Lemdro.id

0 points

2 months ago

what you’re presenting is a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc. both of those declined in production following the introduction of color television as well. we can’t very well say that color caused a reduced production. in fact, you haven’t actually presented any evidence that less asbethos or cigarettes are being produced.

report

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5877076/

[ - ]

Rekorse@sh.itjust.works

1 point

2 months ago

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/tobacco-production?tab=table&time=earliest..1997

report

[ - ]

1 point

2 months ago

it appears that the plan of creating government regulation is effective at stopping production, and no causal link to demand is outlined in your hastily-googled abstract.

report

[ - ]

Rekorse@sh.itjust.works

1 point

2 months ago

And you think that regulation was pushed by people who sell or smoke cigarettes, and by those that mine or use asbesthos?

report

[ - ]

1 point

2 months ago

i have a high degree of certainty that there were cigarette smokers who want regulation, and industrial workers who wanted to stop asbestos. if we were to look at congressional testimony in the usa, it would probably show just that.

but the other user isn’t saying we should only rely on meat-eaters. most meat-eaters do think that animals should be treated humanely (i recognize their definition is at odds with yours), and would likely back stricter humane slaughter regulations. you seem to be saying that’s not good enough, and i find it understandable that the other user has become quite jaded about helping animals at all in the face of your purism.

report

[ - ]

Rekorse@sh.itjust.works

1 point

2 months ago

There were smokers trying to ban cigarettes or regulate cigarettes?

What regulations were active smokers pushing for that would affect their ability to continue smoking?

I know there were victims of misinformation who didnt know there would be consequences, but they aren’t smokers anymore by the time they are in front of congress talking through a voice box.

Maybe you can talk me through an example.

report

[ - ]

1 point

2 months ago

but they aren’t smokers anymore by the time they are in front of congress talking through a voice box.

i would bet that if you lose your larynx, there isn’t much reason to give up smoking. you already basically got the worst deal. this is all hypothetical and guesswork anyway. maybe you find it unbelievable, but i don’t (of course this should feel familiar). it makes me uncomfortable to speculate this much, and i have even less interest in tracking down the specific facts about tobacco than i do in becoming vegan (take that how you will).

it’s clear that regulation has been able to preceed a decline in use, even against powerful and profitable industries. it’s not clear that a only partially-concerned (since veganism seeks to exclude all exploitation, not limited to diet) ideological boycott has any impact at all.

report