8 ms·

It seems to me there has been a significant shift to thinking about problems sociologically rather than individually - perhaps combined with only doing the easy

by Zak 5y ago

It seems to me there has been a significant shift to thinking about problems sociologically rather than individually - perhaps combined with only doing the easy half of the sociology. Individually, it's pretty reasonable to include something like "The chemistry set is recommended for ages 12 and over; chemicals A, B, and C are poisonous if ingested; chemicals D and E are flammable" with the chemistry set. Some of the warnings should probably go on the outer packaging so parents can make informed decisions about buying it. In general, 12 "is old enough to know better" when it comes to tasting the poison and playing with fire. Sociologically, we know that some 12 year olds will taste the poison and set their houses on fire. It's usually not hard to count roughly how many. We have decided the question is something like "how many kids should we let die so that the rest can play with chemistry sets?" and concluded the answer is few to none. Of course, as the article alludes to, there's a lot more benefit to experimenting with a chemistry set than mere entertainment. It's hard to measure though, and saying that there's an acceptable number of poisoned kids is not a winning move for politicians.

amelius 5y ago
> We have decided the question is something like "how many kids should we let die so that the rest can play with chemistry sets?" and concluded the answer is few to none. Yet, new versions of Tesla Autopilot hit the road every week, and the public is used as beta-testers.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  The issue is not always children or safety. When an elderly customer of McDonald’s sues — and wins damages — for being burned by coffee that is too hot, what do you think will happen to prevent it in the future? (Besides cooler coffee) hint: special warnings on the cup, redesigned cups, and the basic infantilization of adults.
  - SkittyDog 5y ago
    You have been and taken in by propaganda. Please take the time to read the wikipedia article that the other commenter linked, and learn the truth about this incident. You deserve better than to continue having the wool pulled over your eyes.
    - nate_meurer 5y ago
      Pay special attention to the "Coffee Temperature" section: > "Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's current policy is to serve coffee at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C),[37] relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability" In other words, Stella's lawsuit was sort of a one-off success for aspiring hot-coffee lawyers, and the only effect it had in the long run was maybe a few more warning labels on paper cups.
      - SkittyDog 5y ago
        So you actually quoted the part where it mentions improving their cups... And then you seem to have completely ignored it in your own commentary. Redesigning the cups with more rigid foam (and the plastic lid lip IIRC) was a pretty big deal at the time, and it made a significant impact on the possibility of spilling. But the bigger problem is that you're still ignoring that your mind has been captured by the propaganda that demonized this woman as a greedy opportunist, and cast our tort system as a lottery for lazy, evil people to enrich themselves at the expense of honest hard-working businesses. The woman asked that McDonald's pay her medical damages, only... And those damages were extensive... Can you even imagine how much surgery is required to treat 3rd degree burns to the genitals? Major skin grafts, permanent horrific scarring. You'd never regain full sensation again, and it's likely you'd never fully function sexually afterwards. The jury decided to award massive punitive damages, in large part because they felt that McDonald's conduct after the injury was so shocking that they felt compelled to send an equally attention-getting message to the corporate executives who had treated this woman with such callous inhumanity. And the punitive damages were reduced on appeal, anyway, which shows that the tort system does work. McDonald's paid their lawyers more than they paid the defendant... And they would have only paid a tiny fraction of that amount, if only they had evolved a bit of conscience at the beginning.
  - 542458 5y ago
    I suggest you go and read the details of that case. The store was knowingly serving coffee at temperatures too hot for human consumption, and had received prior complaints of injuries. The cups they served coffee in at the time were also known to be extremely flimsy and easy to accidentally collapse. The woman in question had third degree burns and required skin grafts. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest... If you go looking you can find images of the burns on her groin. They’re pretty grisly.
    - SteveGerencser 5y ago
      As someone that lived there, and drank their coffee, everyone knew it was hot. It was served that way because of the huge number of university students that grabbed a cup before class and it was still warm after walking across campus. The exit of that parking lot is also a known issue. It has/had a steep dip out of the lot and onto the road because that's how the roads were built down there rather than putting in sewers. Finally, there is a traffic light right next to that McDonalds. A LOT of people hit that dip hard trying to get onto the road before that light changes. All of these things contributed to the issue. Sticking a hot cup of coffee between your legs while someone is driving is stupid, especially in that parking lot. Serving coffee so hot that it stays warm while you walk to class is also pretty stupid. The way McDonalds handled the issue is what made them the bad guys here. They could have easily helped this woman with her medical bills and it would have cost them far less money than the amount they spent on the their PR campaign and lawyers.
      - 542458 5y ago
        For what it’s worth, they were parked when the spill happened. But agreed re:McDonald’s behaviour. I believe the jury was also deeply unimpressed, which is why the punitive damages were so high at first.
      - felipemnoa 5y ago
        I think they should have made better cups to retain the heat longer.
    - 5y ago
