Yes but also we need to deal with the reality of the world, which is 1) not everyone is going to and 2) they don’t deserve to die because of it.

▲

bloaf a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Many to many are born. For the superfluous ones the state was devised... The state, I call it, where all are poison-drinkers, the good and the bad: the state, where all lose themselves, the good and the bad: the state, where the slow suicide of all—is called “life.”

But why would we poison our society by trying to protect these superfluous ones? They may not deserve death, but the more we eliminate the consequences of irresponsible actions, the more irresponsibly people can be and survive, thrive, and even rise to the throne.

▲

Forgeties79 a day ago | parent [-]

This is an unhinged, eugenics-adjacent take that only reflects on your lack of imagination/undeserved faith in your own intellect.

Everyone thinks they are the exception. You are not. You have eaten things you did not vet. You haven’t been poisoned by bathroom products (yet). You are alive because of protections like this.

▲

bloaf a day ago | parent [-]

I think to unabashedly declare that you know what someone does or does not deserve requires just as much if not more faith.

▲

Forgeties79 17 hours ago | parent [-]

No. These aren’t two sides of the same coin. People by default deserve to live even if they make bad calls.

The only reasonable way to live your life is under the assumption that people don’t deserve to die for being wrong about something they buy and eat. This is not something that should have to be spelled out man. The “darwin awards” argument is cruel and sociopathic if you take it beyond a morbid joke and instead actually believe people deserve to die over something as simple as not having perfect knowledge over what they consume.

	▲	bloaf 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But the article explicitly says that people did know what they were consuming. They bought poison honey, they got poison honey, they ate poison honey, and they got poisoned. Now you can certainly argue we should make that impossible, but I am explicitly arguing that doing so makes society worse. I have made no claims one way or the other about what they deserve, because that is a religious claim, not an objective one.

▲

sokoloff a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree they don’t “deserve” to die, but someone comfortable with that level of risk management is quite hard to fully protect from themselves.

	▲	Xirdus a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Not only they don't deserve to die - they deserve to not die from this, no matter their level of risk taking.
	▲	Forgeties79 a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Most OD’s and such with drugs happens when someone trusts someone. They don’t just pick them up off the ground and go town. It’s basically the whole idea behind food safety. We don’t just expect everyone to know every detail of everything they consume.