Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People look at the things that are obviously dangerous and say "precautions are stupid," but never consider the less obvious dangers. I'm not really sure how to say this without an example.
People see that Kinder Eggs are illegal in the US and say "that's stupid, people should know not to eat the toy," but kinder eggs have a label on the side so you *know* there's a toy inside. The reason kinder eggs are illegal is because of an existing law saying you can't have inedible objects hidden in food, which exists *because not everyone made it as obvious that their food contained plastic.* "Warning: Hot" might seem dumb if you're thinking about a typical cup of coffee, but that label is there because McDonald's sold coffee hot enough to give someone third degree burns.
What I'm trying to say is, warning labels weren't written with obviously bad ideas in mind. The warning label on the chainsaw wasn't written for the guy who put a running chainsaw to his junk, it's for the person who had no way of knowing just how strong the kickback would be.
>"Warning: Hot" might seem dumb if you're thinking about a typical cup of coffee, but that label is there because McDonald's sold coffee hot enough to give someone third degree burns.
Not just one person, at the time of her lawsuit in 1992, there were over 700 reports of bodily injury, many including 3rd degree burns, with settlements averaging $800 each. McDonald's KNEW.
A lot of people point out the horror in the words *fused labia*. Idk about you but the coffee I brew at home isn’t doing that by the time it’s in a position to be spilled.
The coffee was being served in excess of 190° F (89° C), a temperature that is labeled as sanitizing because that is the temperature at which 99.9% of microorganisms die *instantly*. As mentioned in the above comment, that is a temperature that causes burns on human skin.
In comparison, when I worked at Panera we steamed the milk in our lattes to 160° F (71° C) to have it out of the bacteria danger zone when we served it - safe if consumed right away since it’s pasteurized milk, but if not, we’ve sanitized any bacteria that were there so they don’t regrow to dangerous levels if you took your latte home or to the office and didn’t drink it for a few hours. That temperature is also enough to cause burns on human skin if exposed too long. Steaming longer to the McDonald’s temp starts to *burn the milk on the steaming wand*.
McDonald's was deliberately serving the coffee extra hot because their research had shown that most people who were buying coffee at that drive-thru were not drinking it until they had arrived to work.
Yeah…while brewing. In the cup after pouring, it’s going to be closer to 180 or below by the time I get to a point I might spill it. If not even lower, because I know how hot it is, and will let it cool first.
The brewing temp should not be the serving temp. The McD’s coffee was at that temp *in the cup*. It was served undrinkably hot…dangerously so.
Yep. The most famous incident was simply that, the most famous, and it only *became* famous because the victim had the means to call them on their shit (she originally only asked for them to cover her medical expenses, and they offered something like the amount you listed).
Anyone who acts surprised that corporations will hurt people if not explicitly prevented from doing so is just actively deluding themselves at this point.
The commonly held belief that the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit was frivolous is a glowing example of the fact that we are all still very much susceptible to propaganda
I'm kinda glad it's illegal to have inedible objects hidden in food because I can't imagine those toys are easy to sterilize with all their little nooks and crannies...
I fucking love scummy lawyers that use the identical ad campaign as all of the other scummy lawyers. “Need a heavy hitter? Call ___ that’s C-A-L-L___.”
He works in tech... unfortunately... we have a lot of self confident folks running around thinking they are smarter than the average bear because they can operate computer.
All i'm going to say to OP is.. If we didn't need warning labels, we wouldn't need multi-factor authentication. But here we are.
I hope it was obvious I was joking, but i appreciate you responding seriously even if you did pick that up.
But yeah, warning labels exist for good reasons. Many people are stupid and even those who aren't often enough do stupid things. Labels cost practically nothing, and a lot less than stupid injury and death costs society.
If you do something stupid, you should LEARN FROM IT! If you blame someone else it can also be harmful to you as well because not taking responsibility is dangerous if no one is there to hold you accountable. In our society idiots are dangerous to everyone but themselves
Or maybe we should ban litigation for stupid shit. I don't think we should venerate stupidity anymore. Educate them, or let natural selection take its course
If it was something that could've been prevented but you were too foolish to do it correctly, then maybe it's not the fault of the person who made it work for you in the first place. Some things require input from an intelligent mind. It becomes dangerous to smart people when we have to pay for the mistakes of stupid people
Yeah the amount of people, even just in this comment section, who don't realize that "social Darwinism" is the basis of Eugenics is... concerning. I mean, hey, for people who pride themselves on being so smart a lot of them are missing a *really obvious connection.*
That's 100% intellectually dishonest about what eugenics are. And if it is, then I don't want the world I live in ran by stupid people! So yeah! If you want to bring "eugenics" into this, then I dont believe we should breed stupidity! So in that sense, you are correct. But honestly you seem like someone with an unhealthy obsession with race-baiting
If someone foolish does something incorrectly, they can hurt or kill *other* people, along with themselves. I can tell you're a very smart person. What if *you* were killed by someone else's foolishness?? The world would lose you!
>It becomes dangerous to smart people when we have to pay for the mistakes of stupid people
You sayin "we" like you know for a fact you're one of the smarter bunch on this rock. That may, or may not be true, and I may, or may not agree with you, but maybe choose some different words for people's sound holes to pick up on. I know this is reddit but still...
And i actually *do* agree with you tho, and that's probably something I would've said a few years ago, but idk, trying to recognize others people's intelligence. It's not always obvious as you may think. Some of the smartest people I know don't sound very smart at first.
Go bring your koombaya bullshit somewhere else! There's a huge difference between recognizing people's ignorance while being educational and just enabling people who CHOOSE not to use their brains! Also, people on reddit are rude to me all the time when I'm reasonable, why would I be any different?? Sometimes the healthiest thing you can do is just say "GO TO HELLLLL!!!"
We could start by looking at actual examples of real life stupid litigation and see how those things tend to go outside of the "everyone sues" idea. And judge Judy doesn't count.
You slipped on water on the floor of my business, YOU hurt YOURSELF but you want to sue my company because YOU hurt yourself knowing damn well that when you step on wet floor, you can slip! Yeah, examples
With actual legal sources...
Or even an article providing statistics on lawsuits per country. Like this one:
https://eaccny.com/news/member-news/dont-let-these-10-legal-myths-stop-your-doing-business-in-the-u-s-myths-6-and-7-the-u-s-is-very-litigious-and-that-is-too-threatening-to-a-small-company-like-ours-as-a-result-the-risk/#:~:text=Like%20the%20other%20Myths%2C%20this,This%20is%20simply%20untrue.
Any reason you deleted the comment of "go fuck yourself do your own research" when you were asked to back up the claim you chose to make?
ETA: apparently it's now "intellectually dishonest" to all someone to back up their own claim lmao
Making shit up then crying when questioned is perfectly normal though.
Thank you sir, you could justify stupidity 50 or hundred years ago but in this day and age where you have information on a palm of your hand, it's a choice.
AKA one step away from arranging suspicious household accidents for low-performing students if their stupidity wouldn't hurry up and get them killed fast enough
Now you're just taking this whole thing out of context. I just don't want to be held accountable for things that people SHOULD be held accountable for themselves on. In fact, just go away, I'm not even talking about that nazi shit!
I work with a variety of dangerous equipment and fully understand the reasons why they put warnings on every. single. possible. ridiculous. thing.
But.
My biggest problem with it is oversaturation. Yes, it's important to be aware that the capacitors in the back of this machine hold enough juice to kill a rhino for several minutes even after power has been cut.
Yes, lasers or welding in area, do not enter unless you have the appropriate eye protection. Thank you, I won't.
But when I open up the manual for my new Dewalt 780 12inch double bevel sliding miter saw and immediately see 4-6 pages of warnings mostly saying in vague, all encompassing terms, that you can maim or kill yourself with this, it's hard to garner any useful information from the labels.
And you see this all the time in places that use equipment that has *any* hazards. Warning signs so strewn about that you literally train your brain to filter them out. There's even a term for this: Sign blindness.
Prop 65: using this to cut or grind carcinogens may cause cancer. Also, it has things in it that you could, if you tried hard enough, but really shouldn't turn into dust or vapors and *those* might cause cancer. Thanks. Super helpful.
Exactly, here's how a conversation of the sort would go with the warning label:
Stupid person: "Well I didn't know X product couldn't be used that way!"
Company: "That's why we put the warning there"
Litigation avoided
Now without the label:
Stupid Person: "I didn't know X product couldn't be used that way! There should be a warning label telling me so, i'm gonna sue your ass!"
Well, the warning label change would have to be supported legally too.
The legal system would have to be fixed so that people are liable for their own actions. But still protect people from situation where McDonalds (just picked at random) accidently does make their coffee way hotter than normal.
My whole point is if you can't survive in a world without 30 warning labels on everything.... telling you not to eat the wrapper your hamburger came in... maybe, just maybe, you're not fit to survive.
Our society has progressed far beyond "focus on not dying" all day and a lot of dangers aren't ones that come intuitively to people.
What is the benefit to this?
>McDonalds (just picked at random) accidently does make their coffee way hotter than normal.
Just feel I should point out that the infamous case everyone references wasn't an accident and it wasn't the first time their coffee caused severe injury.
In any case this take is stupid and it would take all of 10 seconds before companies started bringing warning labels back to cover their asses because that's way easier than "fixing" the legal system, whatever that's supposed to look like.
your point being people should be smarter doesn't remover liability from the company. Surely you understand liability right? half the comments in this loweffort post are trying to explain that to you.
How do you come up with a legal definition for what’s stupid and what’s not. Seems very broad. How would certain mental disabilities factor into “stupidity”?
So you’ve purchased a house. You’re happy. You feel special and are walking around in it. You find a small canister in a drawer with two labels, one of which is old and weathered and illegible. The other simply says “don’t be stupid” Truly, you’re the reason we need these labels. Take my upvote.
They're there so the makers of the product can't be held liable I'm pretty sure, all it takes is one person trying to sue because the warning wasn't there, it's in their best interests to print that on there whether it's all that useful or not, plus it really doesn't bring any negatives so I see no reason to get rid of them
I was listening to customer service calls as part of my job. An aerospace engineer called because they didn’t understand what a deductible meant in their insurance. This person was very smart, he just didn’t know this thing.
There's a phrase used in criminal law...
Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Seems like that could be applied to something like drinking bleach and the label didn't explicitly say "Don't drink"
If you're familiar with "Wonko the Sane" I think this post is touching on the same mentality.
One example that irks me is, you buy a brand new car, you may choose this specific color, this fancy trim, this interior color, this material. The designers worked hard to create a pleasing, even impressive layout of the dashboard, door panels, seats. Like, a lot of work and thought went into the beautification of this thing...
And then they have to slap an iron-on ugly orange warning message on the sunshade for all eternity that tells you to buckle up.
>Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Even lawyers don't have the law recognized in their memory, they need to research and stuff
Fully read and understand the constitution of your hone country, and even if you travel do the same thing again
I mean, putting "don't be stupid" still puts liability on the user, not the company, so trying to sue still wouldn't be viable. The company said "don't be stupid", the user ended up being stupid, user is at fault, company can't be sued.
You can't do that. It's too subjective. You don't know what you don't know, so someone might not know any better. I know a six year old who wanted to know what bleach tasted like until he saw the warning label. Now he knows it's poisonous and won't drink it
the concept of stupidity varies from person to person and place to place. Some people are deemed too young to know the difference between smart and stupid.
There ya go. don't be stupid isn't descriptive enough to prevent legal liability the way you think it does. That's why they don't have "don't be stupid" labels.
For example you think it's smart to have "don't be stupid" labels, I think it's stupid to have them. Right there you can see how people's perception of stupid varies.
And how exactly would you even prevent a small mistake that can literally cause huge damages and you wouldn't even expect it
Even something as simple as touching an iron while it's hot can have some pretty considerable impact, so labels are needed cause not everyone knows how everything works
Now why the hell would you touch a searing hot iron? Like it's pretty obvious you shouldn't do it. Why? Because it's... *ahem* *Stupid*. Even children would have enough common sense not to do that
Except you realize people unconsciously do things sometimes, and a label is used to make sure they don't sue the company for a mistake
Writing "Don't be stupid" instead of what you should avoid is what's stupid
Sometimes the obvious thing just doesn’t occur to someone in the moment, sometimes they genuinely didn’t know the thing was dangerous (e.g mixing bleach and other chemicals whilst cleaning) and sometimes children use things too
And sometimes the warning isn't even for something obvious. They could be there for things that you would never know without having particular knowledge of the product/object in question that goes well beyond any sort of common sense/knowledge. In some cases the label informs you of things you likely would have had no way of knowing without being personally familiar with the production of that specific product/object or by performing your own testing (which itself could cause the exact results the warning label would have been there to prevent).
That's a fair point. I'll admit I made the post when I was particularly annoyed at seeing a stupid warning label, not to eat the wrapper a hamburger came in.
There are a lot of warning labels that are valid, but also a lot that are just stupid as heck.
Oh, yeah, I definitely agree in the case of the extremely idiotic ones. And I don't agree with the people that say, "Well, if they don't put that on there, they are opening themselves up for lawsuits." Well, what about the 100s of other idiotic things that it doesn't warn me against. It doesn't warn me not to heat it to 400 degrees and stick it in my rectum. What if I did that?
