480

BACK IT UP (mander.xyz)

submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

238 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://academictorrents.com/

☝️ ☝️ ☝️ ☝️ ☝️ ☝️ ☝️ ☝️

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 33 points 3 weeks ago

[…] raw milk […]

I'd support this so long as the manufacturers of said raw milk could be held to account for harm caused to a consumer who purchased it under the belief that it was safe — likely, this would also mean that, if it isn't safe, the product containing raw milk must otherwise display explicit warnings. I think a person should be allowed to take take their own risks.

[-] auzy@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago

And parents are held responsible if they give it to kids

Insurance should also not need to cover sickness caused by it

[-] Oneser@lemm.ee 17 points 3 weeks ago

Insurance should cover everyone for everything and should remain affordable for all.

[-] auzy@lemmy.world -3 points 3 weeks ago

Not if you're drinking raw milk

[-] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 weeks ago

I also think insurance shouldn't cover cancer treatment for smokers. Or diabetes treatment for overweight people. Or broken bones for skiers. Or literally anything for anyone who has ever done anything bad for them. /s

[-] auzy@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Why shouldn't they be able to sue cigarette companies or companies releasing unsafe products?

Why should my insurance be higher whilst cigarette companies are benefiting off their shit marketing

[-] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago

One reason why people have historically had trouble suing tobacco companies is that non-smokers also get lung cancer. While we can say for sure that smoking makes it more likely you will get lung cancer, it's generally impossible to say any one person's lung cancer was caused by smoking. This is in contrast to say, someone who injures themselves climbing, where it is definitely 100% on them.

The real answer of course is that you're paying for it either way. Insured people pay absurdly over the odds to offset the amount of money lost on people who accrue medical debt and can't afford to pay it off.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

What is it with this americans aversion for raw milk, it's not like you'll fall down dead if you drink it.

Do you also burn your salmon and cook your meat?

In france there are lots of cheese (no really?) and many are forbidden for import to the USA because of stuff like raw milk. Guess that's why we have the watch coming by getting all the dead babies every tuesday.

Maybe I'm missing something, please do enlighten me!