4 ms·

In the US, "nitrogen homebrewing equipment" is the dual-use dog whistle for AS supplies. Similar to abortion and organ donation, this matter is about body auto

In the US, "nitrogen homebrewing equipment" is the dual-use dog whistle for AS supplies. Similar to abortion and organ donation, this matter is about body autonomy. It's immoral to force someone to do something they don't want to do.

chrisbaker98 4y ago
> It's immoral to force someone to do something they don't want to do. It's trivially easy to think of counterexamples to this statement.
- simongr3dal 4y ago
  Please present them instead of coming with a (bad-faith) shallow dismissal. I'm sure many here would find value in the perspective, even if only to try and find flaws in the argument.
  - seneca 4y ago
    Using "bad faith" like this destroys any and all meaning in the phrase. It also directly violates the hacker news guide lines.
  - rocket_surgeron 4y ago
    I don't want to not kill you. I don't want to safely dispose of this industrial waste because that is too expensive and time consuming. I don't want to feed my children. I don't want to drive the speed limit. I don't want to pay for that. I don't want limit my amplifier's output to 1500 watts on the amateur radio bands. (edit: 500 watts on HF in France!) I don't want to provide the good or service I have been paid for and I don't want to return the money. I don't want to add to this list anymore....
  - chrisbaker98 4y ago
    The blanket statement is obviously untrue. For example: people are forced to obey the law. But if you only want to talk about suicide: we already "force" suicidal people to stay alive via suicide prevention measures (nets under bridges, restrictions on drug purchases etc.) that make it harder or less convenient to kill yourself. These measures reduce suicide rates and I'd say they're moral. Okay, so what if we're only talking about "assisted" suicide? If someone really wants to die, should we let them? I get where you're coming from, but let's not pretend it's always this simple. Suicidal people aren't famous for thinking rationally, and just because someone says they want to die that doesn't mean we should take it at face value. There are already cases in Canada of people seeking euthanasia not because they're terminally ill but because they're poor, and see suicide as preferable to poverty/homelessness: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-canada-euthanising-the-poor/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-canada-euthanisin... There's the "slippery slope" we were warned about. PS I'm not sure what you think "bad faith" means, but my post was not written in bad faith.
    - spritefs 4y ago
      > via suicide prevention measures (nets under bridges, restrictions on drug purchases etc.) Those are all negative, in those cases you're not allowing someone to do something (which is different from forcing someone to do something). There are other forms of suicide prevention though, like forcing suicidal people to take medication
      - chrisbaker98 4y ago
        In the UK, if you want to kill yourself by overdosing on paracetamol, then you're forced to visit several different shops (because you can't buy more than two packets at once) then spend a long time tediously popping each pill individually out of the blister pack before you can swallow them all. (The pills don't come in bottles because bottles make it too easy to quickly pour a fatal overdose of pills into your mouth). These measures won't stop a truly determined person, but they stop a lot of people. It's well understood that erecting even a minor inconvenience in front of a suicidal person can be enough to keep them alive. Popping all your paracetamol out of the packaging takes enough time to give you a chance to reconsider the whole thing. By forcing someone to do something, we prevent them from doing something else.
- wintogreen74 4y ago
  If we qualify this as acts that don't directly impact the actions or choices of others does that limit the obvious counter-examples?
gjsman-1000 4y ago
> It's immoral to force someone to do something they don't want to do. Well this was poorly thought through. I guess I’ll never need to tell the truth under oath, hand over alimony checks, wear clothes, avoid being drunk on the street at noon…
smeej 4y ago
Is "force" in play here? "Refusing to assist someone in doing something" seems to be different from "forcing someone to do whatever was already going to happen if they didn't do the thing you refused to help them do" to me. It seems to me that it's not "force" unless there's an alteration to the natural course something takes by default. So in this case, "continuing to live for awhile" is the default natural course. Refusing to assist someone in altering that natural course isn't the same as "forcing them to continue living." Likewise with pregnancy, the default natural course is to remain pregnant until miscarriage or birth. Refusing to assist (or allow someone else to assist) someone in altering that natural course isn't the same as "forcing someone to remain pregnant."
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  So by that reasoning if the FDA made abortion pills OTC and anyone could order and use them, no one would be helping them take it, so it wouldn't be about assistance anymore. Yes they could use a coat hanger or chew up a bunch of juniper bark/berries, but that has a lot of risks.
  - smeej 4y ago
    Almost, but not quite. Making the pill itself is still a form of assistance. The nearer analogy would be if someone published a recipe and instructions for making the pill. I think that would still be "assistance," but much more likely to be covered under free speech laws, that disseminating information about something (publishing instructions) is generally already protected. Even then, though, were such publication to be banned, it would still be the case that nobody is being "forced to remain pregnant."
    - galangalalgol 4y ago
      One set of pills for type 2 diabetes induced by cushings syndrome. Make it OTC. Second set of pills for gastric ulcers induced by NSAIDS. Make it OTC. Those are both primary uses for those drugs so manufacturing and delivery isn't knowing assistance. Then you suggest it is legal free speech for me to divulge that if you take one, wait 48hrs and take the second, it is precisely what would occur if you requested a drug induced abortion in a place that allows those?
jdhn 4y ago
>In the US, "nitrogen homebrewing equipment" is the dual-use dog whistle for AS supplies. This is the first I've heard of this, and I've been in the homebrewing scene for awhile now. If someone told me they got nitrogen homebrewing equipment, I'd be pretty stoked because nitro beer isn't that common at all among homebrewers. Got anything to back this up?
- teg4n_ 4y ago
  Exit bags typically use nitrogen because it’s easy enough to get and inert gas asphyxiation is probably the most painless way to go that doesn’t leave too much of a mess.
galangalalgol 4y ago
I wonder if you could shake up enough Guinness bottles to create enough nitrogen? I always thought nitrous oxide would make a great fizzifier. Talk about giggle water! And it is much more soluble than even co2 so you could actually make it bubbly.
rsj_hn 4y ago
> It's immoral to force someone to do something they don't want to do. I'll remember this the next time I need to pay taxes, am drafted to serve in the military, or have to abide by a court judgment I don't agree with.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  The context was clearly bodily autonomy, and France doesn't have a draft.
  - smeej 4y ago
    Not much violates bodily autonomy as badly as military conscription. The tough thing about principle arguments is that they're like trains, not taxis. You're stuck with them until their conclusions. You don't just get to choose where you want them to go.
  - rsj_hn 4y ago
    Whether the government of France has the right to draft you is completely up to the government of France to decide, and they can change their mind at any time. At best you can be comforted in knowing that your bodily autonomy is being voted on in a general election so that a law is passed. That's all it takes.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      I'm well aware of that, but right now France doesn't have that, and there is absolutely no indication that they will re-instate a draft. You might as well argue that democracy is against bodily autonomy. The subject is assisted dying, not army conscription.
      - rsj_hn 4y ago
        No, the argument is about what is moral or immoral. Saying "I'm not going to have an assisted suicide right now" or saying "I will allow you to have an assisted suicide right now" is completely irrelevant to the discussion of the morality of the same. Your argument certainly doesn't depend on timing, does it? France has had conscriptions whenever it needed them. If it needs them in the future, you can be sure it will have them.