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    Contrary to popular belief, the “sue because coffee is too hot, what an infantile concept” is actually a highly successful PR campaign by McDonald’s. The coffee was hot enough to melt flesh and in fact, when spilled onto a lap, was hot enough to melt the genitals shut. I would sue too!
    - b112 5y ago
      Just thinking of the horrible scream that poor person must have let out...
    - twic 5y ago
      Flesh doesn't melt. The coffee was hot enough to cause third-degree burns. Specifically, it was 82–88 °C [1]. I couldn't find a definitive "correct" temperature at which to serve coffee. It seems that people typically want it at 60 °C when they drink it [2], but since not everyone wants to drink it straight away, often coffee shops serve it hotter than that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230106152_At_What_Temperatures_Do_Consumers_Like_to_Drink_Coffee_Mixing_Methods https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230106152_At_What_T...
      - SkittyDog 5y ago
        When someone says "He got his head blown off" in reference to a cranial gunshot wound, do you also pull this "WELL AKSHUALLY..." routine on them, by pointing out that the victim's head is still attached to their body? The characterization of "melt the genitals shut" is not a precise medical, physical, scientifix statement. It's a colloquial, even poetic phrasing, and it does a FANTASTIC job of describing the impact of this woman's injuries.
        spywaregorilla 5y ago
        It seems fairly clear to me that it was not intended to be read as a colloquial phrasing. It's stated twice, in italics. There's nothing wrong with pointing out this idea is just false. The responder isn't telling the whole story though. The reason the coffee was so hot was because they wanted to limit the practical ability of customers to make use of endless refills on coffee. Not consideration for the average customer's wants.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- entropi 5y ago
  Yes, but I think it simply means the answer changes to "an unknown quantitity" when it comes to sweet sweet quarterly returns.
- SturgeonsLaw 5y ago
  I guess "we" have decided that driving, and self-driving, is worth a number of deaths. And to be honest, I agree. It's a tough balance to consider, and the death of any individual is going to be weighed much more heavily by their nearest and dearest than it will be for a dispassionate observer, but I'm inclined to say that advancement of humanity is a big enough reward that some risk is justified.
  - rdiddly 5y ago
    The number hovers around 35,000 annually in the US.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - fragmede 5y ago
    Also, we don't let 12-year olds drive.
  - tomjakubowski 5y ago
    Advancement of humanity would be liberation from the dependency on enormous, spatially wasteful vehicles like cars.
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    Waymo and their hundreds of miles without needing correction, yes. Tesla and their fractions of one mile without correction, no.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    > I guess "we" have decided that driving, and self-driving, is worth a number of deaths. I don't think anyone has decided anything of the sort. If I shoplift from a store and I'm not stopped, that doesn't mean that "we" have decided that my theft is okay. It just means that I haven't got caught, or that the system isn't sufficient to hold me accountable, or that there isn't enough evidence to present a damning case against me just yet. > but I'm inclined to say that advancement of humanity is a big enough reward that some risk is justified. There's absolutely no evidence that Tesla's rushed and untested beta product is helping the "advancement of humanity" versus better designed and controlled research by organizations like Waymo. The only evidence of FSD's "advancement" I see is the advancement of Tesla's profits. FSD serves as a vehicle for interest-free loans to Tesla directly from their customers.
- listless 5y ago
  I forget who, but somebody pointed out recently that if cars were invented today, there is no way we would ever let anybody drive one.
  - notriddle 5y ago
    Considering all the other reasons cars are bad (energy and space wasted on them), it would’ve been better if they hadn’t been.
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    True for a lot of inventions that were a huge improvements forhumanity.
  - markdown 5y ago
    If alcohol were invented today, there is no way we'd let anyone market and sell it.
  - pyuser583 5y ago
    Why aren’t cars much safer than horses? My car doesn’t just decide to run a red light because it’s scared.
    - mostlystatic 5y ago
      I found your question interesting and found this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27739679 https://www.jstor.org/stable/27739679 > The advent of automobile use in the early 20th century brought about a measurable rise in total numbers of highway deaths and injuries. However, the automobile's toll on human life and limb was probably not extravagantly greater than the toll exacted by the combination of steam- and horse-driven travel methods it displaced From skimming the article, it seems like motor vehicle fatalities in NYC in the 1990s were similar to total traffic fatalities in the early 1900s, even though the population almost doubled. I'm assuming motor vehicle fatalities includes pedestrians hit by motor vehicles. There could still be additional deaths today from things like streetcars, horses, or ox carts, but I feel like those would be low.
- csomar 5y ago
  Tesla Autopilot will allow to remove one more "privilege": Driving cars. Government will like it that no one can drive a car. Works well with the expected IQ and competency of the future generations.
CodeMage 5y ago
> We have decided the question is something like "how many kids should we let die so that the rest can play with chemistry sets?" and concluded the answer is few to none. A perfect example of how choosing the right question matters just as much as choosing the right answer. "How many kids should we let die so that the rest can play with chemistry sets?" is the same kind of fallacious question as "Do you think all vaccinations should be voluntary or are you in favor of authoritarianism?" In short, it's a false dichotomy presented as a question, with the purpose of distorting the narrative and forcibly ending discussion. EDIT: Since it might not be clear, I want to clarify that I'm not saying the parent chose that question to shut down the discussion. I agree with the parent's assessment that insisting on asking the right questions wasn't "a winning move for politicians".
