5 ms·

Then so is your diet and exercise regime my business. I also want to control who you spend time with (for your mental health) and what you consume for entertain

Then so is your diet and exercise regime my business. I also want to control who you spend time with (for your mental health) and what you consume for entertainment - there will be limits on what you can read and watch and how much. Alcohol is of course no longer ever an option, and many injury prone sports are also forbidden. At any point we predict you might commit a crime, we will jail you first to reduce the cost to society.

johnwheeler 6y ago
Slippery slope fallacy
dTal 6y ago
Thank you for at least engaging with what I actually said. Obviously, you must balance the harm of the intervention itself with the harm that the intervention is trying to mitigate. In fact many of your measures are already in place. Civilized society does control your diet, through food regulation. It controls what you watch to some extent - you'll have to go a bit out of your way to find sex and violence. Alcohol is indeed a restricted substance, and many injury-prone sports have been discontinued or modified to be safer, although some (like boxing) continue despite solid evidence of terrible cumulative injury - to great controversy. I'm not sure what you're going for with the pre-crime thing... There's no need to equate "my business" with "draconian control".
- lambdaba 6y ago
  Sugar costs way more in health consequences. It's easier to recover from abuse from most drugs than sugar, which is a slow poison, yet available everywhere and given to us since early childhood (actually, in the womb).
  - nip180 6y ago
    That’s absurd and incorrect. It’s significantly safer to expose an unborn child to sugar than alcohol, cocaine, meth, or heroin.
    - lambdaba 6y ago
      That's why I said "most drugs". That being said, there is an epidemic of childhood diabetes and _newborn_ obesity, which is entirely due to mother's high sugar & processed foods diets. It's a serious matter. Also, it's possible to be a long-time user (obviously not a abuser) of heroin or meth (I know it's not exactly comparable but consider people taking adhd meds). I'd take that over abusing sugar, which will cause fatty liver, diabetes, and cancer.
      - nip180 6y ago
        If cost, purity, and consistency of supply (for the drug and all paraphernalia) wasn’t a problem it’s probably safer to consume heroin regularly than consume coca-coal regularly. With the realities as they are coca-coal is probably safer, but because it’s cheaper, won’t have unexpected adulterants, and you won’t have to invest much time or effort in finding a new supply if your favorite vending machine breaks down.
        lambdaba 6y ago
        Yes, that what was I was thinking, particularly the Dutch example where heroin addiction is treated as a healthcare problem and addicts have long lives. I like that you spelled Coca-Cola "coca coal" :)
    - tchaffee 6y ago
      It is not significantly safer. If we are comparing like to like, then we are not talking about a one time exposure, we are talking about addiction and regular exposure. Addiction to sugar will almost always result in a high BMI. "Having a high BMI during pregnancy has been linked to an increased risk of various health problems for a baby, including: Birth defects Being significantly larger than average (fetal macrosomia) Impaired growth Childhood asthma Childhood obesity " [1] [1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/pregnancy-and-obesity/art-20044409 https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-...
      - 6y ago
- tchaffee 6y ago
  > Civilized society does control your diet, through food regulation. No they don't. I can grow my own food and it is perfectly legal and loads of people do exactly that. > you'll have to go a bit out of your way to find sex and violence. Hardly. It's all over the internet. Even teens easily find it. > Alcohol is indeed a restricted substance Not for adults though, which is what we are talking about here, right? > any injury-prone sports have been discontinued or modified to be safer Only commercially. I can engage in the vast majority of the more dangerous version of those sports in my own free time any time I want. Play American football without helmets in my own backyard? Who is going to stop me? So no, none of the things you mentioned are controlled to the point of being illegal. And even in rare cases where they are illegal (buying raw milk for example), no one gets thrown in jail for five years for doing it, and people do continue to do it and take those risks, and society does continue to pay when things go wrong. > Obviously, you must balance the harm of the intervention itself with the harm that the intervention is trying to mitigate. Who decides that? Because I find it difficult to put a measure on the cost of removing so many freedoms trying to make life risk free. It's not a society I would want to live in. I will temper that by saying I'm fully in favor of requiring people to wear masks in public. But only because it's a public emergency and in unusual circumstances I'm flexible. But what you are suggesting is long term and permanent policy.

