this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2025
163 points (88.3% liked)

No Stupid Questions

42089 readers
1066 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Context was the idea of a government banning certain popular foods

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 94 points 1 month ago (14 children)

Unregulated anarchy vs nanny state. There's a wide spectrum in between we can argue about, but let's not get too far toward either extreme.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Kinder eggs should NOT be banned, and Americans have an inferior product because of it.

........but also I agree with the banning of Red dye #3.

[–] OceanSoap@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's banned in the US because we're sue-crazy. Companies can't rely on the common sense of their customers here. Even if the egg comes with a blinking neon sign that says there's a non edible toy inside, someone would sue (and win!) claiming that it's not enough and the toy shouldn't be there in the first place.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 43 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Dictating what you eat and banning things you shouldn't eat are very different things.

[–] credo@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Moreover, most governments (unless it’s a religious thing) don’t ban what you can eat.. they only regulate items sold and marketed to you as food. E.g. I don’t think we have any laws that ban you from guzzling bleach, but I’m pretty sure you can’t legally pick up a cuppa hot bleach at your local beverage shop. INAL.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 35 points 1 month ago (16 children)

You're talking about two different things.

Context was the idea of a government banning certain popular foods

This would mean they'd be against food safety regulations, would it not?

It's entirely possible to be in favor of food safety regulations and opposed to the government banning foods outright. In fact, I think one could safely presume that those are the positions most commonly held by most people.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] remon@ani.social 30 points 1 month ago (12 children)

This would mean they'd be against food safety regulations, would it not?

It would not.

Having traffic laws isn't the same as banning cars, either.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Banning foods is the same regulation as banning golf carts from being licensed.

Nobody's gonna stop you from buying a golf cart and driving one (growing your own meat and eating it) but it's deemed unsafe for you and society to drive one on the highway so you legally cant. (No right to food that's bad for society)

You can't access golf carts on the highway (can't access bad food in the grocery store)

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago

It means that they’re not a nuanced thinker.

[–] gerryflap@feddit.nl 23 points 1 month ago (6 children)

There's a big difference between food safety and not eating meat. One is about companies putting dangerous stuff in food that can potentially harm people, the other is about something which humans have been eating ever since they existed. I understand that there are some arguments to be given about why we shouldn't eat meat, but those are definitely not as widely supported as disallowing the companies to inject "poison" into our food. In my opinion banning meat definitely would go way too far, the cost of banning meat far exceeds the benefits for public wellbeing.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 14 points 1 month ago (9 children)

Almost anyone I've ever encountered that would say that phrase exactly like that, also doesn't get vaccinated and foams at the mouth if you tell them they shouldn't drink raw milk.

Now, personally, I would rather my food be safe for human consumption but I also don't want to be nannied. Hotdogs ain't healthy but I like them. But unlike raw milk or undercooked meats, the unhealthy stuff in the hotdog isn't going to make me so sick that it can make other people sick.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Pnut@lemm.ee 13 points 1 month ago (6 children)

I come from a dynasty of educators. I cannot emphasize that enough. At Christmas I had to explain what a molecule was. Amongst them were several teachers and administrative individuals.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Most people who say that do so for dogmatic reasons, not because they arrived at this conclusion after careful analysis. It's the political point of small government.

These are the same people who will probably be first in line shouting for government intervention when their drinking water is full of chemical waste.

You can try to reason with folks like that but you probably won't change their mind. Just try not to shout at them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 month ago (8 children)

i feel like there's a lot of astroturfing in the comments here, how depressing

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yes. People who oppose science-backed food regulations are dumb or selfish or both

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Two farmers live next to each other. One raises cows, the other pigs.

The cow farmer can get milk from their cows and drink it, but some governments say they can't give that milk to their neighbors.

That's where the government should have no business between private parties.

The Amish run into this problem alot.

Now the pig farmer can't give a whole hog to their neighbor, some governments say it must go through an approved butcher.

That's also a problem.

Setting rules about what can and can't be done for retail sale between strangers, makes sense thats a good place for regulation. Rules between private people not so much.

In the case of banning meat, there better be real human studies with metabolic wards and hard outcomes. Using epidemiology and low risk associations to push a political or religious agenda is exactly what government regulation should NOT do.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

I think it's more like government can ban what can be sold as food and make advice. They can't really stop you from drinking bleach or eating the grass in your yard or whatever. They can only prevent you from feeding it to someone else or selling it as food.

Meat isn't a food that could be banned in the same way as, say, Red Dye #4 or force-hydrogenated fats or high fructose corn syrup. They could make farmers cull whole herds of cows if mad cow broke out i guess, but there are wild hogs, backyard chickens and goats, it's just not a controllable food.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't think they thought about it very much. It's like that spongebob meme where patrick has the wallet. Or the Friends one that I don't know the name of the template. You could go point by point building up a case for why there should be government regulations, but as soon as you say like "regulation" they go "Nope bad"

Though some people really do believe they as a rugged individual will be able to research and test all of their food without an FDA or whatever. If they buy bread that has sawdust in it, they'll be able to tell, and somehow get a refund, or buy some other bread that doesn't have sawdust. That seems like a lot of work and optimism compared to regulations and inspections by qualified professionals earlier in the process.

load more comments
view more: next ›