3 ms·
I'm cutting past the corporation talk and going straight to the premise. It's one that we need to reject. The article starts off with the premise that we are c
by clearlyclear 10y ago
I'm cutting past the corporation talk and going straight to the premise. It's one that we need to reject.
The article starts off with the premise that we are currently suffering a health crisis. This is insane. It's an extreme, hyper-negative point of view. We live in the safest times in all of human history. If you're not living in a shanty town without running water and suffering from dysentery, you're doing pretty well. If your sitting in your climate-controlled house in suburbia, sipping your soda thinking "Man, I'm killing myself with this sugary drink", you are choosing to be miserable. You have decided not to enjoy the wonderful world in which we live. You have decided to focus on an oblique health threat that starving humans through out history have dreamed about. Exporting that self-imposed misery to others is impolite at best if not pure evil.
With this kind of hyper-negative thinking, we could advance medicine to the point that we become immortal with eternally youthful regenerating bodies, but we would go hunting for a way for french fries and sodas to still be evil somehow. Like these things are some sort of modern day werewolf.
The premise is laughable at best. Dangerous at worst. It's neither sane nor healthy to think like this.
You mention civil war. The war here would boil down to the noble cause of killing people to protect us from the health threats of sugar. That's insane! We must reject this thinking.
- josinalvo 10y agoWeird response, to say the least. And from a green account. (takes off tinfoil hat) Now, what is laughable is this idea of corporations suing governments because of lost profits from legislation. Happened with cigarettes too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVe8wwNMh24 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVe8wwNMh24 As for the idea of civil war: obvious hyperbole is obvious. Democracy needs fixing, or much larger problems -- but if there is no fixing, corporate corruption might ensure the problems.
- dammitcoetzee 10y agoIt's practically modern culture to be negative about everything. When there are two equally probable outcomes I've noticed that people tend to lavish on the negative one to exclusion and treat people with positive outlooks as annoying, chipper, ignorant, or immature. It's odd. My theory is that positivity requires some claim of responsibility over the outcome while negatively allows one to divorce themselves from it.
- refurb 10y agoI also think it's human nature. Humans are always looking to better themselves. Take someone from 1900 and bring them to 2016. They would think they are living in paradise...for a while. Then they would get used to it and start thinking about everything that's wrong and how to fix it. Now, on the plus side it's that drive that improves the human condition. But it comes with a lot of negatives too.
- chillwaves 10y agoAnd how do you feel about people who "choose" to smoke? Even when doctors said it was safe?
- tdkl 10y agoI mentioned civil war because the people will see that the government who is supposed to be there for them is powerless. Combine that with the economic conditions (job shortages, which will even rise with automation), loss of middle class and higher taxes for pensions/welfare (add the uncontrolled immigration to the mix). The history has shown where all this ends.