[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.