[rtpg]

If you think that objectively spending money on leisure is bad, my claim is that you are in a minority with that thought process.

My implication here is not that being in a minority changes whether something is objectively true or not (it doesn't!). But I will outright say that I do not believe this, and I think that most people do not believe this.

Claiming to believe that leisure is bad objectively is, in my opinion, also a claim that you are "smarter" than the vast majority of people. After all, you have unlocked some reasoning to reach this, that other people seem to have missed. Do you believe to have unlocked some deeper truths through thought? Perhaps! I tend to assume I am far from the smartest person in the room.

Objectivity is the load bearing thing here, of course. If you merely think spending money on leisure is bad, then that's what you think. That can be one of your axioms in your belief system. Stating it as some objective fact is a much stronger claim, that I don't think really holds up to much scrutiny.

This is even before getting into the idea of "objective badness", which is a can of worms.

A lot of work to try and claim objectivity on your side, when the much easier "my belief system is like this, and from that I conclude this other thing" is a perfectly respectable argument when discussing policy preferences.

Added bonus of being honest about what part of your argument is just a belief system is you can then more quickly identify why you disagree with someone else.

[simplify]

Sorry to press, but I'm not sure if you answered my question. Why mention that you think most people do not believe it? In your latest comment, you didn't justify, but you did "outright say" it again. What value does bringing it up have?

Not trying to be combative, just thought it's an interesting point in this discussion of objectivity vs subjectivity.

[rtpg]

I'm just saying I doubt that zug_zug has actually unlocked some chain of reasoning to say that all that stuff is objectively bad. If they did, what's stopping everyone else from doing it? I am expressing doubt.

Like if someone showed up and said "I can predict lottery numbers". Maybe I'm talking to someone who has figured it out. Maybe I'm talking to someone who is wrong. This isn't at the same level but the claim to objectivity feels pretty close to me!

I think zug_zug's claims are based in a worldview, and not derived from some objective truth. That's fine! We are allowed to inject our own preferences into these discussions! It feels intellectually dishonest to pretend that we're working off of some objective truth of how the world "should" be.

[simplify]

> If they did, what's stopping everyone else from doing it? I am expressing doubt.

This is a pretty interesting topic on human nature. Chain of reasoning doesn't always result in proper action. For example, my cousin has been having a lot of health problems lately. Logically he knows that alcohol is contributing to them. Yet, when he's out with his friends, he can't help but drink anyway, despite knowing (and likely ignoring for the moment) the consequences of doing so.

Similarly, things like junk food and overpriced status-symbol vehicles have objective costs that prey on the weaknesses of human nature. Whether to restrict such things, and by how much, is where the subjective aspect comes in.

This also all presumes we share the same values of "let's try to reduce human suffering somewhat". A libertarian, for example, would just say "live and let live".

[rtpg]

Right, totally see what you're saying. In the junk food example (assuming fast food a la McDs...) it feels fairly noncontroversial to say there's health costs. Just then you get into convenience discussions (or even just enjoyment discussions) and now you're weighing health vs convenience and these are totally not fungible quantities. So you're already veering into subjectivity if you're saying "on balance it's bad".

There has to be a point at which you pull in preferences. But at least then you can split the "objective" from the subjective, and think about the details in earnest. Even when conclusions differ.

[fennecbutt]

>If you think that objectively spending money on leisure is bad, my claim is that you are in a minority with that thought process.

Strawman. The topic at hand isn't about spending money on leisure but taking out a loan to pay for a fucking burrito.

[rtpg]

This is meandering a bit (and I'll once again state that I think Burrito Now Pay Layer is Bad(TM)), but the flow here is (forgive the paraphrasing):

- zug_zug said "we should talk about economics objectively" and claimed "bnpl is one of a dozen services that extracts money from those whose judgment we doubt" , giving examples of other services in that category

- I replied to that claim, saying that I believe their claim that, for example, junk food is a service that extracts money from whose judgement we doubt, is likely to be a subjective analysis and not an objective one.

- I further said that I think you could end up with a believe that it was an objective analysis if you are a person who has reached the conclusion that spending money on leisure is bad

- I am then claiming that I doubt that there's an objective chain of logic that gets you to "spending money on leisure is bad". My reasoning is that I believe that to not be the position held by many people, on top of my belief that generally most people are not extremely smart.

Absent the "spending money on leisure is bad" claim, I don't see a claim to saying that, _objectively_, junk food, sports cars etc is an indicator of people applying bad judgement. And so saying "well BNPL is objectively just yet another stupid tax" is not a well founded argument in my opinion!

"I think Burrito Now Pay Later is bad" is a fine statement, and doesn't try to apply a layer of objectivity that, in my view, crumbles pretty quickly.