|
Caros posted:Yeah... you're wrong. I didn't really go in depth last time because it was more of an off the cuff comment, but lets throw some facts around. Bold: Of course it does because these types debates over obvious safety hazards (your picture is an open box displaying the products) that people chose to do/use/buy are utterly subjective. In some cases we allow continued dangerous behavior for cultural reasons or because we've deemed the risk/reward trade-off to be favorable (cars, bikes, pools) but there is no clear dividing line. And you didn't even attempt to outline one but instead continued to peruse an argument in the always alarming [big numbers!] form. Regulation is always going to be subjective to an extent but there are categories of regulation which contain other important elements as well, such as information asymmetry which make them far far more powerful as an arguments. Exercu posted:Yeah, even though it feels wrong, I think I need to agree with Jrod here. Even if we posit that government is the big evil, the other half of libertarianism is basing it on these "self-evident" axioms like "humans act" and other stupid poo poo. While Somalia does not really have government, I think it's also somewhat misguided to claim that they are libertarian in the sense Jrod is. No libertarian deontology involved, for example. Except Jrodfeld has repeatedly stated that his goal would be to eliminate the state as quickly as possible. No Marx style transitional phases here. So given that, what's supposed to be the difference between [no state] and libertarianism. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Feb 8, 2015 |
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:Bold: Of course it does because these types debates over obvious safety hazards (your picture is an open box displaying the products) that people chose to do/use/buy are utterly subjective. In some cases we allow continued dangerous behavior for cultural reasons or because we've deemed the risk/reward trade-off to be favorable (cars, bikes, pools) but there is no clear dividing line. And you didn't even attempt to outline one but instead continued to peruse an argument in the always alarming [big numbers!] form. Sorry that you can't see the value of "children were maimed and killed for literally no reason by toys, until the government stepped in." I'm also very sorry that 12 appears to be a big number to you—yet another child failed by the public mathematics curriculum 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Bold: Of course it does because these types debates over obvious safety hazards (your picture is an open box displaying the products) that people chose to do/use/buy are utterly subjective. In some cases we allow continued dangerous behavior for cultural reasons or because we've deemed the risk/reward trade-off to be favorable (cars, bikes, pools) but there is no clear dividing line. And you didn't even attempt to outline one but instead continued to peruse an argument in the always alarming [big numbers!] form. Deaths attributable to plastic lawn darts are zero. What is the reward part of the risk/reward tradeoff of making the lawn darts out of steel? Shininess? That satisfying sound when it buries itself into the ground/child's torso/head? The electrical thrill of wrapping one's hand around a cold heavy metal rod? What? If you're going to talk down to everyone about how they're panicky suburban ninnies who can't evaluate risk, then I'd really like to know what it is you think goes on the reward side of the risk/reward analysis here that balances out completely avoidable dead and injured kids. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Deaths attributable to plastic lawn darts are zero. Did you never play lawn darts? Those heavy bitches weren't playing around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
No but my dad did have a little shooting range in the basement, though he stopped letting my friends shoot when one of them missed the target and took a chunk out of the basement wall with a .22 round. E: huh, do you ever have one of those moments when you reflect back on something in childhood that seemed totally normal at the time and now you're like "what the gently caress dad"
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Deaths attributable to plastic lawn darts are zero. Muscle Tracer posted:Sorry that you can't see the value of "children were maimed and killed for literally no reason by toys, until the government stepped in." I'm also very sorry that 12 appears to be a big number to you—yet another child failed by the public mathematics curriculum Hmm is this all the information you need to ban fireworks? CPSC posted:In 2013, there were eight deaths and an estimated 11,400 consumers who sustained injuries related to fireworks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
