Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There's no epidemic that can be ascribed to one food item in isolation, either. Why pick on soda? Where are the (reproduced!) studies that justify that? (Standing by for the inevitable authoritative-sounding pubmed link that actually proves nothing of the sort.)

Meanwhile, why should my health insurance rates go up because Dr. Joshgel is into cave diving or parachuting or enjoys the occasional track day in his GT3?

Or because someone else leads a sedentary life playing video games? How about banning those? There's no valid science behind claims of an "epidemic" of soda-induced obesity, but if you're going to generalize the argument to include all common causes of obesity, I'd respond by pointing out that there's certainly no shortage of studies showing the harmful effects of a sedentary lifestyle.

Rest assured, after the Dr. Joshgels of the world have come for my soda, they WILL come after something you enjoy. Maybe your steak, maybe your beer, maybe your guns, maybe your Playstation or your sofa. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, but these people aren't logical. They're too busy being right.



People who are seriously into extreme sports already have pay for extra insurance as related injures aren't covered for such high risk activities.

There's also huge taxes on alcohol and tobacco for instance.

There's also a lot of other stuff that is banned already or strongly regulated or taxed heavily. Recreational drugs, medicine, certain additives that turned out to be harmful. Or rules like having to buckle up in your car. A lot of nanny state stuff that saves people from themselves.


People who are seriously into extreme sports already have pay for extra insurance

No, they don't, unless they are doing something their policies call out explicitly. Which is extremely rare.

There's also huge taxes on alcohol and tobacco for instance.

Because unlike soda, the damage done by those products is unequivocally identifiable.


The damage in excessive sugar intake is unequivocally identifiable as well.


I especially like how every time I state something specific, you respond with a vague generalization that, if acted upon, could be used to justify all kinds of bans, laws, and taxes... some of which, once again, you would not personally care to be subjected to.


I responded to the extreme sport one. As for the sedentary lifestyle that's not directly a product in itself.

Maybe you're just not convinced about the actual harm that sugar and obesity causes. I won't be able to write a good summary of the research here and now,but there's a lot of evidence out there. It's more dangerous than many people would assume.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: