Where's the self responsibility (are these folk thick?)

[Brigadier]

Those penis enlargers don’t work either. I’ve tried 4 different ones so far and I’m still only 8” when erect!

You need heel lifts

 

[diy_fun_uk]

Those penis enlargers don’t work either. I’ve tried 4 different ones so far and I’m still only 8” when erect!

Literally lol

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Those penis enlargers don’t work either. I’ve tried 4 different ones so far and I’m still only 8” when erect!

Yes I can understand why you tried them.

Never needed to myself

 

[Ihavenojob]

Those penis enlargers don’t work

Then buy an Audi as a substitute, probably cheaper.

 

[foxhole]

My wife asked for 8” , I refused , I’m not cutting two inches off for anyone!!

 

[Jurassicspark]

This doesn't even make sense. Why would I have sympathy for systemic failures?

If what you say is true from the above, I am merely pointing out that systemic failure might create the very conditions that allow this nonsense to repeat itself.

Unless someone is mentally challenged, I have zero sympathy for them if they buy stuff to ingest, slap on their skin/teeth, or inject when they know little to nothing about the 'company' or individual selling the stuff, or indeed the product itself.

Haven’t you ever bought something from a shop, a website, a market stall, a popup store, a stranger at a car boot, a sketchy online seller, a random social media ad, a flash sale, a “limited edition” drop, a mysterious email link, a friend of friend recommendation, a bargain that looked too good to be true, or anything at all where you didn’t really know the company, the seller, the origin, the quality, the safety, or anything else at all?

Haven’t you ever been tricked by clever packaging, flashy ads, fake reviews, "limited time offers" influencer hype, free samples, social proof, catchy slogans, bold claims, expert endorsements, fake certifications, persuasive copy, clever discounts, buy one get one one free schemes, and all the other traps designed to make you think it’s safe?

And yet somehow, because someone didn’t read the label, (or whyever was the crux caused in the first place) we’re supposed to give them zero sympathy? Really?

I have sympathy with this person:

I bought a car from an established car dealership and found out it has outstanding finance on it. The dealer is arguing the point so I'll need to take them to court.

If you really can have sympathy for someone being misled by a licensed car dealership, where the system failed them, why can’t you have sympathy for someone if they were misled by an online seller, where the system also fails them every day?

I have zero sympathy with this person:

I bought a car last month from someone I don't know in the Asda car park at 10pm. Found out it has outstanding finance on it. I can't trace the seller cause they've used a burner phone and I paid them in cash.

But tell me this - haven’t we all bought something online, or from somewhere, where we didn’t know the seller, where details were vague, where the system promised protection but failed? And yet you dismiss the people who buy “weight loss jabs” or teeth whitening kits from social media sellers as completely "thick" when if, according to you, the platform is actually letting these dangerous sales happen, if it’s really allowing, for example, anonymity, fake accounts, and zero proper checks then shouldn’t we at least question how the system is set up?

How is that different from the Asda car park example other than the medium? Isn’t it exactly the same principle system fails, buyer suffers, consequences follow.

So tell me, if a system failing you at a car dealership deserves sympathy, why does a system failing you online deserve nothing at all?

 

[Jurassicspark]

Some people are glad to queue up to have God knows what injected into them.

Self-injecting non-prescribed substances into vascular access devices: a case study of one health system’s ongoing journey from clinical concern to practice and policy response - Harm Reduction Journal

Background Overdose-associated deaths and morbidity related to substance use is a global public health emergency with devastating social and economic costs. Complications of substance use are most pronounced among people who inject drugs (PWID), particularly infections, resulting in increased...

harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com

 

[Elsa TLC]

Then there's the Botox injections, which make them look like they have a duck's bill. Some cannot speak properly, due to the distortion of their lips.

But then have you ever heard a duck speak properly?

 

[johnny2007]

You’re saying you have sympathy for consumers when they buy from legitimate businesses, but why is there so little or no sympathy for the systemic failures that allow dangerous products to enter the market in the first place?

