4 ms·
I presume what they mean is that having an open bag in the kitchen encourages you to have a few every time you pass through. The problem with it being a big bag
by aninhumer 13y ago
I presume what they mean is that having an open bag in the kitchen encourages you to have a few every time you pass through. The problem with it being a big bag is that this happens more often before they run out.
- Dylan16807 13y agoThis assumes not replacing the bag when it's empty, which seems to defeat the point of having it available in the first place. But assuming you're right: eating an entire non-supersized bag is almost as bad as eating an entire supersized bag. The solution is not a moderately-less-bad splurge size, it's putting the bag away.
- dagw 13y agoThis assumes not replacing the bag when it's empty Which is the common case in my experience. Once every few weeks or so I'll be food shopping and think, you know what I really want now, chips! And then I'll buy a bag, take it home, eat it and then not buy chips for another few weeks. So the smaller the bag, the less chips I eat. You're proposal works on the assumption that human willpower is constant and infinite.
- Dylan16807 13y agoIgnore the proposal then. (though it doesn't assume infinite willpower, it's about putting things out of sight.) Focus on the main point, that it's still quite bad to eat an entire non-supersized bag. If the original wish of 'no supersized bags' was granted, no problem would be solved! There would be even more chip overeating on georgemcbay's part, as they bought more bags. It's like comparing 22 inch and 30 inch pizzas, nobody should be eating an entire pizza that big over the course of a couple days.