OK. Is there any situation where you would approve of regulation of a consumer product for safety reasons?

No sir, you will be meeting Mr. Darwin - in hell, or, wherever monkeys go after they die...because monkeys don't have souls like human beings, so . . . where was I . . . yes, either #1 Darwin is burning in hell for his sins, or #2 God, the Intelligent Designer, has sent him to monkey-purgatory, where monkeys and Evolutionists are punished for either a) not being human in the first place or b) being a "species traitor" . . . and . . . what I'm saying is :::ahem::: . . . you, sir, will be meeting Darwin in one of those two places - not me! Now, I will bid you good day.

I don't think cow's milk offered for sale should contain a lot of arsenic.

Are you really that keen to try to seduce me on to a slippery slope? I wasn't born yesterday.

So where did his tortose go? :-)

That was awesome! Thanks man!:p
Define regulation.

Within that phrase lurks the seed of a lot of these problems. Apparently a "consumer product" is something someone with an IQ of about 85 is supposed to be able to buy and use in any way whatever without anythng bad ever happening.

I do not feel that any product that may be able to harm anyone under any circumstances should be treated as if it were on fire or covered with heroin when sold.
It is out of control... I resent being treated as a child and my child being treated as a moron.

I'm just curious where you stand. You spend a lot of time deflecting questions and dancing around issues. Nitpicking the details. This gets to core beliefs, just like the political compass test.

I'm wondering if you and I have any common ground at all on this.

I think that there should be personal responsibility. You seem to think that too.

I also think that some products are inherently dangerous and should be regulated. I have no idea where you stand on that. You seem to be saying nothing should be regulated, but I can't imagine anyone thinking that. So I'm curious about it.

It really makes no difference to me if you answer or not. I was just curious.

I think prohibiting the sale of something should be an in extremis very last resort. I offered the example of selling arsenic-laden milk.

The routine CPSC classifying of stuff as "unreasonably dangerous" because some nitwit managed to hurt themselves with it is anathema to me. I don't think the world can be made safe for foolish or stupid people to be foolish or stupid in, and resent having rules imposed on me or the companies I may patronize that have that end in mind.

This kite gadget is a case in point. It has ways it's supposed to be used. Used in that way, it's reasonably safe. Used otherwise, it's potentially totally freaking dangerous. This is why the instructions set forward how to use it.

This should tell us that "dangerous" is not a property of the device. It's a property of the use.

Things (with the possibile exception of something like a bottle of nitroglycerine with a mercury fulminate cap) are not inherently dangerous...Actions can be.

The problem with that realization is that it tells us that when something bad happens, it's because of the use, and there's not much money to be made by suing users, nor any particular satifaction in trying to push them around with CPSC regulations. There is, however, piles of money to be made by suing manufacturers, because they have vastly deeper pockets. And being big evil faceless corporations, it's fun (but mistaken) to believe taking money from them and giving it to trial lawyers (with a small split for the aformentioned foolish/stupid or their heirs) harms no one.

Perhaps you've noticed that the spammer who started this thread hasn't been back. I bet if you call the number he posted you'll eventually end up talking with a trial lawyer. Maybe even someone from the practice John Edwards used to work for...wouldn't *that* be a thrill. ;-)

As for "dodging issues", this thread is littered with questions I put to you that you ignored, so we're even on that score, Mr. "Just Curious".

*drools*

I'm not convinced it's reasonably safe when used in accordance with the instructions, but time will tell.

This kite's use is relayed to the public in two conflicting ways. The marketing seems to contradict the owners manual.

(Yellow).

Actually, there's only one cure for bicuriosity. :-)

Duh.
Seriously...RTFM. The marketing tells you what's great about the product. The instructions contain the caveats, emptor.

But geez...the manual is linked right there from that page. The phrase "reasonably safe" is highly relative. But I think it's *un*reasonable for you (using the Federal government as your tool) to step in and prevent a private transaction in which I buy something from a company just because it could possibly injure someone--like me--if misused.

"Professional driver on closed road. Shown with available equipment. Your milage may vary. Just part of a nutritous breakfast"

This is the one we have. I'm still debating on riding or not...I know I shouldn't...this story it pushes me further onto the no side...but... I guess everyone will know if I come back alive or not in a week. I'll give my own personal experience if I do try it. :)