I can’t tell if it’s gone over my head tbh. It sounds like you’re likening the banning of mobile phones to the banning of books, which is just laughable. Which makes me think I’ve not understood. You’d have far more of a point if they’d banned e-readers and access to library computers, wikipedia etc.
What on earth are you on about.
nor should it
Hard disagree there. How to create such a system is a separate question though, that much I will grant.
would indeed be unjust
It wouldn’t be “correct” in the application of the law. That wouldn’t make it unjust necessarily. Law is not the same as justice, it’s just our best effort.
Brits just want everyone to queue up
Finally! Now we’re getting to the real issues
Completely agree. I was personally a little annoyed at this usage. There can actually be consequences for some people to have a very sudden, loud, intrusive noise.
a first since
So not a first then
You’re right. It would be unethical.
Talking is cheap. providing facts, evidence or any sort of support for one’s claims are a bit less cheap though.
That’s a no then
What? I’ve heard plenty of criticisms over the Greens but I’ve never heard this one before
WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT TONY BLAIR’S THINK TANK
Just wanted to echo the vote with your wallet sentiment. It’s the only power we have!
It isn’t clear because it doesn’t exist.
Ah brilliant! Case closed. Pack up everyone.
Look, there’s plenty of research indicating very negative effects of UPF on us, but it’s still an early field. The categorisation of UPF isn’t perfect no question, but that’s largely a result of the fact that, cooking processes combined with ingredients don’t make nice categories. We need ways to simplify the research for people who realistically aren’t going to look into the data, such as yourself.
If you’re really that opposed to the field, like your dismissive tone implies, then I’d advise not researching it, and eating what you like. But you aren’t going to erase the fact that obesity rises as exposure to UPF rises, that food preparation alters how our bodies process it, or that there are different health outcomes especially if you eat a lot of it. I’m afraid that’s science.
There isn’t a clear one because it’s not simple to define. If you follow the research, we can’t simply say it’s the ingredients used as the process itself can be bad. So it’s a hodge-podge of, “well watch out for this ingredient, but also ask them if they’ve put it through x and then we’ll know”.
It’s a whole area of research and it’s going to remain complicated, but we can’t give up on describing it at all.
Better late than never
Still doesn’t stop them being used against you. If they’re published by “choice” I think that’s easier on the soul, if still painful.
You guys took James Corden off our hands for years, seems only fair.
Meh, it’s just software
Ah okay, that does make your point a little clearer tbf. I agree a lot of it is hysteria, and it exists purely in the vaccum of ignorance which could be solved with a bit more wisdom.
That said, I work in tech and there’s a bit more to this one. I don’t think it should involve not having access to a phone at all, and it shouldn’t impact a parents ability to get in contact with their child after school for example, but a lot of apps on phones do cause real harm to developing brains and because a lot of parents simply aren’t being responsible enough in guiding their children’s relationship with technology, I at least somewhat understand why schools are doing something. I don’t think preventing kids from feeding an addiction to instagram at lunchtime is anything but a good thing.
I think banning e-readers is beyond ridiculous though, as is preventing any kind of internet connection instead of using allowlists for things like wikipedia and whatnot. That’s lazy and also prevents developing a good relationshii with the internet.