this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7187 readers
404 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca/


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

And coffee, and butter, and sugar, and artificial sweeteners, and cannabis, and cars.,,. prohibition is stupid. Mind your own fucking business. Stop trying to control others.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Artificial sweeteners are very safe and sugar is carbohydrates, which you almost need for energy and a healthy diet. Coffee and butter is also quite safe.

But alcohol and tobacco? Any amount is harmful. Warnings wouldn't be unreasonable for people to make more informed decisions. You'd be surprised at how many think alcohol is harmless. And its stuff you quite literally don't need to live.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

You clearly don't follow the news and aren't very educated on the topic of carcinogens.

Artificial Sweeteners are being found to be carcinogenic. Sugar causes obesity and diabetes. Coffee is addictive and causes vascular disorders. Butter causes high cholesterol and heart attacks.

Tobacco and alcohol have no notable adverse impacts for at least 20 to 40 years (unless you drink to the point of alcohol poisoning, that is immediate).

You clearly aren't interested in knowledge or having a productive conversation. You just want to do the propagandist prohibitionist circlejerk.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If this was meant to invalidate my argument:

Red herring fallacy

Just invoking a simple fallacy without establishing it within the context is making a red herring of fallacies themselves.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure I'll establish it with in context. Just because "other things are also dangerous" doesn't mean warning should not be on the label of a known carcinogen. This is coming from someone who drinks more than he should.

Putting a warning on the label of a product known to cause harm isn't "controlling others". You are free to still consume the product. It is allowing you to make an informed choice, even if you are unaware or unable to access that information from other sources.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  1. I am in the US, and we have warnings but no nutritional facts on alcohol. In practice, I don't like wasting government time creating restrictions on labeling just so they can be ignored, because the real reason for it is to baby step at making it a bespoken cultural norm that it is bad, therefore it should be banned and people who partake are bad by association.

I think nutrition facts should be on everything, and if there is NO "hey kiddies, this is alcohol" on the can, okay, there can be one. Before I checked the context myself, I thought this was a "put pictures of tumors on cigarette packs, the simple warning isn't good enough!" kind of conversation.

  1. Discounting my comment in the conversation of specifically putting warnings on alcohol as "slippery slope fallacy" takes all the other stuff I just mentioned out of the equation. Just like a simple "Alcohol can cause X" on the can, putting a simple "Butter causes high cholesterol and heart failure" is also a good idea. putting a simple "Caffeine causes addiction and vascular issues" is also a good idea. Putting a "Fossil Fuel Emissions cause cancer and global warming" on the gas pump/gas cap cover on your car is a good idea.

I guess my point is that putting "Warning: Hot" on coffee cups is a waste of both government and private business resources. It does have some minimal merit though, but where do you start? I would be starting with Fossil Fuels. Those seem the most pressing and devastating of hazards we need to be addressing. If you are fixated on smokes and alcohol first, I think you have lost the plot.

It IS possible to establish basic simple warnings on everything that should have them though. Not doing that, to me, reeks of pushing for prohibition.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree with you that prohibition isn't the way to do things. In my opinion the war on drugs is a waste of tax payers money and more importantly human life stuck behind bars. If you are speaking against criminalization of substances I'm with you. I'm however, not against harm reduction and education, including warning labels on products that are harmful.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Sounds like we are really close to meeting in the middle, I'm just a little more cautious about one part than you are and you are a little more cautious than me on a different part.

Cheers!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Argument from fallacy. Just because an argument contains a fallacy doen not mean that its conclusion is false. In this context I feel like it would be much more effective to point out that cigarettes are totally unnecessary, while owning a car (depending on where you live) is not. Putting a warning label on something like cigarettes is not comparable to putting warning signs on something that you actively need to survive.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"[cars] something that you actively need to survive."

You almost just made me spit out my beer.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"[cars] (depending on where you live) something you actively need to survive." Seems like you conveniently forgot something there. If you live in a place where you can walk to work and the grocery store that's amazing for you! For many people having a vehicle is not a choice, but a necessity.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Uber.

Let me say again, Uber.

Busses, trains, scooters, electric vehicles of any kind.

I'm not saying electric means no fossil fuel emissions of any kind. Almost everywhere is feeling varying growing pains exploring how to responsibly keep an ever more drawn upon electric grid charged.

I'm saying gas fueled cars need to go away, not yesterday, but at least 15 years ago.

Gas cars are what we as a species NEED to quit.

Simple vices pale in comparison.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's just a warning label not a prohibition

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Alright, if that is true, and its not a baby step towards prohibition, let me fill you in on it. We fucking know and we don't fucking care.

Stop wasting government time and resources on empty soapboxing.

We know what the propaganda says.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Slippery slope fallacy. Also a lot of people actually don't know that alcohol causes cancer and heart disease as well as homicide, etc. A lot of gullible people drink it because they are socially led to believe that it's OK or perhaps even necessary, but these are not thinking or informed people. The fact that you call legitimate health information about alcohol "propaganda" shows that you're not really in the "know" camp, doesn't it?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Alcohol causes HOMICIDE?!

Jesus, can I have whatever you are smoking?