|
ratbert90 posted:I don't think it's a conspiracy, I think it's pretty blatantly clear that listing a can of coke at 120% of your daily value of sugar would make coke upset. It would make scientists upset too, because that's not supported by the scientific evidence.
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
fishmech posted:It would make scientists upset too, because that's not supported by the scientific evidence. You could watch any number of the reports on it, from John Oliver to multiple documentaries to the AHA and WHO itself, or you can keep spouting off your ignorance. There's no scientific evidence!* Ignores all scientific evidence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
fuckin juice make coke seem good to ade the goyim fat and easy to kill the knwo
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:I don't think it's a conspiracy, I think it's pretty blatantly clear that listing a can of coke at 120% of your daily value of sugar would make coke upset. ratbert90 posted:What's even worse is we have no percentage of daily value on sugar on our labels thanks to sugar lobbyists. It's crazy how much sugar we dump into everything. You posted that Big Sugar is suppressing a Daily Value of Sugar on food labels. Full stop, that's a conspiracy theory: what you posted is a conjectural idea that doesn't really make much sense. In the specific case of Coke, Coke likely doesn't give a poo poo about a %DV Sugar label because A) everyone already knows that a can of Coke is very very sugary (public perception + the value in grams is already on the nutrition label), B) Coke's consumer market is mostly made up of people who don't read nutrition labels anyway (the average person doesn't, in fact), and C) Coke sells tons of low-sugar and sugar-free products you goony dumbfuck Coincidentally, the FDA is considering adding a %DV for "added sugar" for packaged foods, "based on the recommendation that the daily intake of calories from added sugars not exceed 10 percent of total calories." They've proposed a new label that would include this and a few other changes:  Based on these guidelines, a can of coke would have a %DV of Added Sugar of 78% (39g of sugar). I have no idea where you got your 120% value
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
What they should be forced to do is list the values of the whole of the container rather than that of the individual servings. Listing both would be fine, but they really should have to list the whole calorie count of a bag of chips when we all know your average customer is eating the whole god drat bag.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:What they should be forced to do is list the values of the whole of the container rather than that of the individual servings. Listing both would be fine, but they really should have to list the whole calorie count of a bag of chips when we all know your average customer is eating the whole god drat bag. Every few years they revamp the nutritional facts label and pledge to have "realistic serving sizes". I remember when the current format came out, for a year or two it was great—you'd get the numbers for an entire bag of chips, an entire bottle of soda, etc. But then gradually it crept back to these silly "2.5 servings in this pop-tart" kinds of portions, as it will always do
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:What they should be forced to do is list the values of the whole of the container rather than that of the individual servings. Listing both would be fine, but they really should have to list the whole calorie count of a bag of chips when we all know your average customer is eating the whole god drat bag. And a bowl of cereal isn't 3/4 a measuring cup's worth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
The average American has no idea how much a gram is. If they read how many teaspoons of sugar they are eating, then they can at least acknowledge how much they eat (assuming they're a rare American who reads the nutrition info).
