Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

EU finding time to ban Children's Toys

Page 2 of 3 [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

11 Oct 2011, 11:25 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
Inuyasha, are you going to take responsibility for posting an uninformed title that actually has members believing such a ban has been written, when I've adequately explained that it hasn't? People aren't bothering to read my further down the page post, but are believing your inaccurate assessment of an article that left out a few key words.

I believe the correct thread title would be "EU finding time to put into regulation warning label requirements already followed by most of it's member nations."

Not nearly as exciting, but the truth rarely is.


Uh it is still a ban, probably not easily enforced, but it is still a ban.



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

11 Oct 2011, 11:26 pm

And something else to think about:

Warning labels actually protect manufacturers. This way parents can't claim they didn't know the potential for injury was there; they've been warned.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

11 Oct 2011, 11:43 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
And something else to think about:

Warning labels actually protect manufacturers. This way parents can't claim they didn't know the potential for injury was there; they've been warned.


I know that, however ever here of a product known as cigarettes. They are banned for people under 18 in the states. Not saying that the two things are equivalent, just saying that the ban can be handled in a similar fashion.



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,800
Location: Over there

12 Oct 2011, 7:43 am

Inuyasha wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Inuyasha, are you going to take responsibility for posting an uninformed title that actually has members believing such a ban has been written, when I've adequately explained that it hasn't? People aren't bothering to read my further down the page post, but are believing your inaccurate assessment of an article that left out a few key words.

I believe the correct thread title would be "EU finding time to put into regulation warning label requirements already followed by most of it's member nations."

Not nearly as exciting, but the truth rarely is.
Uh it is still a ban, probably not easily enforced, but it is still a ban.
No, it is not a ban. Your thread title is therefore a lie.

But changing it to reflect the truth would mean that you can't play your usual extrapolation fantasy games:
Quote:
Guessing the Obama Administration will try this next...

As if we needed another example to know that Big Government is bad.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

12 Oct 2011, 8:50 am

Inuyasha wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Inuyasha, are you going to take responsibility for posting an uninformed title that actually has members believing such a ban has been written, when I've adequately explained that it hasn't? People aren't bothering to read my further down the page post, but are believing your inaccurate assessment of an article that left out a few key words.

I believe the correct thread title would be "EU finding time to put into regulation warning label requirements already followed by most of it's member nations."

Not nearly as exciting, but the truth rarely is.


Uh it is still a ban, probably not easily enforced, but it is still a ban.


No, it is a warning label.

Under your logic the US has already banned thousands of toys with small parts because they are a hazard to children under 3. Given how stores that cater to little ones are stocked full of those items, I find that logic hard to follow. Quite different from the way cigarettes are sold.

Tell you what, if you can find the actual regulation we can examine the exact wording and decide whose interpretation comes closer. Until then, given that your article carefully avoids the ban word, and mine says it isn't a ban, I stand by my conclusion.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Last edited by DW_a_mom on 12 Oct 2011, 2:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

12 Oct 2011, 9:06 am

Cornflake wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Inuyasha, are you going to take responsibility for posting an uninformed title that actually has members believing such a ban has been written, when I've adequately explained that it hasn't? People aren't bothering to read my further down the page post, but are believing your inaccurate assessment of an article that left out a few key words.

I believe the correct thread title would be "EU finding time to put into regulation warning label requirements already followed by most of it's member nations."

Not nearly as exciting, but the truth rarely is.
Uh it is still a ban, probably not easily enforced, but it is still a ban.
No, it is not a ban. Your thread title is therefore a lie.

But changing it to reflect the truth would mean that you can't play your usual extrapolation fantasy games:
Quote:
Guessing the Obama Administration will try this next...

As if we needed another example to know that Big Government is bad.


:lol: That sums it up quite nicely.

Both my kids played with Matchbox cars on occasion before turning 3, despite the dire 3+ only warning. Somehow, we escaped imprisonment.



