General Chat

[MrWeedMcGrass]

What does your mum do? Sneak off for a juicy steak every now and then?

Restaurants only. Meat is banned by the decree of the Patriarch

She is allowed eggs , that is deemed kosher. Go figure. :?

[BOF]

Hmm, this isn't the first time you've sided with big business Chindie.

I take issue with that. I'm not 'siding with big business', I've no reason or desire to. I'm siding against ignorance, the likes of which Julie spouts with Old Faithful like regularity on anything even vaguely health related.

What I meant was that in discussions of this nature, from what I've read, you have always ended up on the side of big business in that you defend it and it's products against what you disparagingly and sometimes incorrectly call ignorance and others might call conspiracy.

I take a stance that if there is no evidence of something, and it has been tested (correctly, before the aspertame rears is ugly head again) to prove that their is no evidence, then it is safe to assume that there is nothing to worry about. Things are tested quite rigorously, and repeatedly, especially in the food industry. If I were to worry about every additive, in anything, or avoid it, I don't think I'd be able to do alot. I wouldn't be able to wash, brush my teeth, eat more or less anything, go outside, drink anything... just in case later on it's found that maybe it might have some problem with it, in a small amount of cases, usually when connected to another issue, as things that affect healthy populations tend to jump up sharpish in laboratory testing.

No-one here is suggesting that we worry about or avoid every additive and I never have suggested that. It is, I think, a little disingenuous to imply that I am suggesting as much. I certainly consume my fair share of unpronouncable ingredients.

I'd say my actual standpoint, and not the one you've assumed, which is different in a small way, is one of compromise, and logic. Nothing is entirely safe. Chocolate in big enough doses will kill you, so will bananas, water is poisonous in high enough doses... and so on. I make a considered compromise.

Again, we both know nothing is entirely safe and that excessive amounts of pretty much anything can kill or seriously harm you. This is more about relative unknowns like recent advancements, products or technologies that have not had the benefit of generations (or more) of consumption and field data.

As Mike has shown above, theres not a statistical connection. Thats good enough for me to say, if the fancy ever takes me to die my hair, that it's ok to do it. Million upon millions have done so, I don't see lawsuits falling of Garnier's arse for cancer victims.

The hair dye thing was only the example I used from above and was generic to my point. My point was in the reasoning that something being far from confirmed doesn't make it safe where if something dangerous is suggested and there is evidence through testing to support that supposition (again, I'm not on about hair dye here btw) even if it is not 100% confirmed then I would think there is enough doubt to be at the least suspicious.

I'd rather people weren't ignorant of such things and decided to use their initiative to discover if their suspicions are unfounded or not, than simply accept that 'People are like that'.

What you're suggesting here, given the context of what you were responding to, is that everyone become a scientist and do their own tests. If that's the only thing that will appease you in a discussion on this subject then I think you're quite safe.

We did aspertame to death, every example that supported your own theory on it was flawed in their science, as I told you. One of them was feeding rats enough aspertame to sate a T-Rexs sweet tooth for a year, and was allowing them to go to full natural death which introduces so many variables to the equation I'm loathe to call it a valid study. Good science isolates variables, not creates them and try to justify it's findings on such.

That's not how I remember it. I remember us agreeing to disagree. I do remember you doing your best to discredit the evidence of testing that I had put forward and even the blatantly suspicious circumstances under which the product was even passed by the FDA after years of being denied entry into the marketplace.

Fair enough, but I'd rather enjoy my life and not worry. If I live long enough (unlucky with my lifestyle to be frank but **** it, I'll have enjoyed it), I'll get cancer, and so will you, and so will everyone else, even if we all eat the freshest, cleanest, most natural products on the planet, and lived in perfect environments, because cancer is a flaw of our genetic makeup. Some things exacerbate it, like smoking (although even that isn't a forgone conclusion - you may well be able to smoke 60 a day for 40 years and you could be fine, it isn't guarenteed) and those are confirmed, and have been tested.

And so far, most products that have been on the market long term will have been cleared too. If they did have an issue, they'll have been pulled, because you don't want to kill your market for a start and you also don't want the lawsuits, and you also don't want the short sharp shock of government chastisement too.