- crooked-v 5y ago
  > it's a false dichotomy How is it false?
  - CodeMage 5y ago
    While the question isn't phrased as a false dichotomy, it imposes one within the context. The idea that we either hold the chemistry set manufacturer accountable or we're letting children die is a false dichotomy.
ginko 5y ago
> In general, 12 "is old enough to know better" when it comes to tasting the poison and playing with fire. Funny thing is, i got a German chemistry kit as a kid in the 90s and i remember one of the instructions was to taste one of the synthesis products (I believe it was ammonium chloride or nitrate) Looking at the modern version of that particular kit (Kosmos C2000) it doesn’t seem to have changed all that much since then either.
- twic 5y ago
  The fact that those Kosmos sets are on sale today largely pulls the rug out from under the author's argument. https://www.homesciencetools.com/product/thames-kosmos-chem-c3000-kit/ https://www.homesciencetools.com/product/thames-kosmos-chem-... https://www.brightminds.co.uk/products/chem-lab-c3000-chemistry-set?variant=9280058228778 https://www.brightminds.co.uk/products/chem-lab-c3000-chemis... There is something interesting here, but i think it's far more about parents' and shops' changing attitudes towards risk than regulators'.
  - newbie789 5y ago
  - linksnapzz 5y ago
    Had the person tried to demonstrate magnetism with some Zen Magnets, they'd have seen the availability determined by CPSC fiat. Which supports their argument. What might've changed chemistry set suppliers' attitude towards risk? Plaintiff's attorneys are not, strictly speaking, "regulators".
  - justinclift 5y ago
    The author doesn't mention the country he's talking about, but if it's the US then chemistry kits manufactured overseas don't really count do they? eg they're not US manufacturers, so they wouldn't accept liability That some places in the US are selling chemistry kits overseas... might be a bit risky for the place selling them though. Sounds like they'd be copping the liability instead.
  - 5y ago
VictorPath 5y ago
Also corporations will gladly poison children if it will enrich some stock-holding heir without consequence. I am not mustering up a lot of sympathy for corporations manufacturing hazardous materials for children that then get sued. The major removal of agency for working people is by corporations and their aristocratic heir majority owners. Lawyers suing corporations for harming children are one of the things working people have to regain agency, as are laws to protect us. There is too little of it, not too much of that.
- linksnapzz 5y ago
  These are chemistry sets. They are, when used inappropriately, just as likely to cause harm as a sawzall, a hammer, or a cuisinart. I assure you, the "aristocratic heir majority owners" are also interested in letting their kids have access to experimental chemistry; and lawyers depriving any child of the opportunity to experience such (or to learn how to use a hammer, a sawzall, or a cuisinart for that matter) does no one any good, least of all working people.
  - crooked-v 5y ago
    I feel like you've actually kind of proven the reasonability of what actually happened to chemistry sets with this comparison. Fully-functional sawzalls, hammers, and Cuisinarts don't get actively marketed to children. You can buy them and let children use them, just as you can with (non-children-marketed) chemistry supplies, and in the same way that comes with the societal understanding that, by letting a child use something not marketed for use by children, you'll be providing suitable safety instruction and oversight yourself.
    - scaramanga 5y ago
      Yeah, this is a pretty good explanation, chemistry sets may be nerfed because the risk of giving poisons and invisible flames to children as toys far outweighs the benefits which accrue to a small minority who would gain from this. And the children who would gain from it have other ways to access bomb-making or nuclear-reactor making materials if they really want to: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/150726-nuclear-reactor-fusion-science-kid-ngbooktalk https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/150726-nu... That all seems to be corroborated by the fact there doesn't seem to be any shortage of scientifically gifted young adults. If anything we're on a golden age of scientific discovery. Teenagers fairly regularly make contributions to science, and chemistry in particular. It doesn't look as though there is some broad over-protective social force holding children back from developing adult skills and that this whole thing is much more likely to be a subjective impression of the author. From a quick google: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/teen-genius-5-promising-scientists-under-20 https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/teen-genius-5-... https://brightside.me/wonder-curiosities/6-sensational-discoveries-that-teenagers-shook-the-world-with-at-the-google-and-intel-science-fairs-717710/ https://brightside.me/wonder-curiosities/6-sensational-disco... Of course, there are still the old-fashioned forces of parental and social neglect, and the fact that opportunities and neglect are not evenly distributed throughout the society (being much more dispersed/concentrated, respectively in poor households). But the author does not seem interested in that. One can only speculate as to why.
irrational 5y ago
> In general, 12 "is old enough to know better" when it comes to tasting the poison and playing with fire. It was older than 12 when myself, my brothers, and our friends really started playing with fire ;-)
ballenf 5y ago
> "how many kids should we let die so that the rest can play with chemistry sets?" I think it's an important point to note that the vocally asking of that question of course signals the end of the activity. It's basically a rhetorical tool when one side of a trade-off decision is easily measurable and photographable and the other is a lost opportunity (generations of chemists). You can't photograph a lost opportunity. I'd argue the school mask debate is a similar one. It's easy to interview the teacher who almost died from Covid or grandma with little ones in school who is scared. It's impossible to photograph a generation of kids' developmental gaps. The shift in the 60s and 70s wasn't so much a shift to societal thinking, it was a shift to media-driven public opinion.

