Mai Hope you don't mind if I spell out my answers to you
- All of the accusations are based on seeing the product information which the businesswoman put out there, and are added to be people's personal experiences.
- If bleach was packaged and marketed at children then it would still be dangerous. Marketing something at children doesn't automatically make it safe.
- Most people have been constructive and civil.
- Wrt trading standards, it would be better to discourage people from buying a product in the first place. If this business has stopped selling these dangerous products then we've achieved something good.
"I assumed that you being a woman, meant you had a better appreciations about our emotions, challenges etc"
Appreciation for emotions/challenges? If I leave aside the fact that men have the same emotions as us and focus on the challenges then it still doesn't give me a reason to support someone who is potentially putting babies at risk. And in fact, if you want to pull the gender card then actually this woman is doing our sex no favours by making it seem as though women are daft enough to put multitasking above the health of our babies. And you are doing us no favours by suggesting that we put the emotions of a fellow women above our concern for babies safety.
"And of course she can see it on MN, this is a public forum."
She asked MNers to review the product, repeatedly.
"I presume that you would have the same attitude if your child was publicly attacked on fb"
I presume that if my child was trying to profit from a dangerous product then I'd expect him to be pulled up on it.
"The product explicitly mentions the need for 'supervision'."
Right, back to the bleach analogy. If I marketed a bottle of bleach for kids, selling it as a fun thing for children to play with but made sure to put a disclaimer in that says "Do not let them play unsupervised", would that be ok? I mean, it's only dangerous if they open it right?
"Fellowship, could you please be so kind as to tell me why, if a parent chooses to misuse a product (against product guidelines) it is the designer's/seller's fault?"
It isn't a product with a low risk of danger, there is a fairly high risk. Especially if being used to the manufacturers guidelines. Which are "The Bottle Bib is for babys 3months + allows you to multitask". Even with the supervision disclaimer the baby is still being left alone while the parent's attention is elsewhere. Let's face it, if their attention was on making sure the baby couldn't come to harm with a product like this then they couldn't be multitasking. When it comes to a product like this it just isn't going to be possible to supervise enough and multitask.
"If my little boy decided to use my iphone cord as a noose, should iphone stop producing cords?"
That would only be a fair comparison if iphone were marketing their cord not only at children but as a fun thing for them to wrap around their necks. And if they were, then yes, they should stop.
"If you believe there is a choking hazard, I am not sure I mentioned this before, but trading standards are there to test products etc for the safety elements. Perhaps before slating something, we should test it and comment from a factual POV."
My first post on this thread talked about how my son has a tendency to doze off while feeding, but continues to make sucking motions. Even with me holding the bottle there is always a moment where he will choke. Fortunately while I'm controlling the bottle I can instantly move the bottle away and can instantly sit him forward and pat his back. This device would slow down the time it would take to do both of these actions. Especially if you take into account the fact that one of it's specifications is that it "Secures Bottle to prevent movement". Movement would be the one thing it would need to make it safe.