4 ms·
> The harm should be obvious to the layman IMHO in order to be legislated away. Otherwise, it should be left up to personal choice. I'm not sure if this is sar
by bowsamic 3y ago
> The harm should be obvious to the layman IMHO in order to be legislated away. Otherwise, it should be left up to personal choice.
I'm not sure if this is sarcasm but if it's not, this is really the peak of anti-intellectualism ideology, i.e., that if a thing is not immediately obvious without studying then we should remain ignorant of it. I don't think that kind of opinion is a good fit for this forum to be honest, which has learning and information sharing as an important goal, so I will have to flag your message, which is an extremely rare thing for me to do (actually this may be my first time ever)
- superhumanuser 3y ago> if a thing is not immediately obvious without studying then we should remain ignorant of it. I'm not sure if you're willfully ignorant or just saw an opportunity to pass a pejorative and took it. I didn't say we should "ignore it". I said we shouldn't allow scientists to exclusively decide what should or should not be legal.
- bowsamic 3y agoNo you didn't, you said that if a layman cannot understand it immediately, then we should never use the information in the context of law, i.e. we should just ignore the information, i.e. remain ignorant
- superhumanuser 3y agoOK. Have a nice day. Maybe take a little internet timeout and touch grass.