Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

My mother recently brought up this conspiracy theory, and I took 2 minutes of my life to debunk it it along with the MSG conspiracy theory, the fluoride conspiracy theory and some others. Apartame? More like, "Uhh... Spare me." How do people believe in any of this for a second, when the site they got the information off of has been around for years, and still hasn't been taken down by the illuminat; the host of the website must be a real legend to fight against the ghosts of the government.

I don't think aspartame or fluoride are mind control devices, but I'm p. sure fluoride in water is processed industrial waste and that both are p. toxic to the body

At 3/13/14 02:40 PM, Insanctuary wrote: How do people believe in any of this for a second, when the site they got the information off of has been around for years, and still hasn't been taken down by the illuminat; the host of the website must be a real legend to fight against the ghosts of the government.

You know what's worse than conspiracy theorists( like myself)? People coming up with stupid debunking theories and giving us the impression of being "awake among sheep" and "warriors against ignorance".
You are seriously making it worse. Just turn a blind on these theories or keep your ideas for yourself.

At 3/13/14 02:47 PM, Spedmallet wrote: I don't think aspartame or fluoride are mind control devices, but I'm p. sure fluoride in water is processed industrial waste and that both are p. toxic to the body

They do dump waste into our water channels, yes. It's clearly not keeping people from living up to 100, today. Therefore it must not be enough to be detrimental to our health. We come across more body threats in natural experience than in unnatural experiences.

At 3/13/14 02:56 PM, Insanctuary wrote: They do dump waste into our water channels, yes. It's clearly not keeping people from living up to 100, today. Therefore it must not be enough to be detrimental to our health. We come across more body threats in natural experience than in unnatural experiences.

No I'm not doing this insanctuary

no

At 3/13/14 03:05 PM, Iheartaliens wrote: Sugar is healthier.

You are implying the distinction between artificial sugar and sugar cane, yes?

At 3/13/14 03:03 PM, Elitistinen wrote: You mean the video where they talk about 'The American Parasite'?

There is a variety of this conspiracy theory. Like for any other conspiracy theory. It's the adverse effect as a result of not being able to keep the lie tucked in neatly, so in turn it is passed on from person to person and is mutated into more nonsense than its originated form.

At 3/13/14 02:56 PM, SubparTony wrote: You know what's worse than conspiracy theorists( like myself)? People coming up with stupid debunking theories and giving us the impression of being "awake among sheep" and "warriors against ignorance".
You are seriously making it worse. Just turn a blind on these theories or keep your ideas for yourself.

It's not a matter of better or worse; it's a matter of how easily people are drawn into these theories without thinking about very common ways to challenge it, such as "if the illuminati did not want any of this to be known, and have gone as far as to kill off people by making it look like a freak accident, then why are the secrets still uploaded on a youtube channel after years of being uploaded?" It's that simple.

Remember, it's not about being better or worse. It's about information, and how that information ridicules itself. I don't have to do the ridiculing at all, it's that simple.

I came to this thread to read:

"What was the conspiracy theory involving aspartame, exactly"

and

"How was it debunked"

and I got neither. Instead of good or bad information, I got implied information and vagueness. That makes me brush off the whole thing, and completely forget about it.

At 3/13/14 03:15 PM, Insanctuary wrote: It's not a matter of better or worse; it's a matter of how easily people are drawn into these theories without thinking about very common ways to challenge it, such as "if the illuminati did not want any of this to be known, and have gone as far as to kill off people by making it look like a freak accident, then why are the secrets still uploaded on a youtube channel after years of being uploaded?" It's that simple.

In about 30 seconds of thinking I came up with this:
Seeing that people are seeking the truth are becoming more and more, illuminatis planted the idea of conspiracy theories being ridiculous in people's minds through their great power with medias and started letting people preach whatever they wanted by secretly spreading false debunking theories or ridiculing conspiracy theorists or even spreading their own ridiculous conspiracy theories to make the real ones sound laughable. And thus they passed on us the term "conspiracy theory" as something funny and negative, leaving us in the prison we build ourselves.

See, piece of cake. However, I don't really believe in illuminati ct, but as I said the fact you are trying to debunk a theory with another one that can be ruined as easily as yours, IS making the situation even worse. If you want to sound samrt, take another 5 minutes from your life and find a decent explanation against what you believe to be stupid.

i use thing it was bad but i still stand my ground on it thats is bad for people heath.

At 3/13/14 03:38 PM, kazumazkan wrote: i use thing it was bad but i still stand my ground on it thats is bad for people heath.

If it's bad, then explain why people die from natural causes more than unnatural causes.

At 3/13/14 03:37 PM, SubparTony wrote: Seeing that people are seeking the truth are becoming more and more, illuminatis planted the idea of conspiracy theories being ridiculous in people's minds through their great power with medias and started letting people preach whatever they wanted by secretly spreading false debunking theories or ridiculing conspiracy theorists or even spreading their own ridiculous conspiracy theories to make the real ones sound laughable. And thus they passed on us the term "conspiracy theory" as something funny and negative, leaving us in the prison we build ourselves.

