Dumb ass people, play Dumb ass challenge

[C130pilot]

All these idiots eating tide pods don't realize their walls are filled with cotton candy.

[mtpockets]

All these idiots eating tide pods don't realize their walls are filled with cotton candy.

I guess they figure if they eat a couple of fabric softeners they will "bounce" right back.

[C130pilot]

I guess they figure if they eat a couple of fabric softeners they will "bounce" right back.

They just haven't discovered Downey's dipn-dots yet.

[DuracellBunny]

You are trying to conflate the McD incident to gun ownership? I'm sorry the correlation here, IMO, is weak at best.

The woman, by virtue of buying the coffee, accepted the risk involved of having a hot liquid handed to her through the window. However, at the same time, McD has an obligation (and one that can be reasonably assumed by the customer) to ensure the liquid is within a certain range (it wasn't) and secured as to not fall out of it's container (it did). Now, how does this apply to gun ownership again and driving?? When I purchase a gun I accept the risk involved, however, I have a reasonable expectation it's not going to explode and tear my face off because of a faulty part.

To your point - those doing those challenge aren't the brightest of the bright and should have no recourse against the makers of the products they choose, IMO. Quite different than the McD incident you referenced unless I'm missing something. You're much smarter than I so it's possible I'm not following your logic clearly

The point is about personal responsibility. Owning a gun carries a great level of personal responsibility and anyone can do it, yet in all sorts of other areas of US life, nobody will take personal responsibility. FFS, they have to write "warning, may contain nuts" on a packet of peanuts! Are they going to put stickers on guns saying "do not point at other people?"

The two things are incongruous; people can either accept personal responsibility (owning a gun) or not (warning, coffee is hot, warning nuts contain nuts etc).

You can see this in US politics, in that the side that likes guns more (the right) are bigger proponents of personal responsibility. The side less in favour of personal responsibility and blame all of life's problems on sexism, racism, homophobia etc, are more opposed to guns.

Personal responsibility isn't a pick and choose area.

[Jtbny]

The point is about personal responsibility. Owning a gun carries a great level of personal responsibility and anyone can do it, yet in all sorts of other areas of US life, nobody will take personal responsibility. FFS, they have to write "warning, may contain nuts" on a packet of peanuts! Are they going to put stickers on guns saying "do not point at other people?"

The two things are incongruous; people can either accept personal responsibility (owning a gun) or not (warning, coffee is hot, warning nuts contain nuts etc).

You can see this in US politics, in that the side that likes guns more (the right) are bigger proponents of personal responsibility. The side less in favour of personal responsibility and blame all of life's problems on sexism, racism, homophobia etc, are more opposed to guns.

Personal responsibility isn't a pick and choose area.

I get what you are trying to say, however, your analogies miss the mark, IMO.

Example - that peanut warning on a peanut package is just part of a simple fix. If a food contains an ingredient that bears or contains, a major food allergen, then it must include the word Contains, followed by the name of the food source from which the major food allergen is derived. This isn't about personal responsibility at all, it was born from the research (not a peanut lawsuit btw) showing 1/4 of the food manufactures didn't label their packages with known food allergens ( milk, egg, nuts ) and this can cause serious damage. Actually, having a warning like this INCREASES personally responsibility because now consumers can make more informed decisions.

Yes; as a stand alone example your peanut example seems silly but taken as the whole (it's just part of a broader rule) it makes perfect sense.

[DuracellBunny]

I get what you are trying to say, however, your analogies miss the mark, IMO.

Example - that peanut warning on a peanut package is just part of a simple fix. If a food contains an ingredient that bears or contains, a major food allergen, then it must include the word Contains, followed by the name of the food source from which the major food allergen is derived. This isn't about personal responsibility at all, it was born from the research (not a peanut lawsuit btw) showing 1/4 of the food manufactures didn't label their packages with known food allergens ( milk, egg, nuts ) and this can cause serious damage. Actually, having a warning like this INCREASES personally responsibility because now consumers can make more informed decisions.

