|
Tangerines




Registered: 04/17/05
Posts: 17,918
Loc: woodwork
Last seen: 4 years, 22 days
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: 13.step]
#11597022 - 12/06/09 03:36 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
13.step said: Dude,chill and go back and read my post.I never said anything about limiting the amount of soda per person,sorry if it got out like that,as i said my english is not that good.What I said was to limit the size of the recipients it comes in so as to make drinking tons of it a bit harder.
So people could buy 48 cans of 6 oz soda instead of 24 cans of 12 oz soda? ahh I see it makes complete sense now.
We should sell cigarettes in packs of 10 so that people don't smoke as much. Oh wait...they will just buy more packs of cigarettes as they will cans of soda.
Your logic is terribly flawed unless something was lost in you translating into English.
|
13.step
cynical bastard


Registered: 08/30/09
Posts: 2,210
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: Tangerines]
#11597110 - 12/06/09 03:46 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
It only works when the differences in volume are bigger,like between a 2,5 liter bottle and a 0,33 or 0,5 liter.And yeah,you're right it isn't the brightest idea I've had...it's just that I find it a bit overkill to have bottles of soda so big,or even be served at a fast food with those big-ass cups of soda.
--------------------
Not to be taken seriously by any means!
|
Tangerines




Registered: 04/17/05
Posts: 17,918
Loc: woodwork
Last seen: 4 years, 22 days
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: 13.step]
#11597121 - 12/06/09 03:47 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Why do you find it overkill? Per unit volume, a 2 liter bottle is cheaper than a smaller .5 liter bottle. It does not mean you have to drink it quicker. It is simply more economical. Have some self control and it shouldn't be a problem.
|
13.step
cynical bastard


Registered: 08/30/09
Posts: 2,210
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: 13.step]
#11597183 - 12/06/09 03:55 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Yeah...but the self-control is the problem...if i have it there i will drink it quicker and so are i belive the majority of people going to do,so for me this is the solution,i buy the smaller cans when i want some even if it's not that economical.
But yeah,you guys are right...this was a stupid idea...no way can this be a solution,well not until the start making the 5 liter soda-bottle.
--------------------
Not to be taken seriously by any means!
|
Epigallo
Stranger
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 8,155
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: Entropymancer]
#11598771 - 12/06/09 07:48 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Entropymancer said:
Quote:
bradley said:
Quote:
deCypher said: The issue comes down to my freedom as a business owner. If I want to sell a soda that contains aspartame, and someone else wants to buy my soda knowing that it contains aspartame, what's the problem? The government should not prevent consensual contracts from taking place; people do not need protection from their own decisions.
The effects of aspartame are well known, mostly due to studies to get it through the regulation process. Not only would we lack scientific studies on the multitude of substances that would enter our food, but even if we did, it would be hard to keep on top of everything. The widely believed misinformation on aspartame, even by people who are statistical outliers in terms of how much they have looked into the substance and believe they are "in the know", is evidence that the average person cannot satisfactorily educate himself on the hundreds of possible food additives.
See, here's the problem with your argument: You think that people should be entitled to eat substances they can't even pronounce (and of course have no idea what the fuck it does) while being protected from the consequences. Could you explain how that makes sense?
Imagine this scenario: You're at your local taco stand when you see the tacquerista behind the counter drop a few drops of something out of an eyedropper into your taco. You ask what's in the eyedropper, and they rattle off some long confusing sounding spanish name for it. Do you: (a) eat the taco, or (b) go to another taco stand that doesn't use ingredients you can neither pronounce or speak to the relative safety of?
And if you'd pick the latter, why do you feel everyone else should be legally barred from picking the former option?
Well, it is easier to argue your point when you create an imaginary scenario that doesn't represent reality. Imagine this scenario:
Hundreds of millions of people depend on packaged food or pre-made meals that often contain additives. Pick any one up, and it is likely to contain an ingredient you can't pronounce.
If the addition of a substance to a food was a rare and conspicuous act, your example would be poignant. But it isn't; additives are ubiquitous. The taco stand next block over has already had 20 drops of whatever added into the cornmeal for the taco shell.
How horrible is it to know those drops have been studied and deemed relatively safe?
Decypher, as far as freedom as a business owner goes, you do not have an immutable right to fuck people up. Sorry. What business do you have adding a substance to a drink if you are not going to first have someone extensively study it and certify it's safety?
As for the appeal to "emotional hypocrisy" or whatever some of you have been spitting out, I'm seeing it more of it on your end. Do you think I have some emotional tie or vested interested in regulation? It's just logic. I think the food industry would probably go to hell if it went unregulated, but it isn't like I have a passion for this issue. The only thing I am pissed about is so much inflexibility and resistance to even thinking about the pros and cons. It's like everyone throws up their arms in emotional panic when their little ideology of freely-flowing drugs is somehow threatened, even if only by association.
|
hidenseek
loafter



