5 ms·

Why the quotes? Are you saying that people being guided to quit smoking isn't good for them? I'm confused.

willcipriano 3y ago
Would you submit to be guided (by force) away from any suboptimal for your health behavior you might currently engage in?
- throwaway5959 3y ago
  Losing weight? Absolutely.
  - program_whiz 3y ago
    Citizen 440023423, you are being informed by your friendly government monitoring bot that health studies have shown a link between cancer, obesity, and heart disease by frequent computer and phone users. Your account has been deactivated for 2 weeks. Please engage in the recommended 1 hour of daily outdoor activity instead. In addition, we noticed you exceeded the 15 minutes of allowable phone and computer use, as recommended by experts at the ministry of citizen health. Your internet has been disabled for 1 week. A $25 charge for services has been added to your tax bill. Have a nice healthy day citizen 440023423.
    - throwaway5959 3y ago
      Oh thank god, I’ll have so much more free time.
    - jmopp 3y ago
      Why is it that whenever people suggest any kind of nudge that might be helpful to society, the immediate response is to take it to a totalitarian nightmare. Don't get me wrong; I think the government should leave people alone as much as possible. But jumping straight onto the slippery slope seems like a thought-terminating cliché — rather than leading to an actual discussion about how best to manage individual freedoms while living in a society. (and no, the answer is not "everybody is free to do everything" just as it isn't "nanny state knows best; eat your veggies or else")
      - coldtea 3y ago
        >Why is it that whenever people suggest any kind of nudge that might be helpful to society, the immediate response is to take it to a totalitarian nightmare. Perhaps because those nudges are already a totalitarian nightmare. People should control the government, not the other way around, and definitely not their personal lives and habbits. The prohibition or the "war on drugs" weren't some made up fantasy nightmare, but very real history of a totalitarian nightmare.
- hu3 3y ago
  Why wouldn't I?
  - program_whiz 3y ago
    The government has determined that engaging in online discussions where users disagree increase blood pressure and decreases happiness. Your comment will be deleted and account suspended. You have exceeded your 15 minutes per day of phone and computer use, deemed as the permissible limit by the council for citizen health, your internet account is suspended until next week. This should help you to walk outside. Your tax bill has increased by $16 for processing fees. Thank you citizen, have a nice day.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    You enjoy having fun on occasion.
  - ipaddr 3y ago
    Because experts of the day are often wrong. 100 years ago Hitler had some expert opinions that later we reject. Don't be the next agent orange victim. Question things.
    - throwaway5959 3y ago
      Paging Godwin.
      - coldtea 3y ago
        Yes, an idiot said something on usenet for fun and now it's considered a "counter-argument"
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - ipaddr 3y ago
        Paging: Bueller? Bueller?
coldtea 3y ago
I'm saying that third parties like states deciding what is or isn't "for the benefit" of the people (as opposed to being told what the people want) is not good for them. It's crossing boundaries and it's infantilizing. For two cases where it's gone horribly wrong consider the prohibition and the "war on drugs". Not to mention the "don't eat fat" campaigns...
- pluijzer 3y ago
  If not the state, the free market will fill the gap and tell us what is for our own benefit, bet a lot more boundaries get crossed when the tobacco industry, pharmaceutical industry etc. get free reign.
- hakunin 3y ago
  To be frank, alcohol, most drugs, and fat are not the same. Every time I go to a place where smoking is not culturally frowned upon, I can't make a few steps without inhaling vomit-inducing smoke. If it wasn't for this, then I would agree with you.
- kdmccormick 3y ago
  > as opposed to being told what the people want If a majority of people in a country want smoking to be disincentivized, and the government acts on that, is it still crossing boundaries and infantilizing? > Not to mention the "don't eat fat" campaigns... Bad example, as it turns out that eating a regular amout of fat is fine. The gov't was wrong. Here's a better example: food corporations actively market sugar-filled cereals, "juices", "fruit snacks", etc to both parents and kids, actively misleading them on what a healthy human diet is. This had contributed to a surge in obesity and all the related health problems. This puts strain on the medical system, raises insurance premiums, and generally makes society worse. So do I support making it harder for corporations to market their HFC garbage to kids and parents? Hell yes. Do I support making it illegal for tobacco corps to market to kids? Yes again. And I say this as someone who enjoys sugar and smoking, to a reasonable degree.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >If a majority of people in a country want smoking to be disincentivized, and the government acts on that, is it still crossing boundaries and infantilizing? Yes.

