You disparaged the entire category. Which is a fairly common take. I’m saying that the moment we frame that category as sugar substitutes, in a highly sugar-driven world, the category is bound to compare poorly. It’s more than just subjective, it’s very slanted in one direction - for all of us.
But there are other frames of reference we could consider. Such as a world that isn’t saturated with sugar. Or even a personal diet that removes sugar as the frame of reference. “The examined life” that’s supposedly so worth living consists of trying not to just automatically react to the context we are in, but also consider alternatives, right?
You’re more than entitled to your opinion, and most share it. I’m just pointing out built-in biases that we all have on this question. If it was hard to figure out how my reply followed from your comment, it might be because I was trying to offer it without invalidating your opinion in any way.
Not upset, just confused. No ire anywhere, I assure you. Cheers.
You disparaged the entire category. Which is a fairly common take. I’m saying that the moment we frame that category as sugar substitutes, in a highly sugar-driven world, the category is bound to compare poorly. It’s more than just subjective, it’s very slanted in one direction - for all of us.
But there are other frames of reference we could consider. Such as a world that isn’t saturated with sugar. Or even a personal diet that removes sugar as the frame of reference. “The examined life” that’s supposedly so worth living consists of trying not to just automatically react to the context we are in, but also consider alternatives, right?
You’re more than entitled to your opinion, and most share it. I’m just pointing out built-in biases that we all have on this question. If it was hard to figure out how my reply followed from your comment, it might be because I was trying to offer it without invalidating your opinion in any way.
That is clearer, thank you.