by Zak 5y ago

amelius 5y ago

> We have decided the question is something like "how many kids should we let die so that the rest can play with chemistry sets?" and concluded the answer is few to none. Yet, new versions of Tesla Autopilot hit the road every week, and the public is used as beta-testers.

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
The issue is not always children or safety. When an elderly customer of McDonald’s sues — and wins damages — for being burned by coffee that is too hot, what do you think will happen to prevent it in the future? (Besides cooler coffee) hint: special warnings on the cup, redesigned cups, and the basic infantilization of adults.
- SkittyDog 5y ago
  You have been and taken in by propaganda. Please take the time to read the wikipedia article that the other commenter linked, and learn the truth about this incident. You deserve better than to continue having the wool pulled over your eyes.
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    Pay special attention to the "Coffee Temperature" section: > "Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's current policy is to serve coffee at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C),[37] relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability" In other words, Stella's lawsuit was sort of a one-off success for aspiring hot-coffee lawyers, and the only effect it had in the long run was maybe a few more warning labels on paper cups.
    - SkittyDog 5y ago
      So you actually quoted the part where it mentions improving their cups... And then you seem to have completely ignored it in your own commentary. Redesigning the cups with more rigid foam (and the plastic lid lip IIRC) was a pretty big deal at the time, and it made a significant impact on the possibility of spilling. But the bigger problem is that you're still ignoring that your mind has been captured by the propaganda that demonized this woman as a greedy opportunist, and cast our tort system as a lottery for lazy, evil people to enrich themselves at the expense of honest hard-working businesses. The woman asked that McDonald's pay her medical damages, only... And those damages were extensive... Can you even imagine how much surgery is required to treat 3rd degree burns to the genitals? Major skin grafts, permanent horrific scarring. You'd never regain full sensation again, and it's likely you'd never fully function sexually afterwards. The jury decided to award massive punitive damages, in large part because they felt that McDonald's conduct after the injury was so shocking that they felt compelled to send an equally attention-getting message to the corporate executives who had treated this woman with such callous inhumanity. And the punitive damages were reduced on appeal, anyway, which shows that the tort system does work. McDonald's paid their lawyers more than they paid the defendant... And they would have only paid a tiny fraction of that amount, if only they had evolved a bit of conscience at the beginning.
- 542458 5y ago
  I suggest you go and read the details of that case. The store was knowingly serving coffee at temperatures too hot for human consumption, and had received prior complaints of injuries. The cups they served coffee in at the time were also known to be extremely flimsy and easy to accidentally collapse. The woman in question had third degree burns and required skin grafts. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest... If you go looking you can find images of the burns on her groin. They’re pretty grisly.
  - SteveGerencser 5y ago
    As someone that lived there, and drank their coffee, everyone knew it was hot. It was served that way because of the huge number of university students that grabbed a cup before class and it was still warm after walking across campus. The exit of that parking lot is also a known issue. It has/had a steep dip out of the lot and onto the road because that's how the roads were built down there rather than putting in sewers. Finally, there is a traffic light right next to that McDonalds. A LOT of people hit that dip hard trying to get onto the road before that light changes. All of these things contributed to the issue. Sticking a hot cup of coffee between your legs while someone is driving is stupid, especially in that parking lot. Serving coffee so hot that it stays warm while you walk to class is also pretty stupid. The way McDonalds handled the issue is what made them the bad guys here. They could have easily helped this woman with her medical bills and it would have cost them far less money than the amount they spent on the their PR campaign and lawyers.
    - 542458 5y ago
      For what it’s worth, they were parked when the spill happened. But agreed re:McDonald’s behaviour. I believe the jury was also deeply unimpressed, which is why the punitive damages were so high at first.
    - felipemnoa 5y ago
      I think they should have made better cups to retain the heat longer.
  - 5y ago
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  Contrary to popular belief, the “sue because coffee is too hot, what an infantile concept” is actually a highly successful PR campaign by McDonald’s. The coffee was hot enough to melt flesh and in fact, when spilled onto a lap, was hot enough to melt the genitals shut. I would sue too!
  - b112 5y ago
    Just thinking of the horrible scream that poor person must have let out...