I have never lived in a city that didn't ban fireworks within city limits so...yes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Hmm is this all the information you need to ban fireworks? Are fireworks deliberately marketed as children's toys? Last time I checked they weren't!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Hmm is this all the information you need to ban fireworks? I love this thread  Yes, it's not legal to market children's toys full of gunpowder. Are you an idiot?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Hmm is this all the information you need to ban fireworks? Yes, children should indeed be banned from owning fireworks. See, you're getting it!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Ok so it's "the children". Anything that kills children and is marketed towards children should be banned. Do we care about adults at all? How many adult deaths before we ban something marketed towards adults? 21? 132? I'm sure there is a clear, well thought out dividing line in your head much different than all the other "the children!" arguments out there, I'm just trying to understand it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
So rather than dealing with the situation at hand and letting us in on this risk/reward calculation you've done in your head, you're just going to throw up a bunch of irrelevant bullshit as if banning one thing requires to ban everything in the world.  'kay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No but my dad did have a little shooting range in the basement, though he stopped letting my friends shoot when one of them missed the target and took a chunk out of the basement wall with a .22 round. I was driving a bulldozer by myself by the time I was seven so yeah every day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Ok so it's "the children". Anything that kills children and is marketed towards children should be banned. Do we care about adults at all? How many adult deaths before we ban something marketed towards adults? 21? 132? I'm sure there is a clear, well thought out dividing line in your head much different than all the other "the children!" arguments out there, I'm just trying to understand it. Thanks for confirming that you're an idiot  Didn't this start off as "there are better examples of what should be regulated"? How did you get to "relegalize lawn darts and shove explosives into the hands of children" from there?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Hmm is this all the information you need to ban fireworks? I couldn't buy fireworks in NY state at all soooooo
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Ok so it's "the children". Anything that kills children and is marketed towards children should be banned. Do we care about adults at all? How many adult deaths before we ban something marketed towards adults? 21? 132? I'm sure there is a clear, well thought out dividing line in your head much different than all the other "the children!" arguments out there, I'm just trying to understand it. You're right. Unban everything. Here you go, little Timmy, don't forget take this fifth of Jack and a loaded .45 before you get in your car! Thanks, asdf32, for showing us the light.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:I couldn't buy fireworks in NY state at all soooooo Remember that he also brought up water and asked us why we weren't regulating that, as if there weren't a metric fuckton of regulation and safety requirements regarding backyard or neighborhood pools.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Bold: Of course it does because these types debates over obvious safety hazards (your picture is an open box displaying the products) that people chose to do/use/buy are utterly subjective. In some cases we allow continued dangerous behavior for cultural reasons or because we've deemed the risk/reward trade-off to be favorable (cars, bikes, pools) but there is no clear dividing line. And you didn't even attempt to outline one but instead continued to peruse an argument in the always alarming [big numbers!] form. I really don't understand what you're trying to argue here. You're almost as bad as Jrodefeld. Your definition of dangerous behavior is rather broad, and thus very absurd. For example, you mention driving. Which is idiotic, since driving is one of the most heavily regulated things I do on a regular basis. First off, there are so many safety regulation for cars. You know that sound the car makes when your seatbelt isn't being worn? Then there's a ton of laws regarding how I can operate a motor vehicle. So, I can't go faster than the posted speed limit on a road. I can't drive facing any which direction. My BAC has to be below a certain amount. If I'm distracted, I can be pulled over. My car has to be in good working order. Because at the end of the day, driving, when done appropriately, is very safe. The number of people who die in car accidents where the road conditions were safe, they were driving following all rules and regulations, and nobody else around them was driving dangerously is very low. At that point, you got acts of god and mechanical failure. And if we're being reasonable, we can't remove all risk. It's the same with flying. We have all these rules and regulations, and we have taken it so that airplane crashes are very rare. That's why they are big news story. We also think about what a reasonable person would expect too. So, if I had a child, and they want to ride a bike, I'm aware it's risky. I will give my child safety equipment to minimize the risk. However, if I got my child a toy, I don't expect there to be much risk or chance for injury. So, if my child is