Twenty years ago, I met a couple with a young son who decided not to let the kid have sugar. I wonder how that might have worked out for the kid now that he's grown.

I assume the kid hit 18 and went on a sugar binge as soon as he tasted it the first time.

Anyone have experience with this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -10 points 4 months ago (8 children)

Well that doesn't sound like a good faith argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Dosent to me at all

    They didnt even really counter your point, they gave another perspective to form a stronger argument of what your message was already saying

    Parents should teach and guide their children moderation, especially for such common and addictive substances like sugar, especially when without moderation serious health and quality of life damages can apply

    If a parents goal is to raise healthy humans with a high quality of life - they should be teaching and guiding children into moderation, not prohibition and the shame that goes with it, not hedonism and the shamelessness that goes with that

    Its not that sugar is some fearful substance that should be prohobited outright, but its also not a substance without issue and should be moderated and controlled if modersation is not yet possible for such a still-developing human

    There are many such substances that need this parental guidance, sugar is just the most obvious one to younh parents - a toddler probably/hopefully isnt hitting a 40 or a roach

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    They didn't address my point at all and went for the extreme opposite. As if it was a gotcha.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago

    One of the things that makes me ignore my mastodon account is how quickly people take offence there, even going so far as to try to shut down conversation threads on their posts as though they don't expect any depth or variant viewpoints. While there are lots of "reply guy" types over there, even the hint of disagreement, perceived or real, is seen as objectionable.

    This response is similar.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 7 points 4 months ago (5 children)
  • [+] -14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

    Nah man, I just dislike when people do shit like he did thinking they have a point.

    Also nice knee jerk reaction.

    Edit: in what world is a counterpoint agreement?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago* (3 children)

    This is so frustrating

    The commenter was building on top of your argument

    You said prohibition wasnt healthy

    They said total absence of control wasnt healthy

    They implicitly agreed with you that prohibition wasnt healthy

    I then spell it out for you that the message being built, that almost certainly you also agree with, is that moderation is the answer.


    A counterpoint turns a random point into a line, a line into a polygon, a polygon into a solid, etc.

    That counterpoint gave your message an extra and important dimmension. They thought your message was correct but lacking neccisary nuance.

    For some reason you got peeved with that, and i think that looks poorly on you, not anyone else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    Counterpoints aren't agreement

    Edit: No 3 paragraph retort? @cAUzapNEAGLb@lemmy.world

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)