Catering to idiots
By Anonymous - 27/03/2013 00:10 - United States - Pittsfield
By Anonymous - 27/03/2013 00:10 - United States - Pittsfield
By I'm the boss, not you - 26/04/2024 09:00 - United States
By fckmylife - 20/12/2016 19:47
By fuckthisandfuckthatandfuckyoutoo - 28/07/2013 16:23 - United States
By control your mutt! - 23/02/2022 22:00
By Alice - 27/05/2011 05:46 - Australia
By Shitfaced - 22/11/2022 12:00
By KereKris - 01/12/2016 19:18
By DocKreso - 28/06/2013 21:59 - Croatia - Split
By Anonymous - 13/01/2022 10:59
By Anonymous - 05/06/2015 01:07 - United States - Elkhart
America, the country of lawsuits.
'Merica **** yeah!
Hey, the same thing happen to my dad. These people tried sueing him cuz their child strangled themself on a mini blind cord and after their child had died 4 or so years later they tried sueing my dad. Now he has to put warning lables on the cords. People SMH
Your comment made me sad for those parents. I'm sure those warnings have saved others from making the same dreadful mistake.
Accidents happen. I don't think a warning label could have prevented that.
Exactly. I don't think the child would read the label and go "oops! Can't get tangled accidentally in this!" Most, if not all, of those kids can't read. It was just an accident. Now that there have been problems with them, likely people are moving them so they're safer anyway.
67 - While the child would not read the warning, hopefully the parents would, and would keep the cord out of the child's reach.
I bet to differ. Learning about the dangers of those cords will warn some parents (who read them) that--hmmm maybe their baby's cribs shouldn't go near a window. I'm sure even these comments will open a few eyes and some will realize that windows shouldn't be over looked when baby proofing you home.
If people can't figure out that long cords attached to the roof may choke children, they probably aren't smart enough to read warning labels. Its common sense to keep them out of the way.
lmao now company's have to put not non edible on their label's just so idiot's don't try to sue them.
It's actually the law in the UK at least that if a cosmetic product resembles food you have to put DO NOT EAT in at least 9pt font to be legally able to sell it without getting sued by morons.
maybe you should have your customers do IQ tests before they're allowed to buy anything and limit sales to only those who score a minimum of average. "You must be at least this smart to buy this soap"
Then they'd be sued for discrimination. Saddening, to say the least.
If they don't score at least an average I doubt they'd know what 'discrimination' means - I think OP would be safe
The sad part is, if you didn't put "do not eat" on the label he could sue you and win. He claims stupidity and your company looses thousands, even millions. 'Murica
*the label, he could *loses thousands
Sadly enough, this perfectly embodies the stupidity that many other countries see Americans as having. And the whole "suing for food poisoning" thing doesn't help with the lawsuit culture stereotype.
Actually, the urge to eat soap can be a medical disorder called PICA, people will crave things like paper, soap, chalk, dirt, or ice. Sometimes various other items. Generally, it's found in pregnant women, but it can also go in hand with other mental disorders. So, while soap shouldn't NEED a "do not eat" label since it seems like common sense, there are reasons it can happen. Though since PICA is pretty rare, I'm going with drugs. Fyl.
I always thought PICA was an animal only thing.... Had a cat that had it.
Keywords
Common sense; not so common
You should really clean up your act.