Page 8 of 11

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 3:19 pm
by Jebus
jml wrote:
Peter Rouse wrote: How about the "global warming" scam being pushed through the world governments.
Time-out. Global Warming is super-duper cereal. Like actually.

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 3:22 pm
by frigginwizard
I guess I never did a ton of research on why we like sugar, but I was always under the impression that sugar(and other refined carbs for that matter) caused an endorphin spike, which in turn causes us to associate sweet flavors with feeling good.

as for the question "Why do we need sweeteners?"

Thats like asking why we need spandex. We dont need it, but when used right, it looks really good. :twisted:

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 4:22 pm
by Jungledoc
frogbyte wrote:That's the only way to account for some of the revolting things people eat in various weird countries.
So, if you are not accustomed to a food, it's revolting? And just how do you define "weird"?

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 5:37 pm
by frogbyte
Exactly. Weird is that which you're not accustomed too.

I don't think "It's completely natural to want to engulf as many calories as possible, regardless of where they are coming from". When you're hungry, yes. But when you're not hungry, no.

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:30 pm
by Peter Rouse
Jungledoc wrote:
frogbyte wrote:That's the only way to account for some of the revolting things people eat in various weird countries.
So, if you are not accustomed to a food, it's revolting? And just how do you define "weird"?
I have lived in China... nothing is "weird" to me know.

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:45 pm
by Jebus
Doen't eating sugar release endorphins? How is that not natural....?

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:51 am
by Ironman
Peter Rouse wrote:You are an idiot as without even knowing the science involved with GMO you make the statement that it is safe.

If it's so safe why did Monsanto have to cover it up and why have so many countries banned GMO if it is safe. You telling me that 90% of the world's scientists are stupid and don't know anything.

So many scientists involved in this field have spoken out yet in this country the are prosecuted for dong so.... elsewhere in the world they listen.

Look at what happened in India. If GMO is safe how do you explain that and why did Monsanto spend hundreds of millions trying to cover it up.

Monsanto is one of the most corrupt companies in the world right up there with government - in fact if you look at how many from the FDA have moved in to high paying positions within the FDA.

How about the Monsanto worker who submitted papers to the FDA for approval, left Monsanto to work for the FDA to only end up aproving her own submission.....

If you are blind to the truth then do the world a favor eat more Aspartame - natural selection is a wonderful thing.
Would you quit with the ad hominem fallacy already? I just commented on the technique itself. I didn't say anything about what people do with it. I said I was reserving judgment until I saw something. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical and reserving judgment until you are presented with something specific.

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:58 am
by Ironman
Peter Rouse wrote:Videos on Monsanto - worth watching if you are not closed minded like ironman ... 4302&hl=en
I'm not fv(k close minded. You are the one that makes up your mind on things with the shoddiest of evidence and then closes your mind tighter than a frogs @$$h0l3 and defends it like a religion.

I'll check out stuff about whatever people are doing with GMO.

I'm not however going to waste anymore time on aspartame conspiracy bull$h1t. It's all been the same. Red herring after mind numbingly stupid red herring, with 0 evidence.

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:01 am
by Ironman
Peter Rouse wrote:BTW ironman why are you refusing to post the studies that you referenced?
Because you didn't address the one that was posted or post any that were worth a crap. How about you try doing that instead of dodging the issue and crying like a ragging old woman when people don't believe your bull$h1t.

for the 10th time. IF you can do that I will dig up more studies. Until then I am not wasting anymore time on your paranoid delusions.

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:03 am
by Ironman
Peter Rouse wrote:
Jebus wrote:I wouldn't consider aspartame that GM, Soy on the other hand...

Also Ironman didnt say that GMO foods were bad, or good, he just said there is no solid evidence linking aspartame to cancer and other health problems.
He did - I asked him his thoughts on GMO. Read the posts more carefully.
Than learn how to read better and knock that ignorant fv(k attitude right off. Because that IS NOT WHAT I SAID. Jebus was a lot closer to what I actually said.

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:05 am
by Ironman

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:09 am
by Ironman
Peter Rouse wrote:
If have nothing value to add then don't waste our time.
Look here Mr. Menopause, learn to take a joke. If you are going to be a smug gullible prick, at least learn to appreciate humor.

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:16 am
by Ironman
Rucifer wrote:
Ironman wrote:
Rucifer wrote:Everyone seems to be on the stevia bandwagon as of late. I cut out artifical sweeteners myself, how does stevia compare to them?
Well it's not natural, and it's not sugar. Most importantly it tries let you make something sweet with little or no calories and little to no effect on blood sugar. It sweetens things, so it HAS to be bad for you somehow, if it isn't in the same way as sugar then of course it must be MUCH worse.

Since it isn't natural it of course causes cancer, aids, necrotising fasceitis, MS, Parkinsons. Lupus, heart disease, gingivitis, PTSD,terminal flatulence, bubonic plague, small pox, polio, halitosis and bad posture.
I realize you were being a bit of a smartass in this reply, but I am honestly curious if Stevia has the same backlash that many artifical sweeteners do. I cut them out simply because when I was drinking them I was drinking entirely too much caffeine in addition to the coffee in the morns.
I'm totally joking. I don't mean it at all. Stevia has less of a backlash because it's derived from some kind of leaf, but it is still not 100% natural to everyone's standards. It does also give a sweet taste without the health problems. So for those reasons, there is some backlash against it.

You can't have a sweetener of any kind without at least some backlash. It's just hardwired into the human psyche.

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:25 am
by Ironman
Peter Rouse wrote:The world according to monsanto... another good video. ... 65kYRdfmYC

You will only learn something if you actually watch it.
I checked out the Monsanto videos. I am not even sure where you were going with that. Was that supposed to be anti-aspartame or tell me what people have been doing with GMO technology?

Either way it was nothing but poisoning the well, red herrings and guilt by association.

Do you not see how saying "because this company did X wrong, everything they do is bad" is illogical?

It is typical conspiracy theory fare, and the logic does not follow. The topic is not "Did Monsanto ever do anything wrong?". Therefore it's irrelevant to the ACTUAL topic.

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:38 am
by Ironman
The first aspartame video is a red herring and also make claims about a "survey" without referencing what that might be, or pointing to that reference.

The second has a bit about quackery at the beginning that is unrelated. This is done to "poison the well". It then contains only testimony. The disclaimer even admits as much. Anecdotes are not proper evidence. If you had any proper evidence I dare say I would have seen it by know.

I have seen all this crap before. It is the same kind of stuff for every conspiracy.

One of my hobbies is actually pwning theologians/apologists, conspiracy theorists, alternative medicine advocates, ghost believers, vegetarians, feminists, etc.

You are a pretty good conspiracy theorist, but I've pwned better.