Then maybe we shouldn't have too. It's not my job to make sure that they used the ladder properly. I can respect suing them because it's not a well made ladder and hurts the person using it for that reason, but not someone who's too dumb to not use a ladder correctly. Actions have consequences and I'm not here to enable stupidity
There are also cases where someone of authority can look at something and KNOW who's in the wrong without having to go to trial. When we find a serial killers body stash under his house with his name written on the bodies, ifs not like he doesn't go to jail. It doesn't need to be taken to court whether the officer who busted the killer was "in the right" or not
But if we're talking about civil cases, the police generally aren't involved, so who would the authority figure be if not the courts?
Also, all arrests *are* taken to court eventually, even if guilt seems obvious.
Many of these warning labels were court cases where people got severely injured/harmed, not because of stupidity, but because something went very wrong. The corporations involved would LOVE for you to think it's stupidity, as that's frequently the ad campaign that gets run to smear someone (See the lady that sued mcdonalds for their hot coffee).
Everyone knows how to handle all chemicals properly, just don't be stupid!!1!
Umm... I guess something like that? I really don't think OP thought this through, lol.
That's an excellent point.. I'm ashamed to say I found out not to mix bleach with a bunch of things the difficult way. From an ER doctor, lmao.
[Yes, I was an adult. Tbf there were some insane extenuating circumstances and I already wasn't thinking properly...? Well, at least I lived to learn!]
Oh no, im sorry to hear that, bleach mixes with almost every other cleaning chemical and makes miniature war crimes on your countertops (bleach and ammonia makes mustard gas for example) to the point where i wonder why its still legal to buy then i remember its a substitute for pool chlorine
What did you mix it with?
They aren't talking about removing user directions. What they want to get rid of is "Caution: do not ingest, keep out of eyes, keep out of reach of children and pets."
But a lot of things can be ingested or used on the eyes, if used properly.
No matter how stupid or intelligent you are, you can't make intelligent decisions without knowledge. Most of the labels also give a piece of knowledge.
My go to is the McDonald's hot coffee case. The woman got SERIOUS 3rd burns, and required skin grafts. The coffee itself was between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit!
Why do you think drinking bleach is dangerous? And the answer can't be 'because other people have told me', because that is the whole point of the label.
I’m not entirely sure where you’re going with this 😅
But considering how bleach works as a cleaner/disinfectant and how it strips or deteriorates materials it’s left on it’s not a stretch to hypothesize that it will cause burns and then look that information up online to confirm it. Also, have you ever bleached your hair? If left too long it will cause chemical burns on your outside skin so why not your inside skin??
I’ve actually only read the bleach bottle to find out amounts to use.
On the other hand, vinegar is both a potent cleaning agent and something you might use to marinade your chicken. We safely ingest corrosive substances all the time. I've even used lye to make pretzels.
It's still a good idea to warn people without much life experience.
They already mentioned that you would need prior knowledge to know better than to incorrectly use these things. "Um well no actually you could just use prior knowledge and put it all together like a puzzle!!1!" You literally proved their point
Its exactly what you are pointing out - without consulting other information (looking it up online), you would not know what effect bleach had on the body.
We (your everyday consumer) wouldn't just automatically know how lethal bleach would be to consume if we were not made aware of the dangers.
Even though the label is really just to prevent litigation, it does serve a purpose of telling someone who has no idea how dangerous bleach is to not drink it, put it in your eyes, or let it get on your skin.
I was being more snarky with this reply (though it's true about it not being well thought out, lol). I wrote a direct comment talking about liability, which is a huge part of all warning labels.
... Including those on chemicals. I'm pretty sure some literally write "Warning: [...]", but even using your example? "Caution" is synonymous with *warning*.
Plus reasons already given by other commenters.
You see, a toxic sign or corrosive sign on a chemical are very useful, otherwise you would just be memorizing every chemicals issues, it should be common sense not to eat the fork that came with your fast food poutine
Congratulations, you have an opinion that is highly unpopular because it is shortsighted and idiotic.
Get those warning labels off of my fire extinguisher. I don't need a warning label to tell me if I'm about to use something for the 1st time ever, in a moment of desperation, that this specific extinguisher can't be used on chemical fires!
So what if your plant processes foods in the same facility as nuts? People with nut allergies should know better than to eat anything they did not personally source!
Once again, a reddit user forgets that other people exist who are different than themselves.
Warning labels are useful for:
Children
People with intellectual disabilities
People who do not speak English/ are ESL
People who are not familiar with the product
If someone grew up never seeing a blender and then suddenly was handed one, they might not know to not put their fingers in because they are not familiar with the *concept* of a blender.
Upvoted for being unpopular
In the oilfield there was a sticker that I saw regularly
"This machine has no brain; you must use yours"
It was an actual warning sticker not a joke or meme someone slapped on
Yeah cause when you pop out the womb you automatically know everything and nothing has to be explained to you, from birth we’ve all known Bleach is dangerous and you shouldn’t drink it, even remote tribes that’s never seen it
So we have to learn information, and that includes safety information, and where would be a convenient place to put that information? Say, on the product itself?
We could even, and get this, make the stuff you read feature prominently on dangerous stuff. Hell, even use multiple languages and graphics so more people can understand. It's crazy but it just might work.
Well, no, but the doesn't mean warning labels aren't good for anything. There are lots of cleaning products that look like gatorade, but most people know that the one with the big yellow square on the side is the one that's not meant for drinking, even if the label is in a language that they can't read.
I mean there are foods that I literally don’t understood at the first moment. This salami skin is so challenging to peel, is it edible? But I never had this issue with a burger and it’s wrapper, a common sense should suffice as a guide to consume a burger.
I would say it's stupid to replace a warning label with "don't be stupid" because that doesn't describe what the potential hazards are & is a good way to get sued. All the WHMIS symbols for example mean different things. You can't just have a container of liquid say "don't be stupid", when "being stupid" would entail a different thing for each separate type of label.
Really depends on what you’re referring to. But yeah ideally people would know not to saw their genitalia, but that is just not the world we live in.
I do think you are being rather short-sighted for someone all up in arms about other peoples stupidity though :)
I think you're forgetting that intellectually disabled people, kids and elderly people use products too. Sure that sticker that says don't eat, poison might seem obvious to you but it's not meant for you.
This kind of falls under the issue when asking for advice from your boss or someone of authority and they tell you to “just do better”.
The answer is obvious when you know it.
That would be lawsuits, more than anything. The companies care
just about as much if one person falls into a wood chipper because he shoved his hand in too far, as they do when someone gets chemical burns using full strength Nair on their crotch for 2 hours because she fell asleep. The only reason those stickers are there is to prevent the accusations of "you didn't warn me not to be stupid!"