johnwheeler 6y ago

Slippery slope fallacy

dTal 6y ago

Thank you for at least engaging with what I actually said. Obviously, you must balance the harm of the intervention itself with the harm that the intervention is trying to mitigate. In fact many of your measures are already in place. Civilized society does control your diet, through food regulation. It controls what you watch to some extent - you'll have to go a bit out of your way to find sex and violence. Alcohol is indeed a restricted substance, and many injury-prone sports have been discontinued or modified to be safer, although some (like boxing) continue despite solid evidence of terrible cumulative injury - to great controversy. I'm not sure what you're going for with the pre-crime thing... There's no need to equate "my business" with "draconian control".

lambdaba 6y ago
Sugar costs way more in health consequences. It's easier to recover from abuse from most drugs than sugar, which is a slow poison, yet available everywhere and given to us since early childhood (actually, in the womb).
- nip180 6y ago
  That’s absurd and incorrect. It’s significantly safer to expose an unborn child to sugar than alcohol, cocaine, meth, or heroin.
  - lambdaba 6y ago
    That's why I said "most drugs". That being said, there is an epidemic of childhood diabetes and _newborn_ obesity, which is entirely due to mother's high sugar & processed foods diets. It's a serious matter. Also, it's possible to be a long-time user (obviously not a abuser) of heroin or meth (I know it's not exactly comparable but consider people taking adhd meds). I'd take that over abusing sugar, which will cause fatty liver, diabetes, and cancer.
    - nip180 6y ago
      If cost, purity, and consistency of supply (for the drug and all paraphernalia) wasn’t a problem it’s probably safer to consume heroin regularly than consume coca-coal regularly. With the realities as they are coca-coal is probably safer, but because it’s cheaper, won’t have unexpected adulterants, and you won’t have to invest much time or effort in finding a new supply if your favorite vending machine breaks down.
      - lambdaba 6y ago
        Yes, that what was I was thinking, particularly the Dutch example where heroin addiction is treated as a healthcare problem and addicts have long lives. I like that you spelled Coca-Cola "coca coal" :)
  - tchaffee 6y ago
    It is not significantly safer. If we are comparing like to like, then we are not talking about a one time exposure, we are talking about addiction and regular exposure. Addiction to sugar will almost always result in a high BMI. "Having a high BMI during pregnancy has been linked to an increased risk of various health problems for a baby, including: Birth defects Being significantly larger than average (fetal macrosomia) Impaired growth Childhood asthma Childhood obesity " [1] [1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/pregnancy-and-obesity/art-20044409 https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-...
    - 6y ago
tchaffee 6y ago
> Civilized society does control your diet, through food regulation. No they don't. I can grow my own food and it is perfectly legal and loads of people do exactly that. > you'll have to go a bit out of your way to find sex and violence. Hardly. It's all over the internet. Even teens easily find it. > Alcohol is indeed a restricted substance Not for adults though, which is what we are talking about here, right? > any injury-prone sports have been discontinued or modified to be safer Only commercially. I can engage in the vast majority of the more dangerous version of those sports in my own free time any time I want. Play American football without helmets in my own backyard? Who is going to stop me? So no, none of the things you mentioned are controlled to the point of being illegal. And even in rare cases where they are illegal (buying raw milk for example), no one gets thrown in jail for five years for doing it, and people do continue to do it and take those risks, and society does continue to pay when things go wrong. > Obviously, you must balance the harm of the intervention itself with the harm that the intervention is trying to mitigate. Who decides that? Because I find it difficult to put a measure on the cost of removing so many freedoms trying to make life risk free. It's not a society I would want to live in. I will temper that by saying I'm fully in favor of requiring people to wear masks in public. But only because it's a public emergency and in unusual circumstances I'm flexible. But what you are suggesting is long term and permanent policy.