"You can't compare two things just because their outcomes are the same."

No, you cannot equate two things even if they lead to the same outcome

If the outcomes are the same you can certainly equate the outcomes and if the intent is the same, such as to limit consumption, then you can certainly equate the intent as well. After the intent and the outcome I don't really see how the rest is anything but execution details.

The intent is to limit waste not consumption.

There is a difference that you're not seeing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38538799

You're arguing execution details. I don't think the original post was saying this was literally the same thing just that it effectively is. Your argument around intent is largely a reframing that serves to sidestep the obvious disparate impact angles on the matter. "The intent isn't to stifle consumption that's just a predictable consequence of our intent" is an extremely shallow rebuttal.

Execution details are salient. Outcomes are higher dimensioned than what you describe.

There's no chance those words are intended to convey meaning. Is there?

These are not complicated words

When there are two parties to a transaction, it doesn't really matter which party you forbid from making the transaction. The effect is the same, which is all that really matters from an economic standpoint

Even if true, economics is only one part of the equation.

When society discusses sex work, there is more support for penalizing the traffickers than the workers. This is because morals are an important dimension besides just economics. Similarly, when talking about waste, there is more depth than just thinking about the economic impact.

They're not forbiding any transactions here though, unless you considering yeeting stuff in the garbage a transaction.