Yes; as a stand alone example your peanut example seems silly but taken as the whole (it's just part of a broader rule) it makes perfect sense.

That's kind of the point. Manufacturers have to put warning on things, to force responsibility on to the individual, because nobody wants to accept it. The UK is the same, but then we don't have many guns, so it is consistent at least. We call it the "nanny state" over here. I don't know if you guys have the same term or not.

I have spent my adult life surrounded by things from class 4 lasers, to cryogenic liquids, to radiation sources to whatever, and the abdication of personal responsibility is insane. It drives me crazy.

There is a real world example that I have mixed views on: induction hobs and pacemakers.

Induction hobs have become more common and they fk up pacemakers. The technical advice is stay 18" away from them, but the practical advice is do not use them. The booklet that every patients gets tells them this, but many patients are elderly and may not remember/understand.

As the elderly may have poor eyesight, just how big a warning should a manufacturer be forced to put on an induction hob about pacemakers?

Some things should have big ass warnings, such as radiation hazards or biohazards, but where do we draw the line between warning people about every thing and just relying on people not being stupid? Stupidity shouldn't be grounds for suing other people.

[Jtbny]

That's kind of the point. Manufacturers have to put warning on things, to force responsibility on to the individual, because nobody wants to accept it. The UK is the same, but then we don't have many guns, so it is consistent at least. We call it the "nanny state" over here. I don't know if you guys have the same term or not.

I have spent my adult life surrounded by things from class 4 lasers, to cryogenic liquids, to radiation sources to whatever, and the abdication of personal responsibility is insane. It drives me crazy.

There is a real world example that I have mixed views on: induction hobs and pacemakers.

Induction hobs have become more common and they fk up pacemakers. The technical advice is stay 18" away from them, but the practical advice is do not use them. The booklet that every patients gets tells them this, but many patients are elderly and may not remember/understand.

As the elderly may have poor eyesight, just how big a warning should a manufacturer be forced to put on an induction hob about pacemakers?

Some things should have big ass warnings, such as radiation hazards or biohazards, but where do we draw the line between warning people about every thing and just relying on people not being stupid? Stupidity shouldn't be grounds for suing other people.

It's not that people don't want to accept responsibility though (when talking about food labels). If one doesn't know a food contains a possible allergen then how can they be responsible? Beyond the obvious food (like nuts containing nuts) it can get dicey, and with cross contamination possible it can become deadly. The responsibility should be shifted to the manufacture to disclose this info so that consumers can take responsibilities on what they choose, however, they werent - thus this broad rule was applied and peanuts containing peanut warnings were born. Maybe I'm not phrasing this correctly, IDK.

Having two kids in elementary school I've gotten quite the allergen education and rightfully so. One little girl in particular is highly allergic to nuts and has been taking out by ambulance. There are foods I had no idea would cause an issue without reading the label. Has nothing to do w/ taking responsibility, it has to do with making informed decisions. What you do with the info is another story and involves accepting responsibility or not.

[DuracellBunny]

It's not that people don't want to accept responsibility though (when talking about food labels). If one doesn't know a food contains a possible allergen then how can they be responsible? Beyond the obvious food (like nuts containing nuts) it can get dicey, and with cross contamination possible it can become deadly. The responsibility should be shifted to the manufacture to disclose this info so that consumers can take responsibilities on what they choose, however, they werent - thus this broad rule was applied and peanuts containing peanut warnings were born. Maybe I'm not phrasing this correctly, IDK.

Having two kids in elementary school I've gotten quite the allergen education and rightfully so. One little girl in particular is highly allergic to nuts and has been taking out by ambulance. There are foods I had no idea would cause an issue without reading the label. Has nothing to do w/ taking responsibility, it has to do with making informed decisions. What you do with the info is another story and involves accepting responsibility or not.

