kimmy Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) So how is it less worthy an issue than, say, inspection of "natural health supplements"? Why not just slap a label on those that says "buyer beware" and be done with it? Couldn't we take the same approach with inspections of processed meats? I think anybody who buys Maple Leaf's mystery meats deserves what they get, so why not just put a "buyer beware" sticker on them? And if you're saying can't look at any other issue until World Peace has become a reality and every Canadian has a roof over their head, a chicken in every pot, and a Bombardier in every garage, aren't you basically saying the government should never ever attempt to do anything at all? I'm sure there are some who'd agree with that... well, Pliny at least... I think the highlight of the thread was the part where Mr Canada suggested that regulation of sex toys would be a good first step on the road towards banning them entirely. Women need to be protected from these terrible things! -k Edited December 31, 2009 by kimmy Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 1, 2010 Report Posted January 1, 2010 So how is it less worthy an issue than, say, inspection of "natural health supplements"? Why not just slap a label on those that says "buyer beware" and be done with it? Couldn't we take the same approach with inspections of processed meats? I think anybody who buys Maple Leaf's mystery meats deserves what they get, so why not just put a "buyer beware" sticker on them? And if you're saying can't look at any other issue until World Peace has become a reality and every Canadian has a roof over their head, a chicken in every pot, and a Bombardier in every garage, aren't you basically saying the government should never ever attempt to do anything at all? I'm sure there are some who'd agree with that... well, Pliny at least... I think the highlight of the thread was the part where Mr Canada suggested that regulation of sex toys would be a good first step on the road towards banning them entirely. Women need to be protected from these terrible things! -k Where do I go with this.... Yes, I would solve world peace before I worried about sex toy legislation. You want it, then put a sock on it just like the real thing. Last time I checked unprotected sex was not a crime, is that what you really want? Quote
cybercoma Posted January 1, 2010 Report Posted January 1, 2010 (edited) Where do I go with this.... Yes, I would solve world peace before I worried about sex toy legislation. You want it, then put a sock on it just like the real thing. Last time I checked unprotected sex was not a crime, is that what you really want? You better check your stats again. If you have AIDS and you sleep with someone unprotected and not inform them of your conditioin, it's a crime. On the other hand, if you manufacture a product knowing that there are chemicals in it that are adverse to the consumers' health, forum jockeys defend you. Edited January 1, 2010 by cybercoma Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 1, 2010 Report Posted January 1, 2010 You better check your stats again. If you have AIDS and you sleep with someone unprotected and not inform them of your conditioin, it's a crime. On the other hand, if you manufacture a product knowing that there are chemicals in it that are adverse to the consumers' health, forum jockeys defend you. I simply can't believe this thread. What a monumental waste of time both here and at the peoples expense in the Commons. Correct me if I am wrong here but product liability already exists, does it not? So what is the big freaking deal? If it is harmful sue, if not shut up. Quote
kimmy Posted January 1, 2010 Report Posted January 1, 2010 Where do I go with this.... Yes, I would solve world peace before I worried about sex toy legislation. You want it, then put a sock on it just like the real thing. Last time I checked unprotected sex was not a crime, is that what you really want? I can't imagine how you came to the conclusion that I want to criminalize sex of any sort. I simply can't believe this thread. What a monumental waste of time both here and at the peoples expense in the Commons. Why don't you tell us how much of The Peoples' time this has taken in the House of Commons, Jerry? Are you equally upset that things like Bill C-6, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, have been preventing our mighty parliament from creating world peace, feeding the hungry, healing the lepers, and so on? Correct me if I am wrong here but product liability already exists, does it not? So what is the big freaking deal? If it is harmful sue, if not shut up. You said on the prior page that you were opposed to this because it would open a can of worms and would have scary implications that would have to be addressed. In fact, that can of worms has been opened and closed many times. As a society we've already decided that "well, if it's harmful just sue" is not an adequate answer to other unsafe products, so why is this one different? -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
cybercoma Posted January 3, 2010 Report Posted January 3, 2010 As a society we've already decided that "well, if it's harmful just sue" is not an adequate answer to other unsafe products, so why is this one different? -k Because the problem mainly affects women and homosexuals... and no offense but they're not real people. [/sarcasm] Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.