3 ms·

There's no sophistry here. I simply find the FDA's GRAS finding, and the EU SCF's findings, to be much more convincing than a handful of restricted studies. Yo

There's no sophistry here. I simply find the FDA's GRAS finding, and the EU SCF's findings, to be much more convincing than a handful of restricted studies. You, clearly, do not feel the same, but given that you feel that my position on this is "sophistry" and "bullshit", it is obvious that we are incapable of having an actual discussion on it.

xcv123 3y ago
This is simple logic. It seems that you don't understand the meaning of the word "contradiction" "a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another." You wrote that there is no problem with sucralose. I showed studies indicating a problem with sucralose. That is a contradiction. Then you gaslight us saying there is no contradiction. Sophistry and gaslighting. This is basic english and logic.
- Blackthorn 3y ago
  Words like "gaslight" must have no meaning anymore. All of my comments are here for reading. If you think I'm lying...I don't know what to tell you. There's no contradiction. The FDA marks sucralose as GRAS, which means "generally recognized as safe". There's a study you found that disagree. There's other studies over the decades that disagree as well. You may choose to believe the body of evidence gathered by the FDA that made it make its recommendation, or you may choose not to. It appears that you do not wish to engage in good faith here, and prefer to make attacks against me and claim that I am gaslighting you, so I will not be continuing this conversation further.
  - xcv123 3y ago
    Referring to the FDA is an appeal to authority. Yet another logical fallacy from you. They are a regulatory agency and are part of the most corrupt government on earth (US Government). You are outsourcing your thinking to a corrupt government agency staffed by extremely mediocre people who are not intellectually capable of doing the research themselves. You stated there is no problem with sucralose. I referred to studies showing that there is indeed a problem. Then you say there is no contradiction, but this is a contradiction by definition. To insist that there is no contradiction is blatant stupidity at best, and gaslighting at worst. I am sorry that you get personally offended by English dictionary definitions and basic logic.
Noumenon72 3y ago
I'm with xcv here. It's impossible to have a logical discussion with someone who doesn't see a contradiction between "sucralose is toxic" and "there is nothing wrong with sucralose", and it's impossible to have a fairminded discussion with someone who gives objections as speed bumps instead of arguments. If you really cared whether he had linked to a news article vs a study, you would have been satisfied and apologetic when he showed you the article linked to a study; instead you just switched to objections about the quality of the study.
- Blackthorn 3y ago
  I'm really not understanding why this is being called a contradiction. These studies have, in a good scientific fashion, uncovered some amount of evidence. This evidence has to stand up against 25 years of the FDA recognizing sucralose as generally-recognized-as-safe (GRAS), and the decades prior that made it reach that point. That's a tall hurdle! A contradiction as the term is being used here, to claim my position is invalid, would mean the studies have found some mathematical proof from axioms that sucralose is toxic. If they did, that would certainly be a contradiction! But that's not what happened. They ran some experiments and found their results. That's good science! But that's not the sort of thing that creates a logical contradiction. Their results don't immediately invalidate 25 years of GRAS status and the decades of work and observation that resulted in that status. They say something more like "hey that's interesting, and worth taking a closer look and getting a better understanding". My statement that seems to cause some bones of contention was "there's absolutely nothing wrong with consuming sucralose". The study might cause some disagreement there, but the FDA agrees with me on this one. That's not a contradiction in my logic, that's a scientific disagreement. People can disagree in science without there being a contradiction in the logic of either side. Logic has some pretty strict mathematical requirements, after all. edit: Aand, going back to what I originally wrote, this is the exact statement from the other user that I said I was not contradicting with anything I wrote: "There are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion." All of those things are true, and nothing I wrote addresses them at all. From there we seemed to have launched into a debate about studies. Which, that's fine, but that's a totally separate type of disagreement!

xcv123 3y ago

This is simple logic. It seems that you don't understand the meaning of the word "contradiction" "a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another." You wrote that there is no problem with sucralose. I showed studies indicating a problem with sucralose. That is a contradiction. Then you gaslight us saying there is no contradiction. Sophistry and gaslighting. This is basic english and logic.

Blackthorn 3y ago
Words like "gaslight" must have no meaning anymore. All of my comments are here for reading. If you think I'm lying...I don't know what to tell you. There's no contradiction. The FDA marks sucralose as GRAS, which means "generally recognized as safe". There's a study you found that disagree. There's other studies over the decades that disagree as well. You may choose to believe the body of evidence gathered by the FDA that made it make its recommendation, or you may choose not to. It appears that you do not wish to engage in good faith here, and prefer to make attacks against me and claim that I am gaslighting you, so I will not be continuing this conversation further.
- xcv123 3y ago
  Referring to the FDA is an appeal to authority. Yet another logical fallacy from you. They are a regulatory agency and are part of the most corrupt government on earth (US Government). You are outsourcing your thinking to a corrupt government agency staffed by extremely mediocre people who are not intellectually capable of doing the research themselves. You stated there is no problem with sucralose. I referred to studies showing that there is indeed a problem. Then you say there is no contradiction, but this is a contradiction by definition. To insist that there is no contradiction is blatant stupidity at best, and gaslighting at worst. I am sorry that you get personally offended by English dictionary definitions and basic logic.

Noumenon72 3y ago

I'm with xcv here. It's impossible to have a logical discussion with someone who doesn't see a contradiction between "sucralose is toxic" and "there is nothing wrong with sucralose", and it's impossible to have a fairminded discussion with someone who gives objections as speed bumps instead of arguments. If you really cared whether he had linked to a news article vs a study, you would have been satisfied and apologetic when he showed you the article linked to a study; instead you just switched to objections about the quality of the study.

Blackthorn 3y ago
I'm really not understanding why this is being called a contradiction. These studies have, in a good scientific fashion, uncovered some amount of evidence. This evidence has to stand up against 25 years of the FDA recognizing sucralose as generally-recognized-as-safe (GRAS), and the decades prior that made it reach that point. That's a tall hurdle! A contradiction as the term is being used here, to claim my position is invalid, would mean the studies have found some mathematical proof from axioms that sucralose is toxic. If they did, that would certainly be a contradiction! But that's not what happened. They ran some experiments and found their results. That's good science! But that's not the sort of thing that creates a logical contradiction. Their results don't immediately invalidate 25 years of GRAS status and the decades of work and observation that resulted in that status. They say something more like "hey that's interesting, and worth taking a closer look and getting a better understanding". My statement that seems to cause some bones of contention was "there's absolutely nothing wrong with consuming sucralose". The study might cause some disagreement there, but the FDA agrees with me on this one. That's not a contradiction in my logic, that's a scientific disagreement. People can disagree in science without there being a contradiction in the logic of either side. Logic has some pretty strict mathematical requirements, after all. edit: Aand, going back to what I originally wrote, this is the exact statement from the other user that I said I was not contradicting with anything I wrote: "There are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion." All of those things are true, and nothing I wrote addresses them at all. From there we seemed to have launched into a debate about studies. Which, that's fine, but that's a totally separate type of disagreement!