No. The cruelty is pretending that everyone has equal capacity to make life choices and that society has no role in encouraging people to make good decisions.

Who is pretending these straw men?

It’s not me. I don’t agree with either of those positions.

If so, then will you concede that the policy (ban) under discussion will tend to have beneficial effects that might outweigh the insulting effect that you noted in your first comment?

There ia about zero effort put into encouraging good decisions, but a lot of gleeful activity into making their lives as uncomfortable as possible.

Systematically again and again. At this point, it just make bo sense to pretend anything else.

The very same people throw massive fit at any measure that could make their targets life's better.

You know what's uncomfortable (and also expensive)? Being obese and having rotting teeth.

Drinking soda has almost nothing to do with rotting teeth. Dentists are now more concerned about the damage electrolyte drinks cause.

Should we take away Gatorade too?

> Drinking soda has almost nothing to do with rotting teeth.

This is the first I've heard anyone say this. Got any sources to share?

> Should we take away Gatorade too?

First of all, it's not taking away, rather it's not providing. And yes, probably. Gatorade has almost as much added sugar as coke.

The guiding principle is "don't provide things that are 1) going to promote illness, and 2) cause you to have to now provide more things to deal with the problems you've caused.

there is a difference between discouraging bad decisions and encouraging good ones. this resolution falls into the former which is a collective punishment more than anything else since the health of those affected isn't the driving factor here. a better solution would be if healthy items like produce were given incentive to be purchased over these, like exclusive discounting or something similar.

Like making it so that you have to pay full price for candy and soda, but letting you buy produce for free with your SNAP benefits? It's not like beneficiaries are banned from buying soda. They just can't use their benefits to do it (and since money is fungible, it's not really even taking anything away unless they had more than they need to buy actual groceries).

As someone who buys soda maybe once a year or two and candy only to give out on Halloween, I don't understand how this is a point of contention. No one should be buying this stuff with enough regularity for it to affect their budget. Why would we subsidize it? That is encouraging people to buy it. We shouldn't subsidize it for the same reasons we shouldn't subsidize cigarettes and alcohol.

Or more to the point, SNAP is for food. Candy and soda are not food. Unless you're Michael Phelps and need 10,000 calories per day, they have no place in anyone's diet.

>Candy and soda are not food. Unless you're Michael Phelps and need 10,000 calories per day

Or a farmer.

If the government is giving you money to buy food, it’s extremely fair that they require you to buy food that isn’t diabetes-inducing poison.

Everyone gets something from the government, that’s dangerous reasoning.

If the policy got folks out of poverty I’m all for it, otherwise it’s just people’s / government’s desire to tell others what to do for the sake of doing that.

Reducing obesity and diabetes is definitely a worthy goal.