this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2025
162 points (88.9% liked)

No Stupid Questions

41224 readers
1552 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
 

Context was the idea of a government banning certain popular foods

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AceSLive@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (7 children)

I'd like the government to suggest things, and point to the science on things, but to leave the informed choice ultimately up to me.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 38 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I want them to deny bad actors the ability to sell dangerous foods on the open market.

Informed choice should be between safe products.

[–] AceSLive@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Whats your stance on cigarettes and alcohol?

Theres no realistic reason cigarettes should be sold to anyone, ever - but the government (in Australia where I am at least) have put the warnings out there and if people choose to still smoke, despite the packets themselves graphically showing someone with gangrenous toes, then shouldn't that be up to the individual?

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Neither is healthy for you, but neither is going to kill you outright in small amounts. So heavily regulated and limited to adults is fine as long as the companies aren't allowed to outright lie about their products like cigarette companies used to do. Those are basically on par with eating excessive amounts of unhealthy food when consumed in small quantities.

By safe I'm referring to things like food that isn't going to kill you in the short term because it is spoiled, toxic, has harmful additives. You know, the things that lead to food regulation agencies that keep companies from selling rotten meat or food with lead intentionally added for flavor.

[–] AceSLive@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

The original post context was the banning of meat

I'm not saying government shouldn't regulate safety - but that if something is safe for consumption it shouldn't be banned, like the original posts example of meat.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 32 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I like the government to force companies to meet certain regulations for production of various food items so that they're safe for everyone, but then let me pick at the grocery store from what's then produced.

[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago (2 children)

It's a harsh quote, but it gets the point across: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." Carlin was right, and it applies here. Sure, half of us may be able to adequately identify what we should and shouldn't eat, but there is another half that can't. With proper education we can change that, but right now corporations educate better through commercials than schools do through lectures. We have to maintain oversight because the evil of capitalism will choose profit over people every time.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago

without relevant regulations, though, you won't know what you shouldn't eat because you won't know that they're putting sawdust in peanutbutter or borax and fermheldahyde in milk.

Maybe it'd be okay to have plaster of paris in flour, though. I mean, how else are you supposed to sculpt that Italian loaf like the french baguette?

Don't be fooled. The people screaming about unpastureized milk and other things are being used so corporations can go back to poisoning you with shit. and that's pretty much the most charitable I can be of that particular lot.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Problem is those people get a say in regulations - which is why covid vaccines are not recomended anymore.

That's a whole other hydra head to deal with...

[–] AceSLive@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

I feel a reply I made to someone else addresses my side of this:

"Context was the idea of a government banning meat" says the original post.

I agree that you can't possibly be fully informed on every part of everything you buy or consume, there's too much info and for a lot of it you need a good understanding of biology, science and food science to even grasp what some ingredients are for and how they work.

I am not against the governments telling people the dangers of certain foods (such as increased cardiovascular issues with overconsumption of red meat, or risk of stroke due to smoking) but as long as the consumer is informed of such, it should be up to them - not up to the government banning something like meat

And I'm against the abuse animals suffer and the whole meat industry, by the way. I hate what happens to the animals, but thats a whole other can of worms...

[–] smol_beans@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Do you have a degree in chemistry? How do you know which 7 syllable words on the side of the box are dangerous and which ones aren't?

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago

In an unregulated market, who is there to say that the ingredients even need to be listed on the box?

Every purchase can be like its own little surprise!

[–] AceSLive@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

I'm gonna paste in a reply I made to another comment which I think will answer my view on this

"Context was the idea of a government banning meat" says the original post.

I agree that you can't possibly be fully informed on every part of everything you buy or consume, there's too much info and for a lot of it you need a good understanding of biology, science and food science to even grasp what some ingredients are for and how they work.

I am not against the governments telling people the dangers of certain foods (such as increased cardiovascular issues with overconsumption of red meat, or risk of stroke due to smoking) but as long as the consumer is informed of such, it should be up to them - not up to the government banning something like meat

And I'm against the abuse animals suffer and the whole meat industry, by the way. I hate what happens to the animals, but thats a whole other can of worms...

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Should the government simply suggest companies accurately label the contents of food products?

[–] AceSLive@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

No. The government should absolutely enforce correct labelling on anything a person is to consume. Like cigarettes in Australia, if the consumable poses a health risk that too should be labelled clearly.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 4 points 3 days ago

Aaaand now the town's water supply has murcury in it, thanks.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Leaving critical thinking up to the masses??? Oh......oh no.

[–] AceSLive@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago

Natural selection.

If the danger is clearly labelled, and all ingredients and potential hazards are clearly advised...

it would work pretty well after a few years, just ignore the deaths during the roll out.