3 ms·

To me there's a big difference between a water park slide and a chemistry set. The water park is a business that is providing you an experience on their proper

by e40 5y ago

To me there's a big difference between a water park slide and a chemistry set. The water park is a business that is providing you an experience on their property. In this case, isn't there the assumption that they hired good engineers to build the slide, so they could make money off me and I won't die using their slide? In the case of the chemistry set, I'm buying something I know can hurt me if I use it wrong. It has warnings all over it. Actually, I had a chemistry set when I was young, but really don't remember anything about it, unfortunately.

slg 5y ago
The reputation of the park being dangerous wasn't retroactive. According to Wikipedia, at least 6 people died in the park. That "assumption" that the park was safe should have been gone after the 1st death and was certainly gone after the 5th. People knew that it was dangerous at the time and that was part of the fun. Does that mean the 6th person to die is solely responsible for their own death? To paraphrase you "they were doing something they knew could hurt them". Does that excuse the park's horrendous safety record? Should the park be allowed to operate if customers knew death was a very real possibility?
- mdavis6890 5y ago
  The same could be said about airplanes, boats, snowboarding, driving, etc. What was the fatality rate of the park compared to, say, skydiving? Or motorcycle riding? Or pop Warner football?
awb 5y ago
> In the case of the chemistry set, I'm buying something I know can hurt me if I use it wrong. Chemistry is not a commonly known subject though. For example, I took AP Chemistry in HS and this article is the first time I’ve ever heard of “cobalt chloride”. We have a social contract that parents teach their kids about common household safety like don’t touch hot things, how to use a knife and don’t shoot your brother with a BB gun. Those things we all know can harm us. Chemistry just isn’t in that category. Parents aren’t warning their kids from a young age about “cobalt chloride” and to make sure you never ingest it.

by e40 5y ago

slg 5y ago

The reputation of the park being dangerous wasn't retroactive. According to Wikipedia, at least 6 people died in the park. That "assumption" that the park was safe should have been gone after the 1st death and was certainly gone after the 5th. People knew that it was dangerous at the time and that was part of the fun. Does that mean the 6th person to die is solely responsible for their own death? To paraphrase you "they were doing something they knew could hurt them". Does that excuse the park's horrendous safety record? Should the park be allowed to operate if customers knew death was a very real possibility?

mdavis6890 5y ago
The same could be said about airplanes, boats, snowboarding, driving, etc. What was the fatality rate of the park compared to, say, skydiving? Or motorcycle riding? Or pop Warner football?

awb 5y ago

> In the case of the chemistry set, I'm buying something I know can hurt me if I use it wrong. Chemistry is not a commonly known subject though. For example, I took AP Chemistry in HS and this article is the first time I’ve ever heard of “cobalt chloride”. We have a social contract that parents teach their kids about common household safety like don’t touch hot things, how to use a knife and don’t shoot your brother with a BB gun. Those things we all know can harm us. Chemistry just isn’t in that category. Parents aren’t warning their kids from a young age about “cobalt chloride” and to make sure you never ingest it.