chrisbaker98 4y ago

> It's immoral to force someone to do something they don't want to do. It's trivially easy to think of counterexamples to this statement.

simongr3dal 4y ago
Please present them instead of coming with a (bad-faith) shallow dismissal. I'm sure many here would find value in the perspective, even if only to try and find flaws in the argument.
- seneca 4y ago
  Using "bad faith" like this destroys any and all meaning in the phrase. It also directly violates the hacker news guide lines.
- rocket_surgeron 4y ago
  I don't want to not kill you. I don't want to safely dispose of this industrial waste because that is too expensive and time consuming. I don't want to feed my children. I don't want to drive the speed limit. I don't want to pay for that. I don't want limit my amplifier's output to 1500 watts on the amateur radio bands. (edit: 500 watts on HF in France!) I don't want to provide the good or service I have been paid for and I don't want to return the money. I don't want to add to this list anymore....
- chrisbaker98 4y ago
  The blanket statement is obviously untrue. For example: people are forced to obey the law. But if you only want to talk about suicide: we already "force" suicidal people to stay alive via suicide prevention measures (nets under bridges, restrictions on drug purchases etc.) that make it harder or less convenient to kill yourself. These measures reduce suicide rates and I'd say they're moral. Okay, so what if we're only talking about "assisted" suicide? If someone really wants to die, should we let them? I get where you're coming from, but let's not pretend it's always this simple. Suicidal people aren't famous for thinking rationally, and just because someone says they want to die that doesn't mean we should take it at face value. There are already cases in Canada of people seeking euthanasia not because they're terminally ill but because they're poor, and see suicide as preferable to poverty/homelessness: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-canada-euthanising-the-poor/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-canada-euthanisin... There's the "slippery slope" we were warned about. PS I'm not sure what you think "bad faith" means, but my post was not written in bad faith.
  - spritefs 4y ago
    > via suicide prevention measures (nets under bridges, restrictions on drug purchases etc.) Those are all negative, in those cases you're not allowing someone to do something (which is different from forcing someone to do something). There are other forms of suicide prevention though, like forcing suicidal people to take medication
    - chrisbaker98 4y ago
      In the UK, if you want to kill yourself by overdosing on paracetamol, then you're forced to visit several different shops (because you can't buy more than two packets at once) then spend a long time tediously popping each pill individually out of the blister pack before you can swallow them all. (The pills don't come in bottles because bottles make it too easy to quickly pour a fatal overdose of pills into your mouth). These measures won't stop a truly determined person, but they stop a lot of people. It's well understood that erecting even a minor inconvenience in front of a suicidal person can be enough to keep them alive. Popping all your paracetamol out of the packaging takes enough time to give you a chance to reconsider the whole thing. By forcing someone to do something, we prevent them from doing something else.
wintogreen74 4y ago
If we qualify this as acts that don't directly impact the actions or choices of others does that limit the obvious counter-examples?

