Comments by "Ungoogleable o_O" (@oO_ox_O) on "McDonald's Hamburgers Won't Rot (PHOTOS)" video.

  1. Way to misunderstand the "chemicals" argument people were making, it was generally about the definition of a "chemical" which encompasses everything and in case you mean "artificial" chemical then there is the issue of not being about to clear-cut decide what is "artificial" and what not (not to mention that this alone won't make it better or worse).
    3
  2. They don't?
    1
  3. CzarTissue That's how you are trying to make your case? :->
    1
  4. Silverizael > And not even the chemicals he's been discussing, In that case he should clear up which ones he is talking about. > as science has long proven that they are perfectly fine. What's "percetly fine"? Sugar can kill you just as well as salt given the right amount and too much salt in foods can be a problem even if salt might be considered "natural" by some…
    1
  5. ***** How nasty do you consider it? Comparatively?
    1
  6. Rubin Report But you would have the same issue with other salty stuff like grandma's bacon and this case they didn't use just salt back then but curing salts which are much more problematic.
    1
  7. Martin Armenta crispbread?
    1
  8. taxiuniversum It's not about misunderstanding, it's about making the world a better place by teaching people to use words properly. ;) Besides, even if he had said "artificial chemicals" we would need to elaborate further what he considers "artificial" in order to have a good discussion. > emulsifiers > enzymes Like eggs? Milk? > anti-caking agents In a muffin? Anyways, quartz won't harm you chemically. > sweeteners Like sucrose, glucose, fructose? Maybe a sirup of fructose and glucose like, you know, honey? (where you also find "enzymes")  > colors Like saffron? > gelling agents Like starch, pectin or gelatin? > preservatives Like salt? > _in short, "chemicals" In short: scary names which all could be not possibly worse than DHMO (which kills people and is found everywhere). > U.S. internet trolls. Huh?
    1
  9. taxiuniversum > has only chemical colors There you using that word again without defining it properly, we can't have a discussion that way because you could e.g. move the goalpost by modifying what you mean by that world whenever I show you an example where something isn't harmful to you. > See GMO´s  [sic]  _for instance._ What I see is another example for a dumb word that is in use, at least it's better defined but by following the words alone one could assume that the act of "genetical modification" includes simple culturing and crossbreeding. > Here a list of the worst crap in food additives Interesting, but that's a different discussion from this. Words are either to be used properly or clearly defined beforehand if one wants to have a serious discussion, you wouldn't write a scientific paper and using "chemicals" in such a casual way.
    1
  10. taxiuniversum  > Yea what you are doing is nitpicking It serves a purpose to have a better discussion, like I mentioned to prevent goal post moving. > "But hey - `laboratory´ is too broad a term - isn´t the whole Universe one giant laboratory?" Heh. But seriously now, why would it matter if something was made in a laboratory? Truth might be, it sounds spooky, it might affect people emotionally, but do you want an emotional or a rational discussion?
    1
  11. taxiuniversum > As to GMO´s [sic]: They cause cancer, at least in tests on animals. All do or some do? Is it inherently because the process by which GMOs are created? See, what if I told you: "Halogens are dangerous, you inhale Fluorine or Chlorine and you're dead as can be proven in tests" would you then drop all salt and iodine? (hopefully not) > created by a mafia-like corporation Guilt by association… > Of course lab-created substances must not be dangerous to health - many modern medicines can only get created in labs, and save millions of lives. Do I have ANY problem with that? Most certainly not. Then don't try to use "lab-created" as an argument. > Decent producers, who use raw ingredients of a high quality can produce fruit juice without any ascorbic acid. Or they simply use fruits with more citric acid, because AFAIK that's an even better preservative
    1
  12. taxiuniversum  > as logic dictates that by definition NONE of their products can be trusted Interesting logic… > Or do you think they are just criminal and deceptive about some of their products Could very well be. Hitler built highways and was vegetarian, I have nothing against either, see why the guilt by association fallacy is problematic?
    1
  13. > You all know what happened with McD's. It started to rot as well (except the fries I believe), watch the video again. The reason in that case was that the liquid was preserved unlike in the 14-years case were it got removed.
    1
  14. Makes sense, I bet also there's a larger profit margin.
    1
  15. Both under same conditions? Not in a way where the one could dry up faster than the other?
    1
  16. For bacteria that is. We don't have that much of an issue with quite salty/sugary stuff (if we drink enough). What do you think of honey?
    1