6 ms·

>I would agree with you if we were talking about a defective product. But neodymium spheres are not defective, they're just dangerous. Why make a distinction b

>I would agree with you if we were talking about a defective product. But neodymium spheres are not defective, they're just dangerous. Why make a distinction between things that are dangerous on accident (defective) vs things that are dangerous by design? >otherwise we should shut down every gas station and hardware store right now. Every law or regulation needs to balance the risk to society against the benefit to society. This is a toy.

DanBC 10y ago
> This is a toy This comment is one example of how hard the labelling failed. Buckyballs came with a big label saying "BUCKYBALLS ARE NOT TOYS".
- geon 10y ago
  You play with them, and they have no other purpose than entertainmenr. Of course they are toys. Just not suitable for children.
Grishnakh 10y ago
So are dildos, but that doesn't mean they need to be made safe for children. These toys were clearly advertised as being for adults only.
anigbrowl 10y ago
Why make a distinction between things that are dangerous on accident (defective) vs things that are dangerous by design? Because many dangerous things have significant utility. Fire is useful for warming your home and cooking food but can also injure or even kill. Water is essential life but you could suffer from hypothermia or drown. These are things that should be obvious to all adults and most children. If you need to have it spelled out to you then your opinions on the economics of safety are not worth very much. Every law or regulation needs to balance the risk to society against the benefit to society. This is a toy. It's not a toy just because you say it is, nor are all toys required to be equally safe or not admit any possibility of injury. Really, it's sad that you think such an assertion constitutes a valid argument. Maybe you think it's 'just a toy' because you can't conceive of any use for it other than mere amusement. That's your problem, not mine.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  This has gotten out of hand, principally because of this commenter insulting folks out of hand. Its reasonable to observe social norms, comment on risk vs reward, and suggest different views. Others should not be subject to ridicule and hostile comments for this. I suggest you take your toy and go home.
  - sctb 10y ago
    You're right that personal attacks are not OK here, but we also have the responsibility not to respond in kind.
- goflyapig 10y ago
  > Because many dangerous things have significant utility Yes, it certainly makes sense to distinguish based on utility, which was the whole point of the second part of my comment, and is why a comparison to gas stations and hardware stores is invalid. Utility is completely orthogonal to "defect vs design". > It's not a toy just because you say it is It's a toy because it fits the definition of the word, regardless of how they market it. If it has some purpose other than entertainment, I would love to understand what it is. From my viewpoint, the utility, and therefore the harm caused to society by it being banned, is low. Note how this is different for gasoline and power tools.

DanBC 10y ago

> This is a toy This comment is one example of how hard the labelling failed. Buckyballs came with a big label saying "BUCKYBALLS ARE NOT TOYS".

geon 10y ago
You play with them, and they have no other purpose than entertainmenr. Of course they are toys. Just not suitable for children.

Grishnakh 10y ago

So are dildos, but that doesn't mean they need to be made safe for children. These toys were clearly advertised as being for adults only.

anigbrowl 10y ago

Why make a distinction between things that are dangerous on accident (defective) vs things that are dangerous by design? Because many dangerous things have significant utility. Fire is useful for warming your home and cooking food but can also injure or even kill. Water is essential life but you could suffer from hypothermia or drown. These are things that should be obvious to all adults and most children. If you need to have it spelled out to you then your opinions on the economics of safety are not worth very much. Every law or regulation needs to balance the risk to society against the benefit to society. This is a toy. It's not a toy just because you say it is, nor are all toys required to be equally safe or not admit any possibility of injury. Really, it's sad that you think such an assertion constitutes a valid argument. Maybe you think it's 'just a toy' because you can't conceive of any use for it other than mere amusement. That's your problem, not mine.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
This has gotten out of hand, principally because of this commenter insulting folks out of hand. Its reasonable to observe social norms, comment on risk vs reward, and suggest different views. Others should not be subject to ridicule and hostile comments for this. I suggest you take your toy and go home.
- sctb 10y ago
  You're right that personal attacks are not OK here, but we also have the responsibility not to respond in kind.
goflyapig 10y ago
> Because many dangerous things have significant utility Yes, it certainly makes sense to distinguish based on utility, which was the whole point of the second part of my comment, and is why a comparison to gas stations and hardware stores is invalid. Utility is completely orthogonal to "defect vs design". > It's not a toy just because you say it is It's a toy because it fits the definition of the word, regardless of how they market it. If it has some purpose other than entertainment, I would love to understand what it is. From my viewpoint, the utility, and therefore the harm caused to society by it being banned, is low. Note how this is different for gasoline and power tools.