4 ms·

Are those warning labels there because they've been proven to be effective, or because someone sued and that's their way to mitigate that? I have a problem vis

Are those warning labels there because they've been proven to be effective, or because someone sued and that's their way to mitigate that? I have a problem visualizing the venn diagram of people who are so stupid they'll put the bag in their mouth but also people who will listen to the words written on said bag.

giantg2 4y ago
I mean, all the time people slip and fall on ice and then sue. You can see it, you walk on it, but you don't assume the risk and force the property owner to pay. I assume that most warnings are just there because someone got sued or doesn't want to get sued.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  People do, it's true. The question I have is would a "Danger! Slippy ice!" actually stop people from hurting themselves? Because I don't think it would, it would just make the sueing harder.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    For some yes, for some no. My point is that having that warning won't help the reckless. It's not needed for the intelligent. It might help those people who have come to expect warnings for things. However, it hurts them overall because it's a common risk and other areas won't have those warnings possible causing then to act without caution and getting hurt there. So the warnings might help in a specific Cass for a very small group of people, but will overall be a negative if the person encounters that risky situation when it doesn't have a warning. I hate to say it since it tends to have political tones, but sheeple - people who just do whatever they're told and don't think for themselves - will increase as we remove the need to think to survive. Supposedly wild animals are more intelligent than similar domestic animals.
themaninthedark 4y ago
A mix of both I think. The plastic bag warning is aimed at parents of children mostly. Babies, love crinkly things. I know that my son when he started crawling would seek out the on floor garbage cans to play with the bags we used as a liner. If you have someone who is not thinking about the ramifications, they would let the kid play with the bag, kid would end up putting it over their head(yay, surround sound) and some percentage would die. There are similar warnings on buckets, about drowning. Kids that age love water, if they manage to get themselves head first in a 5 gallon bucket it only takes an inch of liquid of so for them to drown. Most people wouldn't think it takes so little.
- giantg2 4y ago
  In theory, children that young shouldn't be unattended anyways. The onus shouldn't be on the company for not printing a warning, but on the parent for a lack of supervision (aka negligence).
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    Printing the warning might be cheaper than dealing with lawsuits? Courts don't accept "ha, Darwin!" as an argument.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      And people still sue even if a warning was present. And nobody is saying "ha, darwin". They're saying stuff like "why weren't you supervising your 1 year old" or "how could we anticipate that someone would get [object] stuck in their butt".

giantg2 4y ago

I mean, all the time people slip and fall on ice and then sue. You can see it, you walk on it, but you don't assume the risk and force the property owner to pay. I assume that most warnings are just there because someone got sued or doesn't want to get sued.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
People do, it's true. The question I have is would a "Danger! Slippy ice!" actually stop people from hurting themselves? Because I don't think it would, it would just make the sueing harder.
- giantg2 4y ago
  For some yes, for some no. My point is that having that warning won't help the reckless. It's not needed for the intelligent. It might help those people who have come to expect warnings for things. However, it hurts them overall because it's a common risk and other areas won't have those warnings possible causing then to act without caution and getting hurt there. So the warnings might help in a specific Cass for a very small group of people, but will overall be a negative if the person encounters that risky situation when it doesn't have a warning. I hate to say it since it tends to have political tones, but sheeple - people who just do whatever they're told and don't think for themselves - will increase as we remove the need to think to survive. Supposedly wild animals are more intelligent than similar domestic animals.

themaninthedark 4y ago

A mix of both I think. The plastic bag warning is aimed at parents of children mostly. Babies, love crinkly things. I know that my son when he started crawling would seek out the on floor garbage cans to play with the bags we used as a liner. If you have someone who is not thinking about the ramifications, they would let the kid play with the bag, kid would end up putting it over their head(yay, surround sound) and some percentage would die. There are similar warnings on buckets, about drowning. Kids that age love water, if they manage to get themselves head first in a 5 gallon bucket it only takes an inch of liquid of so for them to drown. Most people wouldn't think it takes so little.

giantg2 4y ago
In theory, children that young shouldn't be unattended anyways. The onus shouldn't be on the company for not printing a warning, but on the parent for a lack of supervision (aka negligence).
- jessaustin 4y ago
  Printing the warning might be cheaper than dealing with lawsuits? Courts don't accept "ha, Darwin!" as an argument.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    And people still sue even if a warning was present. And nobody is saying "ha, darwin". They're saying stuff like "why weren't you supervising your 1 year old" or "how could we anticipate that someone would get [object] stuck in their butt".