I'll take my chances, and to be honest, I think they're in my favour.

Again, we both agree. This idea that you will enjoy life and my (perhaps incorrect?) inference that by extension of my opinion, I somehow won't enjoy it is off the mark. I only have very specific concerns about very specific things. I think cigarettes and smoking is a good comparison actually. You are exactly right that someone could get cancer who doesn't smoke where a chain smoker could die of old age. It's in the genes, true. But we don't know which of us has the good or the bad genes that will or won't let us get away with it. So some of us play the percentage and don't smoke. Yes we could still get cancer, but at the very least we've ruled out one potential contributory cause. The same, I believe, has been proven with aspartame. It will not affect everyone and most may well be lucky. But it's a lottery as to who does or does not get affected; and while enough people are getting lucky, then there's no reason to pull it from the market. There was reason enough for long enough to deny it entry, and there has been enough to suggest it is problematic from a health POV. It is also certainly a recent enough product in the grand scheme of things that you or anyone else who might support it can not with good conscience say that they know for a fact (as opposed to think by chance) that it is safe.

But generally, new things by definition are not as well known or tested and we'd need to be pretty damn sure, with little or no reason to think otherwise, that whatever it is is safe to ingest. And I would have little trust in the manufacturer telling me that it is safe when it is completely in their interest to tell me exactly that, especially when there's the age-old get-out that it can't be proven 100%. Some still doubt that cigarettes have been proven 100%. It's just now kind of accepted and understood better.

[Chindie]

I'm going to use aspertame as an example because of it's convenience and because it's not far beneath the surface of what you are saying here.

What I meant was that in discussions of this nature, from what I've read, you have always ended up on the side of big business in that you defend it and it's products against what you disparagingly and sometimes incorrectly call ignorance and others might call conspiracy.

I think I'm quite, quite valid in calling some views that have been posted on similar themes as the cloned meat Julie has written about here as ignorant.

Aspertame one I'll concede as conspiracy, but I don't think that makes it any more valid than the ignorant views.

I tend to end up 'on the side of big business' if we must that term, because I have an affliction to conspiracy, and to poor science, and to rumour on the likes of aspertame and cloned meat and whatever else. I'm an empiricist, I like to see evidence from enlightened source... and often the evidence (when it is shown, which is rare) that is used to counter what I would agree with, is flawed, as the aspertame ones were.

No-one here is suggesting that we worry about or avoid every additive and I never have suggested that. It is, I think, a little disingenuous to imply that I am suggesting as much. I certainly consume my fair share of unpronouncable ingredients.

So why are those safe and things like aspertame not? Aspertame has been proven safe, time after time, with good scientific practice. The largest investigation into it to prove it was dangerous was flawed to hell, and I could tell that even as someone who isn't a scientist.

Again, we both know nothing is entirely safe and that excessive amounts of pretty much anything can kill or seriously harm you. This is more about relative unknowns like recent advancements, products or technologies that have not had the benefit of generations (or more) of consumption and field data.

But many things you eat and drink and use about your person day to day will have even less generational data than aspertame might (something that has been in and around the market for quite sometime now, and in many many nations, consumed without issue by billions), and yet you say you'll happily have those.

The hair dye thing was only the example I used from above and was generic to my point. My point was in the reasoning that something being far from confirmed doesn't make it safe where if something dangerous is suggested and there is evidence through testing to support that supposition (again, I'm not on about hair dye here btw) even if it is not 100% confirmed then I would think there is enough doubt to be at the least suspicious.

I would want proof that it is dangerous, cast iron, repeatable, unflawed proof. Especially if it was something that had long been in use, like a certain sweetener.

What you're suggesting here, given the context of what you were responding to, is that everyone become a scientist and do their own tests. If that's the only thing that will appease you in a discussion on this subject then I think you're quite safe.

My point was more directed towards the cloned meat issue here. You don't need to be a scientist to understand why that would be safe, and to not educate yourself on that and simply take it as given that it must be in someway dangerous is ignorance personified.

