[jodrellblank]

> "Neither creatures in the wild, or primitive man, have access to unlimited quantities of calorie dense foods."

And just like that, you've come up with another way.

> "I think I'd rather take a perfectly safe drug than go back to wiping with leaves and hunting for worm riddled meat."

That is some ridiculously hyperbolic panicked scaremongering at the idea of banning Coca Cola. I have literally no idea how restricting the unlimited calorie dense foods available would lead to hating black people and murdering gay people, but it's some more hyperbolic commentary.

> "I'm not even sure I understand which lifestyle you're asking about here"

The one I mentioned. Comparing the "free" lifestyle where you have adverts for Coca-Cola shoved into your face 24/7 along with adverts selling you a drug to help you ignore the Coca-Cola adverts. Vs. "non-free" where Coca-Cola isn't available for sale and you just don't think about it because you've never had it and don't miss it, and you go about your life doing the things you care about instead.

[stevenAthompson]

I interpreted your original comment differently. Based on the votes so did others. At no point did you suggest banning Coca-Cola, or otherwise limiting calorie dense foods. Instead it seemed that you were advocating a return to some mythical past when food was more like it is for wild animals.

I wonder if you confused this thread with another? Or maybe your sarcasm was misinterpreted?

[jodrellblank]

I didn't confuse this thread with another; from the parent comments we have "diet and exercise works but nobody can do it because it's really hard" to "we can't do it because we have to think all the time about resisting ultra processed junk food" to my comment "we wouldn't have to think all the time about it, if we didn't have it".

I do see how it looks like a return to caveman times, and was unnecessarily sarcastic. Practically, the times when I don't have junk food in the cupboards, I don't have to think constantly about resisting junk food because there isn't any to eat and that makes a difference. Extending that out to national levels, schools shouldn't have vending machines full of junk food, hospitals shouldn't have coffee chains, coffee chains should have restrictions on how much sugar can be in coffee, soda shouldn't be a thing, breakfast cereals shouldn't be a thing, and keep going as far as necessary. In the argument between Nanny state and Laissez-faire it's very clear that the food industry will kill millions of people and ruin the quality of life of billions millions, hiding behind smiley friendly packaging, exploiting human biases in ways we have no defenses against, and it's not nanny-stating to regulate killers harshly.

[stevenAthompson]

> we wouldn't have to think all the time about it, if we didn't have if we didn't have it ...

You literally did not say those words in the comment I replied to. You didn't even seem to imply it. Either that or there's some kind of shadow ban thing happening and I can't see the same thing you are.