4 ms·

The complexity is in proving what harm is being done and to whom.

wpietri 5y ago
Not generally. It mainly gets complex when the latter side wants to deny the harm. Then it's an ocean of motivated reasoning and endless arguments. We still have people arguing today that American slavery was good for the slaves.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- artificial 5y ago
  Excellent! Together we can ban fast food and sugar consumption for the greater good. Heart disease and diabetes from the scourge of empty calories finally eliminated. Hundreds of thousands saved each year from poor choices. Up next: sedentary lifestyle enablers :). It’s such a rabbit hole, who should know best?
  - Klinky 5y ago
    Are you saying it's not worthy of deeper inspection? I mean you kind of make an excellent point, the fast food and processed foods industries create a lot of waste selling an unhealthy product while paying unlivable wages. Their product increases healthcare costs while enabling a sedentary and stressful commuter lifestyle.
  - clusterfish 5y ago
    You can harm yourself with junk food and lack of exercise all you want, it doesn't affect others the same way pouring poison into our shared environment does. What you're doing is called whataboutism. Trying to muddy clear waters by bringing in muddy issues that aren't directly related, just for the sake of muddying.
    - artificial 5y ago
      All of these increase healthcare costs for everyone involved.
      - clusterfish 5y ago
        And you commuting increases congestion for everyone else. And you buying food makes food more expensive for everyone else. So what. You honestly can't distinguish between this and pouring lead into the atmosphere? This seems like some demagoguery fetish at best.
        kybernetyk 5y ago
        > And you buying food makes food more expensive for everyone else. Not true. You raising the demand of a good enables the producers to employ economies of scale thus making food less expensive for all.
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    In my country drinks with added sugar are taxed extra. So, for example, all the no sugar Coke or Pepsi variants are one price, but "classic" Coke or Pepsi with sugar in it are more expensive in the same quantities. A small nudge. And I already noticed it impacts bars and restaurants. If you're only going to bother stocking one cola beverage, why carry the one with sugar, which costs extra, when a customer asks for "A Coke" it's no harder to train staff to say "Pepsi Max OK?" than "Pepsi OK?". As to "Who should know best?" that's exactly what we're paying our politicians to be on top of.
  - jbboehr 5y ago
    > Up next: sedentary lifestyle enablers We can start with the internet! :)
  - wpietri 5y ago
    I am for personal freedom as long as it doesn't harm others. So if people want to make a batch of cookies, I think that's a reasonable personal choice. But it's not as clear to me that junk food companies have an absolute right to hook others on harmful, addictive products. Especially given that addiction, by undermining choice, necessarily harms a person's freedom.

Not generally. It mainly gets complex when the latter side wants to deny the harm. Then it's an ocean of motivated reasoning and endless arguments. We still have people arguing today that American slavery was good for the slaves.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
artificial 5y ago
Excellent! Together we can ban fast food and sugar consumption for the greater good. Heart disease and diabetes from the scourge of empty calories finally eliminated. Hundreds of thousands saved each year from poor choices. Up next: sedentary lifestyle enablers :). It’s such a rabbit hole, who should know best?
- Klinky 5y ago
  Are you saying it's not worthy of deeper inspection? I mean you kind of make an excellent point, the fast food and processed foods industries create a lot of waste selling an unhealthy product while paying unlivable wages. Their product increases healthcare costs while enabling a sedentary and stressful commuter lifestyle.
- clusterfish 5y ago
  You can harm yourself with junk food and lack of exercise all you want, it doesn't affect others the same way pouring poison into our shared environment does. What you're doing is called whataboutism. Trying to muddy clear waters by bringing in muddy issues that aren't directly related, just for the sake of muddying.
  - artificial 5y ago
    All of these increase healthcare costs for everyone involved.
    - clusterfish 5y ago
      And you commuting increases congestion for everyone else. And you buying food makes food more expensive for everyone else. So what. You honestly can't distinguish between this and pouring lead into the atmosphere? This seems like some demagoguery fetish at best.
      - kybernetyk 5y ago
        > And you buying food makes food more expensive for everyone else. Not true. You raising the demand of a good enables the producers to employ economies of scale thus making food less expensive for all.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  In my country drinks with added sugar are taxed extra. So, for example, all the no sugar Coke or Pepsi variants are one price, but "classic" Coke or Pepsi with sugar in it are more expensive in the same quantities. A small nudge. And I already noticed it impacts bars and restaurants. If you're only going to bother stocking one cola beverage, why carry the one with sugar, which costs extra, when a customer asks for "A Coke" it's no harder to train staff to say "Pepsi Max OK?" than "Pepsi OK?". As to "Who should know best?" that's exactly what we're paying our politicians to be on top of.
- jbboehr 5y ago
  > Up next: sedentary lifestyle enablers We can start with the internet! :)
- wpietri 5y ago
  I am for personal freedom as long as it doesn't harm others. So if people want to make a batch of cookies, I think that's a reasonable personal choice. But it's not as clear to me that junk food companies have an absolute right to hook others on harmful, addictive products. Especially given that addiction, by undermining choice, necessarily harms a person's freedom.