this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2025
35 points (90.7% liked)

No Stupid Questions

42081 readers
985 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This question came about over a discussion my brother and I had about whether dogs should be on leashes when outside. We both agreed that yes, they should, for several reasons, but that's not the point.

Let's use a hypothetical to better illustrate the question. Imagine that there's a perfume - vanilla, for example - that doesn't bother you at all (you don't like nor dislike it), but that is very upsetting to some people, and can even cause some adverse reactions (allergies or something). In this hypothetical, based on the negative effects, you agree that vanilla perfumes should be banned. Currently, however, they are allowed.

You're walking down the street, and randomly smell someone passing you by and they're wearing a vanilla perfume.

Would that upset you? Why, or why not?


My answer is yes, without a doubt. Even though the smell itself doesn't bother me, the fact someone would wear that perfume and not only potentially upset others, but put them in danger, is upsetting.

My brother, however, would say no! He couldn't explain his reasoning to me.

I know this is a little convoluted, but I hope I got my question across.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] gon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Banning an allergen because a small fraction of the population suffer - Also No.

Well, that's why I said you already agreed with the banning, as part of the hypothetical. Dang, I really feel like quite a few people got kind of hooked on that... I asked this in a Discord server and several people just said "well I wouldn't want it banned."

Just out of curiosity - and some frustration - what do you think would be a good abstraction for asking this question?

Regardless, sounds like a reasonable answer.

Edit: Wait, now I'm confused.

Do you think coating yourself in allergens and going on tour is OK or not? And is banning an allergen because of a small fraction of the population OK or not?

[โ€“] swizzlestick@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 hours ago

Sorry, should have been clear. Lethal allergen tour = bad. Banning completely = also bad.

My main point was that there is a line between discomfort and danger. That line can move based on the situation, so it is awkward to abstract without getting down to specifics.

If say 5% of the population suddenly developed a tendency to go into anaphylactic shock on exposure to vanilla, then you could easily see it disappearing from fragrances altogether and becoming a non-problem in that regard. Yet it would still have culinary use and join many friends on the bolded ingredient lists on food.

There is a turnover point (that I cannot explicitly define) where the onus is on the afflicted to ensure their own safety, rather than the population at large going out of their way to ensure it.

I am fortunate to have no issues like this. In 5% Vanilla-Death-Land, the smell of the stuff would still give me pause, as I probably know someone who could well die from the idiot that just walked in the door honking of it.

If the same person instead just brought in a vanilla milkshake, I probably wouldn't bat an eye.