Notice how in this "thought-out" paragraph, you're referring to the "illuminati" in first-person.

See, piece of cake. However, I don't really believe in illuminati ct, but as I said the fact you are trying to debunk a theory with another one that can be ruined as easily as yours, IS making the situation even worse. If you want to sound samrt, take another 5 minutes from your life and find a decent explanation against what you believe to be stupid.

It really wasn't a piece of cake, because it's not new that lies can be gish-galloped. It's a general rule that to truly argue a conspiracy theory, is to not look into its eyes, and slay its non-existent heart with your non-existent gullibility sword.

At 3/13/14 03:36 PM, Phobotech wrote: and I got neither. Instead of good or bad information, I got implied information and vagueness. That makes me brush off the whole thing, and completely forget about it.

It's funny, because when I write a wall of text on the behalf of what you sought for, you then want a Tl;Dr, and end up not reading it in full anyways.

At 3/13/14 04:06 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 3/13/14 03:37 PM, SubparTony wrote:

And thus they passed on us the term "conspiracy theory"
Notice how in this "thought-out" paragraph, you're referring to the "illuminati" in first-person.

No I don't. That's the only part I suse 1st person and still don't think it sounds like that. But if it does , it's probably a bad use of English from a foreigner.
And even if I did referred to illuminati in first person, what would be your point?

See, piece of cake. However, I don't really believe in illuminati ct, but as I said the fact you are trying to debunk a theory with another one that can be ruined as easily as yours, IS making the situation even worse. If you want to sound samrt, take another 5 minutes from your life and find a decent explanation against what you believe to be stupid.

It really wasn't a piece of cake, because it's not new that lies can be gish-galloped. It's a general rule that to truly argue a conspiracy theory, is to not look into its eyes, and slay its non-existent heart with your non-existent gullibility sword.

ok? Can't really tell if you're actually trying to say something or to sound fancy there.

Sorry for insisting so much but I happen to have way too much time in my hands right now and I can't decide what to do. I will prolly read a book

Aspartame products should be marketed as products for diabetics and others with issue processing natural sugar. Consumption of aspartame by otherwise healthy people leads to unnecessary health issues.

And regarding fluoride theories:
Fluoride is not mind control as you think it is. It can interfere with brain function in the sense that it can make you dumber, and that effect is permanent if you take large amounts of fluoride during your developmental years. It is arguable that the decrease in overall intelligence of the people during childhood is a result of exposure to high amounts of fluoride in toothpaste and drinking water, among other similar apparently 'health-beneficial' chemicals.

At 3/13/14 04:26 PM, Elitistinen wrote: Sugar is actually a kind of stimulant. It accelerates your brain functionality, just like caffeine or MDMA. I know this because I used to befriend with a bloke who mixed drugs with sugar. So the mind control part is probably from here.

What type of sugar? Sugar cane, or artificial sugar?

At 3/13/14 04:22 PM, Lemonardo wrote: Aspartame products should be marketed as products for diabetics and others with issue processing natural sugar. Consumption of aspartame by otherwise healthy people leads to unnecessary health issues.

It's not specifically for diabetics. It's just another ingredient that hasn't been harming anyone as much as people want to believe and is accused of being like some of the other things put into our food: check out that ingredient which is used for lighter fluid in McDonald's food. If it was so harmful, could you explain why there's no sure sign of correlation between aspartame and what people are experiencing? The body is ingenious at preserving itself and protecting itself, so I highly doubt that some artificial source is going to shit on its grill.

Fluoride is not mind control as you think it is. It can interfere with brain function in the sense that it can make you dumber, and that effect is permanent if you take large amounts of fluoride during your developmental years. It is arguable that the decrease in overall intelligence of the people during childhood is a result of exposure to high amounts of fluoride in toothpaste and drinking water, among other similar apparently 'health-beneficial' chemicals.

Actually the conspiracy theory based on fluoride attempts to take us back to the Nazi days, where in the fluoride was used to dumb us down "for easy mind control". They literally use "mind control". By the way, people were stupid before fluoride. It's not in the toothpaste. It's in the person thinking it's in the toothpaste, when it's so easy to look at our problems now and blame things for it, rather than blame things before the problems happen.

At 3/13/14 04:22 PM, SubparTony wrote: No I don't. That's the only part I suse 1st person and still don't think it sounds like that. But if it does , it's probably a bad use of English from a foreigner.

You wrote it as if you were the mind of the illuminati, much like the child that believes in the monster in their closet sure knows a lot about it.

And even if I did referred to illuminati in first person, what would be your point?

The point would be that you could not possibly know that much about the illuminati to make a scenario like that. It's too sure of itself, and confident, which tells me this paragraph was easily written by imagination and not based on the illuminati.

ok? Can't really tell if you're actually trying to say something or to sound fancy there.