Registered: 06/10/09
Posts: 4,586
Loc: Etoba-mi-coke
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: Epigallo]
#11598908 - 12/06/09 08:05 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
mayby not enough people say anything about aspartame, so it stays
you should all write letters to obama, or your respective lords
Edited by hidenseek (12/06/09 08:06 PM)
|
future primitive
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/09
Posts: 41
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: P-O]
#11598951 - 12/06/09 08:12 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PostiveOutlook said: the drug companies love cancer and sick people!
sad but true.
it's now also in gum that isn't sugar-free. WHY is there sugar AND sugar "substitute" in the same product ? nothing makes sense, ever.
|
Entropymancer

Registered: 07/16/05
Posts: 10,207
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: Epigallo]
#11598977 - 12/06/09 08:15 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Your scenario is identical to mine.Quote:
bradley said:
Quote:
Entropymancer said:
Quote:
bradley said:
Quote:
deCypher said: The issue comes down to my freedom as a business owner. If I want to sell a soda that contains aspartame, and someone else wants to buy my soda knowing that it contains aspartame, what's the problem? The government should not prevent consensual contracts from taking place; people do not need protection from their own decisions.
The effects of aspartame are well known, mostly due to studies to get it through the regulation process. Not only would we lack scientific studies on the multitude of substances that would enter our food, but even if we did, it would be hard to keep on top of everything. The widely believed misinformation on aspartame, even by people who are statistical outliers in terms of how much they have looked into the substance and believe they are "in the know", is evidence that the average person cannot satisfactorily educate himself on the hundreds of possible food additives.
See, here's the problem with your argument: You think that people should be entitled to eat substances they can't even pronounce (and of course have no idea what the fuck it does) while being protected from the consequences. Could you explain how that makes sense?
Imagine this scenario: You're at your local taco stand when you see the tacquerista behind the counter drop a few drops of something out of an eyedropper into your taco. You ask what's in the eyedropper, and they rattle off some long confusing sounding spanish name for it. Do you: (a) eat the taco, or (b) go to another taco stand that doesn't use ingredients you can neither pronounce or speak to the relative safety of?
And if you'd pick the latter, why do you feel everyone else should be legally barred from picking the former option?
Well, it is easier to argue your point when you create an imaginary scenario that doesn't represent reality. Imagine this scenario:
Hundreds of millions of people depend on packaged food or pre-made meals that often contain additives. Pick any one up, and it is likely to contain an ingredient you can't pronounce.
1.) The situation is identical, you've simply depersonalized it. 2.) As a chemistry major, I can generally pronounce all that gobbledygook. 3.) People don't depend on packaged foods. People choose to consume them. As long as people are choosing to consume the products, they should be free to make informed decisions or uninformed decisions about which to consume. That's their prerogative.
Quote:
If the addition of a substance to a food was a rare and conspicuous act, your example would be poignant. But it isn't; additives are ubiquitous.
So all those chemicals listed on the back of every package aren't conspicuous enough for you? 
Quote:
The taco stand next block over has already had 20 drops of whatever added into the cornmeal for the taco shell.
And I fully support that they be required to label their food products as such. That's kind of implicit in allowing the consumer to make an informed decision (or not, as the consumer sees fit).
Quote:
How horrible is it to know those drops have been studied and deemed relatively safe?
It's not. That's precisely the point. You have every right to examine the health safety data for food additives, and make your decision accordingly. You also have every right not to be aware of the data and make decisions out of ignorance.
The fact is, not everyone is going to agree with the FDA's decisions. Some may find the data inconclusive, or be more concerned about warning signs that were officially deemed insignificant. Forcing the FDA's (sometimes-biased) conclusions on the entire population by means of legal sanctions simply does not strike me as ethical.
Quote:
As far as freedom as a business owner goes, you do not have an immutable right to fuck people up. Sorry.
Of course you don't. If you force your product on a customer, that's illegal (and a bit absurd... imagine if mcdonalds forced you to buy burgers!). But you do have the immutable right to enter into consensual agreements with your customers to whatever extent that it does not harm anyone besides the consenting parties.
Quote:
What business do you have adding a substance to a drink if you are not going to first have someone extensively study it and certify it's safety?
What business do you have banning him from doing so? I think a reasonable degree of regulation would be to require that any product containing an additive for which there's little or no data should be marked as such on the packaging. If people are aware they're consuming an untested material and choose to do so anyway, what's the problem? (Be careful how you answer, unless you believe RCs should be illegal as well)
|
RationalEgo
Principium Individuationis


Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 2,071
Loc: Boston
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: Entropymancer]
#11599045 - 12/06/09 08:23 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
This thread is hilarious. A bunch of drug users advocating the prohibition of a drug!
|
future primitive
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/09
Posts: 41
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: Entropymancer]
#11599066 - 12/06/09 08:26 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
what business? it's HARMFUL. it causes brain lesions. it also causes * Multiple sclerosis (MS) * ALS * Memory loss * Hormonal problems * Hearing loss * Epilepsy * Alzheimer's disease * Parkinson's disease * Hypoglycemia * AIDS * Dementia * Brain lesions (again) * Neuroendocrine disorders
http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/dangers.htm
it's a substance, but I wouldn't call it a drug.
there is no reason why msg should be in everything either.
http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm
|
supra
computerEnthusiast
Registered: 10/26/03
Posts: 6,446
Loc: TEXAS
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
future primitive said:
there is no reason why msg should be in everything either.
luckily, its not, as i make food every single day that totally lacks it, and have no problem doing so.
peace
|
Entropymancer

Registered: 07/16/05
Posts: 10,207
|
|
Quote:
future primitive said: what business? it's HARMFUL. it causes brain lesions. it also causes * Multiple sclerosis (MS) * ALS * Memory loss * Hormonal problems * Hearing loss * Epilepsy * Alzheimer's disease * Parkinson's disease * Hypoglycemia * AIDS * Dementia * Brain lesions (again) * Neuroendocrine disorders
http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/dangers.htm
No one's forcing you to eat it though. You can choose not to. Why should your personal decisions be forced on the entire population? What justifies prohibiting other people from making their own decisions about what to put in their bodies?
Quote:
there is no reason why msg should be in everything either.
Come on now, that's a no-brainer: It makes things taste good 
Also, the only way to avoid MSG is to be vegetarian. Most meat contains MSG. Not as an additive, but as a natural component. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Unless you think we should all be legally required to be vegetarian too?
Personally I use fly agaric mushrooms instead of MSG in marinades if I have any of the mushrooms on-hand, but I have no problem with MSG if I have no fly agarics.
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: Entropymancer]
#11599120 - 12/06/09 08:35 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Entropymancer said:
Quote:
As far as freedom as a business owner goes, you do not have an immutable right to fuck people up. Sorry.
Of course you don't. If you force your product on a customer, that's illegal (and a bit absurd... imagine if mcdonalds forced you to buy burgers!). But you do have the immutable right to enter into consensual agreements with your customers to whatever extent that it does not harm anyone besides the consenting parties.
Yep.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
Tangerines




Registered: 04/17/05
Posts: 17,918
Loc: woodwork
Last seen: 4 years, 22 days
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: deCypher]
#11599126 - 12/06/09 08:36 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Bunch of ban happy sissies I tell you what.
|
Life Upon Death
Stranger

Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 3,225
Last seen: 14 years, 24 days
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: Tangerines]
#11599128 - 12/06/09 08:36 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Tangerines said: It is very funny how similar so many shroomerites are to the people they claim to 'hate' for infringing on the basic drug user's rights. Ahhh reflection is a bitch.
most people do not eat aspartame because they like it
most people drink it cause they think its better for them
the tv has been telling them for years
if people knew the truth they would not eat the shit
no one is going to fight for the legalization of a poisonous chemical and MANY poisonous chemicals are banned to be sold in food and no one has a problem with that
by your logic we should be able to sell hamburgers with cyanide seasoning
and if you don't read the label and figure out its got cyanide in it
thats your own fault, nobody forced you to buy the toxic burger
|
Tangerines




Registered: 04/17/05
Posts: 17,918
Loc: woodwork
Last seen: 4 years, 22 days
|
|
I think cyanide burgers is a great idea because I am all for assisted suicide. I believe a cyanide burger joint with a funeral home attached to it is a glorious idea. That way people who want to commit suicide can do so without creating much of a mess and the funeral home is right there so it's the most inexpensive means to the ultimate end.
And your reasoning is dumb anyways. Just because people choose NOT to study what they are putting in their body is no excuse. All the resources are available for people to make an informed decision. Their choosing otherwise is their own downfall.
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
Quote:
Life Upon Death said: by your logic we should be able to sell hamburgers with cyanide seasoning
and if you don't read the label and figure out its got cyanide in it
thats your own fault, nobody forced you to buy the toxic burger 
Yep, I should be allowed to sell hamburgers with cyanide seasoning, just like you should be allowed to eat them if you're dumb enough not to read the label. 
Personal responsibility's a bitch, ain't it?
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
supra
computerEnthusiast
Registered: 10/26/03
Posts: 6,446
Loc: TEXAS
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
Life Upon Death said:
Quote:
Tangerines said: It is very funny how similar so many shroomerites are to the people they claim to 'hate' for infringing on the basic drug user's rights. Ahhh reflection is a bitch.
most people do not eat aspartame because they like it
most people drink it cause they think its better for them
the tv has been telling them for years
if people knew the truth they would not eat the shit
no one is going to fight for the legalization of a poisonous chemical and MANY poisonous chemicals are banned to be sold in food and no one has a problem with that
by your logic we should be able to sell hamburgers with cyanide seasoning
and if you don't read the label and figure out its got cyanide in it
thats your own fault, nobody forced you to buy the toxic burger 
nobody did, if someone is allergic to peanuts, to the point where its just as toxic as cyanide, is it not their fault for eating the product if it kills them? Even when its clearly marked on the packaging? Also, its just a teeny bit ridiculous to say that, aspartame != cyanide, no matter how much you want it to.
Regardless, i watch the tv sometimes, and i have NEVER ONCE been told that aspertame is better for me, in fact, I avoid all artificial sweetners just because sugar works just fine for me, and i don't consume mass amounts of unhealthy food, so have no need to cut down on calories by cutting out natural sugar...
peace
|
Life Upon Death
Stranger

Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 3,225
Last seen: 14 years, 24 days
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: Tangerines]
#11599163 - 12/06/09 08:41 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Tangerines said: I think cyanide burgers is a great idea because I am all for assisted suicide. I believe a cyanide burger joint with a funeral home attached to it is a glorious idea. That way people who want to commit suicide can do so without creating much of a mess and the funeral home is right there so it's the most inexpensive means to the ultimate end.
And your reasoning is dumb anyways. Just because people choose NOT to study what they are putting in their body is no excuse. All the resources are available for people to make an informed decision. Their choosing otherwise is their own downfall.
what if the word cyanide is in small print on the side of the label with no clear indication of it being toxic
thats not assisted suicide, its murder
|
Entropymancer

Registered: 07/16/05
Posts: 10,207
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: Tangerines]
#11599168 - 12/06/09 08:41 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I think a hairon burger joint would be er for assisted suicide. Go for a triple cheeseburger if you're looking to check out for good, or just a 1/4-pounder if you're looking for a nod
|
|