3 ms·
> In most of those cases eating something else would be better Ok, let’s say “worse than other foods” then, if you dislike the word “bad”.
by illiac786 1y ago
> In most of those cases eating something else would be better
Ok, let’s say “worse than other foods” then, if you dislike the word “bad”.
- dinfinity 1y agoI don't "dislike the word bad". It simply does not apply here and is semantically different from "worse than". One is relative and the other (subjectively) absolute. Getting hit on the foot with a sledgehammer is bad for you. But it's better than getting hit in the head with a sledgehammer. Using "better than" here does not make the former good for you, however. That's how language works. It is important to be precise, for earlier mentioned reasons.
- illiac786 1y agoSo we agree there is no contradiction, it can be “bad“ and “worse than” at the same time. My point was, I do not see a contradiction between the two, hence I do not understand why you are stating is cannot be “bad”.
- konart 1y ago"Not as goods" and "bad" are two different things. White meat is not as good as an egg. It "bad" too by this logic.
- illiac786 1y agoI think what I mean by "bad" is that removing sugar (or at least food with added sugar) is like a low-hanging fruit on the road to a better diet. White bread is not too far away from sugar, like alcohol, actually. Replacing white bread with something full grain would also be something "good" for your diet – although in some places it's really hard to find full grain bread that doesn't taste like parchment, so maybe a not-so-low-hanging fruit ;) Finally, I think I am compounding the refined sugar and the sugar lobby itself, who has been pushing for decades that what is bad for health is fat, whereas study after study proved otherwise.