[ExI] they're everywhere
kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com
Sun Jan 18 23:32:44 UTC 2009
On 1/18/09, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Sorry guy, but all of your appeals to emotion really causes me to distrust
>> your message. Could you explain, again please, why is it that small
>> businesses shouldn't have to meet safety standards?
> There is a clear disconnect between the sweeping nature of this law, and
> the narrow range of products that were problematic in 2007. The CPSIA
> applies standards that were put in place in reaction to the sale of toys
> contaminated with lead paint and toxic plastics. Rather than focus on these
> materials, this law places a guilty until proven innocent mentality on all
> children's product producers by imposing mandatory testing and
> certification, and in the process will kill an entire industry.
So, small businesses shouldn't have to meet safety standards because they
might go out of business? You might have thought it cute to just copy/paste
your post like this, but it doesn't help that it doesn't answer the
There's an exercise that students are taught in college that says try to
argue for the other side, become devil's advocate for a while. Politics
isn't a one-sided business between the good guys and bad guys, but between
people with conflicting interests. There's no decision made that doesn't
benefit some people while detrimenting others, so it doesn't surprise me in
the least that another law is going to harm the interests of many people,
the question is what is best for the nation as a whole. And you haven't
even come close to answering that.
Sorry, but I thought I should at least explain why I don't find your post
pursuasive rather than keep quiet.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat