31–40 of 62 posts
Possibly so, to a certain extent, but in the end it's our personal responsibility to stay as much away as possible from the above things.
Can a law make cigarettes less addictive? What about alcoholic beverages? Soda? Sugar? Sweet stuff in general? Gambling? Drugs? Possibly so, to a certain extent, but in the end it's our personal responsibility to stay as much away as possible from the above things.
Can a law make cigarettes less addictive? What about alcoholic beverages? Soda? Sugar? Sweet stuff in general? Gambling? Drugs? Possibly so, to a certain extent, but in the end it's our personal responsibility to stay as much away as possible from the above things.
Personal responsibility is overrated. In almost all of the examples you mention, direct government intervention can and does lead to positive health outcomes for individuals and for the whole of society. It just seems like that's almost a taboo thing to say in the US.
But I don't think laws, while necessary, can really solve the problem. If well thought out, they can limit the damange that is done, but not solve the problem.
Can a law make cigarettes less addictive? What about alcoholic beverages? Soda? Sugar? Sweet stuff in general? Gambling? Drugs? Possibly so, to a certain extent, but in the end it's our personal responsibility to stay as much away as possible from the above things.
You educate people and tell them it is addictive, you can make it illegal and hard for people to get, you can put people in jail for getting hooked on it. It is still addictive.
Nothing short of making heroin not heroin makes it less addictive, but then it is no longer heroin and heroin itself is still just as addictive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that parents have the overwhelming bulk of the responsibility for what their kids have access to but as I've said to my parents in the past: "You're up against Nobel Prize winners who work for an organization with the goal of getting you addicted to ". When you have thousands of devs trying to break your will power, you're really gonna struggle. Social media has passed me by (almost 50yo) and I have zero inte…
But its trivial to fight against for the parents - just don't give them the damned phone/tablet/tv remote etc. Till teens there is little rational justification, and massive evidence against it. But then real challenge starts - folks with microscopic attention spans themselves are supposed to actually spend hours with their kids on activities that hardly give any dopamine kicks. Kids are really just a brutally honest…
I used to get angry but I genuinely feel sorry for the child now: I suspect they will have zero attention span when they grow up and probably won't read books etc - There is no long-term upside to it.
Can a law make cigarettes less addictive? What about alcoholic beverages? Soda? Sugar? Sweet stuff in general? Gambling? Drugs? Possibly so, to a certain extent, but in the end it's our personal responsibility to stay as much away as possible from the above things.
The law can not make heroin less addictive. You educate people and tell them it is addictive, you can make it illegal and hard for people to get, you can put people in jail for getting hooked on it. It is still addictive. Nothing short of making heroin not heroin makes it less addictive, but then it is no longer heroin and heroin itself is still just as addictive.
Parents seem to get out of this scot free. I see young children who's behaviour is ignored for long periods of time while parents are "busy" on their phones. The idea of parents being responsible for the upbringing of their children seems to be something which has disappeared.
As a parent I agree parental reponsiblity is absolute but I haven't seen a workable solution reguarding social media. I can't realistically monitor what my children are looking 24/7, like I can't listen to every conversation that they have. I could ban all social media / phones but how is that going to prepare them for life in a world where social media is all encompassing? Plus they likely would be ostracized by the…
I'm in your same situation but the previous sentence helps to stand my ground.
Parents seem to get out of this scot free. I see young children who's behaviour is ignored for long periods of time while parents are "busy" on their phones. The idea of parents being responsible for the upbringing of their children seems to be something which has disappeared.
The advantage of this position (looking at other parents' kids) is you'll always be able to find an angle. You're blaming parents for letting their kids on their own device. If they'd follow your advice, you could then blame them for not letting their kids get bored [0]. And if they're reading you can blame the lack of exercise, or otherwise the lack of reading/writing by hand. Or if they're doing all of that in turn…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But its trivial to fight against for the parents - just don't give them the damned phone/tablet/tv remote etc. Till teens there is little rational justification, and massive evidence against it. But then real challenge starts - folks with microscopic attention spans themselves are supposed to actually spend hours with their kids on activities that hardly give any dopamine kicks. Kids are really just a brutally honest…
I see it frequently myself: a parent in the supermarket pushing a child in a buggy/pram and the child is watching something on the phone... usually with high volume. I used to get angry but I genuinely feel sorry for the child now: I suspect they will have zero attention span when they grow up and probably won't read books etc - There is no long-term upside to it.
I wonder how many people talking about self-control have a good relationship with their phone? I don't know anyone personally who likes their relationship with their phone. I've been considering and trying to practice being kinder to myself, my phone, and my relationship with it. I still want to use less of it, but it's now a part of us, and will take time to almost amputate. I want to just stop feeding it, and let i…