• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Disclaimers - what's the purpose?

Disclaimer - what's the purpose?

  • To describe a product

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • To warn about a product

    Votes: 3 50.0%

  • To limit the intended scope of the product

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Some or all of the above within the context of actual purchase consideration

    Votes: 2 33.3%

  • My name is Burger Meister Meister Burger

    Votes: 1 16.7%
  • Total voters
    6
GreenvilleGrows

GreenvilleGrows

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
566
Reaction score
221
Location
My version of reality
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why must we all suffer through disclaimers about products we're not ever going to buy? Is it an advertisement or a government warning? Should the government insist on disclaimers in all advertising or just at the point of purchase? Does a disclaimer read at 4x's the speed of human speech actually make a claim at all?
 
I like the last choice, lol.
 
To limit potential lawsuits.
 
If you are talking about those drug commercials then I pick "Some or all of the above within the context of actual purchase consideration". Because a lot of the benefits of those drugs seem to start sounding good until you consider the negative side effects.

If you are talking about warning labels and disclaimers of regular products like allergy information contains peanuts on a jar of peanut butter or warning do not use in shower on a hair dryer then it is rat lawyer proof their products. These blatantly obvious warning labels exist because greedy rat lawyers similar to the Fred Phelps variety will sue.
 
I dunno. *






* the potential side effects for reading this post may include short term memory loss, brief stupefaction, dangerous lowing of blood pressure and potential seizure. Do not read if nursing or pregnant, and avoid combining this post with alcohol as loss of motor function may result. If posting induces a state of ennui lasting more than a day, please consult your psychologist.
 
Depends on which country. US = to avoid being sued. Europe = to warn or give information about a product that is critical in its use.
 
I picked the fourth option. The disclaimers that really get under my skin are for medicines, because they are absolutely useless. Just about every medication has a risk of severe side-effects these days. For disclaimers to be useful at all, they need to include percentages or something. Ideally, though, at least in the case of prescription drugs, I think they should make such disclaimers to the doctor, and then the doctor should be required to actually explain them to the prospective user. If adequately explained, that would seem like a much more reasonable bar against liability than having a vague warning in tiny text on the box.
 
Its to cover the company in case of lawsuits.


While I believe if a company puts out a defective product, they should be held accountable. I also believe that people need to be held accountable for their own actions. Disclaimers are the results of lawsuits.
Welcome to the the United States of Litigation.
 
Krhazy said:
I picked the fourth option. The disclaimers that really get under my skin are for medicines, because they are absolutely useless. Just about every medication has a risk of severe side-effects these days. For disclaimers to be useful at all, they need to include percentages or something. Ideally, though, at least in the case of prescription drugs, I think they should make such disclaimers to the doctor, and then the doctor should be required to actually explain them to the prospective user. If adequately explained, that would seem like a much more reasonable bar against liability than having a vague warning in tiny text on the box.
Click to expand...
Great idea. Give the doctors something more to do because idiots are too damn lazy or too damn stupid to check out warning labels and then everyone bitches about the high cost of medical care. :roll:

.
 
It seems to me that disclaimers, at their core, were supposed to limit the scope of a product. Meaning, "use this for topical use, not internally". Just because it itches, it doesn't mean you can use our product on it. They disclaim purposes for which the product was never intended.

Unfortunately, they've morphed into something which limits the users' personal responsibility. "Buyer beware" used to be the rule of the land. Now, it's "Seller beware, your customers may be too stupid to live without supervision." I'm afraid we're exalting the least common denominators to the top of the food chain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom