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?
Well that doesn’t sound like a good faith argument.
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
They didn’t address my point at all and went for the extreme opposite. As if it was a gotcha.
The world must look so small and scary from your perspective if you think this was opposition to you. Its not.
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?
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.
Counterpoints aren’t agreement
Edit: No 3 paragraph retort? @cAUzapNEAGLb@lemmy.world
Dont be a troll, this is pathetic.
Come back to this tomorrow and reread it if you have to.
I’m done, heres your three paragraphs though, i still love you.
Well, the love is not reciprocated and seems rather hostile that you would say that.
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.