Squid94 said:
Well, it was a rant full of valid points...
Okay, i'll put it this way. If a company sold a handheld gaming device (best example I could think of), and it's primary purpose is entertainment (in the same way as smoking's primary function is positive), but then said that after X number of hours, it violently explodes, killing the gamer, would you allow it on the market? (Excuse the example)
Then said system would come with a warning label saying that it spontaneously explodes, and by purchasing said system the owner immediately relinquishes all responsibility for any damages done to them. And still my point is that someone was playing with the system and is explodes and kills them, it's not the company's, fault its theirs as they clearly played it enough to cause it to explode.
You can argue that point all you want, the bottom line is that it's all about personal responsibility.
God no. This is my view on smoking. It has a positive primary intention, but very sinister background story, if you like. I have no problem with smokers themselves, it's their thing, and they're entitled to it, but the fact that such a "dangerous" product is sold in such measures is quite scary.
Again, it's not the company that determines the amount of sales, its the people who buy it. Cigarette companies would go out of business if people didn't buy their product.
I know they're not forcing people to take it, but in my example, company Y wouldn't be forcing you to buy the console. The health warnings are good, but in my opinion, also a bit naive.It's like saying:
"We know our product'll eventually kill you, but fuck it, we're making money out of it".
You seem to have this image of cigarette company execs as people with devil horns, goatees, and glowing red eyes. It's a business, and businesses exist to make money and
HARDLY anything else.
Do you think Bill Gates created Microsoft with the intention of giving people easy access to cheap computers in the hope of creating a more connected world? No. He made Microsoft to generate income. He could give a bigger shit that you spent your mother's insulin money to pay for a one year subscription to XBox Live, so long as he makes money out of it.
Drug lords don't sell their product with the intention of creating a world filled with crime, they sell it to make wads of money.
Or better yet, what about the U.S. government. They allow the sale of guns at Wal Mart at extremely low prices and allow bullets to be sold as well. They also allow pharmaceutical drugs with side effects which can range from dry mouth to death to be prescribed to absolutely anyone. They allow the sale of shit like that because they make billions (possibly trillions) of dollars in licensing and taxes. The government, contrary to popular belief, could give a bigger shit about you. Which means if they could get away with it they would pay someone two buck to beat you with a spoon until your head caved in. They allow the sale of shit like th
I know it's a large part of the economy (not quite trillions)
It is up there in the top five of the world's leading producers of revenue with oil, drugs, and weapons production.
but people'd find a replacement, and hopefully something healthier.
That's up to them.
/rebuttal rant to your rebuttal rant of my rant