on Slashdot might suggest that's not the case, but it's simply not true. We've got more freedom now than we had decades ago, perhaps still slightly below where we were in the mid - late 90s, but for the most part it's not nearly as bad as the naysayers like to pretend.
Just because you think things are wonderful doesn't mean they are for others. I imagine you are white, making a good living, living in a nice neighborhood and you figure, if anyone is experiencing abuse -- well, "they deserved it".
Oh, let's see: What is the difference between government surveillance and government control? What happens when the government can (with or without cause) deny you fuel without notice and without any immediate recourse? What is in place to ensure this is never abused? What is in place to ensure people are never falsely denied fuel?
You absolutely trust the government. Haven't you been paying attention?
"If you're against this expansion of government power, you must be guilty of something. Shut up or we'll come after you!"
Yeah, no honest person would ever be against this ridiculous expansion of government power. The government is always good and would never abuse such power.
The existence of CCTV does not mean that this kind of potentially very abusive power is "the same thing". This is not just surveillance, this is a major step in the direction of abusive government control. They don't want you to see the difference.
Sure! And when a computer glitch kills your car and you lose your job or you can't get to the hospital in time, that's no problem! We trust the government and we trust computers. "It's a great idea".
And that's what we call a "Strawman fallacy". I never said those things nor did I imply them. Your strawman does not negate my argument. Nice try, though.
... nice, hopeful thoughts.
Do you actually believe that, having been given control of the fuel pumps, the government wouldn't start using it for more than just "uninsured cars"? Here's my question: When has the government NOT worked to expand their powers once they have been given some power? What you call "paranoid kook" is based on firm history. Your opinion is based on
I'd much rather ensure that the government can't take that kind of abusive power than give them the power hope they don't abuse it.
Oh, and the government would never, ever seek to expand the list of people to those with unpaid parking tickets or those behind in child support, or those on "the list" or people who were "parked near the area of unrest" or, or, or. Nope. That power would only and forever be used only for uninsured cars. Trust them. Give them power.
As long as there is a "good reason" for the government to take control of gas pumps, then "it's OK", right? You've done nothing wrong so "you have nothing to fear". They'll only refuse fuel to only those who are verified to be without insurance. They would never abuse that power. Trust them. Give them more power and more control. They would never refuse fuel to innocent people (who were "suspicious" or on their way to a protest or have the wrong "look"). Don't worry! The government is good and kind and benevolent.
Sure! Why worry? You've already "agreed" that the government can track your car's movements, what's wrong with this next step: Allowing the government to control your car's movement. With this system they can automatically deny you fuel, what could possibly go wrong? You are "not doing anything wrong" so "you have nothing to worry about", right?
It's all controlled by computers and they never have glitches, they never have bad data. No government employee would accidentally or on purpose screw with your data. The government would never use this to deny fuel to innocent (but "suspicious") people. No!
Nothing to worry about. Go back to sleep.
Your fascinating comments ignore the simple fact that an act of terrorism is an act of terrorism, and it does not need to be backed up by a history of similar acts by the same person/people to count as such.
God! I so hate such useless rhetoric! "act of terrorism is an act of terrorism", "a loaf of bread is a loaf of bread". Yeah? So?
We are talking about a non-existent "group" with no leaders, no membership, no agenda. Do you get that?
You cannot call "Anonymous" a "terrorist group" because it doesn't exist. It has no leaders and no membership because it is ONLY an idea. It is the idea that, if you can get agreement from others to do something about it (whatever "it" is), then you can organize and take action. If you have enough agreement, your actions can have a significant effect. It is not a new idea, but it is fantastically empowered by the Internet and that is new.
Look at what was called "the Arab Spring". That's the idea!. Look at the ACTA, SOPA, PIPA protests. That's the idea. Some people like to say they are "Anonymous" but, increasingly, they don't take any name at all.
If what a person advocates is good, they do get a lot of agreement. If it is harmful, few will sign on - but some will. You see only the minority harmful events because YOU have an agenda. You ignore the majority helpful actions because YOU have an agenda. YOU want to paint "Anonymous" with a black brush because citizen action is "dangerous" to you.
This is what YOU fear. This is what you are fighting. This is what you are spreading lies about. This is all the citizens of the world fighting for their rights. And this is you and all repressive governments and corporations losing.
They are terrorist because they are a large organization that attack infrastructure, and the use fear as a form of coercion.
Like or not, they fit the very definition of terrorist.
While the broader definition of terrrorize is debated, Anon is center, far away from the gray edges.
ineluctably political in aims and motives violent – or, equally important, threatens violence designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.
Unfortunately for your opinion, you haven't a bloody clue what you are talking about. Have you seen someone claiming to be a member of Anonymous? Have you ever talked to someone claiming to be a member?
OK, here's the primary piece of information that you either don't know or you don't want others to know: Anonymous is leaderless, unorganized, random and constantly shifting groups. No one is an official member of Anonymous. No one is a leader.
Anyone who wants to pretend that Anonymous is "dangerous" or "terrorist" simply logs into any site that accepts comments and makes the appropriately incendiary anonymous comment and signs it "Anonymous".
That "agent provocateur" is no more (and no less) Anonymous than you or I am. There is no membership. There is no leadership. There is no "agenda". There is no political agreement. If you don't understand those basics, then you do not understand "Anonymous".
At the most basic level, "Anonymous" is any temporary group of people who agree that "something must be done" about some problem, outrage, crime or whatever. They agree to take action and perhaps they carry it out. It may be peaceful, it may be destructive, it may be silly, it may be anything . They are probably not related to other "Anonymous" groups with other concerns.
Your whole screed is based on completely not understanding what "Anonymous" is. So learn. And, until you learn, don't make such stupid remarks.
As if finding something in Apps Market wasn't hard enough!
Like for instance, having certain types of sex with young people below the age of consent could easily be non-dangerous for the young person you mean?
Gee, no that isn't anything like what I said and isn't "what I mean". Idiot.
Simple, the assumption is based on the fact that any use of a phone in a moving vehicle means less attention to driving. Driving is hard. It takes a lot of brain resources to do it. Taking some of it away will result in not processing some things. An accident happens in a split second.
So hands-free calling, which is pretty much identical to talking to a passenger, is "dangerous" enough to be lumped in with texting? Nice! Let's outlaw everything that "means less attention to driving": Like talking to passengers, listening to the radio, thinking and, especially, looking away from the immediate road/cars/traffic-signs to look for a parking space, look for an address, look for a specific store, etc. If anyone is doing anything except paying total attention to road, cars and traffic signs, arrest them!
Yeah, that's not an over-reaction. That's reasonable.
Some idiots text while driving and let's just get down on every single possible action by every single person that just might "mean less attention to driving".
But exactly how will this stop the idiots from doing idiotic things??
However, all of the most common uses have been investigated and found to be highly dangerous.
This one statement I would object to rather strenuously. I sincerely doubt that "all" were found to be "highly dangerous".
"Some are highly dangerous" I would buy. "Most are highly dangerous" would have me questioning the science. "All"? No. That's not good science -- and I doubt any real scientific research would ever make such a claim.
That's just my point. A statement that "all were found to be highly dangerous" is just FUD. FUD always comes with an agenda that you're not supposed to inspect very closely.