It is purely about forcing the consumer to take responsibility. People cannot sue over something with a warning label, so lots of companies automatically put them on things just to cover their ass. In the same way as pharma companies list every possible side effect, no matter how remote the possibility, so that people accept the risk instead of the pharma company.

Warnings are not about the consumer, warnings are about companies not getting sued.

[sy2502]

It's not that people don't want to accept responsibility though (when talking about food labels). If one doesn't know a food contains a possible allergen then how can they be responsible? Beyond the obvious food (like nuts containing nuts) it can get dicey, and with cross contamination possible it can become deadly. The responsibility should be shifted to the manufacture to disclose this info so that consumers can take responsibilities on what they choose, however, they werent - thus this broad rule was applied and peanuts containing peanut warnings were born. Maybe I'm not phrasing this correctly, IDK.

Having two kids in elementary school I've gotten quite the allergen education and rightfully so. One little girl in particular is highly allergic to nuts and has been taking out by ambulance. There are foods I had no idea would cause an issue without reading the label. Has nothing to do w/ taking responsibility, it has to do with making informed decisions. What you do with the info is another story and involves accepting responsibility or not.

I think there are 2 kinds of situations here.

1) The peanuts example. While even my cat would understand that a bag of peanuts contains peanuts, the average person that buys a bar of 80% dark chocolate may not know that that bar of just chocolate was handled and prepared in a place that also handles peanuts, and it may not be intuitive. In that case, the warning is warranted because it tells you something you very likely wouldn't otherwise know.

2) The coffee cup saying "Attention, may contain hot liquid". Man if you order a coffee (not a ice coffee) you know it's going to be hot, you can't possibly whine that "they should have told me it was hot". That crap is just fodder for frivolous lawsuits that should be thrown out on the spot if this country wasn't messed up. Same with the Tide pods, if you grew up to adult age without knowing you shouldn't eat laundry detergent, you are a waste of perfectly good oxygen.

[Jtbny]

I think there are 2 kinds of situations here.

1) The peanuts example. While even my cat would understand that a bag of peanuts contains peanuts, the average person that buys a bar of 80% dark chocolate may not know that that bar of just chocolate was handled and prepared in a place that also handles peanuts, and it may not be intuitive. In that case, the warning is warranted because it tells you something you very likely wouldn't otherwise know.

2) The coffee cup saying "Attention, may contain hot liquid". Man if you order a coffee (not a ice coffee) you know it's going to be hot, you can't possibly whine that "they should have told me it was hot". That crap is just fodder for frivolous lawsuits that should be thrown out on the spot if this country wasn't messed up. Same with the Tide pods, if you grew up to adult age without knowing you shouldn't eat laundry detergent, you are a waste of perfectly good oxygen.

Oh, I agree with you. In the second case that's totally about law suits.

[Clinos]

I guess they figure if they eat a couple of fabric softeners they will "bounce" right back.

Someone please rep this man, he's been on a tear over the past few weeks and I can't rep him any more.

[RK42]

While the first reaction is obviously that kids are stupid these days, I started thinking about whether we were a whole lot better. Ok, in my defense, a was a lot younger when I didn't believe my parents that riding a tricycle down some stairs was not going to work. But I remember challenges like peeing against an electric fence, which may be a lot less dangerous than ingesting toxic substances, but it's not particularly smart either. And that was just to impress a few friends. Who knows, if we had the opportunity to make our "achievements" visible to millions of people, we might have been capable of... more.

And I was a relatively well behaved kid. A couple of class mates had an accident playing with explosives that could have ended much worse than it did.

On the McDonalds coffee: The first time I heard about it, I thought it was about the dumbest thing ever, a lawsuit about hot coffee being hot. But I go to McDonalds maybe once every few years, and did order a coffee once. It was so hot that I opened the lid to let it cool faster, and I still had to wait for about 5-10 minutes until I could take very small sips without burning my mouth. It was absurd. If I didn't know that water can't be hotter than boiling, I would have sworn that it was. So I suddenly thought that the lawsuit might not have been that unfounded after all.

