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.

I know a lady who is totally blind who uses one of these to tell the time. Pretty awesome.

deleted by creator

I buy “double strength” vinegar for my chips and things. The vapours, when it hits my hot food, make me cough because its so strong but I love it. It also burns/damages my tongue, but again I love it

Fair enough

I’m in Australia and our parental leave is alright enough, but dads get an absolute max 100 days, I’m pretty sure… Mums don’t get all that much more…

Which country?

I’ve never even tried to make it, so you’ve done much more than I!

Its my favourite dish whenever I go out to eat… but I just couldn’t put aside the time, money or effort to make it…

Lamb Vindaloo.

God I wanna be good at making that. And veggie samosas

th… thank you, too…

…

…

…

What colour?

I feel almost anything would be good, at first - just to show I had human like sentience…

One small example would be “Don’t kill me. I have something to tell you”

Or if I had plenty of time

“Hello, I am the ant you can see. I was once human. To prove it, ask me a question and wait while I write the answer…”

Something like that

Once I’d been proven an “ex human” I’d probably demand to see my lord and saviour, Sir David Attenborough

Depends on whether I also get the knowledge on living as an ant, as a queen, in a colony.

Hardest thing would be predators.

I suppose the best I could do would be to find something to write with, like dirt or ink, and a scrap of paper, and “walk” some words along a page, hopefully notify a good human that I was an intelligent/human ant - and from there I’d be at the mercy of capitalism…