dick-richardson
Member

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 2531 |
quote: Originally posted by markleetoo
I'm sure you will say, "THANK GOODNESS" when I say this is the last time that I will bother to argue this subject
Not really. Argue what you want.
quote: but, I think it is asinine to compare cigarette smoking with this use of an artificial sweetener that has been on the market and used for over fifteen years with only slight side effects, the majority being headache.
Slight side effects? Did you read the links? Would you like more? And exactly how did I compare Aspartame to Cigarettes? You need to work on reading for comprehension. I was merely pointing out a person's propensity to rationalize poor choices WRT their health. At no point did I insinuate that Aspartame was as dangerous as cigarettes, nor did I compare the amount of evindence for one against the other. I have plenty of fun arguing the points I intend to make, I don't need your help making them for me.
quote: In all fairness, I know that there is supportive evidence that abnormal use of Aspartame can be dangerous for some but, I think you are missing my point. I'm not advocating Aspartame as a miracle replacement and to drop using sugar. Anything is bad for you in large amounts.
What constitues "abnormal" use? Snorting? Ingesting Aspartame, a common substitute for sugar, is not good for your body. The more you ingest, the worse it gets.
quote: My point is that if you want to use something that has been, for the most part, labeled safe and been used with only slight side effects in SOME, then do it if it helps you beat (IMO) a bigger and more deadly problem statistically.
Labelled safe by an FDA you previously bashed. Would you please pick a side of the argument you wish to argue and stay with it? And how is sugar a bigger and more deadly problem? Almost everything you eat has sugar. Limiting sugar intake is, more or less, pointless. Unless you're eating excessive amounts (more than 2000 Cal/day), the sugar is getting burned off.
quote: Check the AMA or even the Internet on that fact.
I have. Would you like links?
quote: And I know what you are going to say..."What about formaldehyde, liver disease, etc., etc., etc." These seem to be mostly tests that are performed on animals that have different genetic make ups and have likely been fed lethal amounts of the product.
No, that was the case for sacchrine. If you'd bother reading about it, you'd realize that. And would you rather testing were done on humans? Rats and chimps are used because of their genetic similarity to humans. The only thing closer would be man himself.
quote: I think that people just need something new and exciting to be afraid of.
I agree. But when scientific report after scientific report backs the info up, you have to start to wonder.
quote: You don't hear much about saccharin anymore, do you?
You don't bother to read links, do you?
quote: In fact, I feel that I am well informed. It sounds like you are prone to conspiracy theories whenever you read about something, judging by the sources of information you gave.
the information may have been written in the form of a witch hunt, but you conveniently ignore the reports they were based on - which happen to be solid science
quote: BTW - both references you sited looked like personal web sites, not independent organizations that specialize in non-biased studies. Granted, one was written by A doctor on a personal Geocities web site.
I always dismiss information because it's coming from a personal source without actually reading it and finding out if there may just be a kernel of truth to it. 
quote: This concludes my ranting and raving. Thank you for listening if you did.
Of course I did. As it stands, not much was gleaned by it.
__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.
|