Comment on BACK IT UP
Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 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 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 3 weeks ago
Insurance should cover everyone for everything and should remain affordable for all.
auzy@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Not if you’re drinking raw milk
svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 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
Valmond@lemmy.world 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!
threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
What if a child were given raw milk by their parents? Should a child be forced to pay for their parents’ decisions, potentially with their life?
Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Imo, only if it can be proven that the parent is being willfully negligent regarding the safety the child.
Also, if a product that claimed to be safe, but actually wasn’t, was purchased and given to the child, then this responsibility should fall on the producer only.