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:What they should be forced to do is list the values of the whole of the container rather than that of the individual servings. Listing both would be fine, but they really should have to list the whole calorie count of a bag of chips when we all know your average customer is eating the whole god drat bag. Coincidentally, the serving size of a coke is one can, according to the nutrition label. For that matter, most of what I eat has pretty realistic serving sizes printed on them (I don't eat pop-tarts I guess) Pastor Perineum posted:The average American has no idea how much a gram is. If they read how many teaspoons of sugar they are eating, then they can at least acknowledge how much they eat (assuming they're a rare American who reads the nutrition info). It's in grams because that's the unit that actually matters for nutrition. A gram of sugar and a gram of corn syrup are roughly the same nutritionally, but their densities are different by about 15% (table sugar is denser), so using volume units wouldn't be so useful. Besides, most Americans don't know intuitively know what a teaspoon of sugar looks like, either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Coincidentally, the serving size of a coke is one can, according to the nutrition label. For that matter, most of what I eat has pretty realistic serving sizes printed on them (I don't eat pop-tarts I guess) You interested me enough to look up the serving size of 2 liter bottles, and they don't match up with the cans. The bottles say 100 cal per serving with 8 servings and the cans say 140 at 1 with 1 serving. Interesting that they feel can is too much for you yet is do not list the can as more than one serving. Fake edit: And now I find bottles saying 140 a serving with 6 servings which makes more sense, so obviously I am getting my info from different times or places. I quit soda years ago so have none on hand for a modern look.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:You could watch any number of the reports on it, from John Oliver to multiple documentaries to the AHA and WHO itself, or you can keep spouting off your ignorance. A TV comedy show and some loose recommendations by two organizations (who don't claim to actually know a correct value but just threw them out there as suggestions that might be nice) are not scientific evidence that there's a known specific daily value that should be on the label. Get that through your head.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
I kinda like that I managed to break myself of my at least once a day coke habit. Though I did pay attention to the caloric intake on coke and other pops. Funny thing, coke is actually on the low end of the sugar/calories scale for pop. I think Orange and sprite/7up were some of the worst, and root beer one of the better ones. Still not great, but if you have the choice. I'll still get it when eating out, which i don't do very much, but its a nice treat. I do think its funny when people say "oh i don't drink pop, that's bad for you" and then drinks energy drinks and ice tea like they were going out of style. Energy drinks are way worse, but somehow people think they're healthy because they are associated with athletes and UFC fighters. Same thing with ice tea, people think its healthy because its just cold tea right? Hah, I've never seen a canned/bottled iced tea that isn't half sugar. I have and made iced tea that was cold tea thats sweetened by fruit, and its excellent. Anyways, it always comes up when some ALL NATURAL ORGANIC NON GLUETEN FREE jerkface is talking about food that the unenlightened ravenous masses consume mindlessly that Monsanto is intentionally poisoning everyone to kill us, but what the gently caress is the point of that? The whole "they're trying to kill us!" comes up all the time with CTs, and it confuses me. Why do they want to kill everyone? If everyone but the elites are dead, then who does all the poo poo work? Oh yes, their household staffs will be saved, but your gardeners can't maintain a farm, ranches, orchards, fisheries and all the stuff and provides you with food. Without a hoard of workers there's no one to maintain your luxury lifestyle. Insert Tom the Dancing Bug Atlas Shrugged comic here. I did see one of these folks say that "the elites all have good untainted food!" but isn't that what they're eating? So they're oblivious to the fact that their fancy healthy eating is pretty much unattainable to a lot of people, which actually makes them the elites. I seriously have never see a health food advocate who wasn't extremely well off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
Good tea (iced or otherwise) doesn't need sugar anyway, and neither does good coffee 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Good tea (iced or otherwise) doesn't need sugar anyway, and neither does good coffee This is true. Seriously, people mistake sweet tea for iced tea. Sweet Tea is some Southern abomination because they all gotta be fat as gently caress down there for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
They believe a black person should only be 3/5 the mass of a white one?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
Morkies posted:Imo there are real conspiracies and that's why people mock "conspiracy theories" so much. My beef is showing conspiracy theorists true blue, decades long plots and they just don't give a gently caress because it's - my guess- not sexy or fantastical enough. A lot seem to cling to poo poo you can't prove 100%, even in their favor. It's backwards, but many act (and have acted) like their life, self-worth, and self-esteem depends on it. How the gently caress do you level with that? We live in possibly the most video-taped point in history but the denier rhetoric seems triple on every front. There's mental gymnastics and then there's whatever the hell Sandy Hook crisis-actor level stuff is. Lizard men just seem cute. 20 children actually died. gently caress, we can't even get people to acknowledge millions in the Holocaust and various other genocides. Are numbers just too much sometimes for some people? E: formatting Armani fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
Armani posted:My beef is showing conspiracy theorists true blue, decades long plots and they just don't give a gently caress because it's - my guess- not sexy or fantastical enough. They seem to cling to poo poo you can't prove, like their life depends on it. Perhaps their self-worth and self-esteem, too. it's in some part arrogance, people just can't accept reality sometimes and would rather reject it and substitute their own the most interesting part of 'crisis actor' mythology to me is where do you draw the line. it just seems like a dangerous leap over paranoid solipsism. so if some random perfectly plausible shooting was staged just to trick the masses, how do you know that any random other thing isn't staged? national elections? any other non-violent global news? how do you know your friends aren't crisis actors out to fool you? how do you know your parents aren't on the CIA payroll in a decades long attempt to brainwash you? once you start questioning basic daily events as an illuminati plot you start watching the mailman through your blinds and it's strange how people seem to find their own personal threshold for which events are obviously fake compared to others being obviously real
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it's in some part arrogance, people just can't accept reality sometimes and would rather reject it and substitute their own We all live in our own Truman show dontcha know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Coincidentally, the serving size of a coke is one can, according to the nutrition label. For that matter, most of what I eat has pretty realistic serving sizes printed on them (I don't eat pop-tarts I guess) I was eating a poptart as I read this, so I checked and it lists a serving size as the entire packet (two poptarts).
