Your video, Mom Whoops Son For Throwing Rocks At Baltimore Police, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It's l OK to whoop you kid in front of a crowd as long as they are protesting against cops.

In this stupid society she would be in jail for domestic violence assault.

@newtboy - whoops, good call on the belt NOT being buckled, I didn't see that clearly the first time. Yeah, leaning to his left sure seems like it should provide enough slack to get free... Now I'm wondering if alcohol may have been involved.

Sad story because Whooping Cough can lead to serious health issues down the road.

Your video, Anti-vaxx mom reversal - After all 7 kids got whooping cough, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@eric3579 Please read the third paragraph and this post's title.

@gorillaman Thanks for the surprisingly positive feedback. That's a small victory by itself.

@MilkmanDan Thanks for being so respectful with your negative feedback. No worries at all about sharing your true reaction and thoughts. Aversion to change is expected. All I'll try to clarify is that everything isn't harder to figure out now; all the old content you're referring to is now neatly tucked centrally in the easily accessible header menu.

@enoch Thanks for the kind feedback!

@blackfox42 Whoops! The edit link is one of the things excluded accidentally. I'll work on adding it back in asap. To opt back in use the link at the bottom of this ST post body.

Sure lucky760, I'll do Splenda, since some varieties of Coke Zero have Splenda in them.

First off it is important to note that the majority of the anti-sweetener "science" has been done by one man: Dr. Joseph Mercola. Now, watch out here, because his name is deceptive. You see, Mercola is an osteopathic physician. Osteopathy is a form of pseudoscience that believes that all pathology can be solved by manipulation of the bones and muscles. There is little science to back up these claims because they are clearly insane and worthy of ridicule. So, much like his doctorate, the claims he makes against sweeteners are pseudoscientific. A number of his beliefs are: that AIDS is not cause by HIV but by psychological stress; that immunizations and prescription drugs shouldn't be prescribed but people should instead buy his dietary supplements; that vaccinations are bad for you and your children (a belief which is the cause of recent outbreaks of whooping cough, measles and mumps); and that microwaves are dangerous machines that irradiate their products (they do, but not with the kind of radiation he is thinking of). Since he made a movie called Sweet Mistery: A Poisoned World, he has been at the forefront of anti-sweetener rhetoric. If you watch the movie, note how hilariously bad it is at actual science; the majority of the "evidence" is people claiming side effects after having ingested something with a sweetener in it (anecdotes are worth nothing in science except perhaps as a reason for researching further). So, you have a movement against something seen as "artificial" by a man who is not a doctor, not a scientist and is clearly lacking in the basics of logic.

Now, Splenda. Created by Johnson and Johnson and a British company in the seventies, it's primary sweetener ingredient is sucralose. The rest of it is dextrose, which as I have said above, is really just d-glucose and is safe for consumption in even very large quantities. So really, we are asking about sucralose. Sucralose is vastly sweeter than sucrose (usually around ~650 times) and thus only a very small amount is needed in whatever it is you are trying to sweeten. The current amount that is considered unsafe for intake (the starting point where adverse effects are felt) is around 1.5g/kg of body weight. So for the average male of 180lbs, they would need to ingest 130g of sucralose to feel any adverse effects. This is compared to the mg of sucralose that you will actually be getting every day. The estimated daily intake of someone who actually consumes sucralose is around 1.1mg/kg, which leaves a massive gap. Similarly to aspartame, if you tried to ingest that much sucralose, you would be incapable due to the overwhelming sweetness of the stuff.

There is some evidence that sucralose may affect people in high doses, but once again, this is similar to the issues with aspartame, where the likelihood of you getting those doses is extremely unlikely.

The chemistry of sucralose is actually way too complicated to go into, but suffice it to say that unlike aspartame, sucralose is not broken down in the body at all and is simply excreted through the kidney just like any other non-reactive agent. The reason that it tastes sweet is because it has the same shape as sucrose except that some of the hydroxy groups are replaced with chlorine atoms. This allows it to fit in the neurotransmitters in the tongue and mouth that send you the sensation of sweetness without also giving you all of those calories. Once it passes into the bloodstream it is dumped out by the kidneys without passing through the liver at all.

In sum, if sweeteners were bad for you, they wouldn't be allowed in your food. Science is not against you, it is the only thing working for everyone at the same time. The reason sugar has gotten around this is because we have always had it. If you want to be healthier, don't drink pop, drink water or milk (unless you are lactose intolerant, then just drink water). Don't drink coconut milk, or gatorade, or vitamin water. Assume that when a company comes out with something like "fat free" it really reads "now loaded with sugar so it doesn't taste like fucking cardboard." Assume that when a company says something is "natural" it is no more natural than the oils you put in your car. IF you want to live and eat healthy, stay on the outside of the supermarket, avoiding the aisles. All of the processed food is in the aisles, not on the outsides and the companies know that you don't want to miss anything. Make your food, don't let someone else do it. And never, ever buy popped popcorn, anywhere, the mark-up on that shit is insane.

