this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
393 points (92.3% liked)
World News
32519 readers
668 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Save the people from themselves. They are too ignorant to have control of their bodies.
You could just as easily day "oh, ban asbestos? I guess we gotta save everybody from themselves, what a nanny state."
This is bad logic that can be applied to any safety law. As a society we observe and mitigate known harms, because we can't expect every citizen to be up to date on every possible way to harm themselves without realizing it or understanding the true scope of the damage being done.
So yes; sometimes as a society we decide to save ourselves from ourselves. There's nothing wrong with that.
I wasn't aware people used asbestos recreationally.
And are you really arguing people are still unaware of the dangers of smoking?
I never said people use asbestos recreationally. But the logic is still the same. Why shouldn't a person be allowed to buy a new house built with asbestos if they're supposedly fully aware of the danger and risk of damage it does to their body over a long period of time? Everybody knows the dangers of asbestos, don't they? The commercials tell us about asbestos exposure leading to mesothelioma every day. Just let them make their own choices about asbestos, right? And while we're at it, lead pipes, and lead paint, and grounded electrical outlets, and the list goes on.
We don't want to have a nanny state, right? You should have to individually make all of these potentially life or death choices, all the time.
It's interesting that you are digging in on this nonsensical comparison. Comparing a personal use narcotic (which is combusted and spent in seconds causing harm to the user only - for the most part) with a hazardous material (which basically doesn't degrade, huffs out cancer causing dust if you, or anyone else in the next century, work on it in any way and persists as hazardous waste if you want to dispose of it).
Lead pipes and lead paint also bleed into the environment pretty much for eternity. Why not go all the way and compare being able to buy cigarettes with being able to buy some plutonium for around the house?
You said, "Save the people from themselves. They are too ignorant to have control of their bodies." You then said "And are you really arguing people are still unaware of the dangers of smoking?" Everything I have said has been a direct attack on that line of logic and applies perfectly. We ban asbestos to protect people from buying it and hurting themselves, despite the fact that everybody is supposedly well aware of the harms. The same goes for lead paint and lead pipes; ungrounded outlets, admittedly, most people don't actually fully understand, but the logic still largely applies. If you believe in the idea that we shouldn't need to save people from harming their own bodies, that perfectly applies to these things as well.
If you want to go back and revise what you said to explain why it's acceptable for society to save people from damaging their bodies with known harmful construction materials but not to save people from damaging their bodies with known harmful narcotics, then do that. Draw that distinction yourself if you think there is one instead of expecting me to read the wrinkles of your brain through the internet. You don't get to be mad at me for arguing against the words you used, that's all I have to go on.
So: when is it acceptable for society to save people from themselves, and when isn't it?
All you've done here is prove that you're ignorant. I suggest you look back and see that you're arguing two different points with two different people as well as attributing words to me that I didn't write.
If you actually read my post, l already answered the difference. Everything you mentioned has widespread environmental impact, particularly if people/corporations use those materials in bad faith. Personal choice to smoke a cigarette is not equivalent to implanting a hazardous object into the environment. And I think you know that. If you honestly can't see the difference, it's willful ignorance.
You're right, I didn't notice you were a different person.
There's no greater environmental impact if a person chooses to insulate their own house with asbestos. My point still stands; draw me a clear distinction why a store can sell an individual person tobacco but not asbestos despite the fact that we know both cause long term lung damage.
No he really isn't arguing that. It feels just pure bad faith from you here. You understand that pure anarchism has its problems, I am sure of it
Bad faith from me? Look inward.
There was a straight comparison banning cigarettes and asbestos. One is a recreational product, the other is a building material. You don't accidentally find tobacco in your walls when renovating and inhale a bunch of smoke.
At no point did I suggest anarchy and being anti-prohibition is not a strictly anarchist philosophy as far as I'm aware.