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Welp, time for me to get a new strawman example 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
You should use a 20oz soda, this one is listed as 2.5 servings which just seems weird to me. I mean you know that whoever buys a 20oz is probably just going to drink the whole thing anyway, but even if you believe they'll split it or save some, dealing with partial portions seems sloppy. There's probably some benefit to standardized portions to let people compare more easily between options, but it only works if you are comparing amounts people actually consume.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
There's a bunch of lovely noodle bowls and other freeze dried ramen products that are "two servings". There's a ridiculous amount of calories in those noodle blocks, but it's not like people are normally going to split the thing in half including the flavoring.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Thing is though, the serving sizes issue is not a conspiracy, it's the groups concerned, legally lobbying, maneuvering, and politicking to keep the rules favorable to them. If there is an issue with sugar separate from carbs the conspiracy would not be in obfuscating the daily value of sugar as separated from carbs on the packaging, it would be in some kind of dedicated campaign to keep the negative health effects from being public, like what the cigarette companies did for so long. Is there a dedicated sugar is good for you campaign?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Welp, time for me to get a new strawman example Yeah a bunch of companies have switched to more sensible sizes for packaged things, shame it took so freaking long to do though. Ashcans posted:You should use a 20oz soda, this one is listed as 2.5 servings which just seems weird to me. I mean you know that whoever buys a 20oz is probably just going to drink the whole thing anyway, but even if you believe they'll split it or save some, dealing with partial portions seems sloppy. There's probably some benefit to standardized portions to let people compare more easily between options, but it only works if you are comparing amounts people actually consume. Yeah but if you're buying it from the coke or pepsi companies, they have that separate front label saying the calories/sugar/sometimes sodium for the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
The solution to food labelling serving sizes is to mandate a per 100g (or some other universal size) label as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
katlington posted:The solution to food labelling serving sizes is to mandate a per 100g (or some other universal size) label as well. Er, you realize we already have the standard sizes for types of food, and the disconnect between that and the actual container is the issue? Unless you're asking to have a third point for measurement which seems even more unwieldy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Also Jesus' actual name in his native language was essentially Joshua (Yeshua), Jesus just being a several layers deep re-transliteration. So the savior of mankind is a guy named Josh. A post I saw before goes one further. "Christ" means "Anointed." Really, a modern translation for Jesus Christ should be Oily Josh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:There's a bunch of lovely noodle bowls and other freeze dried ramen products that are "two servings". There's a ridiculous amount of calories in those noodle blocks, but it's not like people are normally going to split the thing in half including the flavoring. The packet can serve you plus one other person. Of course that means that the product is not really designed for goons in mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:A post I saw before goes one further. "Christ" means "Anointed." Really, a modern translation for Jesus Christ should be Oily Josh. I can't decide whether that's a gay porn star name or a comedy name for a fat goony sitcom character.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 10:34
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:I can't decide whether that's a gay porn star name or a comedy name for a fat goony sitcom character. How about a fat goony sitcom character who moonlights as a gay porn star?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
The Larch posted:How about a fat goony sitcom character who moonlights as a gay porn star? A fat goony sitcom character having sex with anyone would destroy my suspension of disbelief.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it's in some part arrogance, people just can't accept reality sometimes and would rather reject it and substitute their own I'd like to do an actual breakdown of a hoax to get a chart up for just how many crisis actors would have to be involved. I mean if you going full hoax, nobody died, greenscreens etc, you very quickly get up into the 1000s. Emergency personal, neighbours, coroners, newspapers, eye witnesses, family members. I've tried so many times but you will never get an answer from a Hoaxer to the question. Why plan this elaborate hoax when you could just shoot a load of people? edit: oh and stop talking about loving carbs
