You should be thankful that you were fortunate enough to have children bright enough to learn that lesson early in life, and who are capable of abstraction without direct experience. Other people's children don't pick up those skills until quite a lot later. The implication of what you're saying is that you think the children of parents who don't teach them this important lesson early enough should be allowed to die. That's an incredibly harsh outlook.
Unless and until we limit childbearing to people of proven competence - hardly a desirable goal - then that's the outcome we have to accept. I'm not willing to live in kindergarten conditions just because some other people are terrible parents.
I'm not willing to live in kindergarten conditions just because some other people are terrible parents.
This isn't about you. This is about people who don't know what you know. In this case you understand the danger so you think the warnings are an unnecessary insult to your intelligence because you find them obvious. You're ignoring the people out there who don't understand the danger. Imagine a situation where your child came in to contact with something you know nothing about - you'd want information right there in front of you printed on the side, even if someone else who has experience and knowledge about the thing thought that warning was ridiculous.
The suggestion that we should let parents bring dangerous things in to their houses without warnings because they ought to understand the dangers already is utterly ridiculous. The 'kindergarten conditions' you're talking about is having sensible warnings on things. Why would it be better to have empty space, or a marketing message, or a pretty picture where that warning is if the warning could save someones life? It simply isn't, and if you believe it is then you are wrong.
