3 ms·
> Laws are obviously incomplete, circumvented and broken all the time. If they were, we'd have rates of food poisoning close to Nepal's. But we don't. Obviousl
by toyg 3y ago
> Laws are obviously incomplete, circumvented and broken all the time.
If they were, we'd have rates of food poisoning close to Nepal's. But we don't. Obviously laws have to be enforced, with checks and all, but they largely work.
Same for tap water: when it's handled following expert-based rules, you don't need to stay away from it. Sure, some can build resistance by repeated exposure, but not everyone; and anyway we don't need to, if we employ the scientific knowledge we built over centuries. It's like saying that births will happen even without expert assistance: sure, but chances that stuff will go horribly wrong are dramatically higher.
- cf1241290841 3y ago"They largely work" doesnt run counter to my argument. I am saying there is no way around common sense to prevent food poisoning in an individual. Being able to lower the overall risk doesnt change that. You can get food poisoning in the first world by over relying on regulation when you should have known better and you can avoid getting food poisoning in the third world by applying common sense. As long as you can afford to which most people there cant. If tainted water is all you got, you will get sick. We are making different types of arguments, being able to lower the overall risk doesnt mean common sense / "rule of look" is worthless. Nor does it become worthless in an unregulated environment.