Was she a medical expert?

Really?

So the problem is that people are stupid, not that anyone is selling dangerous products to them?

Should we really applaud the naive because they didn’t read a warning label on something that literally could kill them? Or should we focus on asking why there are zero safeguards?

And who exactly is responsible when these products make it to market without proper checks? Should we blame the consumer, or do we finally start holding the platforms and sellers accountable for the harm they’re knowingly enabling?

I get it, people should be more cautious buying stuff online, but shouldn't we also ask why there's no proper system in place to stop dangerous stuff from getting through?

This stuff comes mainly from China.
As we now almost entirely rely on cheap Chinese products coming in millions of containers, how do you possibly check all of them???
We all know that it's up to the consumer to buy from reputable sellers, especially when it's something that you put in your body.
When I say "we", I mean people with brain, not the human-duck hybrids.

 

[Elsa TLC]

Yes I can understand why you tried them.

Never needed to myself

How do you explain how your 6ft 7 ?

 

[Jurassicspark]

As we now almost entirely rely on cheap Chinese products coming in millions of containers, how do you possibly check all of them???

So because something comes in millions of containers, we’re supposed to just shrug and do jack? Really?

We all know that it's up to the consumer to buy from reputable sellers, especially when it's something that you put in your body.
When I say "we", I mean people with brain, not the human-duck hybrids.

But the main question is, when a product literally could harm someone, is it genius to rely on consumer caution, or reckless negligence?

 

[Notch7]

This is why we’ve ended up here:

 

[carmanmemoranda]

This stuff comes mainly from China.
As we now almost entirely rely on cheap Chinese products coming in millions of containers, how do you possibly check all of them???
We all know that it's up to the consumer to buy from reputable sellers, especially when it's something that you put in your body.
When I say "we", I mean people with brain, not the human-duck hybrids.

Cutbacks again.

Trading standards offices have been pared to the bone

More benefits of austerity.

What else comes in undetected? At what cost !

Lack of services, but more costs money.

 

[pete01]

This is why we’ve ended up here:

Lol, I've posted this before but I like this one

 

[diy_fun_uk]

If what you say is true from the above, I am merely pointing out that systemic failure might create the very conditions that allow this nonsense to repeat itself.

Haven’t you ever bought something from a shop, a website, a market stall, a popup store, a stranger at a car boot, a sketchy online seller, a random social media ad, a flash sale, a “limited edition” drop, a mysterious email link, a friend of friend recommendation, a bargain that looked too good to be true, or anything at all where you didn’t really know the company, the seller, the origin, the quality, the safety, or anything else at all?

Haven’t you ever been tricked by clever packaging, flashy ads, fake reviews, "limited time offers" influencer hype, free samples, social proof, catchy slogans, bold claims, expert endorsements, fake certifications, persuasive copy, clever discounts, buy one get one one free schemes, and all the other traps designed to make you think it’s safe?

And yet somehow, because someone didn’t read the label, (or whyever was the crux caused in the first place) we’re supposed to give them zero sympathy? Really?


If you really can have sympathy for someone being misled by a licensed car dealership, where the system failed them, why can’t you have sympathy for someone if they were misled by an online seller, where the system also fails them every day?

But tell me this - haven’t we all bought something online, or from somewhere, where we didn’t know the seller, where details were vague, where the system promised protection but failed? And yet you dismiss the people who buy “weight loss jabs” or teeth whitening kits from social media sellers as completely "thick" when if, according to you, the platform is actually letting these dangerous sales happen, if it’s really allowing, for example, anonymity, fake accounts, and zero proper checks then shouldn’t we at least question how the system is set up?

How is that different from the Asda car park example other than the medium? Isn’t it exactly the same principle system fails, buyer suffers, consequences follow.

So tell me, if a system failing you at a car dealership deserves sympathy, why does a system failing you online deserve nothing at all?

TROOOOOOOOOOOOOLL