I don't request people become their own scientists, that's absurd. I request that people read up on things from people who know. Exactly as I did with aspertame.

That's not how I remember it. I remember us agreeing to disagree. I do remember you doing your best to discredit the evidence of testing that I had put forward and even the blatantly suspicious circumstances under which the product was even passed by the FDA after years of being denied entry into the marketplace.

Having just re-read back over the conversation at the time, you agreed to disagree and bowed out (tinfoil hat firmly secured ... I kid), while resident conspiracy nuts villal and johnvillan tried to dunbunk what I said with little success as all their data was flawed.

The suspicious circumstances are odd, I'll happily say that, taking it as your account being correct. However, in the following years, it has repeatedly been tested and used, been accepted as safe in numerous countries under numerous scientific bodies. Any conspiracy requires an awful lot of money and an awful lot of people keeping their mouth shut, and an awful lot of respected scientific organisations being open to bribery... I just don't buy it. If it were dangerous, it also doesn't make any sense from a business perspective - there are heaps of sweeteners out there, having one that doesn't kill your market is probably a good idea, as is having one that doesn't open you up to being sued (which, if the evidence would stand up in court to it being dangerous, would surely happen).

We'll never agree on this which is why I'm loathe to bring it up but it makes sense to do so here.

Again, we both agree. This idea that you will enjoy life and my (perhaps incorrect?) inference that by extension of my opinion, I somehow won't enjoy it is off the mark.

It is incorrect - I was using more in terms of me not worrying about these things, and being able to say to myself 'You know what, I fancy I an aspertame laced diet drink', or whatever. There are far more important things for me to worry about and I don't want to restrict my options based on things I'd consider hoo-ey.

I only have very specific concerns about very specific things. I think cigarettes and smoking is a good comparison actually. You are exactly right that someone could get cancer who doesn't smoke where a chain smoker could die of old age. It's in the genes, true. But we don't know which of us has the good or the bad genes that will or won't let us get away with it. So some of us play the percentage and don't smoke. Yes we could still get cancer, but at the very least we've ruled out one potential contributory cause.

I agree.

The same, I believe, has been proven with aspartame.

My understanding of the evidence that isn't scientifically flawed, is that this is about as wrong as wrong gets.

It will not affect everyone and most may well be lucky.

The same could be said of any person with any form of matter entering the body. We just don't know. We often hear newspaper stories of comparitively safe things being causes, or cures, of cancer. And they may well be. But that may be to one in a billion people... I just don't see it as something to worry about, especially when the evidence, and frankly the common sense, says theres nothing to worry about.

But it's a lottery as to who does or does not get affected; and while enough people are getting lucky, then there's no reason to pull it from the market. There was reason enough for long enough to deny it entry, and there has been enough to suggest it is problematic from a health POV. It is also certainly a recent enough product in the grand scheme of things that you or anyone else who might support it can not with good conscience say that they know for a fact (as opposed to think by chance) that it is safe.

But generally, new things by definition are not as well known or tested and we'd need to be pretty damn sure, with little or no reason to think otherwise, that whatever it is is safe to ingest. And I would have little trust in the manufacturer telling me that it is safe when it is completely in their interest to tell me exactly that, especially when there's the age-old get-out that it can't be proven 100%. Some still doubt that cigarettes have been proven 100%. It's just now kind of accepted and understood better.

My patience for going through that line by line has gone. I think your worry over aspertame is one that is silly, if I'm honest. I don't think, because of your fears over it's introduction to the market and the nature of that, any research would convince you otherwise that it is safe.

And thats your choice. I have no reason to try and defend the stuff other than to say... I dislike things like conspiracies, and I know someone who hasn't looked at the facts of the thing, or hasn't got the time or the mind or reason or desire, to read the reports and consider the evidence that says it is safe, or consider the evidence that says it isn't, and make up their own mind (which imo can only really go one way), is going to see what you've wrote here and see that stupid scaremongering email and think the stuffs dangerous. I really don't like that idea, so I try to counter it. I'm not on the side of big business here, if the evidence I looked at said it was dangerous, or the evidence provided that says it is dangerous wasn't so fatally flawed, I'd be right along side you.

