undefined | Better HN

0 pointsasveikau6y ago0 comments

Disposable plastic is not an infinite resource, and its cost to the environment is not priced in the item. What is the problem with a good faith effort to reduce consumption?

Nicotine is addictive, last I checked a carcinogen in its own right (even if better for you than other cigarette additives), and there are reports that an entire generation is starting life addicted to it more than any previous generation. So if I think that's concerning, I am just trying to signal my virtue?

Can't be that I came to be concerned about either case for good reasons.

What I see a lot of on the internet lately is that people become unable to argue points like this and pull out the "virtue signalling" label when backed into a corner. Or like you I guess, you decide to mock "virtue signalling" without understanding how a person comes to these opinions in good faith.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

Ohn06y ago

Opinions. It's one thing to have them, it's another thing to force them on society.

If you want to reduce plastic consumption, just don't use it. But I bet you use a phone, computer, desk, eye glasses, wallet, clothing, etc., all made from the environmental destroying resource.

If you don't like addictive carcinogens, don't take them. Or is it your job to save humanity by banning it for everyone, or people of a certain age?

I have plenty of concerns, but I don't dare force them on the masses because of my own efforts of good faith. Change starts with you.

But here's a question... if plastic and nicotine and maybe other things like alcohol are so bad, why not just outright ban them (prohibited) instead of just limited to reduced consumption? It's b.s. legislation meant to signal virtue to the constituents. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse