4 ms·

If nike knowingly sold products they engineered to drive running addiction then yes they would be liable.

foota 8y ago
There shouldn't be any difference between someone selling something knowingly addictive like cigarettes and intentionally making something addictive imo.
- master-litty 8y ago
  Adding sugar to cake, then?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - foota 8y ago
    I'm saying that if we allow companies to sell cigarettes then it's silly to not allow other forms of additions to be sold.
FLUX-YOU 8y ago
If a study later comes out showing that they weren't actually addictive, what happens then? What happens if the initial study showing it was addictive was actually fraudulent because someone (who might now be dead) just hated Nike?
- EdgarVerona 8y ago
  Are you saying that we shouldn't act on scientific research based on the possibility that the research will be disproven in the future? Or on the possibility that the research was done in less-than-good-faith? The latter would require the burden of proof, and the former seems pretty untenable/unreasonable. But all that aside, let's talk big picture: does it really matter whether something ends up actually being clinically proven to be addictive if a company is taking action with the intent of making a product more addictive? Let's say, for example, that I put a substance that I believe to be addictive into some new sports drink that I manufacture for the purpose of getting my users "hooked" on the product. What does it say about me, my intent, and the purpose of my product - even if it's discovered at some later date that the substance wasn't actually addictive all along? All of that being said, this issue is a complicated one: the very question of what it means for something to be "entertaining" versus "addictive" is one hell of a deep question, and I think one that we're going to continue to evolve in our understanding of as a species as time goes on... and perhaps it's even something where the line is different for different people, or even the same person when in different moods/circumstances. But I do think that it's both worth it to examine intent when thinking about whether a company is doing something "wrong" or "right," and I don't think it makes sense to dismiss scientific evidence without probable cause for doubt.
closeparen 8y ago
Imagine if an organization recruited children to running-centric lifestyles to the point that it consumed their afternoons and weekends, dominated their social lives, threatened their academic performance, and routinely imparted injuries requiring long-term care by an associated cottage medical industry. I bet they'd be sued into the ground. Oh wait. That's every high school athletics program.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jumpman500 8y ago
  Imagine if a majority of children actually participated in these athletic programs. Committed to physical fitness, had social lives with teammates and didn't have health problems because they were over weight. Oh wait. Basically every first world country has an obesity epidemic.
  - mrep 8y ago
    Anecdote, but a lot of the kids that did sports all through my high school stopped playing when they went to college and gained weight from what I guess was based on their passed eating habits with high activity. However, the ones who didn't do sports all through high school mostly lost weight. I'm not sure what the overall implications are of school athletic programs but I definitely don't think it is as black and white as you make it out to be.
    - qplex 8y ago
      In my opinion school gym/sport classes can be very good at completely sucking the living joy out of exercise. Athleticism and sports should not be forced on kids. Let them run freely. Eg. Just look at all the "free" street sports such skateboarding, rollerblading, bmx, parkour and so on. It doesn't have to be dull, boring and super formalized.
      - mrep 8y ago

There shouldn't be any difference between someone selling something knowingly addictive like cigarettes and intentionally making something addictive imo.

master-litty 8y ago
Adding sugar to cake, then?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- foota 8y ago
  I'm saying that if we allow companies to sell cigarettes then it's silly to not allow other forms of additions to be sold.

FLUX-YOU 8y ago

If a study later comes out showing that they weren't actually addictive, what happens then? What happens if the initial study showing it was addictive was actually fraudulent because someone (who might now be dead) just hated Nike?

EdgarVerona 8y ago
Are you saying that we shouldn't act on scientific research based on the possibility that the research will be disproven in the future? Or on the possibility that the research was done in less-than-good-faith? The latter would require the burden of proof, and the former seems pretty untenable/unreasonable. But all that aside, let's talk big picture: does it really matter whether something ends up actually being clinically proven to be addictive if a company is taking action with the intent of making a product more addictive? Let's say, for example, that I put a substance that I believe to be addictive into some new sports drink that I manufacture for the purpose of getting my users "hooked" on the product. What does it say about me, my intent, and the purpose of my product - even if it's discovered at some later date that the substance wasn't actually addictive all along? All of that being said, this issue is a complicated one: the very question of what it means for something to be "entertaining" versus "addictive" is one hell of a deep question, and I think one that we're going to continue to evolve in our understanding of as a species as time goes on... and perhaps it's even something where the line is different for different people, or even the same person when in different moods/circumstances. But I do think that it's both worth it to examine intent when thinking about whether a company is doing something "wrong" or "right," and I don't think it makes sense to dismiss scientific evidence without probable cause for doubt.

closeparen 8y ago

Imagine if an organization recruited children to running-centric lifestyles to the point that it consumed their afternoons and weekends, dominated their social lives, threatened their academic performance, and routinely imparted injuries requiring long-term care by an associated cottage medical industry. I bet they'd be sued into the ground. Oh wait. That's every high school athletics program.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jumpman500 8y ago
Imagine if a majority of children actually participated in these athletic programs. Committed to physical fitness, had social lives with teammates and didn't have health problems because they were over weight. Oh wait. Basically every first world country has an obesity epidemic.
- mrep 8y ago
  Anecdote, but a lot of the kids that did sports all through my high school stopped playing when they went to college and gained weight from what I guess was based on their passed eating habits with high activity. However, the ones who didn't do sports all through high school mostly lost weight. I'm not sure what the overall implications are of school athletic programs but I definitely don't think it is as black and white as you make it out to be.
  - qplex 8y ago
    In my opinion school gym/sport classes can be very good at completely sucking the living joy out of exercise. Athleticism and sports should not be forced on kids. Let them run freely. Eg. Just look at all the "free" street sports such skateboarding, rollerblading, bmx, parkour and so on. It doesn't have to be dull, boring and super formalized.
    - mrep 8y ago