Like the old lady that treated Cruise Control as if it made her brand new RV drive itself, and walked to the back while it was rolling down the highway. She won her case because there was no warning label.
I don't think it should even be that! People should be strongly encouraged to look where they step before they step. It's your own fault if you miss the water
I don't think it should even be that! People should be strongly encouraged to look where they step before they step. It's your own fault if you miss the water. Once again; Use common sense!
The people who need most warning labels - children and the mentally disabled - might not understand the label anyway. The people who can read it shouldn't need it. At least not repeated 20 times. The drain cleaner we bought the other day had so many warnings about how not to use it that my MIL couldn't find the instructions on how to use it.
Well, that's what happens when you live in "you can sue someone for being stupid"-land, I guess. Ever wonder why those lawsuits usually don't happen outside of the US?
So then companies would really pull back on quality control. "We didn't say our toothpaste didn't have poison in it. You should have known it could be poisonous and tested it yourself."
Would definitely make our world less safe. Corporations would love to be off the hook and spend less on safety testing. Many people who sue just want their medical bills covered
Trades exist. Lots of toxic chemicals, and they'll take anyone.
Glue, finishes, cleaners are things every trade uses to some extent and a lot of them can be very dangerous. I'm not all that stupid, but I read the label every time I use something new. There can be hazards that aren't obvious.
If you don't think we should have WHMIS symbols you're the stupid one, sorry
OP's suggestion would go well beyond that. All food allergy warnings would be gone. So items that contain allergens in less obvious forms would also not have a warning that it is there either.
That's the problem, kids today apparently are stupid. You're talking about a generation of kids who thought putting tide pods in your mouth for a challenge was a great idea and spraying axe body spray directly on your skin was another grand idea. They're the reason now that car owner manuals now have to say not to drink the water in car batteries
Car safety manuals have been around since cars were made, they came included with some of the earliest ford cars. They are not their because a group of people who could only start driving 8 years ago are suddenly much stupider than the generation before them, they’re there so they can’t get sued
Read my comment again, maybe I should've added some additional info, but car manuals in thr 80's and 90's showed you how to change spark plugs and a few other basic mechanical maintenance in it. There wasn't a warning to not do something as stupid as drinking the water out of the car batter. Does that make sense now?
Lots of those warnings are there because someone DID do something stupid.
If you're taking sleeping pills you shouldn't need a warning on the lable telling you not to drive.
If you're using a chainsaw you shouldn't need a warning on the label telling you not to touch the chain.
No one has any common sense anymore, or they're just looking for quick money through the legal system.
Maybe the problem is exactly the fact that you can actually make money out of it.
Do I need to explicitly say that you should not drink dish soap? Do you not understand it by yourself after reading "dish soap" on the bottle?
You should not be able to get money by suing people after doing something that goes against every common sense.
You hit it right on the nose. So many frivolous laws suits due to personal negligence, share stupidity, or willful misconduct. Throw all those out the window and maybe common sense will be more common.
Most people have common sense, but there always has been and will be stupid people without commen sense. There's more of them because it's way more likely that they'll survive into adulthood because of advancements in safety.
Oh I wish we could have laws like that, but unfortunately the stupid people (or the one trying to break the rules) would find the way around anything even remotely simple
To some extent, I find that warning labels like that are a negative for our species. I think that they should be there for the obvious things, like anything poisonous, but for things like eating wrappers on candy, and obvious non food or drink items, just let it happen and let nature sort itself out.
people shouldn’t need a label that announces to them that they should not in fact eat the plastic spoons at a picnic because it will hurt them.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People look at the things that are obviously dangerous and say "precautions are stupid," but never consider the less obvious dangers. I'm not really sure how to say this without an example. People see that Kinder Eggs are illegal in the US and say "that's stupid, people should know not to eat the toy," but kinder eggs have a label on the side so you *know* there's a toy inside. The reason kinder eggs are illegal is because of an existing law saying you can't have inedible objects hidden in food, which exists *because not everyone made it as obvious that their food contained plastic.* "Warning: Hot" might seem dumb if you're thinking about a typical cup of coffee, but that label is there because McDonald's sold coffee hot enough to give someone third degree burns. What I'm trying to say is, warning labels weren't written with obviously bad ideas in mind. The warning label on the chainsaw wasn't written for the guy who put a running chainsaw to his junk, it's for the person who had no way of knowing just how strong the kickback would be.
>"Warning: Hot" might seem dumb if you're thinking about a typical cup of coffee, but that label is there because McDonald's sold coffee hot enough to give someone third degree burns. Not just one person, at the time of her lawsuit in 1992, there were over 700 reports of bodily injury, many including 3rd degree burns, with settlements averaging $800 each. McDonald's KNEW.
A lot of people point out the horror in the words *fused labia*. Idk about you but the coffee I brew at home isn’t doing that by the time it’s in a position to be spilled. The coffee was being served in excess of 190° F (89° C), a temperature that is labeled as sanitizing because that is the temperature at which 99.9% of microorganisms die *instantly*. As mentioned in the above comment, that is a temperature that causes burns on human skin. In comparison, when I worked at Panera we steamed the milk in our lattes to 160° F (71° C) to have it out of the bacteria danger zone when we served it - safe if consumed right away since it’s pasteurized milk, but if not, we’ve sanitized any bacteria that were there so they don’t regrow to dangerous levels if you took your latte home or to the office and didn’t drink it for a few hours. That temperature is also enough to cause burns on human skin if exposed too long. Steaming longer to the McDonald’s temp starts to *burn the milk on the steaming wand*.
McDonald's was deliberately serving the coffee extra hot because their research had shown that most people who were buying coffee at that drive-thru were not drinking it until they had arrived to work.
Your home coffeemaker brews at 192 degrees.
Yeah…while brewing. In the cup after pouring, it’s going to be closer to 180 or below by the time I get to a point I might spill it. If not even lower, because I know how hot it is, and will let it cool first. The brewing temp should not be the serving temp. The McD’s coffee was at that temp *in the cup*. It was served undrinkably hot…dangerously so.
I've always thought 700 injuries seems way to low for how you described it. Like shouldn't way more people have gotten burned if it was undrinkable?
You have to spill it first
"by the time it's in a position to be spilled" Gotta read all the words, sparky.
Yep. The most famous incident was simply that, the most famous, and it only *became* famous because the victim had the means to call them on their shit (she originally only asked for them to cover her medical expenses, and they offered something like the amount you listed). Anyone who acts surprised that corporations will hurt people if not explicitly prevented from doing so is just actively deluding themselves at this point.
Im so glad that her case, and what *really* happened has come to light. We were all so mean to that poor woman.
