Hacker News Reader

Comment by themgt | Hacker News Reader

No, it would be worth your time to read/listen to Robert Lustig. He explains how and why consuming natural sources like fruit where fructose is encased in digestion-slowing cellulose is normally fine, while extracting the fructose and adding it to other products like soda (and huge amounts of American processed foods) leads to toxicity and liver and metabolic damage.

You can make jokes, but cutting excess fructose from American diets would probably be the #1 easiest thing to do for millions of people to live longer, healthier lives. And Bittman is correct that the FDA should get involved.

It's actually difficult to buy "Healthy, Good for You™!" yogurt in an American supermarket that doesn't contain toxic amounts of added fructose - that is just crazy.

View on HN

Educate then, don't attempt to socially engineer. Smoking was reduced through education, not taxation. The more people understood the long term consequences of smoking the less people smoked.

I share the views of those who are not fans of processed sugars or fructose, but I am entirely opposed to social engineering.

> Educate then, don't attempt to socially engineer.

Education is social engineering.

Nonsense. Social engineering is using the force of the state to modify behaviors. You can say forced education is social engineering, but the act of educating or learning is not social engineering.

> Social engineering is using the force of the state to modify behaviors.

You may think that, but that isn't what it means. Look it up

Wikipedia: Social engineering is a discipline in social science that refers to efforts to influence popular attitudes and social behaviors on a large scale, whether by governments or private groups.

Google: The application of sociological principles to specific social problems.

Dictionary.com: the application of the findings of social science to the solution of actual social problems.

So whatever you're talking about, social engineering isn't the phrase you're looking for.

In the political sense I am using the term appropriately. You want to get into semantic debate and I am not really interested.

Words have meaning, I'm not "wanting" a semantic debate, I'm simply telling you that the way you're using the term is bound to be misunderstood because it doesn't mean that. Take it how you will, but no you didn't use the term correctly even in the political sense as I gave you the political science definition from Wikipedia, that is the political sense.

Wikipedia is not the beginning and the end. The English has a profound ability to change. And yes, I used the term in an appropriate manner that many who debate politics understand it.

Also, go argue that decimate means to destroy 10% versus what it is perceived as to mean today (more than 10%.)

Words change.

Words do change, you still used it wrong. Good day.

Smoking was reduced through education, not taxation.

Do you have any references to back this up? I'd be genuinely very curious to see them!

Not on hand, but you are right to ask for them. I'll further articulate the argument that I should have made above. The demographics of smokers skew towards higher consumption in poorer & less educated brackets while less consumption among wealthier & more educated.

My argument is simple. Taxation has a minimal effect on our behaviors, but our level of education & level of wealth has a much larger effect. Those who are more impacted by a tax on tobacco make up a larger percentage of those who are less impacted by the higher cost.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult...

*Edited for clarity & for a less glib response.

Really? Because I always thought the ever increasing cost of cigarettes had some small role in it as well. http://www.treatobacco.net/en/page_120.php

Reply on news.ycombinator.com