Would you submit to be guided (by force) away from any suboptimal for your health behavior you might currently engage in?

throwaway5959 3y ago
Losing weight? Absolutely.
- program_whiz 3y ago
  Citizen 440023423, you are being informed by your friendly government monitoring bot that health studies have shown a link between cancer, obesity, and heart disease by frequent computer and phone users. Your account has been deactivated for 2 weeks. Please engage in the recommended 1 hour of daily outdoor activity instead. In addition, we noticed you exceeded the 15 minutes of allowable phone and computer use, as recommended by experts at the ministry of citizen health. Your internet has been disabled for 1 week. A $25 charge for services has been added to your tax bill. Have a nice healthy day citizen 440023423.
  - throwaway5959 3y ago
    Oh thank god, I’ll have so much more free time.
  - jmopp 3y ago
    Why is it that whenever people suggest any kind of nudge that might be helpful to society, the immediate response is to take it to a totalitarian nightmare. Don't get me wrong; I think the government should leave people alone as much as possible. But jumping straight onto the slippery slope seems like a thought-terminating cliché — rather than leading to an actual discussion about how best to manage individual freedoms while living in a society. (and no, the answer is not "everybody is free to do everything" just as it isn't "nanny state knows best; eat your veggies or else")
    - coldtea 3y ago
      >Why is it that whenever people suggest any kind of nudge that might be helpful to society, the immediate response is to take it to a totalitarian nightmare. Perhaps because those nudges are already a totalitarian nightmare. People should control the government, not the other way around, and definitely not their personal lives and habbits. The prohibition or the "war on drugs" weren't some made up fantasy nightmare, but very real history of a totalitarian nightmare.
hu3 3y ago
Why wouldn't I?
- program_whiz 3y ago
  The government has determined that engaging in online discussions where users disagree increase blood pressure and decreases happiness. Your comment will be deleted and account suspended. You have exceeded your 15 minutes per day of phone and computer use, deemed as the permissible limit by the council for citizen health, your internet account is suspended until next week. This should help you to walk outside. Your tax bill has increased by $16 for processing fees. Thank you citizen, have a nice day.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  You enjoy having fun on occasion.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  Because experts of the day are often wrong. 100 years ago Hitler had some expert opinions that later we reject. Don't be the next agent orange victim. Question things.
  - throwaway5959 3y ago
    Paging Godwin.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      Yes, an idiot said something on usenet for fun and now it's considered a "counter-argument"
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - ipaddr 3y ago
      Paging: Bueller? Bueller?

coldtea 3y ago

I'm saying that third parties like states deciding what is or isn't "for the benefit" of the people (as opposed to being told what the people want) is not good for them. It's crossing boundaries and it's infantilizing. For two cases where it's gone horribly wrong consider the prohibition and the "war on drugs". Not to mention the "don't eat fat" campaigns...

pluijzer 3y ago
If not the state, the free market will fill the gap and tell us what is for our own benefit, bet a lot more boundaries get crossed when the tobacco industry, pharmaceutical industry etc. get free reign.
hakunin 3y ago
To be frank, alcohol, most drugs, and fat are not the same. Every time I go to a place where smoking is not culturally frowned upon, I can't make a few steps without inhaling vomit-inducing smoke. If it wasn't for this, then I would agree with you.
kdmccormick 3y ago
> as opposed to being told what the people want If a majority of people in a country want smoking to be disincentivized, and the government acts on that, is it still crossing boundaries and infantilizing? > Not to mention the "don't eat fat" campaigns... Bad example, as it turns out that eating a regular amout of fat is fine. The gov't was wrong. Here's a better example: food corporations actively market sugar-filled cereals, "juices", "fruit snacks", etc to both parents and kids, actively misleading them on what a healthy human diet is. This had contributed to a surge in obesity and all the related health problems. This puts strain on the medical system, raises insurance premiums, and generally makes society worse. So do I support making it harder for corporations to market their HFC garbage to kids and parents? Hell yes. Do I support making it illegal for tobacco corps to market to kids? Yes again. And I say this as someone who enjoys sugar and smoking, to a reasonable degree.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >If a majority of people in a country want smoking to be disincentivized, and the government acts on that, is it still crossing boundaries and infantilizing? Yes.