| |
| ▲ | nickserv 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's absolutely not a meaningless term, it's a classification in the Nova standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification And regarding health risks, please ask your doctor about your consumption. You may be surprised. | | |
| ▲ | picofarad an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, it kinda made me laugh too. I'm glad you could pull something out. I'd never heard of that Nova classification system. I'll have to read some more on it. The whole doctor thing, the more processed the food is, the less work your body has to do, which means the more available the calories are, which generally means the worse it is for you. And usually the fats have to be processed because fat is generally not shelf-stable. | |
| ▲ | 9rx an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It is meaningless to the general population. No term is meaningless to an individual or small groups of people, obviously. That goes without saying. | | |
| ▲ | voakbasda an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Ignorance of a concept does not make it meaningless. | |
| ▲ | nickserv an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | By that logic all sorts of technical and scientific terms would be "meaningless". Seems like playing semantics, to not say disingenuous, using "meaningless" to mean "unknown", when the former clearly has a negative connotation. | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 24 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Most technical and scientific terms absolutely are meaningless outside of related technical and scientific communities. All terms have at least one person who sees it as meaningful else it could not fundamentally exist as a term, but clearly the context is about trying use it in contexts where the audience is the general population. There is no shared understanding of what it means in that setting, thus it is meaningless (to that audience). |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | toasty228 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > ultra-processed is a meaningless You'd find plenty of definitions if you looked for them > generally processed food lasts longer, is less perishable, often cheaper, etc. Go ahead and list the negatives too lmao... what do you think the additives meant to prevent living organism from developing on the food do in your gut for example ? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11901572/ Ultra processed food benefit companies more than they benefit you | | |
| ▲ | SauntSolaire an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > You'd find plenty of definitions if you looked for them Having a greater number of competing definitions does not generally make a term more meaningful. (Take "art" for example.) | | | |
| ▲ | 9rx an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > You'd find plenty of definitions Exactly. Terms that are meaningful have one generally accepted definition. When everyone and their brother are coming up with their own pet definitions, that is when a term is considered meaningless. | | |
| ▲ | toasty228 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Oh there is a very well defined and accepted definition in science, but for some reasons geniuses on this forum, and online in general, like to pull their best "ackchyually" broscience definitions. btw feel free to open a dictionary and discover that a lot of words have multiple definitions, it doesn't mean they're meaningless... | | |
| ▲ | 9rx an hour ago | parent [-] | | "Meaningless" doesn't mean everyone fails to find meaning, it means that there is no general consensus on what it means. As you pointed out before, everyone holds their own pet definition. It means something to most everyone, but there isn't a shared understanding of what it means across the general population. While it is true that words often have multiple meanings while remaining meaningful, they do not have multiple meanings within the same context as is the case here. I am surprised that wasn't obvious to you. Hey, on the bright side, at least you got to learn something new today. |
|
|
|
|