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:I'd like to do an actual breakdown of a hoax to get a chart up for just how many crisis actors would have to be involved. I mean if you going full hoax, nobody died, greenscreens etc, you very quickly get up into the 1000s. Emergency personal, neighbours, coroners, newspapers, eye witnesses, family members. Again: there's a very high correlation between "takes crisis actors seriously" and "literally has a brain problem where they can't tell people apart and are blind to facial details". People without that, tend to just talk about false flags, so all the illuminati or the new world order or whatever has to do is train a guy to do an attack, so there only needs to be 1 or 2 people in the immediate area who know it was done under false pretenses. Meanwhile, the "literally all of it was staged people" have a hard enough time telling people in their office or whatever apart, so it's hopeless for them to be able to reliably tell apart the random white people who tend to be in news coverage of an event in America. Someone else like them says "look they're just actors" and shows them pictures that "prove it" to people who suck at face recognition, and more often than not this will result in belief.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
I just can't comprehend the mental gymnastics it takes to believe that your government is evil enough to stage mass shootings and terror attacks to take away your freedoms, but for some reason draws the line at actually killing people.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Skinty McEdger posted:I just can't comprehend the mental gymnastics it takes to believe that your government is evil enough to stage mass shootings and terror attacks to take away your freedoms, but for some reason draws the line at actually killing people. You have to understand that most don't come up with it on their own, they get told about this by others. For most people, since we can drat well see that nobody looks remotely similar between the events that are supposed to be done by the same "Crisis actors" we immediately go "nope that's dumb". But the prosopagnosia sufferers, any of them that were already leaning a bit towards a conspiratorial mindset can easily believe that there are consistent crisis actors between events, and therefore the events are either fake entirely or real but overblown using the actors to help the illuminati or whatever. As to why people who actually can tell faces apart sign on? Maybe they're just so deep into conspiracist poo poo to begin with that they'll accept anything as true if the government says it ain't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
fishmech posted:As to why people who actually can tell faces apart sign on? Maybe they're just so deep into conspiracist poo poo to begin with that they'll accept anything as true if the government says it ain't. If you're told so, you'll believe so. They get told "Look, they're identical! They have the same ears!" And that conditions them to believe that they're the same person. Any lack of similarity can be explained away as makeup, lighting, camera angles, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:I'd like to do an actual breakdown of a hoax to get a chart up for just how many crisis actors would have to be involved. I mean if you going full hoax, nobody died, greenscreens etc, you very quickly get up into the 1000s. Emergency personal, neighbours, coroners, newspapers, eye witnesses, family members. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5muY64Oyp10
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:If you're told so, you'll believe so. They get told "Look, they're identical! They have the same ears!" And that conditions them to believe that they're the same person. Any lack of similarity can be explained away as makeup, lighting, camera angles, etc. No. Most people reject the crisis actor thing, even if they believe other conspiracy theory stuff, because the supposed actors don't look similar at all. You sure you ain't just a little bit faceblind yourself?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
That's just what they want you to think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
Prosopagnosia is just a tool by the illuminati to discredit the few true believers (tm) that can actually make the connections. Everyone else is just a sheep, taking what they've been told and ignoring the obvious similarities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 15:43
|
|
