Nathan

Maybe my last post was missed. Again raising the question, what is the fundamental argument someone can come up with the claim that a food additive that readily metabolizes into methanol is safe? -Dylan I dunno, but methanol is in most healthy foods: http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+93

I've found that whenever you show or share a video to someone, this could be a video by Richard Dawkins to a theist, or a video by Stef to a statist, or a video by any particular expert in any particular area to someone who is at best very skeptical and at worst, very resistent to changing their mind about things, they will always latch on to one particular mistake or percieved error that has very little if any bearing on the overall point being made. People will find any one single thing to say "oh this guy is wrong about this so he's got no credibility at all therefore I can continue believing this bullshit" which is often times ironic.

Bingo

If a thorough examination by a public body is not credible evidence, and all you have is a weakly supported hypothesis, then the evidence is negligible at best, which leads me to question why anyone bothers. I don't know what the roots of this bias is. Government or no, there is a consensus among agency and university researchers worldwide. I would say it's even safer than plain old sugar, considering the deleterious effects sugar has on the body, weight gain and insulin sensitivity. It's a safe sugar alternative for diabetics. It took 4000 g of the stuff and still didn't cause cancer in rats. That's the equivalent of a thousand diet cokes a day. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame I'm not even sure where all this anti-aspartame crap came from other than the hoax that caused panic, similar to the fraudulent study about vaccines which also caused widespread panic. Ever since these hoaxes, their claims continue to be perpetuated ad-infinitum. Given the government's attack on sugar years back, I wouldn't be surprised if the sugar lobby had something to do with it. Now that it's largely been debunked we have this ph imbalance B.S.

Just curious: and what about fluoride? -Dylan I don't know. Flouride is good for strengthening the enamel on your teeth, that's about it. Wikipedia had this to say on the toxicology: The doses in water are far too low to cause any real adverse effects on anyone. I don't think fluoride would be added to water if it were not a state monopoly.

Aspartame-Induced Fibromyalgia http://nutritionfacts.org/video/aspartame-induced-fibromyalgia/ I'm sorry, but that's not at all scientific. It's pure self-reporting and does not refute the afforementioned studies which got repeated results. Also, I don't know the degree to which fibromyalgia is not psychosomatic in nature. It's quite often attributed to or correlated with depression and anxiety disorders. Also, here is the Wikipedia comment on the hoax:

I think there is a problem with one of the arguments you made in this episode. You said there is a performative contradiction in saying "There is no such thing as objective morality." Unless you're synonomizing "morality" with "upb" which itself is a confusing comparison since I thought UPB was a means of testing the consistency of moral theories, then there's a problem with this. When you say there is no such thing as objective morality, I don't see the contradiction, at least not very clearly. If I say that morality is a set of rules for prescribed or preferred behavior, then perhaps when saying there is no such thing as preferred behavior, I can see the contradiction there. You asked in the podcast when you got to this point: "Ok does truth have something to do with morality?" But in part two you said that truth cannot be universally preferable behavior, because truth may be dangerous at times. So that doesn't work. I'm having a tough time with this one argument. Again, I'm not having a tough time seeing the performative contradiction of "There is no such thing as universally preferable behavior." That is clear to me. My problem is with "There is no such thing as objective morality." What does morality have to do with preferring truth over falsehood, that reason is the preferred method for determining truth from falsehood, that existence exists? I don't see the performative contradiction there, unless you equate morality with universally preferable behavior. When talking about freedom to others, I am not sure of how to respond to someone that says "there is no such thing as objective morality". It's a frustrating response to get because of the above issue.

I'd prefer it on Twitter or Facebook, since I regularly check those often.

Sorry to be annoyingly skeptical, but these claims about PH and weight loss are not well supported and the aspartame crap was exposed as a hoax many years ago and has several times since been proven incorrect by several university studies. I feel pretty annoyed by all the constant, unsubstantiated nonsense people repeat continuously across the internet these days. Pot "cures" cancer, aspartame is bad, all the claims made about the paleo diet, this ph diet, atkins, yada yada yada. It gets old and it's frustrating that nobody checks into the validity of someone's claims prior to repeating it. I'm not saying I've not done the same thing at times, but I'm trying to stop. It doesn't help with credibility which makes spreading the message of freedom all the more difficult. I do appreciate Allan's efforts to find studies showing that anxiety attacks may be reduced by exercise and *could* be related to PH. That doesn't say anything about the claims made in the video.

This is incredibly enraging, once again government ate my goddamn raise for the second year in a row. The first year it was the tax bracket, the second it's this payroll tax increase bullshit.

Now I am forced to pay even more into this f'ing Ponzi Scheme from which I get nothing in the end?

Hmm, just my opinion but I don't think so, that's what subtitles are for. I loved the title, short, catchy, and not at all obscure when you consider human action.

Why did you change the name?