Re: The Crooked Weasleys! Is Something Dodgy on Diagon Alley?


Toon wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2005 07:19:28 -0700, karnak17@xxxxxx wrote:
>
> >Toon wrote:
> >> On 24 Sep 2005 12:01:28 -0700, karnak17@xxxxxx wrote:
> >
> >> >> >and c) Test products made with those illegal
> >> >> >poisons on eleven-year-olds "at applicant's own risk".
> >> >>
> >> >> Thye agreed to it.
> >> >
> >> >They were ELEVEN.
> >>
> >> 11yo know not to put dangerous stuff in their mouths will
> >> nilly.
> >
> >Do they? Are you okay, therefore, with advertising cigarettes to
> >eleven year olds? Do you feel that it would be okay to sell
> >Marijuana
> >in schoolyards if a teenager needed a bit of extra cash.
>
> Alas, many don't know it's dangerous, or refuse to believe they'll
> be affected.

You don't say???? That was exactly what I argued, wasn't it? Eleven
year olds just don't believe that THEY will be affected by death and
danger. Even if intellectually they know it is there. I remind you
that the actual text makes very clear that the twins downplayed the
whole idea of possible danger as "rubbish", and were NOT fully honest
with the kids about what they were doing.

>But I think thinsg are different in a magic school
> where there's a severe learnign curve, and accidents abound.

The abundance of accidents takes place DESPITE the precautions of the
staff. They don't encourage the first years into additional risk for
their own profit or amusement.

These accidents most certainly encourage students to wise up quickly.
There was the line from Harry about how four years at Hogwarts had
taught him not to stick his hand into a strange substance (so he stuck
his nose in it instead, but never mind). You will concede, though,
that first years have had the least time to wise up, and the twins are
zoning in on the stupidest and most VULNERABLE students available to
them.


> >So at "AT APPLICANT'S OWN RISK" in small print on the adverts
> >makes it all okay? You know, there are surgeon general's warnings
> >in small print on those cigarette boxes. Cash strapped teens
> >should be allowed to sell them to eleven year olds at their school
> >in order to get ahead, do you think?
>
> Alas, that's enough. As long as a warning that can be found and
> read is on the cigarette boxes, it's fine.

So you are in favor of selling cigarettes to eleven year olds? You
think seventeen year olds should be allowed to do it in schools? AND
pot too, if they just hand out little leaflets explaining the risks?

Furthermore, you would defend a seventeen year old boy who tried to get
an eleven year old to drink and drive, IF he said, "Now this'll be a
bit risky, chum, but your mum died horribly in a car crash didn't she,
and your brother had a fender bender last week, so you know the risks."
Really?????

>So really, why not just have the
> twins say, but be careful if you take it.

Because saying BE CAREFUL to an eleven year old is NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
Because when it comes to testing untried poisons on people, "be
careful" isn't good enough for ANYONE. Because whether the dangers are
great or small, they are not "rubbish" as the twins claim; they are
real, and that is the exact reason why the twins are doing the tests.

The kids DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE SWEETS WERE GOING TO DO TO THEM, so
on the very, very, very unlikely chance that a first-year was well
informed enough about his own medical condition to know that he
couldn't take most sleeping-potions without adverse affect, he wouldn't
have been able to make an informed refusal, and would have no reason to
believe that he was even TAKING a sleeping potion. He thought he was
taking a sweet.

The twins took the youngest and stupidest kids that they could find,
and tested stuff on them without even telling them what it was. They
put "AT APPLICANTS OWN RISK" on the adverts in small print, and then
vehemently dismiss the idea of danger as "rubbish". Do you call that
sufficient warning for an eleven year old -- or indeed anyone at all???

Would you want someone to treat your children that way? Would you send
your children to a school where the behavior you are defending --
testing untried products and selling cigarettes -- is something that
seventeen year olds are allowed to do to eleven year olds in order to
raise cash??? It is okay with you as long as "AT OWN RISK" is in small
print over everything, even if the cool, popular, handsome kids selling
the stuff LOUDLY deny such risk when asked about it?

Or is it okay ONLY if the kid's school has a very high
mortality/accident/serious-illness rate and/or a particularly excellent
school nurse?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Goslin: More on the second hand smoke debate...
    ... but how much danger are your lungs in for the ... how many customers do you think ... Your idea that all privately owned businesses should be non smoking on the ... Who gets to decide what needless risk is? ...
    (rec.sport.paintball)
  • Re: What makes a man...?
    ... Why would a rational human being want to put himself in danger? ... Also independence or the sense of being outside the gyre of society's strictures, or simple curiosity, a challenge, or an opportunity. ... One of our neighbors is minus an arm from commercial crabbing--his arm became tangled in a net and the choice became lose the arm or lose John. ... He took the risk because the risk was worth it to him. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: youll never walk alone...
    ... I described the nature of the roads ... Statistically more people are killed swimming in the sea around our ... of the danger and that sometimes the axe can be sent sideways if the ... All travel involves risk a shorter trip is usually statistically safer ...
    (uk.rec.scouting)
  • Re: What makes a man...?
    ... with age, though it is not clear whether this is a cause (your desire ... perspective (danger, as they say, has a remarkable focusing effect. ... Risk tolerance levels vary enormously over the population, ... your body in turn releases endorphins to ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Risk taking and profit sharing is a dangerous mix
    ... greater risk. ... will reward him immediately. ... The reason why I raised this here is to alert Singaporeans ... So the danger is 1.Temasek and GIC taking huge risks ...
    (soc.culture.singapore)
Loading