Can I ask back? My concern is that junk food is junk food. What is your concern with me pointing it out? Am I really causing such irreparable damage by pointing out that it's shit and people shouldn't eat it? And is the damage I cause by pointing out it's shit more than the damage that's caused for example by advertising this shit to kids over 12?

What is your concern, exactly, with my comment, can you explain?

Free time to waste and a reaction to what I perceived as a weird moralizing tangent to a throwaway line only aimed at building social proof of importance for the article's main content about correcting the details of a rags-to-riches tale. (You're probably right it should just be written off as a submarine, though I'm happy for the correction since even the corrected tale provides an example in favor of one of Deming's principles, and it's better for examples to be as factual as possible.) I also was curious that if I mentioned that the marketing to kids angle isn't there and that people are already well aware of what junk food is, would you still be so disturbed?

And I do think you're erroneous in jumping from something being popular with kids to something being marketed to (or even "aimed straight at") kids, though in the process of typing up an even longer comment I realized this isn't entirely fair because one generally expects companies to market to their big consumers. Are kids big consumers? Probably or else the snack wouldn't be popular enough to cause a ruckus, but after a minute's search I didn't find any demographic data addressing more than just adults so beyond the company statement I'm only left with intuition. (FWIW after looking at demographic data I saw a surprising blurb that "America’s Favorite Snack for the Third Year in a Row Is Flamin’ Hot Cheetos". My intuition suggests this is best explained by being most popular with adults, for themselves, rather than kids or teens.) But maybe you'll find a commercial or something to show me that I'm wrong and it definitely is aimed at them, particularly any time recently.

> Why does it make it any better if it's not marketed to kids under 12?

I'm not sure you're even asking this seriously. For an imperfect analogy I would suggest without getting into much reasoning that it's better that society restricts cigarette companies from marketing to kids but lets them continue marketing to adults. If we got into it I think the general principle I'd be going for first would revolve around improved cognition as you age into adulthood, but I don't think it's much better or worse whether this particular junk snack isn't marketed to kids, in part from my own biases that include a fondness for 90s commercials and cartoons.

> Is it more healthy to eat shit when you're over 12?

Generally yes, though the correlation depends on the specific type of shit and often more on weight more so than age... Still, as you age beyond childhood, you tend to get heavier, and your body can tolerate more abuse from lots of kinds of things.

> Am I really causing such irreparable damage by pointing out that it's shit and people shouldn't eat it?

I don't think you're causing damage, I just think it was a weird comment with misplaced moralizing about the kids, and your followup makes me all the more curious whether it's ultimately just a complaint against junk food existing in general. Or is there something about this particular food that you think is egregiously unhealthy? So it's clear, I didn't like this particular flavor when I tried it perhaps 12 years ago, though I do enjoy regular cheetos from time to time (especially when I worked in an office and they were free); I would never mistake them for healthy food, but 1) I think they taste good and 2) I don't think they're particularly unhealthy.

Though my language wasn't technical, I made a qualititative comment about the substance of the product we're disucssing (and later about its specific list of ingredients on which I have a lot more to say; but I'm waiting for the other poster's reply to my comment for that), not about the moral character of the people who consume it. For example, I didn't say "if you eat this stuff you're a bad person". I said "don't eat this shit. It's bad for you".

"It's bad for you". Not "you're bad". You wrote six paragraphs in response to something I never said. And with a condescending attitude ("I'm not sure you're even asking this seriously").

What can I say? Life on the internet would be so much better if we didn't all constantly make assumptions about each other's intent and instead asked the question "what do you mean?" before jumping straight in to do battle.

For instance, you could have asked this, and I'd 've been happy to answer:

> I don't think you're causing damage, I just think it was a weird comment with misplaced moralizing about the kids, and your followup makes me all the more curious whether it's ultimately just a complaint against junk food existing in general.

Yes, it's a complaint about junk food in general. I care about food (see username) and I'm disturbed to find that most of the food people eat in developed countries is mass produced shit sold to them by a degenerate food industry that destroys the environment and consumers' health; and in the process has taken away the ability of most people to cook a nutritious, healthy and satisfying meal for themselves. I'm even more disturbed that people are so used to eating this shit that they protest when anyone reminds them it's shit or tries to show them how to eat a good, cheap meal instead - like the British moms that fed their kids kebabs over the school gates when school meals switched to something more healthy than mac'n'cheese and fries (it was in the news back then, related to some initiative by Jamie Oliver. You can probably find it on the web, otherwise let me know and I'll find you a link).

And so, on we go. I say "don't eat that shit. It's bad for you". And you say I'm moralising, and another poster complains about "handholding" and "coddling". Because this whole subject of what we eat, which is really a practical matter of measurable quantities and predictable outcomes that should be discussed on technical terms, has become a political issue that is only ever discussed in emotional terms. Even on "Hacker News".

Which is supposed to be all about intellectual curiosity. Where's the intellectual curiosity in ruminating over the same old boring culture war issues? Aren't you curious instead why people eat shit when they know it's shit and even call it junk food themselves, like you say? Because thats what I am curious about.

No, because to me it's obvious. They eat it for obvious reasons, four that immediately come to mind include 1) to them it's not shit 2) it tastes good 3) it's part of addictive behavior, which may or may not have a component based in chemical dependence 4) it's fast and accessible (and often inexpensive, though I frequently shake my head when I'm reminded how much markup a gas station store has over a grocery store for the same items yet nonetheless sell a good volume).

I'm even more mystified about your sudden reminder that we're on "Hacker News". How long have you been on HN? (I assume this isn't your first account.) Old HN died a long time ago.

What kind of stance is it then? It doesn't sound like an economic stance, or a legal stance. And it doesn't sound like your motivation is so that you personally won't have to see them.

It's a political stance, not a moral one. As I said earlier, I didn't make any moral judgements about the people who eat that snack, or even for the people who sell it, although to be fair I do have a few choice words for the latter. Anyway in my book accusing someone of "moralising" is most of the time something people say to shut down conversation.

I didn't understand what you mean by your last sentence.