It’s more like banning cooking anything with mushrooms in it, because we haven’t sorted out which mushrooms are poisonous or not. You could make it more accurate by instead banning cooking with anything poisonous, but of course then lots of people will keep cooking with their mushrooms, naively thinking they are not poisonous and therefore allowed.
It’s just a different analogy but the point is the same, why not ban poisonous ingredients? It implies poisonous mushrooms also, but doesn’t criminalize cooking.
The point is that cooking was never criminalised in my analogy, only cooking with mushrooms. I also already wrote why that might be preferable to making the ban on poisonous ingredients
It’s more like banning cooking anything with mushrooms in it, because we haven’t sorted out which mushrooms are poisonous or not. You could make it more accurate by instead banning cooking with anything poisonous, but of course then lots of people will keep cooking with their mushrooms, naively thinking they are not poisonous and therefore allowed.
It’s just a different analogy but the point is the same, why not ban poisonous ingredients? It implies poisonous mushrooms also, but doesn’t criminalize cooking.
The point is that cooking was never criminalised in my analogy, only cooking with mushrooms. I also already wrote why that might be preferable to making the ban on poisonous ingredients