It took me 2 seconds to realize you were communicating it via first-person.

Sorry for insisting so much but I happen to have way too much time in my hands right now and I can't decide what to do. I will prolly read a book

I don't know what time is; it weaves through my fingers.

At 3/13/14 04:09 PM, Painbringer wrote: Drink diet pop everyday and you will become a cripple.

It's in non-diet beverages like soft drinks, juices, that sort of stuff. If it was really that bad, you'd see indications of it globally, but you don't, therefore scare tactics are poor tactics.

At 3/13/14 04:40 PM, Insanctuary wrote: The body is ingenious at preserving itself and protecting itself, so I highly doubt that some artificial source is going to shit on its grill.

This is seriously the most retarded thing I have ever read.

At 3/13/14 04:44 PM, Lemonardo wrote: This is seriously the most retarded thing I have ever read.

And yet, it's true. I suppose we both have solved the mystery behind important speeches and brilliant influences having 30,000 views compared to, say, 150,000,000 views for some pointless video. Or why we pick people that are wild and prone to damaging us as a person rather than pick people that are tame and beneficial to ourselves.

At 3/13/14 05:44 PM, Cyberdevil wrote: When they introduced Aspartame they banned Stevia in some countries. Took a few years before the authorities realized the corporations were just greedy gobs of gibberish-spouting yappersnappers and made Stevia legal again. We never needed Aspartame in the first place.

There are a lot of things we don't need (sex), but look at how often it defines our pale-blue-dot-whoring lives.

from Psuedophilosopher to Conspiracy dubunker.

At 3/13/14 06:08 PM, kisame wrote: from Psuedophilosopher to Conspiracy dubunker.

You do know that philosophy is pseudo, in itself, right? When we think and gather information from it, it's not "our" information, so it's not like I am becoming anything whilst processing this information. Therefore "pseudo-philosopher" being used generally entails who is -- as you are meaning -- "philosophical based on false pretenses".

At 3/13/14 06:03 PM, Cyberdevil wrote: But without sex we wouldn't exist! Sex is like Stevia, sugar, etc - it's natural. Aspartame is like artificial insemination, it's just not the same thing.

That's procreation. Sex is something different, much like acknowledging we have holes and having the audacity to plug up those holes with whatever the hell we wish without any thoughts on repercussion. Sex is based on psychical disillusion, and mental issues, while procreation is based on natural drive. Leave it to sex to be dominated by chemicals and emotions; it tried to be a trooper, but failed (I'm using it again).

At 3/13/14 06:18 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 3/13/14 06:08 PM, kisame wrote: from Psuedophilosopher to Conspiracy dubunker.

You do know that philosophy is pseudo, in itself, right? When we think and gather information from it, it's not "our" information, so it's not like I am becoming anything whilst processing this information. Therefore "pseudo-philosopher" being used generally entails who is -- as you are meaning -- "philosophical based on false pretenses".

Please no stop giving people such a bad impression of us. You are your own kind of ridiculous, Insanctuary. Own it.

At 3/13/14 07:58 PM, AxTekk wrote:

Please no stop giving people such a bad impression of us. You are your own kind of ridiculous, Insanctuary. Own it.

I can't own anything. Nobody can. All questions which regard "to own", demonstrate that we cannot "own" the very thing which we use to "apparently own", therefore all that is "to own" is what we only "apparently owned".

lol duplicates

At 3/13/14 03:15 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 3/13/14 03:05 PM, Iheartaliens wrote: Sugar is healthier.

You are implying the distinction between artificial sugar and sugar cane, yes?

Sugar is sugar, your body doesn't know the fucking difference and doesn't process it any differently. Whoever told you it was healthier is a complete moron. Sugar is bad for you PERIOD. Fruits have benefit but still have to be eaten in moderation because of the insane high sugar content. You can still get diabetes from eating too much fruit.

The more you know .

At 3/13/14 08:48 PM, Shauna wrote: Sugar is sugar, your body doesn't know the fucking difference and doesn't process it any differently. Whoever told you it was healthier is a complete moron. Sugar is bad for you PERIOD. Fruits have benefit but still have to be eaten in moderation because of the insane high sugar content. You can still get diabetes from eating too much fruit.

The more you know .

Hate to burst your bubble, dear. But... too much of anything causes chemical fissures. Sugar cane is certainly healthier than artificial sugar (simply because sugar cane is, well, natural). They both hurt us in large amounts, but only one can be given the privilege to surf through our bodies genuinely, much like how the one sperm is given the privilege to become life within a fetus.

At 3/13/14 08:27 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I can't own anything. Nobody can. All questions which regard "to own", demonstrate that we cannot "own" the very thing which we use to "apparently own", therefore all that is "to own" is what we only "apparently owned".

Seriously, was it not clear that I wasn't using that word like that? That you would reply as you did is just you though. Wouldn't be ng with out it anymore.