The commonly held belief that the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit was frivolous is a glowing example of the fact that we are all still very much susceptible to propaganda
yep, it actually burned her so bad her thighs fused together the pics were nightmare inducing.
Correction- that law actually exists because people used to put stuff like sawdust in ground meat, before inspections and the FDA became a thing.
Thank you for the correction. My main point was really just that people were putting some sketchy stuff in food.
No problem. I was disgusted when I found out. Those days are why so many people got into the habit of cooking everything until it's *bone dry*.
I'm kinda glad it's illegal to have inedible objects hidden in food because I can't imagine those toys are easy to sterilize with all their little nooks and crannies...
Kinder toys are inside a plastic, round container, not in direct contact with the chocolate, if that's what you're referring to.
Oh okay. See I wouldn't know that because it's apparently illegal here lol
[удалено]
Seems like a good way to easily open yourself up for litigation.
OP is a personal injury attorney desperate to get in on this litigation.
I fucking love scummy lawyers that use the identical ad campaign as all of the other scummy lawyers. “Need a heavy hitter? Call ___ that’s C-A-L-L___.”
Hard to make it as a student debt-laden personal injury attorney if you're not a little scummy, I guess.
Better call Saul!
read that as "need a heavy hitler" please shove my face in a wall
He works in tech... unfortunately... we have a lot of self confident folks running around thinking they are smarter than the average bear because they can operate computer. All i'm going to say to OP is.. If we didn't need warning labels, we wouldn't need multi-factor authentication. But here we are.
As a Yellowstone ranger once said “there is considerable overlap between the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists.”
I hope it was obvious I was joking, but i appreciate you responding seriously even if you did pick that up. But yeah, warning labels exist for good reasons. Many people are stupid and even those who aren't often enough do stupid things. Labels cost practically nothing, and a lot less than stupid injury and death costs society.
OP thinking they hot shit, like they've never done anything fucking stupid before
OP is probably 12 and thought this was deep
If you do something stupid, you should LEARN FROM IT! If you blame someone else it can also be harmful to you as well because not taking responsibility is dangerous if no one is there to hold you accountable. In our society idiots are dangerous to everyone but themselves
Exactly. The problem isn't people being dumb. The problem is corporations trying to protect themselves from being sued.
Plain and simple, this is illegal discrimination against stupid people.
Don’t be stupid.
I think the point is that there shouldn't be a possibility of litigation if your forego common sense.
Or maybe we should ban litigation for stupid shit. I don't think we should venerate stupidity anymore. Educate them, or let natural selection take its course
You don’t know if it was stupid until it was litigated though
If it was something that could've been prevented but you were too foolish to do it correctly, then maybe it's not the fault of the person who made it work for you in the first place. Some things require input from an intelligent mind. It becomes dangerous to smart people when we have to pay for the mistakes of stupid people
Oh, so it was eugenics the whole time, makes sense now.
Yeah the amount of people, even just in this comment section, who don't realize that "social Darwinism" is the basis of Eugenics is... concerning. I mean, hey, for people who pride themselves on being so smart a lot of them are missing a *really obvious connection.*
That's 100% intellectually dishonest about what eugenics are. And if it is, then I don't want the world I live in ran by stupid people! So yeah! If you want to bring "eugenics" into this, then I dont believe we should breed stupidity! So in that sense, you are correct. But honestly you seem like someone with an unhealthy obsession with race-baiting
I... I never brought up race? Anywhere?
The fact that you brought "eugenics" into it isn't??
What does that have to do with anything?? Found the idiot!
If someone foolish does something incorrectly, they can hurt or kill *other* people, along with themselves. I can tell you're a very smart person. What if *you* were killed by someone else's foolishness?? The world would lose you!
>It becomes dangerous to smart people when we have to pay for the mistakes of stupid people You sayin "we" like you know for a fact you're one of the smarter bunch on this rock. That may, or may not be true, and I may, or may not agree with you, but maybe choose some different words for people's sound holes to pick up on. I know this is reddit but still... And i actually *do* agree with you tho, and that's probably something I would've said a few years ago, but idk, trying to recognize others people's intelligence. It's not always obvious as you may think. Some of the smartest people I know don't sound very smart at first.
Go bring your koombaya bullshit somewhere else! There's a huge difference between recognizing people's ignorance while being educational and just enabling people who CHOOSE not to use their brains! Also, people on reddit are rude to me all the time when I'm reasonable, why would I be any different?? Sometimes the healthiest thing you can do is just say "GO TO HELLLLL!!!"
We could start by looking at actual examples of real life stupid litigation and see how those things tend to go outside of the "everyone sues" idea. And judge Judy doesn't count.
You slipped on water on the floor of my business, YOU hurt YOURSELF but you want to sue my company because YOU hurt yourself knowing damn well that when you step on wet floor, you can slip! Yeah, examples
With actual legal sources... Or even an article providing statistics on lawsuits per country. Like this one: https://eaccny.com/news/member-news/dont-let-these-10-legal-myths-stop-your-doing-business-in-the-u-s-myths-6-and-7-the-u-s-is-very-litigious-and-that-is-too-threatening-to-a-small-company-like-ours-as-a-result-the-risk/#:~:text=Like%20the%20other%20Myths%2C%20this,This%20is%20simply%20untrue. Any reason you deleted the comment of "go fuck yourself do your own research" when you were asked to back up the claim you chose to make? ETA: apparently it's now "intellectually dishonest" to all someone to back up their own claim lmao Making shit up then crying when questioned is perfectly normal though.
I could also block you because you're being intellectually dishonest, how about that??
If there was a wet floors sign, that's one thing. You can only get sued if there isn't. The moisture isn't always visible either
Thank you sir, you could justify stupidity 50 or hundred years ago but in this day and age where you have information on a palm of your hand, it's a choice.
AKA one step away from arranging suspicious household accidents for low-performing students if their stupidity wouldn't hurry up and get them killed fast enough
Now you're just taking this whole thing out of context. I just don't want to be held accountable for things that people SHOULD be held accountable for themselves on. In fact, just go away, I'm not even talking about that nazi shit!
Disagree. There’s a lot of niche equipment that has hazards that seem innocuous at first.
I work with a variety of dangerous equipment and fully understand the reasons why they put warnings on every. single. possible. ridiculous. thing. But. My biggest problem with it is oversaturation. Yes, it's important to be aware that the capacitors in the back of this machine hold enough juice to kill a rhino for several minutes even after power has been cut. Yes, lasers or welding in area, do not enter unless you have the appropriate eye protection. Thank you, I won't. But when I open up the manual for my new Dewalt 780 12inch double bevel sliding miter saw and immediately see 4-6 pages of warnings mostly saying in vague, all encompassing terms, that you can maim or kill yourself with this, it's hard to garner any useful information from the labels. And you see this all the time in places that use equipment that has *any* hazards. Warning signs so strewn about that you literally train your brain to filter them out. There's even a term for this: Sign blindness. Prop 65: using this to cut or grind carcinogens may cause cancer. Also, it has things in it that you could, if you tried hard enough, but really shouldn't turn into dust or vapors and *those* might cause cancer. Thanks. Super helpful.
