• Melkath@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If this was meant to invalidate my argument:

      Red herring fallacy

      Just invoking a simple fallacy without establishing it within the context is making a red herring of fallacies themselves.

      • Lininop@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure I’ll establish it with in context. Just because “other things are also dangerous” doesn’t mean warning should not be on the label of a known carcinogen. This is coming from someone who drinks more than he should.

        Putting a warning on the label of a product known to cause harm isn’t “controlling others”. You are free to still consume the product. It is allowing you to make an informed choice, even if you are unaware or unable to access that information from other sources.

        • Melkath@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago
          1. I am in the US, and we have warnings but no nutritional facts on alcohol. In practice, I don’t like wasting government time creating restrictions on labeling just so they can be ignored, because the real reason for it is to baby step at making it a bespoken cultural norm that it is bad, therefore it should be banned and people who partake are bad by association.

          I think nutrition facts should be on everything, and if there is NO “hey kiddies, this is alcohol” on the can, okay, there can be one. Before I checked the context myself, I thought this was a “put pictures of tumors on cigarette packs, the simple warning isn’t good enough!” kind of conversation.

          1. Discounting my comment in the conversation of specifically putting warnings on alcohol as “slippery slope fallacy” takes all the other stuff I just mentioned out of the equation. Just like a simple “Alcohol can cause X” on the can, putting a simple “Butter causes high cholesterol and heart failure” is also a good idea. putting a simple “Caffeine causes addiction and vascular issues” is also a good idea. Putting a “Fossil Fuel Emissions cause cancer and global warming” on the gas pump/gas cap cover on your car is a good idea.

          I guess my point is that putting “Warning: Hot” on coffee cups is a waste of both government and private business resources. It does have some minimal merit though, but where do you start? I would be starting with Fossil Fuels. Those seem the most pressing and devastating of hazards we need to be addressing. If you are fixated on smokes and alcohol first, I think you have lost the plot.

          It IS possible to establish basic simple warnings on everything that should have them though. Not doing that, to me, reeks of pushing for prohibition.

          • Lininop@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree with you that prohibition isn’t the way to do things. In my opinion the war on drugs is a waste of tax payers money and more importantly human life stuck behind bars. If you are speaking against criminalization of substances I’m with you. I’m however, not against harm reduction and education, including warning labels on products that are harmful.

            • Melkath@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sounds like we are really close to meeting in the middle, I’m just a little more cautious about one part than you are and you are a little more cautious than me on a different part.

              Cheers!