playing with lawn darts and requires a trip to the ER, then yes, that's where we step in. And we can look at what caused those deaths and injuries. Were people using them appropriately? Were people misusing them in a way that a designer should have reasonably expected. So let's say with the lawn darts, kids were throwing them at each other. You have to be a loving moron not to think "Yeah, kids won't throw this at each other." So we say, hey, this is a misuse that could reasonably have been seen. The people selling this should have taken steps to prevent this. Like, making them out of plastic. It's the same thing with driving. It is reasonable to expect that driving at 65 miles an hour carries some inherent risk with it. But thanks to regulation, those risks are minimized as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So rather than dealing with the situation at hand and letting us in on this risk/reward calculation you've done in your head, you're just going to throw up a bunch of irrelevant bullshit as if banning one thing requires to ban everything in the world. You guys are the smug ones pointing to the highly subjective choice to ban a yard game as a defense of the state, it's right to regulate and the benefits of it doing that. As someone highly supportive of those things who understands what's at stake in this argument it's a horribly chosen example. Worse, it's framed in a contextless [danger!, "the children!"] form on a subject (safety) that's a breeding ground for ideology and poor policy (see terrorism, overreaction).
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You guys are the smug ones pointing to the highly subjective choice to ban a yard game as a defense of the state, it's right to regulate and the benefits of it doing that. As someone highly supportive of those things who understands what's at stake in this argument it's a horribly chosen example. Worse, it's framed in a contextless [danger!, "the children!"] form on a subject (safety) that's a breeding ground for ideology and poor policy (see terrorism, overreaction). Actually, I think you'll find the person overreacting with tired and stale arguments... ...is you 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Somalia in not a good example of Libertarianism precisely because Libertarianism is not and has never been emergent. This is, in and of itself, a debunking of the First Principles which are by definition emergent. It is not a Libertarian paradise precisely because a Libertarian paradise cannot exist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Caros posted the context and the number of injuries and deaths that lead the regulators to make the decision that they did...which you know, they actually made. Meanwhile you're lecturing us about how we're being irrational and we'd change our minds if we did the risk/reward calculation properly, without deigning to let us know what you think goes on the "reward" side here. What goes on the reward side of the scale. You seem pretty sure that everyone is being irrational, so what goes on the reward side that we're all missing? What? Wait, did you just compare banning the sale and marketing of javelins to children with invading Iraq over fears of terrorism?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Just saying something doesn't have context doesn't make is so. It has plenty of it. People tend to ban/heavily regulate things that literally kill/or injure children. I don't think that is a slippery slope as you seem to think it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Just saying something doesn't have context doesn't make is so. You know what else kills children???? WATER. DO YOU BAN WATER YOU NANNY STATE ASSHOLES????
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Either we market lawn darts to children and sell them in combo-packs with toys, or we let the government take away all our rights and establish a military dictatorship built on stoking fears of terrorism. These are the only two consistent options, nothing else is possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:You know what else kills children???? WATER. DO YOU BAN WATER YOU NANNY STATE ASSHOLES???? Soccer moms start suicide bombing rivers and lakes. So we invade Iran. WHERE WILL IT END?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Caros posted the context and the number of injuries and deaths that lead the regulators to make the decision that they did...which you know, they actually made. Posting absolute numbers, such as "9 deaths in 8 years!" absent any comparison to related hazards is lacking context. You should be able to spot that a mile away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
That isn't lacking context. We aren't comparing them to anything, as it is pointless. Literally The Worst posted:You know what else kills children???? WATER. DO YOU BAN WATER YOU NANNY STATE ASSHOLES???? Also US to declare war on Poseidon, FOR THE CHILDREN.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