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

12 Oct 2011, 9:09 am

Tequila wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
It most likely has nothing to do with either, and everything to do with a newspaper spinning a non-story to sell copies.


Funnily enough, I often doubt that. I suspect that the EU is putting some sort of restrictive licensing/regulatory framework in place that will be onerous and costly. As it usually does.

I shouldn't have to say this but...

Vote...

Image

I want my country back, please. Now.


Isn't posting advertisments against the ToS unless for humour or as a source for an argument?



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,800
Location: Over there

12 Oct 2011, 11:53 am

Gedrene wrote:
Isn't posting advertisments against the ToS unless for humour or as a source for an argument?
Well I read that ad. and just laughed out loud, so it was certainly humour for me. :lol:


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

12 Oct 2011, 12:16 pm

Cornflake wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Isn't posting advertisments against the ToS unless for humour or as a source for an argument?
Well I read that ad. and just laughed out loud, so it was certainly humour for me. :lol:


Well that's true enough. But I guess what matters is that it was intentional humour.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

12 Oct 2011, 12:49 pm

DW_a_mom, thanks for your ongoing participation among the ranks of the reasoned and reasonable.


_________________
--James


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

12 Oct 2011, 2:08 pm

number5 wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Inuyasha, are you going to take responsibility for posting an uninformed title that actually has members believing such a ban has been written, when I've adequately explained that it hasn't? People aren't bothering to read my further down the page post, but are believing your inaccurate assessment of an article that left out a few key words.

I believe the correct thread title would be "EU finding time to put into regulation warning label requirements already followed by most of it's member nations."

Not nearly as exciting, but the truth rarely is.
Uh it is still a ban, probably not easily enforced, but it is still a ban.
No, it is not a ban. Your thread title is therefore a lie.

But changing it to reflect the truth would mean that you can't play your usual extrapolation fantasy games:
Quote:
Guessing the Obama Administration will try this next...

As if we needed another example to know that Big Government is bad.


:lol: That sums it up quite nicely.

Both my kids played with Matchbox cars on occasion before turning 3, despite the dire 3+ only warning. Somehow, we escaped imprisonment.


I'm not saying the ban is all that enforceable, if you really think about it, however considering how the EU is so cash strapped, they might actually try.



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,800
Location: Over there

12 Oct 2011, 2:17 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
I'm not saying the ban is all that enforceable, if you really think about it, however considering how the EU is so cash strapped, they might actually try.
Inuyasha, it is not a ban.
Why are you continuing to pretend that it is?


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

12 Oct 2011, 2:23 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

I'm not saying the ban is all that enforceable, if you really think about it, however considering how the EU is so cash strapped, they might actually try.


Not even your article used the word "ban," you realize that, don't you? So I'm not sure where you extrapolated that from.

No one has suggested there are any penalties in the regulations for parents who ignore the warnings, although I suppose if the intentional ignorance results in death or severe injury to their child, THEN it might be used against them, as evidence of criminal negligence, but that is a whole other can of worms ...

You have to be careful of the game of telephone. You read an article filled with exclamatory language, and infer ban, but they never said ban. You create a headline that says ban, and the next person infers something further, that not even you intended. Before you know it there are people honestly thinking that they read somewhere that that the EU is jailing parents for having balloons and whistles at a children's party. You need to take responsibility for starting a game of telephone for no other reason than that it suits your political agenda. For once admit that you exaggerated your wording. It isn't a crime, and admitting it would earn you some respect.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

15 Oct 2011, 2:34 pm

Warning means ban. ROFL.


_________________
.


Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

15 Oct 2011, 3:28 pm

I am happy that in this case reason has triumphed over ideology so thoroughly that I feel in a light and pleasant mood. Thanks DW and all others.



jackbus01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,197

16 Oct 2011, 8:10 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
Warning means ban. ROFL.


No, warning does not mean ban. Does this really need to be explained any further? (rhetorical question)