AceSLive

I'm not arguing against anything you've said. In fact, I said most of what you just said 2 replies 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.

I feel those examples are less about eating the meat (well, aside from all the issues that come with eating humans) and more about preventing them becoming meat in the first place - but yes, with everything theres nuance and outliers, but as a general I'd say that if people know what they're eating and know the risks, and what they do doesn't pose risk to others then let them eat whatever it is they're eating...

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...

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?

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...

"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...

Natural selection.

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

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.

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.

Swap it. Bring one from home, and accidentally take this one back

Not for the newborn it isn't. Something as personal as your own genetals should be your own personal choice, but in this instance the owner of the penis gave no consent.