[alex_lav]

...isn't "but i like my food cooked on the other kind" just the same thing you're arguing against?

[apnew]

But I am not taking a position that govt bans the other side's fav style, am I now?

[alex_lav]

Should legislation include science and fact-less personal preference?

[apnew]

Where did I say that? I’m saying there is no need for restricting gas range installations via legislation.

If the goal is to fight health risks there’s way to mitigate those risks scientifically in other ways that allows people to keep their preferences. Just saying “science” in a sentence doesn’t make your point scientifically valid, we don’t need to turn science into religion.

[alex_lav]

But...replace gas range with seatbelts or smoking cigarettes indoors and you're repeating exactly the argument that was made while that legislation was happening. "We can't add legislation because I like the dangerous thing"

[apnew]

If I were to take your examples; range hood is the seatbelt; what this legislation is doing is telling driving “too unsafe; everyone must take train”.

Or too take cigarettes example; ban cigarette sales completely instead of banning smoking indoors.

I hope you see the nuance now.

[alex_lav]

I don't. I still see a person advocating for their own ability to be negligent as a result of personal preference, in the face of data suggesting that preference is a problem.