The Bullshit Hunt
|Posted on October 28, 2016 at 12:35 AM|
What came first, the warning or the hazard? Honestly, some of the preventative warning suggestions that are made, I’ve never even thought of until it was told to me. Something like “keep out of reach of small children.” That never occurred to me until it was made clear that people might intentionally put something harmful to children within reach. “Harmful if swallowed” is another suggestion that I’ve never thought of trying. Usually, when I buy cleaning products, they’re not for swallowing, however, it would seem people have enjoyed a few glasses of windex. “Don’t drink and drive,” “avoid eye contact,” “don’t try this at home,” ”don’t take with alcohol or just “use caution when…” all seem a little ridiculous.
Why is the statement of unintended use necessary? Isn’t the consumption of the product alone indicate there’s an intended use? We don’t see labels on baseball bats saying “improper use can cause serious physical damage.” Flathead screwdrivers don’t have signs that say “may be deadly to living objects.” Why don’t kitchen knife sets indicate “fatal if disrespectful to spouse.” Theoretically, you can do some serious damage with a golf ball, however, doesn’t seem that way because there’s no warning to prompt it. And ironically, I haven’t thought of one, perhaps, because there’s no warning to prompt a thought.
On the other hand, if you’ve ever watched an advertisement for medications you can get from your doctor, the commercial is filled with more side and harmful effects that can be caused as a result of using it, as opposed to the benefits. “This product may cause itchiness, unwanted bowel movements, high blood pressure, thoughts of suicide, leprosy, and pneumonia so check with your doctor to see if this prescription is right for you.” It would seem that the warning, in this case, should be something good like “this may cause some temporary relief to an ill condition.” May I suggest a little salad and exercise?
If I were extremely paranoid, I would think that safety and warning signs are really a disguise for adding more ways of harming ourselves, excusably. As long as there’s a warning, it wasn’t really anybody’s fault but the user. Especially, if you don’t want to get arrested. Why buy a can of pepper spray when a bottle of windex can do the same job and serve another purpose, along with a justifiable aliby, as well? Another suspicion I have is that a lot of the harmful chemicals in products aren’t necessary, but they are added anyway. Exactly, why is there fluoride (rat poison) in toothpaste? Maybe it’s good for your teeth, but what about the rest of your body? It specifically warns to keep away from young children. I guess I just have some weird thoughts. However, I truly wonder if the warnings are written to prevent hazards as opposed to causing hazards. Signs like “slow down” on a highway intended for fast moving traffic doesn’t seem too safe to me. Slow down in front of a 65MPH tractor trailer just might prove this “warning” unsafe. And to top it off, the guy who gets hit from behind isn’t at fault, although, he was the cause. Go figure.