It doesn't though, so I don't like the idea of it being paraded as fact.

The same goes for my distaste of ignorance of cloning here, or whatever else people say in these scientific threads. I dislike ignorance and like to combat it.

Sorry it's just part of my personality.

[BOF]

I think we understand each other then tbh. And neither of us likes ignorance. I think we've just come to different conclusions based on differing levels of trust of the evidence that we've both read. I haven't read anything on eating cloned meat yet so I won't be proffering opinion there, but as I've said - my initial thoughts would be that it should in theory be fine.

[Xann]

Polticians are serpents that care nothing about people and entirely about nations, and empires.

We already know this. Have you not read the teachings of the prophet Icke?

And that there are undeniable patterns in the Arabic alphabet that allow one that understands them to make predictions and unlock great knowledge.

Sufi, the mystic bit of Islam, there's quite a lot of people into it. The Jewish faith has an equivalent - Kabbalah, sometimes loosely involved with fleecing pop stars.

[Chindie]

Polticians are serpents that care nothing about people and entirely about nations, and empires.

We already know this. Have you not read the teachings of the prophet Icke?

And that there are undeniable patterns in the Arabic alphabet that allow one that understands them to make predictions and unlock great knowledge.

Sufi, the mystic bit of Islam, there's quite a lot of people into it. The Jewish faith has an equivalent - Kabbalah, sometimes loosely involved with fleecing pop stars.

Ha, all of this did come to mind. I did mention the resemblance to the Kabbalah, which he seemed to be quite impressed I knew about. He kept me chatting outside my house for 10 minutes and encouraged me to read the Qur'an.

Absolutely barking though.

[leviramsey]

After all, for example, I'd rather avoid something and find out 20 years later that it was safe all along, than consume it out of blind faith or big business propoganda only to find out it is a large contributory factor towards cancer after it's too late.

I'd rather avoid buying an Alfa and find out 10 years later that they're well-built, reliable cars with affordable parts, than buy it out of blind faith or FIAT propaganda only to find out that they fall apart and are very expensive to repair.

The Luddites among you are entitled to your view: no one forces you to buy aspartame or cloned meat or Alfas. Unfortunately, you're by and large all too willing to make other people's choices for them.

[rjw63]

After all, for example, I'd rather avoid something and find out 20 years later that it was safe all along, than consume it out of blind faith or big business propoganda only to find out it is a large contributory factor towards cancer after it's too late.

I'd rather avoid buying an Alfa and find out 10 years later that they're well-built, reliable cars with affordable parts, than buy it out of blind faith or FIAT propaganda only to find out that they fall apart and are very expensive to repair.

The Luddites among you are entitled to your view: no one forces you to buy aspartame or cloned meat or Alfas. Unfortunately, you're by and large all too willing to make other people's choices for them.

Wot - no youtube link? :-)

[leviramsey]

If you think my responses are completely un-scientific then fine that's your opinion. However if there was nothing to worry about Cloned meat why all the commotion? I merely stated that's it's like GM food...we simply don't know.

If there was nothing to worry about with respect Jehovah's Witnesses why are they the butt of jokes and have people regularly bitching about them [and their entirely legitimate ethical, philosophical, etc. positions and practices].

I have no earthly idea whether I'm going to get hit by a bus tomorrow morning, yet I'll cross the street.

[leviramsey]

My sister-in-law used to be a churchgoer. But when her dad died (heart attack, in his 70s), she decided there couldn't be a god after all, and she became an atheist. I mean, WHAAAAT? I still can't work THAT one out. :|

It's the same reason that socialist (in the planned economy sense, not the welfare state sense) regimes inevitably lose their popular legitimacy.

Once an entity promises to protect (if that's the word) every person, when it fails to protect someone, at the very least that someone will no longer have faith in the ability of that entity to do what it promises. As the number of those who feel wronged in some way by that entity grows, the popular legitimacy of that entity declines to zero.

