3 ms·
If you're coming from the oversimplified perspective that things are always horribly evil or "goodness and light", then sure. But you have to understand that ma
by wutbrodo 7y ago
If you're coming from the oversimplified perspective that things are always horribly evil or "goodness and light", then sure. But you have to understand that many of us here are different in that we're capable of understanding nuance, and that facts and details matter in building a model of a complex world.
The health effects of vaping still aren't settled science, but that doesn't make these article any less FUD: The fact that headlines like this and others are eliding the critical fact that the cases they describe are limited to bootleg cartridges is pretty much a central case of FUD.
- FireBeyond 7y agoThe Reddit article there _literally_ describes it as "our wonderful alternative".
- mastazi 7y agoThe reddit post links to this article. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/as-vaping-related-lung-illnesses-spike-investigators-eye-contaminants/2019/08/29/cfe26032-ca78-11e9-be05-f76ac4ec618c_story.html?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/as-vaping-related-lung...
- wutbrodo 7y agoWhere in my comment am I saying anything about the Reddit post? The GP comment by mastazi says "I wish the article gave more details instead of spreading FUD", you responded with a complete non sequitur about people who assume legitimate products are risk-free, and I pointed out that disliking FUD doesn't automatically mean you're Pollyannaish about the risks of legitimate products. Again, what I'm trying to explain to you is that for some of us, there are more than two possible positions here. Mastazi complaining about FUD in a WaPo article (or the original nyt one posted here) doesn't mean he agrees with a random Reddit commenter who also disagrees with the article.