Chocolate Underground
With the establishment of the Good For You Party's authoritarian regime, unhealthy foods and sugar have been banned. As a result, the bakery Smudger Moore's father owns is suffering financially from being unable to sell any of their typical sweet menu items. Smudger's friend Huntley Hunter is also frustrated by the prohibition, as he cannot keep a promise he made to his late father. Angered by the unjust world they live in, the two young boys set out to break the new social order—but the uphill battle they are faced with is a lot more than they bargained for.
-MAL
No
I'm not being evasive here. I do not support the banning of sugar. It'd be almost entirely futile to try even if I wanted to and had some sort of political position where I could try to make it happen. The production of sugar is a concern of mine, as is the corporate empires that command its production and distribution, but that falls outside of @Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net's take, though perhaps it still fits within the basis of this thread's topic considering the heavy-handed "no veggies at dinner, no bedtimes" baby libertarian idealism that seems apparent at a glance in "Chocolate Underground."
None of that is my take, even now. When the person you're arguing with comes back from exams, feel free to direct that anger there. Or don't. I'd suggest the latter.
I appreciate your reply. I can only speak for my own take, but maybe there is something worth arguing with with @Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net after all, if hopefully from a less incendiary position. It isn't my take to argue; I don't even know what western baking goods would look like without sugar (pre-colonial honey, maybe?).
I somehow forgot about those myself until now.
I'm not actually that big into sweets in general; I prefer other flavors overall, even for pleasure/comfort food.
Yeah, go for it guys. I'm more than okay with people educating me when I say something silly. People are more than welcome to disagree with me on this one.