Check my reviews out at !mediareviews@lemmy.world.


Also @gon@lemmy.world and @gon@lemmy.pt.

  • 1 Post
  • 59 Comments
Joined 1 month ago
cake
Cake day: June 4th, 2025

help-circle









  • You would notice that I wrote, as a condition of the hypothetical, that you agree with the banning. Hence, it is perfectly irrelevant if you think it’s crazy, in actuality. It’s a hypothetical. You know? A hypothetical - a make-believe situation, if you will - to illustrate the question. It’s when you imagine something that isn’t real in hopes that, that way, you could maybe distance yourself from other factors that could cloud your judgement if you were tackling a real problem.

    It does seem, based on yours and others’ replies, that this particular hypothetical wasn’t very effective. For that, I apologize.

    I will, however, point out that it is indeed normal to be upset at other people when they wear intense and obtrusive perfumes, or if they smell intensely of something. If you smell terrible - including strong or disagreeable perfumes - you won’t be allowed into many establishments, may be kicked out of public transport, etc. So no, it’s not utter insanity, it’s actually perfectly normal.

    Then again, nobody was arguing about that! So, I guess that’s that.






  • Banning an allergen because a small fraction of the population suffer - Also No.

    Well, that’s why I said you already agreed with the banning, as part of the hypothetical. Dang, I really feel like quite a few people got kind of hooked on that… I asked this in a Discord server and several people just said “well I wouldn’t want it banned.”

    Just out of curiosity - and some frustration - what do you think would be a good abstraction for asking this question?

    Regardless, sounds like a reasonable answer.

    Edit: Wait, now I’m confused.

    Do you think coating yourself in allergens and going on tour is OK or not? And is banning an allergen because of a small fraction of the population OK or not?


  • I feel like you might’ve misunderstood the question?

    When I said “upset” I didn’t mean that you would fly into a fit of rage, I didn’t even really mean that you would confront the other person (though those are things that you might do, I suppose), just that you would find that it sat wrong with you and you would feel that the other person was wrong to do it. Perhaps “upset” was the wrong word to use there, sorry about that.

    There are also legitimate differences in the world, and we need to respect liberties to dissent & differ. They need to be justifiably upset.

    That’s why I said that you already agree that the thing should be banned! The whole point is that you already think that they are justifiably upset, and that what the people are doing is wrong and shouldn’t be done.

    Sorry… I did get some people before saying that my hypothetical wasn’t very good. I see that it’s caused some confusion for several people.