5 ms·

Art and music aren't produced with the intention of fostering addictions in people. They don't cause death and suffering simply by being sold, or even being abu

Art and music aren't produced with the intention of fostering addictions in people. They don't cause death and suffering simply by being sold, or even being abused (how would one abuse art or music?). So no, that's not my logic at all. There was already a need for art and music. There wasn't already a need for Coca Cola and Lucky Strikes.

chrisseaton 7y ago
I don't accept that sodas are either. I think they're a honest product. They aren't healthy, but they don't pretend to be. They say very clearly what they contain and they're marketed as a treat. They are optimised to be as delicious as possible I'm sure, but singers also optimise their songs to be as pleasing as possible so you'll buy their next album.
- ionised 7y ago
  > hey aren't healthy, but they don't pretend to be. They say very clearly what they contain and they're marketed as a treat Soda manufacturers include this information because they are required to by law. It is in their interests to hide this information from you. Lobbysists for junk food manufacturers are always hard at work fighting against these kinds of regulations, because you knowing what is in their product is harmful to their bottom line, because they are selling you what amounts to a mild poison. People fought to get this labelling required by law. These companies aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. > They are optimised to be as delicious as possible I'm sure, but singers also optimise their songs to be as pleasing as possible so you'll buy their next album. The difference being my health isn't harmed by a pop singer trying to improve their voice. Nor are they creating a need or addiction to music that didn't already exist. There has always been a need for music among humans. Even tribal war drums count as music. I'll concede that most pop music is lowest-common denominator crap manufactured and marketed to as as wide a demographic as possible for no other reason than profit, but really, pop music is such a small part of the entire musical landscape. Even if it were, what damage to people is pop music causing? What addictions is it fostering? You could debate about the dumbing down of music that manufactured pop music encourages, but we are talking about actual harm caused by fostering addictions here, which things like sodsa and cigarettes do, as a result of their being addictive as well as damaging to health. The pop music analogy isn't a very good one, because music doesn't damage your health by encouraging your addiction to substances harmful to your health.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > I'll concede that most pop music is lowest-common denominator crap manufactured and marketed to as as wide a demographic as possible for no other reason than profit Bah I think you're showing yourself to be a cynic and a snob with statements like this. You don't like that music so it's 'lowest-common denominator crap' and you can't see any purpose for it apart from profit, no matter if other people chose to enjoy it.
    - ionised 7y ago
      I'm not being a cynic and a snob. There are studies showing how much simpler, more generified and more homogenous and less dynamic pop music has become over the last few decades. It's an actual thing that has happened. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/is-pop-music-evolving-or-is-it-just-getting-louder/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/is-pop-mus... https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/jul/27/pop-music-sounds-same-survey-reveals https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/jul/27/pop-music-soun... https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115255#pone.0115255.s001 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... You didn't address the point of my post though, the pop music analogy was just an example you used that I felt didn't work very well because music, even pop music, doesn't harm your health or exploit addictions in the ways many advertised products do.
- nanny 7y ago
  If they're an "honest product" then why do they put caffeine in them? Caffeine doesn't change the flavor to make it "as delicious as possible".
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    Kola nuts, which contain caffeine, were in the original formulation. It's a stimulant - that's partly what some people are drinking Coca Cola and similar drinks for in the first place. It wasn't added later to increase sales.
    - nanny 7y ago
      Right, but nowadays there's no reason for it to be in there. You said they're marketed as a treat, and optimized to be as delicious as possible. So what's the caffeine for then? They're not marketed as energy drinks or designed to be as stimulating as possible. I say that the caffeine is in there solely to keep people addicted to it even more.
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        > So what's the caffeine for then? Part of being an enjoyable experience - not literally part of being delicious but part of being a sensation people enjoy.
        chillwaves 7y ago
        The answer is that caffeine is addictive and the soda companies are selling drugs.

chrisseaton 7y ago

I don't accept that sodas are either. I think they're a honest product. They aren't healthy, but they don't pretend to be. They say very clearly what they contain and they're marketed as a treat. They are optimised to be as delicious as possible I'm sure, but singers also optimise their songs to be as pleasing as possible so you'll buy their next album.

ionised 7y ago
> hey aren't healthy, but they don't pretend to be. They say very clearly what they contain and they're marketed as a treat Soda manufacturers include this information because they are required to by law. It is in their interests to hide this information from you. Lobbysists for junk food manufacturers are always hard at work fighting against these kinds of regulations, because you knowing what is in their product is harmful to their bottom line, because they are selling you what amounts to a mild poison. People fought to get this labelling required by law. These companies aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. > They are optimised to be as delicious as possible I'm sure, but singers also optimise their songs to be as pleasing as possible so you'll buy their next album. The difference being my health isn't harmed by a pop singer trying to improve their voice. Nor are they creating a need or addiction to music that didn't already exist. There has always been a need for music among humans. Even tribal war drums count as music. I'll concede that most pop music is lowest-common denominator crap manufactured and marketed to as as wide a demographic as possible for no other reason than profit, but really, pop music is such a small part of the entire musical landscape. Even if it were, what damage to people is pop music causing? What addictions is it fostering? You could debate about the dumbing down of music that manufactured pop music encourages, but we are talking about actual harm caused by fostering addictions here, which things like sodsa and cigarettes do, as a result of their being addictive as well as damaging to health. The pop music analogy isn't a very good one, because music doesn't damage your health by encouraging your addiction to substances harmful to your health.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > I'll concede that most pop music is lowest-common denominator crap manufactured and marketed to as as wide a demographic as possible for no other reason than profit Bah I think you're showing yourself to be a cynic and a snob with statements like this. You don't like that music so it's 'lowest-common denominator crap' and you can't see any purpose for it apart from profit, no matter if other people chose to enjoy it.
  - ionised 7y ago
    I'm not being a cynic and a snob. There are studies showing how much simpler, more generified and more homogenous and less dynamic pop music has become over the last few decades. It's an actual thing that has happened. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/is-pop-music-evolving-or-is-it-just-getting-louder/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/is-pop-mus... https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/jul/27/pop-music-sounds-same-survey-reveals https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/jul/27/pop-music-soun... https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115255#pone.0115255.s001 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... You didn't address the point of my post though, the pop music analogy was just an example you used that I felt didn't work very well because music, even pop music, doesn't harm your health or exploit addictions in the ways many advertised products do.
nanny 7y ago
If they're an "honest product" then why do they put caffeine in them? Caffeine doesn't change the flavor to make it "as delicious as possible".
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  Kola nuts, which contain caffeine, were in the original formulation. It's a stimulant - that's partly what some people are drinking Coca Cola and similar drinks for in the first place. It wasn't added later to increase sales.
  - nanny 7y ago
    Right, but nowadays there's no reason for it to be in there. You said they're marketed as a treat, and optimized to be as delicious as possible. So what's the caffeine for then? They're not marketed as energy drinks or designed to be as stimulating as possible. I say that the caffeine is in there solely to keep people addicted to it even more.
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      > So what's the caffeine for then? Part of being an enjoyable experience - not literally part of being delicious but part of being a sensation people enjoy.
      - chillwaves 7y ago
        The answer is that caffeine is addictive and the soda companies are selling drugs.