6 ms·

> If you buy a home and want it to have a gas stove, why is it the state government's place to say that you can't do so, for your own health? This is the wrong

> If you buy a home and want it to have a gas stove, why is it the state government's place to say that you can't do so, for your own health? This is the wrong question to be made. You should ask what should be the safety standards you need to adhere to ensure health risks are mitigated. The reason why this sort of thing must at all times be regulated, without any exception, is that the personal interest of a corporation investing in real estate by selling it off right away are not aligned with the interests of those who actually have to be exposed to the health risks created by said corporation. To put it more broadly, just because you are ok with your home causing health problems to its occupants, that doesn't grant you the right to subject everyone around you to them, or even whoever will live in that house after you live. To make it clear, let's consider doors. You might feel you have no use for a wide corridor and you're ok with custom narrow, submarine like doorways. Except that a wheelchair or a stretcher can't go through. Therefore thanks to your shortsighted and ignorant "why should the government tell me how to be safe" point of view, you needlessly screw over your future self and/or everyone that may possibly live there. Regulation is not a conspiracy. Regulation reflects hard lessons learned with pain and suffering, and ensures that easily avoidable problems can be avoided easily. We learned lessons from fires and mobility constraints, and thus we have regulation ensuring each and every utility in your home is safe. Instead of having to reinvent the wheel each time anyone needs to build something, we only need to check what's the regulation and what are the constraints. Air quality is starting to be noticed as a major health problem, specially with higher occupation densities, and thus we have safety lessons that need to be learned to avoid these issues. And no clueless naive spur of the moment bootstrappy individual has a clue about them. Hence the need to impose regulation, because these arrogant morons think they know best when they know nothing. I mean, does it make sense to risk our health just because an amateur didn't even wanted to bother doing his homework?

goodluckchuck 3y ago
First, obviously regulation is a conspiracy. It will is a coordinated activity by multiple individuals. Second, none of this is an argument to ban natural gas appliances. what is the harm? Is the harm acceptable? Should a person be allowed to except the harm? Can the harm be mitigated by education or change in behavior? And who has the jurisdiction to implement these regulations even if natural gas stoves are in unreasonably dangerous to the occupants who are you to tell me that I can’t do that to myself?
- hairofadog 3y ago
  That’s a pretty broad definition of conspiracy that seems like it would include almost all human endeavors, no?
  - aww_dang 3y ago
    In most uses, "conspiracy" is nothing more than a scare-word. The poster may have been attempting to illustrate this.
- simplotek 3y ago
  > First, obviously regulation is a conspiracy. It will is a coordinated activity by multiple individuals. Your comment goes way beyond being wrong. You clearly do not know a) what a conspiracy is, b) how standards and regulations are specified and adopted. You clearly are trying to comment on subjects you're entirely oblivious about. > Second, none of this is an argument to ban natural gas appliances. Except it does. Again, you seem completely oblivious to what regulations and standards accomplish. You're trying to reject well established concepts and mechanisms that you know nothing about, and filling in your ignorance with conspiratorial make-believe. For your information, builders are also forced to comply with regulation on thermal insulation in particular and climate confort in general. Why? For the very same reason NY banned natural gas in new buildings: mitigate the environmental and economic impact of climatizing ineficcient, sub-standard homes. > what is the harm? Is the harm acceptable? I invite you to read the regulation. You are clearly commenting on stuff out of ignorance.
- oblio 3y ago
  > It will is a coordinated activity by multiple individuals. Today I found out that the following are conspiracies: - corporations - NGOs - all government activity - sports teams - most human hobbies - ... :-))
- CharlieDigital 3y ago
  If regulations are a conspiracy because they are coordinated by multiple individuals, then so are all laws and my weekend ultimate frisbee match. You're going to be quite shocked when you learn about building codes and building inspections that you already get the benefits of.
iamdamian 3y ago
> that doesn't grant you the right to subject everyone around you to them It seems to me you are switching to a third argument, which is societal (rather than personal) health risks, along the lines of second-hand smoke. I haven't seen this argument made in a serious journal, but maybe I've missed it. Can you point me to a rigorous analysis of this? I will also point out that, as I mentioned above, it seems fine to me to require vented fume hoods in new buildings with gas stove lines. I'm hoping that addresses at least some of your argument.

goodluckchuck 3y ago

First, obviously regulation is a conspiracy. It will is a coordinated activity by multiple individuals. Second, none of this is an argument to ban natural gas appliances. what is the harm? Is the harm acceptable? Should a person be allowed to except the harm? Can the harm be mitigated by education or change in behavior? And who has the jurisdiction to implement these regulations even if natural gas stoves are in unreasonably dangerous to the occupants who are you to tell me that I can’t do that to myself?

hairofadog 3y ago
That’s a pretty broad definition of conspiracy that seems like it would include almost all human endeavors, no?
- aww_dang 3y ago
  In most uses, "conspiracy" is nothing more than a scare-word. The poster may have been attempting to illustrate this.
simplotek 3y ago
> First, obviously regulation is a conspiracy. It will is a coordinated activity by multiple individuals. Your comment goes way beyond being wrong. You clearly do not know a) what a conspiracy is, b) how standards and regulations are specified and adopted. You clearly are trying to comment on subjects you're entirely oblivious about. > Second, none of this is an argument to ban natural gas appliances. Except it does. Again, you seem completely oblivious to what regulations and standards accomplish. You're trying to reject well established concepts and mechanisms that you know nothing about, and filling in your ignorance with conspiratorial make-believe. For your information, builders are also forced to comply with regulation on thermal insulation in particular and climate confort in general. Why? For the very same reason NY banned natural gas in new buildings: mitigate the environmental and economic impact of climatizing ineficcient, sub-standard homes. > what is the harm? Is the harm acceptable? I invite you to read the regulation. You are clearly commenting on stuff out of ignorance.
oblio 3y ago
> It will is a coordinated activity by multiple individuals. Today I found out that the following are conspiracies: - corporations - NGOs - all government activity - sports teams - most human hobbies - ... :-))
CharlieDigital 3y ago
If regulations are a conspiracy because they are coordinated by multiple individuals, then so are all laws and my weekend ultimate frisbee match. You're going to be quite shocked when you learn about building codes and building inspections that you already get the benefits of.

iamdamian 3y ago

> that doesn't grant you the right to subject everyone around you to them It seems to me you are switching to a third argument, which is societal (rather than personal) health risks, along the lines of second-hand smoke. I haven't seen this argument made in a serious journal, but maybe I've missed it. Can you point me to a rigorous analysis of this? I will also point out that, as I mentioned above, it seems fine to me to require vented fume hoods in new buildings with gas stove lines. I'm hoping that addresses at least some of your argument.