>>214718387 (OP)
Yeah, but good luck convincing people that they are doing it. Even when the food industry lobby is ridiculously powerful. I don't think it should be banned, but people should treat those kind of 'foods' like alcohol and cigarettes. As in, even if it doesn't look like you are being harmed by it (being fat as fuck), you are being harmed by it. >>214718425
Just like my cigarettes.
>>214719424
I'm not fat, I'm just not stupid. And all things considered, their lobby is so strong that they even the US is controlled by them. Even with things going to shit, and with all that MAHA bs, they are still on damage control mode when it comes to sugar.
>>214719194
because it doesn't matter.
you can get addicted to literally anything. getting addicted and not having the self-awareness to recognize it is only your own fault.
>>214719775 >dude, I was just making a point that anything can be addictive, just don't mind me being a retard
Yes, you can fuck around with figures of speech on /lit/. This is fucking /int/, bruh. We aren't talking about poetry. This bullshit has no place when you are talking about science. You should know that if you actually paid attention to your fucking language classes that figures of speech have no place in certain types of language.
