• Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s interesting that you are digging in on this nonsensical comparison.

    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?

    • Guntrigger@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re right, I didn’t notice you were a different person.

        Everything you mentioned has widespread environmental impact, particularly if people/corporations use those materials in bad faith.

        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.