  - twic 5y ago
    Flesh doesn't melt. The coffee was hot enough to cause third-degree burns. Specifically, it was 82–88 °C [1]. I couldn't find a definitive "correct" temperature at which to serve coffee. It seems that people typically want it at 60 °C when they drink it [2], but since not everyone wants to drink it straight away, often coffee shops serve it hotter than that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230106152_At_What_Temperatures_Do_Consumers_Like_to_Drink_Coffee_Mixing_Methods https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230106152_At_What_T...
    - SkittyDog 5y ago
      When someone says "He got his head blown off" in reference to a cranial gunshot wound, do you also pull this "WELL AKSHUALLY..." routine on them, by pointing out that the victim's head is still attached to their body? The characterization of "melt the genitals shut" is not a precise medical, physical, scientifix statement. It's a colloquial, even poetic phrasing, and it does a FANTASTIC job of describing the impact of this woman's injuries.
      - spywaregorilla 5y ago
        It seems fairly clear to me that it was not intended to be read as a colloquial phrasing. It's stated twice, in italics. There's nothing wrong with pointing out this idea is just false. The responder isn't telling the whole story though. The reason the coffee was so hot was because they wanted to limit the practical ability of customers to make use of endless refills on coffee. Not consideration for the average customer's wants.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
entropi 5y ago
Yes, but I think it simply means the answer changes to "an unknown quantitity" when it comes to sweet sweet quarterly returns.
SturgeonsLaw 5y ago
I guess "we" have decided that driving, and self-driving, is worth a number of deaths. And to be honest, I agree. It's a tough balance to consider, and the death of any individual is going to be weighed much more heavily by their nearest and dearest than it will be for a dispassionate observer, but I'm inclined to say that advancement of humanity is a big enough reward that some risk is justified.
- rdiddly 5y ago
  The number hovers around 35,000 annually in the US.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- fragmede 5y ago
  Also, we don't let 12-year olds drive.
- tomjakubowski 5y ago
  Advancement of humanity would be liberation from the dependency on enormous, spatially wasteful vehicles like cars.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  Waymo and their hundreds of miles without needing correction, yes. Tesla and their fractions of one mile without correction, no.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > I guess "we" have decided that driving, and self-driving, is worth a number of deaths. I don't think anyone has decided anything of the sort. If I shoplift from a store and I'm not stopped, that doesn't mean that "we" have decided that my theft is okay. It just means that I haven't got caught, or that the system isn't sufficient to hold me accountable, or that there isn't enough evidence to present a damning case against me just yet. > but I'm inclined to say that advancement of humanity is a big enough reward that some risk is justified. There's absolutely no evidence that Tesla's rushed and untested beta product is helping the "advancement of humanity" versus better designed and controlled research by organizations like Waymo. The only evidence of FSD's "advancement" I see is the advancement of Tesla's profits. FSD serves as a vehicle for interest-free loans to Tesla directly from their customers.
listless 5y ago
I forget who, but somebody pointed out recently that if cars were invented today, there is no way we would ever let anybody drive one.
- notriddle 5y ago
  Considering all the other reasons cars are bad (energy and space wasted on them), it would’ve been better if they hadn’t been.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  True for a lot of inventions that were a huge improvements forhumanity.
- markdown 5y ago
  If alcohol were invented today, there is no way we'd let anyone market and sell it.
- pyuser583 5y ago
  Why aren’t cars much safer than horses? My car doesn’t just decide to run a red light because it’s scared.
  - mostlystatic 5y ago
    I found your question interesting and found this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27739679 https://www.jstor.org/stable/27739679 > The advent of automobile use in the early 20th century brought about a measurable rise in total numbers of highway deaths and injuries. However, the automobile's toll on human life and limb was probably not extravagantly greater than the toll exacted by the combination of steam- and horse-driven travel methods it displaced From skimming the article, it seems like motor vehicle fatalities in NYC in the 1990s were similar to total traffic fatalities in the early 1900s, even though the population almost doubled. I'm assuming motor vehicle fatalities includes pedestrians hit by motor vehicles. There could still be additional deaths today from things like streetcars, horses, or ox carts, but I feel like those would be low.
csomar 5y ago
Tesla Autopilot will allow to remove one more "privilege": Driving cars. Government will like it that no one can drive a car. Works well with the expected IQ and competency of the future generations.