So not interested in telling us what you think the risk/reward profile is here then? Okay, well what comparable unregulated hazards have zero reward and thousands of injuries? I kind of want to know because those sound like good targets for safety regulation to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:That isn't lacking context. When the US fails to find him, they decide to invade the underworld in search of WMDs and kill Hades.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Posting absolute numbers, such as "9 deaths in 8 years!" absent any comparison to related hazards is lacking context. You should be able to spot that a mile away. So, the 6000-7000 ER trips caused by the lawn darts mean nothing to you? Now, I'm aware you might think you are in a large cavern, but I have to inform you that your head is simply up your own rear end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So not interested in telling us what you think the risk/reward profile is here then? I don't care about much about Jarts though as someone who remembers playing it dozens of times with the family it's sort of laughable (or not) to see its ban being used as a poster child for consumer safety. The intended use was to be thrown underhand like 30' and the purpose of being sharp was so it would reliably stick in the ground when it landed after being thrown at these slow speeds. I presume the technology for plastic yard darts existed in the 60's and 70's but I also presume they were less popular and effective - unless I'm missing the dark motivation leading the manufactures to deliberately impale children. As an aside, the girl who's death resulted in the final push to ban these things was killed when a couple kids in the backyard threw the thing clear over the house and hit her in the front yard. At the speeds these were intended to be thrown these wouldn't puncture the average shirt or shoe. Cemetry Gator posted:So, the 6000-7000 ER trips caused by the lawn darts mean nothing to you? Correct because I don't have the slightest idea how that stacks up against, well, anything else without additional information (note that you didn't even include the years part) and I'm not in the habit of latching onto contextless numbers being thrown at me in an argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:unless I'm missing the dark motivation leading the manufactures to deliberately impale children. So did you miss the part where a large part of hte issue came from the marketing or are you just trolling (it's the second one, it's ok you can admit it)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
ahahahaha, now you are using anecdotal data to discount statistical data. hahahahaha.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I don't care about much about Jarts though as someone who remembers playing it dozens of times with the family it's sort of laughable (or not) to see its ban being used as a poster child for consumer safety. The intended use was to be thrown underhand like 30' and the purpose of being sharp was so it would reliably stick in the ground when it landed after being thrown at these slow speeds. I presume the technology for plastic yard darts existed in the 60's and 70's but I also presume they were less popular and effective - unless I'm missing the dark motivation leading the manufactures to deliberately impale children. As an aside, the girl who's death resulted in the final push to ban these things was killed when a couple kids in the backyard threw the thing clear over the house and hit her in the front yard. At the speeds these were intended to be thrown these wouldn't puncture the average shirt or shoe. Just shut the gently caress up please. Do you understand that it's not how these things are supposed to be used, but how they can be used that can cause problems. So, what happens if you throw something a little too hard? http://mentalfloss.com/article/31176/how-one-dad-got-lawn-darts-banned Read this loving article, you dumb rear end. Especially this part quote:The Jart came down right on her and, with what researchers estimate as 23,000 pounds of pressure per square inch, penetrated her skull. She collapsed, was rushed to the hospital, and was pronounced clinically dead three days later. Yeah, 23000 pounds of pressure per square inch. That's not some loving statistical anomaly. But any reasonable person today who understands physics can understand how metal weighted darts can be dangerous when thrown in the air in an environment where people aren't suspecting there to be any danger! quote:Correct because I don't have the slightest idea how that stacks up against, well, anything else without additional information (note that you didn't even include the years part) and I'm not in the habit of latching onto contextless numbers being thrown at me in an argument. Please, just shut the gently caress up. You cannot argue. You are incapable of putting together a rational argument. You should stop trying and just accept that you are an idiot, and try to make due with the little intelligence your maker gave you. Because I didn't include the years part. But Caros did. 1980-1988. So an 8 to 9 year period. Which means that's an average of around 700-800 trips to the ER per year due to lawn darts. Now, you don't need the exact number of other injuries to say this seems like a high number. It says "Hey, these things might have the ability to cause serious injuries." And then when you see the number of deaths, that should be enough for any person to confirm that these things are capable of causing bodily harm that could end up in death. And given that this was a party game to played by children, you say that the product is unacceptably dangerous. But that requires you to have basic reasoning skills. Cemetry Gator fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Look just because it hit a child;s skull with 23000 pounds of pressure per square inch
