7 ms·

The nutritional content is absolutely worse. I am sure that long term, many children can recover from it at least physically and cognitively. As far as making

The nutritional content is absolutely worse. I am sure that long term, many children can recover from it at least physically and cognitively. As far as making an absolute claim, colloquially, people say something is bad when they mean worse than the alternative. To make an extreme example, smoking is much worse for you than caffeine but they are similar in many aspects. I do not feel the need to say that smoking is relatively worse. I say "Smoking is bad".

n4r9 5d ago
I'm not convinced by the smoking vs caffeine analogy. Smoking has no physical upside and in the long-term is extremely detrimental to health. The formula vs breast milk feels more comparable to something like still vs sparkling water. You need to get your fluids from one or the other. Sparkling is arguably marginally worse for your tooth enamel than still. Yet I don't hear people saying that sparkling water is "bad" for you.
- protonbob 5d ago
  Smoking does have a physical upside. It's a wonderful nootropic. Sparkling water has the exact same chemical makeup as regular water. Formula is trying to replace something that evolution has come up with that is purpose made to feed and develop the brains of infants and young children. That is not a good comparison at all.
  - n4r9 5d ago
    Fine it has some cognitive benefits, but in terms of physical health it's absurdly net negative. Long term smokers have a huge likelihood of dying from a smoking-related illness. That's what people mean when they say it's bad... they're not internally comparing it to caffeine. Sparkling water has a significantly lower ph than still water. > Formula is trying to replace something that evolution has come up with... Sure but the vast majority of what people use and consume is a replacement for what "evolution has come up with". That doesn't inherently make it "bad".
    - protonbob 5d ago
      > Sure but the vast majority of what people use and consume is a replacement for what "evolution has come up with". That doesn't inherently make it "bad". This is not true at all. What are you talking about? In general most people eat regular foods that come from the ground not ultraprocessed foods. I don't know why you are nitpicking so much about the smoking example. I said it was an extreme example of something that is relatively worse but some people are comfortable calling categorically bad.
      - n4r9 5d ago
        Maybe I misunderstood, but it seemed to me that the smoking example was evidence for your claim: > colloquially, people say something is bad when they mean worse than the alternative [as opposed to absolutely bad] I don't think it does support that claim, for the reasons I've given.

n4r9 5d ago

I'm not convinced by the smoking vs caffeine analogy. Smoking has no physical upside and in the long-term is extremely detrimental to health. The formula vs breast milk feels more comparable to something like still vs sparkling water. You need to get your fluids from one or the other. Sparkling is arguably marginally worse for your tooth enamel than still. Yet I don't hear people saying that sparkling water is "bad" for you.

protonbob 5d ago
Smoking does have a physical upside. It's a wonderful nootropic. Sparkling water has the exact same chemical makeup as regular water. Formula is trying to replace something that evolution has come up with that is purpose made to feed and develop the brains of infants and young children. That is not a good comparison at all.
- n4r9 5d ago
  Fine it has some cognitive benefits, but in terms of physical health it's absurdly net negative. Long term smokers have a huge likelihood of dying from a smoking-related illness. That's what people mean when they say it's bad... they're not internally comparing it to caffeine. Sparkling water has a significantly lower ph than still water. > Formula is trying to replace something that evolution has come up with... Sure but the vast majority of what people use and consume is a replacement for what "evolution has come up with". That doesn't inherently make it "bad".
  - protonbob 5d ago
    > Sure but the vast majority of what people use and consume is a replacement for what "evolution has come up with". That doesn't inherently make it "bad". This is not true at all. What are you talking about? In general most people eat regular foods that come from the ground not ultraprocessed foods. I don't know why you are nitpicking so much about the smoking example. I said it was an extreme example of something that is relatively worse but some people are comfortable calling categorically bad.
    - n4r9 5d ago
      Maybe I misunderstood, but it seemed to me that the smoking example was evidence for your claim: > colloquially, people say something is bad when they mean worse than the alternative [as opposed to absolutely bad] I don't think it does support that claim, for the reasons I've given.