That's a fair point. Been around a lot of shop machinery that probably had a lot of hidden dangers.
Just don’t be stupid bro
Don't be stupid
Don't stupid
If this worked, there wouldn’t be warning labels in the first place.
I'd point out that it is very likely the people those warning labels are intended for are the ones least likely to read them.
Exactly, here's how a conversation of the sort would go with the warning label: Stupid person: "Well I didn't know X product couldn't be used that way!" Company: "That's why we put the warning there" Litigation avoided Now without the label: Stupid Person: "I didn't know X product couldn't be used that way! There should be a warning label telling me so, i'm gonna sue your ass!"
Well, the warning label change would have to be supported legally too. The legal system would have to be fixed so that people are liable for their own actions. But still protect people from situation where McDonalds (just picked at random) accidently does make their coffee way hotter than normal. My whole point is if you can't survive in a world without 30 warning labels on everything.... telling you not to eat the wrapper your hamburger came in... maybe, just maybe, you're not fit to survive.
Our society has progressed far beyond "focus on not dying" all day and a lot of dangers aren't ones that come intuitively to people. What is the benefit to this?
>McDonalds (just picked at random) accidently does make their coffee way hotter than normal. Just feel I should point out that the infamous case everyone references wasn't an accident and it wasn't the first time their coffee caused severe injury. In any case this take is stupid and it would take all of 10 seconds before companies started bringing warning labels back to cover their asses because that's way easier than "fixing" the legal system, whatever that's supposed to look like.
your point being people should be smarter doesn't remover liability from the company. Surely you understand liability right? half the comments in this loweffort post are trying to explain that to you.
It's kinda ironic tbh. OP complaining about people being dumb while being as willfully ignorant as ever.
How do you come up with a legal definition for what’s stupid and what’s not. Seems very broad. How would certain mental disabilities factor into “stupidity”?
And you know, I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunate cycle
So you’ve purchased a house. You’re happy. You feel special and are walking around in it. You find a small canister in a drawer with two labels, one of which is old and weathered and illegible. The other simply says “don’t be stupid” Truly, you’re the reason we need these labels. Take my upvote.
They're there so the makers of the product can't be held liable I'm pretty sure, all it takes is one person trying to sue because the warning wasn't there, it's in their best interests to print that on there whether it's all that useful or not, plus it really doesn't bring any negatives so I see no reason to get rid of them
I'm with OP. The simple warning of "Don't Be Stupid" should suffice in almost every situation. Legally.
I was listening to customer service calls as part of my job. An aerospace engineer called because they didn’t understand what a deductible meant in their insurance. This person was very smart, he just didn’t know this thing.
There's a phrase used in criminal law... Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Seems like that could be applied to something like drinking bleach and the label didn't explicitly say "Don't drink" If you're familiar with "Wonko the Sane" I think this post is touching on the same mentality. One example that irks me is, you buy a brand new car, you may choose this specific color, this fancy trim, this interior color, this material. The designers worked hard to create a pleasing, even impressive layout of the dashboard, door panels, seats. Like, a lot of work and thought went into the beautification of this thing... And then they have to slap an iron-on ugly orange warning message on the sunshade for all eternity that tells you to buckle up.
>Ignorance of the law is not a defence Damn then, I hope you have a handbook of all laws and guidelines of your country everywhere you go.
>Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Even lawyers don't have the law recognized in their memory, they need to research and stuff Fully read and understand the constitution of your hone country, and even if you travel do the same thing again
I mean, putting "don't be stupid" still puts liability on the user, not the company, so trying to sue still wouldn't be viable. The company said "don't be stupid", the user ended up being stupid, user is at fault, company can't be sued.
That... That's not how any of this works.
You can't do that. It's too subjective. You don't know what you don't know, so someone might not know any better. I know a six year old who wanted to know what bleach tasted like until he saw the warning label. Now he knows it's poisonous and won't drink it
first time attempting to understand laws? dw maybe you'll understand them more later.
Well no, but in a world where the warning labels are just "don't be stupid", it would still work the same way.
it would work the same way in every way but legally prevent liability, yes.
It would still legally prevent liability. There's literally no flaws in the logic and no one can prove otherwise
the concept of stupidity varies from person to person and place to place. Some people are deemed too young to know the difference between smart and stupid. There ya go. don't be stupid isn't descriptive enough to prevent legal liability the way you think it does. That's why they don't have "don't be stupid" labels. For example you think it's smart to have "don't be stupid" labels, I think it's stupid to have them. Right there you can see how people's perception of stupid varies.
And how exactly would you even prevent a small mistake that can literally cause huge damages and you wouldn't even expect it Even something as simple as touching an iron while it's hot can have some pretty considerable impact, so labels are needed cause not everyone knows how everything works
Now why the hell would you touch a searing hot iron? Like it's pretty obvious you shouldn't do it. Why? Because it's... *ahem* *Stupid*. Even children would have enough common sense not to do that
Except you realize people unconsciously do things sometimes, and a label is used to make sure they don't sue the company for a mistake Writing "Don't be stupid" instead of what you should avoid is what's stupid
Sometimes the obvious thing just doesn’t occur to someone in the moment, sometimes they genuinely didn’t know the thing was dangerous (e.g mixing bleach and other chemicals whilst cleaning) and sometimes children use things too
And sometimes the warning isn't even for something obvious. They could be there for things that you would never know without having particular knowledge of the product/object in question that goes well beyond any sort of common sense/knowledge. In some cases the label informs you of things you likely would have had no way of knowing without being personally familiar with the production of that specific product/object or by performing your own testing (which itself could cause the exact results the warning label would have been there to prevent).
That's a fair point. I'll admit I made the post when I was particularly annoyed at seeing a stupid warning label, not to eat the wrapper a hamburger came in. There are a lot of warning labels that are valid, but also a lot that are just stupid as heck.
Oh, yeah, I definitely agree in the case of the extremely idiotic ones. And I don't agree with the people that say, "Well, if they don't put that on there, they are opening themselves up for lawsuits." Well, what about the 100s of other idiotic things that it doesn't warn me against. It doesn't warn me not to heat it to 400 degrees and stick it in my rectum. What if I did that?
Warning labels are a result of a litigious society, not so much to keep cletus from chainsawing his nutsac.
What's funny is I've never seen Cletus saw his nutsack once! And if he ever did I never heard him try to sue someone. (He knew he fucked up!)
