diet soda is HORRIBLE

Personally, I believe chihuahuas are a far greater threat to man than diet soda.

Especially when salad is involved.

Did anyone else notice, that the original poster has only posted two things on the forums This delightful post-and another calling a girl hot)...and they haven't filled out anything in their profile. Can you say troll???? Just let the thread die. He was just trying to cause an argument.

Pics of girl or gtfo.

(not srs)

Your tinfoil hat is restricting blood flow to your brain.

omg I love it!!!!!! lol

My first thought when reading the title was "duh"

I know that in rediculously large amounts fake sugar is bad for you, but I will wrestle you over that last packet of sweet n low for my coffee without batting an eye. I figure it could be worse, I could still be smoking, eating large amounts of processed foods, being stagnant . . .

It's CHLORINE, for one, and two, that's sodium CHLORIDE. Chemistry, learn it. Different things. ChloRINE when ingested is a carcinogen, no different than smoking a cigarette. Specifically, it's been used in poisonous gases (read: bombs).

OMG, I think I swallow water when I'm swimming in a pool. Great, now I'm gonna die from that!

Seriously? The US govt banned clove cigarettes because they 'appeal to kids' (tell me the last time you talked to a kid who thought cloves sounded like a yummy treat) when in reality it was just because big tobacco companies were lobbying to get rid of their smaller competition. But noo, the government isn't being corrupted by corporations and profits at all. ;P It's all in our heads. Bottom line, the politicians WILL do what the lobbyists(big companies and rich people) want! It keeps them rich and in office.
I honestly don't understand why people jump to 'tin foil hats' the moment you point out the obvious corruption in the world...I think you've got some tin foil glasses preventing you from seeing what's right in front of you.

The cigarette argument is strawman which does nothing to prove your point. At all. I never said the government is clean as a whistle or remotely non-corrupt.

However, there are institutions worldwide that have found aspartame and other artificial sweeteners to be perfectly safe. These are institutions that have no affiliation to the FDA or US government. To say they legalize artificial sweeteners because they make a profit, similar to cigarettes, is false as: A) cigarettes have zero bearing on this issue and the evidence speaks for itself.

But thanks for the lesson on US politics. As it had nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I honestly wasn't addressing and don't care much about the artificial sweetener argument as I usually think they're pretty gross anyway. :P People can and should always be allowed to put anything in their bodies they want including artificial sweeteners that may/may not cause cancer. Previous 'tin foil hat' poster mentioned cigarettes and thus I went with that as an example. I just get irritated when someone gets ridiculed (however misinformed/misguided they may be) for questioning things and stating a mistrust in government. If they said Jesus/god hated aspartame people probably would have let it slide... I mean, look at all those "Jesus made me lose weight, hallelujah!" threads. :P My point was that you should refute their argument with facts (like you just did with me) instead of making assumptions about them being a paranoid crazy conspiracy theorist. Idk, I think everyone deserves to be respected despite their crazy beliefs, whether they be in a magic man in the sky or a corrupt govt.

Edit: Wanted to add an apology for not being clear with what my argument actually was to begin with.

I guess I am going to die but at least I will die happy.

Who needs to follow studies when you can use your own common sense? If its artificial it shouldn't go in your body. Simple as that.

Blaming the government with zero proof when there is AMPLE proof that artificial sweeteners are safe IS actually crazy in my book. Especially when it's to the point that they block out all conflicting information that sheds actual light on the matter.

The extent/intensity of their beliefs is what matters.

I get what you're saying, but being misinformed isn't the same as being crazy. I know that eeeeeeveryone talks about how artificial sweeteners give you cancer, so it's easy to see how someone could take that as fact without doing their own research. In that case, yes they are misinformed and probably shouldn't be arguing the subject, but that doesn't really make it okay to call them crazy instead of just informing them

If they start talking about the illuminati sterilizing the population with aspartame though, then be my guest and give them the tinfoil hat post. lol

I get what you're saying, but being misinformed isn't the same as being crazy. I know that eeeeeeveryone talks about how artificial sweeteners give you cancer, so it's easy to see how someone could take that as fact without doing their own research. In that case, yes they are misinformed and probably shouldn't be arguing the subject, but that doesn't really make it okay to call them crazy instead of just informing them

If they start talking about the illuminati sterilizing the population with aspartame though, then be my guest and give them the tinfoil hat post. lol

The poster is talking about government conspiracy theories regarding the legalization of aspartame for government profit.

Crazy.