3 ms·

Moralizing? Where in my comment above did I say anything about morality? I said that Flamin' Hot Cheetos is shit and that it shouldn't be marketed to kids. Btw,

Moralizing? Where in my comment above did I say anything about morality? I said that Flamin' Hot Cheetos is shit and that it shouldn't be marketed to kids. Btw, I also added "or to anyone", but of course the conversation immediately homed in on the parts where I said it's about kids. Though my language wasn't technical, I made a qualititative comment about the substance of the product we're disucssing (and later about its specific list of ingredients on which I have a lot more to say; but I'm waiting for the other poster's reply to my comment for that), not about the moral character of the people who consume it. For example, I didn't say "if you eat this stuff you're a bad person". I said "don't eat this shit. It's bad for you". "It's bad for you". Not "you're bad". You wrote six paragraphs in response to something I never said. And with a condescending attitude ("I'm not sure you're even asking this seriously"). What can I say? Life on the internet would be so much better if we didn't all constantly make assumptions about each other's intent and instead asked the question "what do you mean?" before jumping straight in to do battle. For instance, you could have asked this, and I'd 've been happy to answer: > I don't think you're causing damage, I just think it was a weird comment with misplaced moralizing about the kids, and your followup makes me all the more curious whether it's ultimately just a complaint against junk food existing in general. Yes, it's a complaint about junk food in general. I care about food (see username) and I'm disturbed to find that most of the food people eat in developed countries is mass produced shit sold to them by a degenerate food industry that destroys the environment and consumers' health; and in the process has taken away the ability of most people to cook a nutritious, healthy and satisfying meal for themselves. I'm even more disturbed that people are so used to eating this shit that they protest when anyone reminds them it's shit or tries to show them how to eat a good, cheap meal instead - like the British moms that fed their kids kebabs over the school gates when school meals switched to something more healthy than mac'n'cheese and fries (it was in the news back then, related to some initiative by Jamie Oliver. You can probably find it on the web, otherwise let me know and I'll find you a link). And so, on we go. I say "don't eat that shit. It's bad for you". And you say I'm moralising, and another poster complains about "handholding" and "coddling". Because this whole subject of what we eat, which is really a practical matter of measurable quantities and predictable outcomes that should be discussed on technical terms, has become a political issue that is only ever discussed in emotional terms. Even on "Hacker News". Which is supposed to be all about intellectual curiosity. Where's the intellectual curiosity in ruminating over the same old boring culture war issues? Aren't you curious instead why people eat shit when they know it's shit and even call it junk food themselves, like you say? Because thats what I am curious about.

Dylan16807 5y ago
How is saying something shouldn't be marketed not a moral stance? What kind of stance is it then? It doesn't sound like an economic stance, or a legal stance. And it doesn't sound like your motivation is so that you personally won't have to see them.
- cheese_goddess 5y ago
  > How is saying something shouldn't be marketed not a moral stance? It's a political stance, not a moral one. As I said earlier, I didn't make any moral judgements about the people who eat that snack, or even for the people who sell it, although to be fair I do have a few choice words for the latter. Anyway in my book accusing someone of "moralising" is most of the time something people say to shut down conversation. I didn't understand what you mean by your last sentence.
Jach 5y ago
> Aren't you curious instead why people eat shit when they know it's shit and even call it junk food themselves, like you say? Because thats what I am curious about. No, because to me it's obvious. They eat it for obvious reasons, four that immediately come to mind include 1) to them it's not shit 2) it tastes good 3) it's part of addictive behavior, which may or may not have a component based in chemical dependence 4) it's fast and accessible (and often inexpensive, though I frequently shake my head when I'm reminded how much markup a gas station store has over a grocery store for the same items yet nonetheless sell a good volume). I'm even more mystified about your sudden reminder that we're on "Hacker News". How long have you been on HN? (I assume this isn't your first account.) Old HN died a long time ago.
- cheese_goddess 5y ago
  To be honest, your explanations are simple hand-waving to me, which is not what I'm interested in.

Dylan16807 5y ago

How is saying something shouldn't be marketed not a moral stance? What kind of stance is it then? It doesn't sound like an economic stance, or a legal stance. And it doesn't sound like your motivation is so that you personally won't have to see them.

cheese_goddess 5y ago
> How is saying something shouldn't be marketed not a moral stance? It's a political stance, not a moral one. As I said earlier, I didn't make any moral judgements about the people who eat that snack, or even for the people who sell it, although to be fair I do have a few choice words for the latter. Anyway in my book accusing someone of "moralising" is most of the time something people say to shut down conversation. I didn't understand what you mean by your last sentence.

Jach 5y ago

> Aren't you curious instead why people eat shit when they know it's shit and even call it junk food themselves, like you say? Because thats what I am curious about. No, because to me it's obvious. They eat it for obvious reasons, four that immediately come to mind include 1) to them it's not shit 2) it tastes good 3) it's part of addictive behavior, which may or may not have a component based in chemical dependence 4) it's fast and accessible (and often inexpensive, though I frequently shake my head when I'm reminded how much markup a gas station store has over a grocery store for the same items yet nonetheless sell a good volume). I'm even more mystified about your sudden reminder that we're on "Hacker News". How long have you been on HN? (I assume this isn't your first account.) Old HN died a long time ago.

cheese_goddess 5y ago
To be honest, your explanations are simple hand-waving to me, which is not what I'm interested in.