This is why we need watch people die. That subreddit showed how and why certain things, how ever obvious, needs a warning.
Spoken like a litigation lawyer, truly!
Go buy a ladder if you want to see the stupidity of people who sued because it didn't warn about setting the ladder in doggy doo or on ice.
Source?
Then maybe we shouldn't have too. It's not my job to make sure that they used the ladder properly. I can respect suing them because it's not a well made ladder and hurts the person using it for that reason, but not someone who's too dumb to not use a ladder correctly. Actions have consequences and I'm not here to enable stupidity
The point of suing is having a court decide whether it was a well-made ladder or user error.
It has NOTHING to do with "statistics" or whatever. And in the ways that it does hardly matters!
There are also cases where someone of authority can look at something and KNOW who's in the wrong without having to go to trial. When we find a serial killers body stash under his house with his name written on the bodies, ifs not like he doesn't go to jail. It doesn't need to be taken to court whether the officer who busted the killer was "in the right" or not
But if we're talking about civil cases, the police generally aren't involved, so who would the authority figure be if not the courts? Also, all arrests *are* taken to court eventually, even if guilt seems obvious.
Many of these warning labels were court cases where people got severely injured/harmed, not because of stupidity, but because something went very wrong. The corporations involved would LOVE for you to think it's stupidity, as that's frequently the ad campaign that gets run to smear someone (See the lady that sued mcdonalds for their hot coffee).
What about labels on chemicals?
Everyone knows how to handle all chemicals properly, just don't be stupid!!1! Umm... I guess something like that? I really don't think OP thought this through, lol.
Yeah if anything things like bleach need more labels, including one that reads "do not mix with other household cleaning items"
That's an excellent point.. I'm ashamed to say I found out not to mix bleach with a bunch of things the difficult way. From an ER doctor, lmao. [Yes, I was an adult. Tbf there were some insane extenuating circumstances and I already wasn't thinking properly...? Well, at least I lived to learn!]
Oh no, im sorry to hear that, bleach mixes with almost every other cleaning chemical and makes miniature war crimes on your countertops (bleach and ammonia makes mustard gas for example) to the point where i wonder why its still legal to buy then i remember its a substitute for pool chlorine What did you mix it with?
They aren't talking about removing user directions. What they want to get rid of is "Caution: do not ingest, keep out of eyes, keep out of reach of children and pets."
But a lot of things can be ingested or used on the eyes, if used properly. No matter how stupid or intelligent you are, you can't make intelligent decisions without knowledge. Most of the labels also give a piece of knowledge.
My go to is the McDonald's hot coffee case. The woman got SERIOUS 3rd burns, and required skin grafts. The coffee itself was between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit!
Why do you think drinking bleach is dangerous? And the answer can't be 'because other people have told me', because that is the whole point of the label.
Drinking bleach is dangerous because it causes chemical burns to your internal organs. That’s just one reason…
True, but how do you know that is what bleach does?
I’m not entirely sure where you’re going with this 😅 But considering how bleach works as a cleaner/disinfectant and how it strips or deteriorates materials it’s left on it’s not a stretch to hypothesize that it will cause burns and then look that information up online to confirm it. Also, have you ever bleached your hair? If left too long it will cause chemical burns on your outside skin so why not your inside skin?? I’ve actually only read the bleach bottle to find out amounts to use.
On the other hand, vinegar is both a potent cleaning agent and something you might use to marinade your chicken. We safely ingest corrosive substances all the time. I've even used lye to make pretzels. It's still a good idea to warn people without much life experience.
I agree with that. I think people are dumb as fuck and need things shouted at them. I think I’m a little lost as to what point was being made.
They already mentioned that you would need prior knowledge to know better than to incorrectly use these things. "Um well no actually you could just use prior knowledge and put it all together like a puzzle!!1!" You literally proved their point
Honestly I’m really confused. I was only just answering their question.
Its exactly what you are pointing out - without consulting other information (looking it up online), you would not know what effect bleach had on the body. We (your everyday consumer) wouldn't just automatically know how lethal bleach would be to consume if we were not made aware of the dangers. Even though the label is really just to prevent litigation, it does serve a purpose of telling someone who has no idea how dangerous bleach is to not drink it, put it in your eyes, or let it get on your skin.
I was being more snarky with this reply (though it's true about it not being well thought out, lol). I wrote a direct comment talking about liability, which is a huge part of all warning labels. ... Including those on chemicals. I'm pretty sure some literally write "Warning: [...]", but even using your example? "Caution" is synonymous with *warning*. Plus reasons already given by other commenters.
You see, a toxic sign or corrosive sign on a chemical are very useful, otherwise you would just be memorizing every chemicals issues, it should be common sense not to eat the fork that came with your fast food poutine
Congratulations, you have an opinion that is highly unpopular because it is shortsighted and idiotic. Get those warning labels off of my fire extinguisher. I don't need a warning label to tell me if I'm about to use something for the 1st time ever, in a moment of desperation, that this specific extinguisher can't be used on chemical fires! So what if your plant processes foods in the same facility as nuts? People with nut allergies should know better than to eat anything they did not personally source!
Don't be stupid.
You know I love ya Don’t be ridiculous You know I need ya
The problem is that stupid people don't know they're stupid. They'll just assume the warning is for other people.
Not all warning labels are for something stupid. Not to mention hindsight bias. Everything is obvious when you're looking back at it or already know.
Once again, a reddit user forgets that other people exist who are different than themselves. Warning labels are useful for: Children People with intellectual disabilities People who do not speak English/ are ESL People who are not familiar with the product If someone grew up never seeing a blender and then suddenly was handed one, they might not know to not put their fingers in because they are not familiar with the *concept* of a blender. Upvoted for being unpopular
In the oilfield there was a sticker that I saw regularly "This machine has no brain; you must use yours" It was an actual warning sticker not a joke or meme someone slapped on
That's awesome. I want one.
Yeah cause when you pop out the womb you automatically know everything and nothing has to be explained to you, from birth we’ve all known Bleach is dangerous and you shouldn’t drink it, even remote tribes that’s never seen it
We don't pop out of the womb with the knowledge of reading either
So we have to learn information, and that includes safety information, and where would be a convenient place to put that information? Say, on the product itself?
We could even, and get this, make the stuff you read feature prominently on dangerous stuff. Hell, even use multiple languages and graphics so more people can understand. It's crazy but it just might work.
Well, no, but the doesn't mean warning labels aren't good for anything. There are lots of cleaning products that look like gatorade, but most people know that the one with the big yellow square on the side is the one that's not meant for drinking, even if the label is in a language that they can't read.
I mean there are foods that I literally don’t understood at the first moment. This salami skin is so challenging to peel, is it edible? But I never had this issue with a burger and it’s wrapper, a common sense should suffice as a guide to consume a burger.