[maqroll]

My new boss told me, "I've been in 150 street fights and won almost all of 'em....and if I have to fight again, I will."

I'm not exactly sure how to take that..... :shock:

[leviramsey]

maqroll's new boss

[maqroll]

maqroll's new boss

Haha, that's more or less him

[wiganvillain]

My new boss told me, "I've been in 150 street fights and won almost all of 'em....and if I have to fight again, I will."

I'm not exactly sure how to take that..... :shock:

I'd take it you work for a nutter

[JulieB]

If you think my responses are completely un-scientific then fine that's your opinion. However if there was nothing to worry about Cloned meat why all the commotion? I merely stated that's it's like GM food...we simply don't know.

If there was nothing to worry about with respect Jehovah's Witnesses why are they the butt of jokes and have people regularly bitching about them [and their entirely legitimate ethical, philosophical, etc. positions and practices].

I have no earthly idea whether I'm going to get hit by a bus tomorrow morning, yet I'll cross the street.

well I think the retort to that would be people who worship Jehovah have been around for an awful lot longer than cloned meat.

On the surface I can't see what would be different in cloned meat. It's a cow at the end of the day. However I don't know how the genes of that cow were manipulated to create the cow in the 1st place & I'm a bit concerned that if I eat somehow manipulated DNA/Gene meat - is it going to have any effect on me that's all.

[Jon]

My new boss told me, "I've been in 150 street fights and won almost all of 'em....and if I have to fight again, I will."

I'm not exactly sure how to take that..... :shock:

I'd take it you work for a nutter

More likely a complete c*ck with a small penis.

People that talk themselves up like this i usually find to be full of bullshit. It's those that don't talk themselves up that tend to be the most genuinely hard/lunatics.

[Jon]

On the surface I can't see what would be different in cloned meat. It's a cow at the end of the day. However I don't know how the genes of that cow were manipulated to create the cow in the 1st place & I'm a bit concerned that if I eat somehow manipulated DNA/Gene meat - is it going to have any effect on me that's all.

I'm kinda with you Jules. Not sure at this point i would be happy to eat cloned meat ....

[GarethRDR]

My new boss told me, "I've been in 150 street fights and won almost all of 'em....and if I have to fight again, I will."

I'm not exactly sure how to take that..... :shock:

Tell him you will medidate and then you will destroy him.

[mjmooney]

Polticians are serpents that care nothing about people and entirely about nations, and empires.

We already know this. Have you not read the teachings of the prophet Icke?

And that there are undeniable patterns in the Arabic alphabet that allow one that understands them to make predictions and unlock great knowledge.

Sufi, the mystic bit of Islam, there's quite a lot of people into it. The Jewish faith has an equivalent - Kabbalah, sometimes loosely involved with fleecing pop stars.

L. Ron Hubbard had the right idea - spot that (a) people are gullible ( celebs are both gullible and very rich. Logical move = start your own religion and get recruiting.

[BOF]

After all, for example, I'd rather avoid something and find out 20 years later that it was safe all along, than consume it out of blind faith or big business propoganda only to find out it is a large contributory factor towards cancer after it's too late.

I'd rather avoid buying an Alfa and find out 10 years later that they're well-built, reliable cars with affordable parts, than buy it out of blind faith or FIAT propaganda only to find out that they fall apart and are very expensive to repair.

The Luddites among you are entitled to your view: no one forces you to buy aspartame or cloned meat or Alfas.

Logic is similar even if mine is a potential life or death one rather than one of future convenience (though you have the obvious comeback of a well built car being safer in an accident).

Unfortunately, you're by and large all too willing to make other people's choices for them.

This sentence tells me you've read nothing of my views on civil liberty through the years. I'm probably one of the most vocal exponents on this forum of allowing people to do absolutely what they want. This is where I would agree with Chindie though. It's all about education and combatting ignorance. Do I want something taken off the market? No not really. Do I want to try and inform people of the potential issues and then allow them to make their own choices afterwards? Absolutely. And Luddite doesn't fit here. Certainly not with me. As I've already said to Chindie. Mine are very specific concerns about 1 or 2 specific things.