Another problem with NDTs words in this video, he tells us that 50% of scientists believe in god/are religious, and this is somehow proof there is no contradiction, or that science does not lead to non-belief. But this is a laughable failure of statistical analysis by NDT. I think the 50% number seems quite high, like he has been using a really bad sift on who qualifies as scientist (is it anyone with a science degree on any level?) But fine, lets make it 50% of scientists in the US. The takeaway from that is that the number of religous is MUCH LOWER than in the general population.
T
he general population is like 85% religious. That means that if 100 people go get a science degree, 85 will be religious, and 35 of them will lose their faith on the way to becoming a scientist. That means that if you study science, and you are religious, theres a 40%
chance youll lose your faith along the way. (This doesnt take into account that many of the 15% non-religious are probably already scientists, so the general population number is probably even higher.)

If you make it all the way to the National Academy of Sciences, a whooping 78 out of the 85 will have lost their faith. Thats about as damning for the no-contradiction/conflict-hypothesis as you can get.

Its like arguing that most drunk drivers never actually crash, therefore alcohol-intake does not influence your driving skills.

Don't understand why you are asking that question? The video is the answer, and it's summarised for you in the description. The answer is that they were handed a piece of paper that did not have any current (at the time) American law on it - but were misled by someone into thinking that it was. I hope that's clear enough and i've highlighted it so you can see it easily.

Are you trying to make a point, or did you not get that from the seventeen different ways it was said in the video and description?

Additionally to that point, i strongly suspect that in the professional legal industry, mistakes like that simply do not happen by accident. They are at the very top some of the most important legal decisions being made in the entire world, and i'm supposed to believe that they accidentally overlooked something that had been decided over 30 years ago and entirely changed police policy? Whoops i just printed off a 30 year old law, and i thought it was the present day one? Do you think the members of the jury didn't think, "Hmmm, are you sure it's legal to shoot random people as long as they're running away? We don't see that very often anymore.... Odd!" And when they ask that they're told, "Well there's the law right there for ya, i'm as surprised as you but i won't double check the modernity of it!" Only to be told days before the decision that perhaps maybe parts of the second bit of the bit i gave you earlier might not be valid, but we don't want to get into technicalities here, don't worry about it.

It's fucking corrupt, someone's (more likely to be many people) pulled a fast one... but worse still, someone's pulled a fast one on a HUGELY important case and had the arrogance to think they'd get away with something that simple. When you think of the protests in Ferguson and many many people showing support, how could they be so flippant? It doesn't just point towards racism, it confirms every racist suspicion that you might have had about the American legal system. It's not a one-off when it happens at the very top of the pyramid, that's how the best of the legal eagles in America deals with the problem of a white policeman killing a black man.... it was his fault, he's bad, he deserved it.

They were right under the microscope here - are you racist? And what did they do? Surely this is evidence of a system that lets down black people, and therefore it urgently needs to be fixed... and what about past offenders? I'd be pretty angry, if i were a black American. It's not just a let down, it's a dupe.

Whoops *isdupe

Whoops. Sorry

I know exactly what this is like. I can't walk to the supermarket without obscene girls whooping and hollering at me from all directions.

I tell them I ain't no hollaback boy.

Whoops, well, for all the objectivism displayed here, it still looks to me like one side of the coin. Aside from the comments from the folks I have ignored on the sift, I don't see any criticism of the USA or very much criticism of Christianity. I don't really want to be that guy, but just remember that especially in the last decade our international reputation among countries on the receiving end of bombs has gone down the crapper. All of these "opinion polls" are trying to link Islam with anti-US sentiments and methods (eg. terrorism), when it's only demonstrating the correlation. Obviously if we bomb a predominantly Muslim country and innocents die, how do you think poll results would lean among Muslims in that country? How would your religious demographic feel if Russia bombed Manhattan and killed a dozen random citizens? What about if we had no Army, Navy, or Air Force, and these bombings happened every week?

Meanwhile, citing statistics from a website which has a clear agenda of being a hit-piece on Islam is a fucking ridiculous idea. Come on, guys. If that website lists 300 polls which emphasize their point, do you think they will include a reference to even one poll which disputes it? If they sifted through thousands of polls just to find those 300, would you still have statistical confidence in their results? I admit that the multitude of sources they pulled polls from is initially impressive, but the #1 goal of statistics is to eliminate bias, and that website is pure uncut bias.

Who could name it "Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel".

That would at least be easier to remember than "Malcolm Peter Brian Telescope Adrian Umbrella Stand Jasper Wednesday (pops mouth twice) Stoatgobbler John Raw Vegetable (whinnying) Arthur Norman Michael (blows squeaker) Featherstone Smith (whistle) Northcott Edwards Harris (fires pistol, then 'whoop') Mason (chuff-chuff-chuff-chuff) Frampton Jones Fruitbat Gilbert (sings) 'We'll keep a welcome in the' (three shots) Williams If I Could Walk That Way Jenkin (squeaker) Tiger-drawers Pratt Thompson (sings) 'Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head' Darcy Carter (horn) Pussycat (sings) 'Don't Sleep In The Subway' Barton Mainwaring (hoot, 'whoop') Smith"

whoops ... excellent point!