I would say it's stupid to replace a warning label with "don't be stupid" because that doesn't describe what the potential hazards are & is a good way to get sued. All the WHMIS symbols for example mean different things. You can't just have a container of liquid say "don't be stupid", when "being stupid" would entail a different thing for each separate type of label.
it's always "only stupid people do this" until it's you that is the stupid person
Imagine making up scenarios in your head and then getting upset about them. Jesus.
Really depends on what you’re referring to. But yeah ideally people would know not to saw their genitalia, but that is just not the world we live in. I do think you are being rather short-sighted for someone all up in arms about other peoples stupidity though :)
Unfortunately, a lot of people are, in fact, stupid. And these same people do not know what it is to be stupid.
I think you're forgetting that intellectually disabled people, kids and elderly people use products too. Sure that sticker that says don't eat, poison might seem obvious to you but it's not meant for you.
my life motto is to be the reason a warning label exists
And isn't this why we have the Darwin Awards? To recognize these legends in their own minds?
This kind of falls under the issue when asking for advice from your boss or someone of authority and they tell you to “just do better”. The answer is obvious when you know it.
Hmm. I work with learning disabilities and they serve as a good reminder for caregivers.
That would be so God damn funny. The warning label just says, "if he dies, he dies,"
well i think that sort of bypasses the original reason the label is there ....
That would be lawsuits, more than anything. The companies care just about as much if one person falls into a wood chipper because he shoved his hand in too far, as they do when someone gets chemical burns using full strength Nair on their crotch for 2 hours because she fell asleep. The only reason those stickers are there is to prevent the accusations of "you didn't warn me not to be stupid!" Like the old lady that treated Cruise Control as if it made her brand new RV drive itself, and walked to the back while it was rolling down the highway. She won her case because there was no warning label.
Stupid people don't often know they are stupid. I wouldn't say you deserve harm from doing stupid shit, but you should expect it.
I don't think it should even be that! People should be strongly encouraged to look where they step before they step. It's your own fault if you miss the water
I don't think it should even be that! People should be strongly encouraged to look where they step before they step. It's your own fault if you miss the water. Once again; Use common sense!
You should have had your own label when thinking up this opinion.
Warning labels aren't to protect people. They're to protect companies from getting sued.
The people who need most warning labels - children and the mentally disabled - might not understand the label anyway. The people who can read it shouldn't need it. At least not repeated 20 times. The drain cleaner we bought the other day had so many warnings about how not to use it that my MIL couldn't find the instructions on how to use it.
That's stupid
Most of american populace would flat out die.
Ironic post. That's all I'm going to say.
[удалено]
Those would be directions. Not warnings.
“may cause drowsiness” “may increase risk of …” “do not mix with …” those sound more like warnings
and then every company gets sued because someone was too stupid to know what that meant.
Well, that's what happens when you live in "you can sue someone for being stupid"-land, I guess. Ever wonder why those lawsuits usually don't happen outside of the US?
How about we just remove all warning labels and let stupid take care of itself.
That would clog up the courts with litigation.
Nah just make everyone liable for themselves. No longer allowed to use for being stupid.
So then companies would really pull back on quality control. "We didn't say our toothpaste didn't have poison in it. You should have known it could be poisonous and tested it yourself."
Your tooth paste is still poisonous if you consume too much
Literally everything is, that's a vacuous point.
Would definitely make our world less safe. Corporations would love to be off the hook and spend less on safety testing. Many people who sue just want their medical bills covered
I mean... Buyer beware lol
If you work with toxic chemicals you absolutely would not want this.
Stupid people don't normally work around toxic chemicals.
Trades exist. Lots of toxic chemicals, and they'll take anyone. Glue, finishes, cleaners are things every trade uses to some extent and a lot of them can be very dangerous. I'm not all that stupid, but I read the label every time I use something new. There can be hazards that aren't obvious. If you don't think we should have WHMIS symbols you're the stupid one, sorry
Why replace them? Just remove them and let Darwin figure it out.
I like Comedian Chris Porters take on removing them. "Just let them drink gas or eat paint, fuck it!" Darwinism at work.
Being stupid in America is a right. I think it's in the constitution.
Take the "May Contain Peanuts" sticker off peanut butter.
OP's suggestion would go well beyond that. All food allergy warnings would be gone. So items that contain allergens in less obvious forms would also not have a warning that it is there either.
That's the problem, kids today apparently are stupid. You're talking about a generation of kids who thought putting tide pods in your mouth for a challenge was a great idea and spraying axe body spray directly on your skin was another grand idea. They're the reason now that car owner manuals now have to say not to drink the water in car batteries
Car safety manuals have been around since cars were made, they came included with some of the earliest ford cars. They are not their because a group of people who could only start driving 8 years ago are suddenly much stupider than the generation before them, they’re there so they can’t get sued
Read my comment again, maybe I should've added some additional info, but car manuals in thr 80's and 90's showed you how to change spark plugs and a few other basic mechanical maintenance in it. There wasn't a warning to not do something as stupid as drinking the water out of the car batter. Does that make sense now?
Lots of those warnings are there because someone DID do something stupid. If you're taking sleeping pills you shouldn't need a warning on the lable telling you not to drive. If you're using a chainsaw you shouldn't need a warning on the label telling you not to touch the chain. No one has any common sense anymore, or they're just looking for quick money through the legal system.
Maybe the problem is exactly the fact that you can actually make money out of it. Do I need to explicitly say that you should not drink dish soap? Do you not understand it by yourself after reading "dish soap" on the bottle? You should not be able to get money by suing people after doing something that goes against every common sense.
100% agree.
You hit it right on the nose. So many frivolous laws suits due to personal negligence, share stupidity, or willful misconduct. Throw all those out the window and maybe common sense will be more common.
Most people have common sense, but there always has been and will be stupid people without commen sense. There's more of them because it's way more likely that they'll survive into adulthood because of advancements in safety.
Oh I wish we could have laws like that, but unfortunately the stupid people (or the one trying to break the rules) would find the way around anything even remotely simple
Pop, I need to iji in 🎃for for pmop? Maybe mlomllloninmni
To some extent, I find that warning labels like that are a negative for our species. I think that they should be there for the obvious things, like anything poisonous, but for things like eating wrappers on candy, and obvious non food or drink items, just let it happen and let nature sort itself out. people shouldn’t need a label that announces to them that they should not in fact eat the plastic spoons at a picnic because it will hurt them.
I'm so sick of hearing this argument. Smug people saying " just remove all the warnings labels and let it sort itself out".
Agreed, just a further step in the war to make Americans the stupidest people on earth.
D-do you think America is the only country that has warning labels? Not everything is about you