CodeMage 5y ago

> We have decided the question is something like "how many kids should we let die so that the rest can play with chemistry sets?" and concluded the answer is few to none. A perfect example of how choosing the right question matters just as much as choosing the right answer. "How many kids should we let die so that the rest can play with chemistry sets?" is the same kind of fallacious question as "Do you think all vaccinations should be voluntary or are you in favor of authoritarianism?" In short, it's a false dichotomy presented as a question, with the purpose of distorting the narrative and forcibly ending discussion. EDIT: Since it might not be clear, I want to clarify that I'm not saying the parent chose that question to shut down the discussion. I agree with the parent's assessment that insisting on asking the right questions wasn't "a winning move for politicians".

crooked-v 5y ago
> it's a false dichotomy How is it false?
- CodeMage 5y ago
  While the question isn't phrased as a false dichotomy, it imposes one within the context. The idea that we either hold the chemistry set manufacturer accountable or we're letting children die is a false dichotomy.

ginko 5y ago

> In general, 12 "is old enough to know better" when it comes to tasting the poison and playing with fire. Funny thing is, i got a German chemistry kit as a kid in the 90s and i remember one of the instructions was to taste one of the synthesis products (I believe it was ammonium chloride or nitrate) Looking at the modern version of that particular kit (Kosmos C2000) it doesn’t seem to have changed all that much since then either.