[KeepItMoving]

How about I pour boiling water on your package while you're strapped into your seatbelt in your car, in gear, we could call it the "read the label challenge." You could win 10 million.

While the customer was strapped into her vehicle by her seatbelt, the McDonalds cashier poured boiling coffee onto her lap?!?! OMFG!! I hadn't heard that!!

[LisaSkinnoble]

[ElrondHubbard]

The point is about personal responsibility. Owning a gun carries a great level of personal responsibility and anyone can do it, yet in all sorts of other areas of US life, nobody will take personal responsibility. FFS, they have to write "warning, may contain nuts" on a packet of peanuts! Are they going to put stickers on guns saying "do not point at other people?"

The two things are incongruous; people can either accept personal responsibility (owning a gun) or not (warning, coffee is hot, warning nuts contain nuts etc).

You can see this in US politics, in that the side that likes guns more (the right) are bigger proponents of personal responsibility. The side less in favour of personal responsibility and blame all of life's problems on sexism, racism, homophobia etc, are more opposed to guns.

Personal responsibility isn't a pick and choose area.

Is it legal for a licensed gun dealer to sell a loaded gun across the counter with the safety off?

BTW, the right plays lip service to personal responsibility. But when push comes to shove, they don't accept it any more than does anyone else.

They blame all life's problems on minorities, immigrants, and da ghey, and when they spew pollution all over the landscape, it's just so unfair to be told to clean up their industrial mess.

[Brackneyc]

Is it legal for a licensed gun dealer to sell a loaded gun across the counter with the safety off?

BTW, the right plays lip service to personal responsibility. But when push comes to shove, they don't accept it any more than does anyone else.

They blame all life's problems on minorities, immigrants, and da ghey, and when they spew pollution all over the landscape, it's just so unfair to be told to clean up their industrial mess.

I will assume you typed all this out while ingesting Tide Pods.

There simply can be no other explanation.

[Redfish225]

You can numb it with a 2x4 though

This guy knows^^^

[LisaSkinnoble]

[PeaceWithin]

Tide pods are last week's news.

[mtpockets]

Next they will be doing a "red and black licorice " challenge from the power meter box or the "pink cotton candy" challenge in the attic.

[CommitmentRulz]

I will assume you typed all this out while ingesting Tide Pods.

There simply can be no other explanation.

Agreed. There was zero logic in his post. Just a random rant...

[Brackneyc]

Next they will be doing a "red and black licorice " challenge from the power meter box or the "pink cotton candy" challenge in the attic.

I wish they would do the “getting your homework done and giving a sht about school” challenge.

[TheFuarkingBoss]

Been bulking on these for years

[mtpockets]

Been bulking on these for years

Clean bulk FTW

[Junsuiakai]

A woman won $10M for McDs coffee not having "warning hot" on it; so these guys will probably get money for no "warning, do not eat" on it.

It's almost as if, when we pander to stupidity, it flourishes.....

It was actually played down. She didn't win 10 mil and that day the coffee was set to over 300f

She had actual first degree burns and permanent damage. She didn't want to sue,

[Fishman15]

If you do eat one...is it ok to use the handrail or are you still a wuss?

[WillBrink]

**** this, they just need to start filming themselves playing russian roulette for real.

With a pistol...

[Brackneyc]

If you do eat one...is it ok to use the handrail or are you still a wuss?

Eat a pod, and then eat some socks. You can do a wash while your out walking the stairs.

[RK42]

that day the coffee was set to over 300f

Water evaporates at 212F. The only way you can heat it to 300F is under pressure, and I doubt that McDonalds coffee cups are pressurized...

[Brackneyc]

Water evaporates at 212F. The only way you can heat it to 300F is under pressure, and I doubt that McDonalds coffee cups are pressurized...

Supposedly, the coffee was between 180-190. well hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns.

300 degrees? Not a chance.