gjsman-1000 4y ago

> It's immoral to force someone to do something they don't want to do. Well this was poorly thought through. I guess I’ll never need to tell the truth under oath, hand over alimony checks, wear clothes, avoid being drunk on the street at noon…

smeej 4y ago

Is "force" in play here? "Refusing to assist someone in doing something" seems to be different from "forcing someone to do whatever was already going to happen if they didn't do the thing you refused to help them do" to me. It seems to me that it's not "force" unless there's an alteration to the natural course something takes by default. So in this case, "continuing to live for awhile" is the default natural course. Refusing to assist someone in altering that natural course isn't the same as "forcing them to continue living." Likewise with pregnancy, the default natural course is to remain pregnant until miscarriage or birth. Refusing to assist (or allow someone else to assist) someone in altering that natural course isn't the same as "forcing someone to remain pregnant."

galangalalgol 4y ago
So by that reasoning if the FDA made abortion pills OTC and anyone could order and use them, no one would be helping them take it, so it wouldn't be about assistance anymore. Yes they could use a coat hanger or chew up a bunch of juniper bark/berries, but that has a lot of risks.
- smeej 4y ago
  Almost, but not quite. Making the pill itself is still a form of assistance. The nearer analogy would be if someone published a recipe and instructions for making the pill. I think that would still be "assistance," but much more likely to be covered under free speech laws, that disseminating information about something (publishing instructions) is generally already protected. Even then, though, were such publication to be banned, it would still be the case that nobody is being "forced to remain pregnant."
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    One set of pills for type 2 diabetes induced by cushings syndrome. Make it OTC. Second set of pills for gastric ulcers induced by NSAIDS. Make it OTC. Those are both primary uses for those drugs so manufacturing and delivery isn't knowing assistance. Then you suggest it is legal free speech for me to divulge that if you take one, wait 48hrs and take the second, it is precisely what would occur if you requested a drug induced abortion in a place that allows those?

jdhn 4y ago

>In the US, "nitrogen homebrewing equipment" is the dual-use dog whistle for AS supplies. This is the first I've heard of this, and I've been in the homebrewing scene for awhile now. If someone told me they got nitrogen homebrewing equipment, I'd be pretty stoked because nitro beer isn't that common at all among homebrewers. Got anything to back this up?

teg4n_ 4y ago
Exit bags typically use nitrogen because it’s easy enough to get and inert gas asphyxiation is probably the most painless way to go that doesn’t leave too much of a mess.

galangalalgol 4y ago

I wonder if you could shake up enough Guinness bottles to create enough nitrogen? I always thought nitrous oxide would make a great fizzifier. Talk about giggle water! And it is much more soluble than even co2 so you could actually make it bubbly.

rsj_hn 4y ago

> It's immoral to force someone to do something they don't want to do. I'll remember this the next time I need to pay taxes, am drafted to serve in the military, or have to abide by a court judgment I don't agree with.

jacquesm 4y ago
The context was clearly bodily autonomy, and France doesn't have a draft.
- smeej 4y ago
  Not much violates bodily autonomy as badly as military conscription. The tough thing about principle arguments is that they're like trains, not taxis. You're stuck with them until their conclusions. You don't just get to choose where you want them to go.
- rsj_hn 4y ago
  Whether the government of France has the right to draft you is completely up to the government of France to decide, and they can change their mind at any time. At best you can be comforted in knowing that your bodily autonomy is being voted on in a general election so that a law is passed. That's all it takes.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    I'm well aware of that, but right now France doesn't have that, and there is absolutely no indication that they will re-instate a draft. You might as well argue that democracy is against bodily autonomy. The subject is assisted dying, not army conscription.
    - rsj_hn 4y ago
      No, the argument is about what is moral or immoral. Saying "I'm not going to have an assisted suicide right now" or saying "I will allow you to have an assisted suicide right now" is completely irrelevant to the discussion of the morality of the same. Your argument certainly doesn't depend on timing, does it? France has had conscriptions whenever it needed them. If it needs them in the future, you can be sure it will have them.