twic 5y ago
The fact that those Kosmos sets are on sale today largely pulls the rug out from under the author's argument. https://www.homesciencetools.com/product/thames-kosmos-chem-c3000-kit/ https://www.homesciencetools.com/product/thames-kosmos-chem-... https://www.brightminds.co.uk/products/chem-lab-c3000-chemistry-set?variant=9280058228778 https://www.brightminds.co.uk/products/chem-lab-c3000-chemis... There is something interesting here, but i think it's far more about parents' and shops' changing attitudes towards risk than regulators'.
- newbie789 5y ago
- linksnapzz 5y ago
  Had the person tried to demonstrate magnetism with some Zen Magnets, they'd have seen the availability determined by CPSC fiat. Which supports their argument. What might've changed chemistry set suppliers' attitude towards risk? Plaintiff's attorneys are not, strictly speaking, "regulators".
- justinclift 5y ago
  The author doesn't mention the country he's talking about, but if it's the US then chemistry kits manufactured overseas don't really count do they? eg they're not US manufacturers, so they wouldn't accept liability That some places in the US are selling chemistry kits overseas... might be a bit risky for the place selling them though. Sounds like they'd be copping the liability instead.
- 5y ago

VictorPath 5y ago

Also corporations will gladly poison children if it will enrich some stock-holding heir without consequence. I am not mustering up a lot of sympathy for corporations manufacturing hazardous materials for children that then get sued. The major removal of agency for working people is by corporations and their aristocratic heir majority owners. Lawyers suing corporations for harming children are one of the things working people have to regain agency, as are laws to protect us. There is too little of it, not too much of that.

linksnapzz 5y ago
These are chemistry sets. They are, when used inappropriately, just as likely to cause harm as a sawzall, a hammer, or a cuisinart. I assure you, the "aristocratic heir majority owners" are also interested in letting their kids have access to experimental chemistry; and lawyers depriving any child of the opportunity to experience such (or to learn how to use a hammer, a sawzall, or a cuisinart for that matter) does no one any good, least of all working people.
- crooked-v 5y ago
  I feel like you've actually kind of proven the reasonability of what actually happened to chemistry sets with this comparison. Fully-functional sawzalls, hammers, and Cuisinarts don't get actively marketed to children. You can buy them and let children use them, just as you can with (non-children-marketed) chemistry supplies, and in the same way that comes with the societal understanding that, by letting a child use something not marketed for use by children, you'll be providing suitable safety instruction and oversight yourself.
  - scaramanga 5y ago
    Yeah, this is a pretty good explanation, chemistry sets may be nerfed because the risk of giving poisons and invisible flames to children as toys far outweighs the benefits which accrue to a small minority who would gain from this. And the children who would gain from it have other ways to access bomb-making or nuclear-reactor making materials if they really want to: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/150726-nuclear-reactor-fusion-science-kid-ngbooktalk https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/150726-nu... That all seems to be corroborated by the fact there doesn't seem to be any shortage of scientifically gifted young adults. If anything we're on a golden age of scientific discovery. Teenagers fairly regularly make contributions to science, and chemistry in particular. It doesn't look as though there is some broad over-protective social force holding children back from developing adult skills and that this whole thing is much more likely to be a subjective impression of the author. From a quick google: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/teen-genius-5-promising-scientists-under-20 https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/teen-genius-5-... https://brightside.me/wonder-curiosities/6-sensational-discoveries-that-teenagers-shook-the-world-with-at-the-google-and-intel-science-fairs-717710/ https://brightside.me/wonder-curiosities/6-sensational-disco... Of course, there are still the old-fashioned forces of parental and social neglect, and the fact that opportunities and neglect are not evenly distributed throughout the society (being much more dispersed/concentrated, respectively in poor households). But the author does not seem interested in that. One can only speculate as to why.

irrational 5y ago

> In general, 12 "is old enough to know better" when it comes to tasting the poison and playing with fire. It was older than 12 when myself, my brothers, and our friends really started playing with fire ;-)

ballenf 5y ago

> "how many kids should we let die so that the rest can play with chemistry sets?" I think it's an important point to note that the vocally asking of that question of course signals the end of the activity. It's basically a rhetorical tool when one side of a trade-off decision is easily measurable and photographable and the other is a lost opportunity (generations of chemists). You can't photograph a lost opportunity. I'd argue the school mask debate is a similar one. It's easy to interview the teacher who almost died from Covid or grandma with little ones in school who is scared. It's impossible to photograph a generation of kids' developmental gaps. The shift in the 60s and 70s wasn't so much a shift to societal thinking, it was a shift to media-driven public opinion.