I think we have to allow that when you’re raised on sugar like we all were, substitutes are never going to live up.
However lots of people throughout history didn’t have refined sugar. The ancient Egyptians for example. What would they have thought of stevia?
I once went on a strict no-carb diet for a few months and a stevia tea at the end of the day was a very enjoyable treat that I looked forward to. Now, having gone back to a normal diet, it doesn’t taste as good.
I mean of course, yes, but since I can’t change my environment or context all I can do is speak on my own perspective informed my own context and experiences.
Like I’m not sure what your point is here, just that this obviously subjective topic is subjective? Yes, of course it is. And yes of course my response was likewise subjective, but given the inherent nature of the topic the idea of addending “in my opinion” to the end feels extremely unnecessary.
So again, I don’t disagree with you, but this feels entirely non-sequitur to me.
I’m saying it’s even more than just subjective from one person to the next. I described how I changed my environment and context and how that had an effect. Your opinion can change.
I think you’re upsetting yourself trying to figure out if I’m agreeing or disagreeing with you but It’s a discussion. People chip in different bits.
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.
I think we have to allow that when you’re raised on sugar like we all were, substitutes are never going to live up.
However lots of people throughout history didn’t have refined sugar. The ancient Egyptians for example. What would they have thought of stevia?
I once went on a strict no-carb diet for a few months and a stevia tea at the end of the day was a very enjoyable treat that I looked forward to. Now, having gone back to a normal diet, it doesn’t taste as good.
So I think habituation is a big part of it.
I mean of course, yes, but since I can’t change my environment or context all I can do is speak on my own perspective informed my own context and experiences.
Like I’m not sure what your point is here, just that this obviously subjective topic is subjective? Yes, of course it is. And yes of course my response was likewise subjective, but given the inherent nature of the topic the idea of addending “in my opinion” to the end feels extremely unnecessary.
So again, I don’t disagree with you, but this feels entirely non-sequitur to me.
I’m saying it’s even more than just subjective from one person to the next. I described how I changed my environment and context and how that had an effect. Your opinion can change.
I think you’re upsetting yourself trying to figure out if I’m agreeing or disagreeing with you but It’s a discussion. People chip in different bits.
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.