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I don't care about much about Jarts though as someone who remembers playing it dozens of times with the family it's sort of laughable (or not) to see its ban being used as a poster child for consumer safety. The intended use was to be thrown underhand like 30' and the purpose of being sharp was so it would reliably stick in the ground when it landed after being thrown at these slow speeds. I presume the technology for plastic yard darts existed in the 60's and 70's but I also presume they were less popular and effective - unless I'm missing the dark motivation leading the manufactures to deliberately impale children. As an aside, the girl who's death resulted in the final push to ban these things was killed when a couple kids in the backyard threw the thing clear over the house and hit her in the front yard. At the speeds these were intended to be thrown these wouldn't puncture the average shirt or shoe. Hey asdf, I want you to read the bolded part of this again. Do it slowly because you seem to have trouble with difficult concepts. I'll wait... ... Okay, you're back with us? Good! Kids were playing with what is essentially a weighted throwing knife as a toy. What the gently caress do you think is going to happen? Are you just totally unfamiliar with the concept of children and assume that the above is an example of 'bad actor' children and that most would play the game carefully and with regard for safety? Of course not, they're going to throw these fuckers as hard as they can because its fuuuuuun. When I was a kid playing with the plastic variant our version of the game was to throw them as high in the air as we could and dodge them on the way down. Kids aren't great at evaluating risk. It just astonishes me that you don't seem to understand this. Lawn Darts are weighted pointy bits of metal that were marketed as toys. In roughly 1/3rd of the cases found in the congressional report they were sold on shelves next to other children's toys despite prevailing laws making that illegal. There is no case to make for why lawn darts should be legal. They hurt and kill children and we have an alternative to the product that accomplishes the same goal of playing the game without seriously injuring and killing children. So what is your actual case against regulation beyond some hosed up idea that it will lead to extremism and terrorism.. somehow. quote:Correct because I don't have the slightest idea how that stacks up against, well, anything else without additional information (note that you didn't even include the years part) and I'm not in the habit of latching onto contextless numbers being thrown at me in an argument. The context is largely irrelevant. You tried to compare them to bikes for example, but here is the rub, bikes have a lot of useful functions that make injuries that result from them part of a risk/reward balance that human beings can judge. Moreover, bikes don't have a plastic alternative that could be on the market tomorrow which would completely eliminate all fatalities and most injuries that result from their use. If they did I'd be up in front saying we should get rid of bikes in favor of these new fangled ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Caros posted:
But they probably sold less Caros. Have you even considered the poor downtrodden businessman?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Caros posted:The context is largely irrelevant. You tried to compare them to bikes for example, but here is the rub, bikes have a lot of useful functions that make injuries that result from them part of a risk/reward balance that human beings can judge. Moreover, bikes don't have a plastic alternative that could be on the market tomorrow which would completely eliminate all fatalities and most injuries that result from their use. If they did I'd be up in front saying we should get rid of bikes in favor of these new fangled ones. The other thing we talk about is what would a reasonable person expect. We do expect that riding a bike will always have a risk for injury just because it involves motion, and any time you have people moving, you have the risk for injury. My dad tripped on a city sidewalk once and broke his arm. What, are we going to ban walking? We don't expect that a children's game could maim or injure people. And when you see a regular pattern of injuries happening, you can deduce that the game is inherently dangerous. But we also have rules and legislation to try and minimize the risks. So, for bikes, some places have helmet laws, which is a measure to try and reduce the number of deaths due to a blow to the head by forcing people to wear a helmet when they ride a bicycle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
Statists won't let me sell my Knives 'n' Vodka game to kids. loving fascists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 19:25
|
|
