3 ms·
A charitable reading of GP comment sounds like it'd be more like "we shouldn't ban things where the only reason is protecting people from themselves".
by nisegami 4y ago
A charitable reading of GP comment sounds like it'd be more like "we shouldn't ban things where the only reason is protecting people from themselves".
- jodrellblank 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom - there's no clear separation between protecting people from themselves and protecting people from others: "To expand the number of women smokers Hill decided to hire Edward Bernays, who today is known as the father of public relations, to help him recruit women smokers. [...] In 1929 Bernays decided to pay women to smoke their "torches of freedom" as they walked in the Easter Sunday Parade in New York." "Philip Morris even sponsored a lecture series that taught women the "art of smoking"" The association of smoking with coolness, James Dean, Hollywood stars, it's clear that a lot of people wouldn't smoke "for themselves" if it wasn't for other people manipulating them to do it, for profit.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoI would accept that, if we lived in a world where people were buying big jars labelled 'Trans fat' at the supermarket, the way they buy tabacco. But I have never met anyone that has knowingly bought trans fats, and I doubt such a person exists. It's more analogous to food poisoning