3 ms·

It's a slippery slope to begin choosing which products are go and no go. Sugary slope. It starts with banning colas and ends with a gov requirement to eat soy

It's a slippery slope to begin choosing which products are go and no go. Sugary slope. It starts with banning colas and ends with a gov requirement to eat soylent green.

mensetmanusman 2y ago
Nearly every slippery slope we were warned about the last decades have turned out, sometimes you’re just extrapolating a linear curve and it turns out to be obvious to predict behavior.
paulryanrogers 2y ago
They already choose what products qualify and have for decades. Kids don't need liquid candies being pushed by mega-corps, it just increases the risk of obesity and diabetes. Coke and Pepsi can survive without government subsidizing their junk food.
- qwerty_clicks 2y ago
  Just because you can put something in your mouth and it’s roughly processed by your body doesn’t mean it should be considered food. These companies have created chemical cocktails and labeled them as food.
- c22 2y ago
  It's important that the poorest amongst us have the least agency over their health and wellness. I mean, if they were good at making decisions for themselves they wouldn't be poor, right?
qwerty_clicks 2y ago
That’s just such a bad argument. Anything can be a slippery slope so no one should do anything.
seventytwo 2y ago
Literally every decision is a slippery slope.
zaphar 2y ago
The beverage that is best for you is also the cheapest. Water. From a tap. They may have less access to certain types of food but when it comes to beverages nearly every food stamp user in the US has access to clean, cheap, good for you water. It is absolutely true that food deserts exist in the US and they tend to occur most often in the poorest areas. But eliminating soda, candy, and such from the food stamp program is one good way to give them a lift nutritionally. Which in some cases can translate into a lift out of poverty. When your welfare programs perpetuate and reward patterns that keep people in poverty it's fine to blame the program. Asking tax payers to pay for other people's bad habits is bad. The purpose of these programs should be to help them make forward progress. It should not be to subsidize a continued fall into deeper poverty.
RiverCrochet 2y ago
Red herring. - This is asking what the government should buy on behalf of poor people, not saying "go" or "no go" on a product or a proposal to ban anything. > It starts with banning colas and ends with a gov requirement to eat soylent green. Ha, my rather unique cousin was over my shoulder reading this and she just had to chime in on your comment. Here's what she said: "I can silly slippery slope too, watch me. Government already is deeply involved in intimate and potentially life-threatening medical decisions, so honestly we are closer to any requirement to eat Soylent Green than you think." I can't wait until I get my own house and some peace and quiet finally.

It's a slippery slope to begin choosing which products are go and no go. Sugary slope. It starts with banning colas and ends with a gov requirement to eat soylent green.

mensetmanusman 2y ago

Nearly every slippery slope we were warned about the last decades have turned out, sometimes you’re just extrapolating a linear curve and it turns out to be obvious to predict behavior.

paulryanrogers 2y ago

They already choose what products qualify and have for decades. Kids don't need liquid candies being pushed by mega-corps, it just increases the risk of obesity and diabetes. Coke and Pepsi can survive without government subsidizing their junk food.

qwerty_clicks 2y ago
Just because you can put something in your mouth and it’s roughly processed by your body doesn’t mean it should be considered food. These companies have created chemical cocktails and labeled them as food.
c22 2y ago
It's important that the poorest amongst us have the least agency over their health and wellness. I mean, if they were good at making decisions for themselves they wouldn't be poor, right?

qwerty_clicks 2y ago

That’s just such a bad argument. Anything can be a slippery slope so no one should do anything.

seventytwo 2y ago

Literally every decision is a slippery slope.

zaphar 2y ago

The beverage that is best for you is also the cheapest. Water. From a tap. They may have less access to certain types of food but when it comes to beverages nearly every food stamp user in the US has access to clean, cheap, good for you water. It is absolutely true that food deserts exist in the US and they tend to occur most often in the poorest areas. But eliminating soda, candy, and such from the food stamp program is one good way to give them a lift nutritionally. Which in some cases can translate into a lift out of poverty. When your welfare programs perpetuate and reward patterns that keep people in poverty it's fine to blame the program. Asking tax payers to pay for other people's bad habits is bad. The purpose of these programs should be to help them make forward progress. It should not be to subsidize a continued fall into deeper poverty.

RiverCrochet 2y ago

Red herring. - This is asking what the government should buy on behalf of poor people, not saying "go" or "no go" on a product or a proposal to ban anything. > It starts with banning colas and ends with a gov requirement to eat soylent green. Ha, my rather unique cousin was over my shoulder reading this and she just had to chime in on your comment. Here's what she said: "I can silly slippery slope too, watch me. Government already is deeply involved in intimate and potentially life-threatening medical decisions, so honestly we are closer to any requirement to eat Soylent Green than you think." I can't wait until I get my own house and some peace and quiet finally.