4 ms·

When the obsession with personal responsibility results in the suggestion that we, as a society with legal mechanisms, should not avoid traumatically harming ch

When the obsession with personal responsibility results in the suggestion that we, as a society with legal mechanisms, should not avoid traumatically harming children in some scenario where it can be practically and realistically addressed if only there was will, it makes me sick. If a product or service causes harm and it can be reasonably mitigated, it must be mitigated, regardless of whether those people were "stupid" or "deserved their consequences", or some other psychopathic rationalization.

loonster 6y ago
A simple reasonable mitigation could be keep child away. When you go to a hotel, typically all the exercise equipment is locked in a separate room. Exercise equipment are not toys. They are potentially very dangerous tools. I never said that these kids deserved the consequences. It's a damn shame that they got hurt. The blame should go to the parents.
- jedberg 6y ago
  The blame should be shared amongst the parents, who did not remove the safety key, and Peloton, who did not put proper guards on the treadmill.
  - loonster 6y ago
    I would expect the people to make an evaluation on which treadmill would be most appropriate for their household. I blame the parents twice.
    - jedberg 6y ago
      I wouldn't expect parents to be experts in mechanical safety. I would trust that the company, who should be hiring experts in mechanical safety, have done everything in their power to make sure their device is safe. The parent failure here was letting the kids around it unsupervised with the key in. But I don't expect parents to be able to evaluate the mechanical safety of every device. They should be able to trust that every reasonable precaution has been taken by the company.
- morelisp 6y ago
  Do you work for Peloton, or do you defend child slaughter for fun?
  - dang 6y ago
    Posting like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. No more of this, please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - morelisp 6y ago
      "oh no"
thegrimmest 6y ago
"We" as a society are harming no one. Collectives don't do things, individuals do. The whole point of personal responsbility is that it ends at the people responsible, in this case the parents who left their children unsupservised near a high powered electric device. > If a product or service causes harm and it can be reasonably mitigated, it must be mitigated The whole problem is that I don't recognize your right to decide for others what "causes harm" and what "reasonable mitigation" looks like. As was pointed out in another comment, most of our grandparents grew up with open fires in the house. When a child injured themselves or burnt their family home to the ground, it wasn't treated as a social problem, but an individaul one. The only people responsible for the saftey of children in the home are those children's guardians. In this case they have failed in that responsibility. Why not just leave it there and stop calling for social change every time a kid gets hurt?
- mLuby 6y ago
  > The whole point of personal responsbility [sic] is that it ends at the people responsible, in this case the parents who left their children unsupservised [sic] near a high powered electric device. That's an understandable view, but my view is that the individuals responsible are the ones who designed and approved the dangerous device. The courts should decide which of our views is right. As a separate point, consider who is hurt more when this goes badly: the company that has some (bad) PR or even (gasp!) a recall, or the parents who enters the room to find their child dead.
  - thegrimmest 6y ago
    > my view is that the individuals responsible are the ones who designed and approved the dangerous device. That's not how that works though. Responsibility is only derived from action or negligence directly (not indirectly) resulting in harm. Lots of devices are dangerous - why do you get to decide what is "safe" and what isn't? As for who is hurt most, I would say it's all of us. Increasing regulation of every aspect of our lives causes tremendous harm to, and increases the barrier to entry for pretty much everything.
    - 6y ago

loonster 6y ago

A simple reasonable mitigation could be keep child away. When you go to a hotel, typically all the exercise equipment is locked in a separate room. Exercise equipment are not toys. They are potentially very dangerous tools. I never said that these kids deserved the consequences. It's a damn shame that they got hurt. The blame should go to the parents.

jedberg 6y ago
The blame should be shared amongst the parents, who did not remove the safety key, and Peloton, who did not put proper guards on the treadmill.
- loonster 6y ago
  I would expect the people to make an evaluation on which treadmill would be most appropriate for their household. I blame the parents twice.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    I wouldn't expect parents to be experts in mechanical safety. I would trust that the company, who should be hiring experts in mechanical safety, have done everything in their power to make sure their device is safe. The parent failure here was letting the kids around it unsupervised with the key in. But I don't expect parents to be able to evaluate the mechanical safety of every device. They should be able to trust that every reasonable precaution has been taken by the company.
morelisp 6y ago
Do you work for Peloton, or do you defend child slaughter for fun?
- dang 6y ago
  Posting like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. No more of this, please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - morelisp 6y ago
    "oh no"

thegrimmest 6y ago

"We" as a society are harming no one. Collectives don't do things, individuals do. The whole point of personal responsbility is that it ends at the people responsible, in this case the parents who left their children unsupservised near a high powered electric device. > If a product or service causes harm and it can be reasonably mitigated, it must be mitigated The whole problem is that I don't recognize your right to decide for others what "causes harm" and what "reasonable mitigation" looks like. As was pointed out in another comment, most of our grandparents grew up with open fires in the house. When a child injured themselves or burnt their family home to the ground, it wasn't treated as a social problem, but an individaul one. The only people responsible for the saftey of children in the home are those children's guardians. In this case they have failed in that responsibility. Why not just leave it there and stop calling for social change every time a kid gets hurt?

mLuby 6y ago
> The whole point of personal responsbility [sic] is that it ends at the people responsible, in this case the parents who left their children unsupservised [sic] near a high powered electric device. That's an understandable view, but my view is that the individuals responsible are the ones who designed and approved the dangerous device. The courts should decide which of our views is right. As a separate point, consider who is hurt more when this goes badly: the company that has some (bad) PR or even (gasp!) a recall, or the parents who enters the room to find their child dead.
- thegrimmest 6y ago
  > my view is that the individuals responsible are the ones who designed and approved the dangerous device. That's not how that works though. Responsibility is only derived from action or negligence directly (not indirectly) resulting in harm. Lots of devices are dangerous - why do you get to decide what is "safe" and what isn't? As for who is hurt most, I would say it's all of us. Increasing regulation of every aspect of our lives causes tremendous harm to, and increases the barrier to entry for pretty much everything.
  - 6y ago