vixenvega wrote:Nobody has said inclusions are unsafe
Here you go:
Arumaeruma wrote:items I found unsanitary embedded
Arumaeruma wrote:Inclusions aren't unsanitary? Cool so toys can have candy wrappers, tinsel, spiders, all sorts of fun things in them, they're embedded in silicone, I should be cool with these "inclusions".
Arumaeruma wrote:It IS unsanitary because it's garbage and WAS NOT And SHOULD NOT be in the toy.
Ixick wrote:Squirrelmunk wrote:How would you feel about
this toy?
That one doesn't bug me because it's intentionally in there--so either it was properly sanitized or it was properly embedded. A foreign object that's partially embedded in the toy without the customer specifically requesting it? Way different.
Sort of like saying "I don't want to find bugs in my candy" after getting a hershey bar with a cockroach sticking halfway out of it, and then linking to a grasshopper lollipop or chocolate ants and trying to claim that it's the same. Intent matters!
That last quote doesn't directly say inclusions are unsafe or unsanitary, but it compares the inclusion in the Rhino to something that's undeniably unsanitary.
vixenvega wrote:There is a difference between intentionally added glitter, pom poms, beads, whatever, and totally random trash.
I absolutely agree there's a difference. I'd definitely be upset if I received a toy with an unseemly, undisclosed inclusion.
But this difference between intentional and unintentional inclusions does not affect safety.
Amaranthe wrote:Everyone understands that inclusions in silicone can be safe. There was no reason for you to keep on arguing about it.
I've kept arguing about it because Arumaeruma and Ixick have kept saying inclusions are unsafe.
Amaranthe wrote:Everyone has tried to explain to you why the inclusions are not trusted in this situation while you continue to argue about inclusions in general.
My argument is that,
in terms of safety, the inclusion in the Rhino is no different from inclusions in general.
Amaranthe wrote:You have said that you agree that she has a right to be dissatisfied, but you have been arguing as if she should be okay with it.
That's not true. I'm arguing as if she should not say the inclusion is unsafe.
She should be dissatisfied because the inclusion (and the tears) are unseemly and were not disclosed by the maker.
Amaranthe wrote:You claim you are just saying inclusions are safe. Yes, and nobody is saying they aren't when done properly.
Inclusions are safe even when done improperly, as long as they're completely embedded in the silicone.
Luxx wrote:Squirrelmunk wrote:Onions are safe, by I'll be damned if I'm going to put them in my burger. And that's okay.
Yes, but if you complained that the burger you didn't expect to have onions on it does, and then someone decided to have a pedantic multi-page argument on the qualities of onions, their nutritional value and why it's perfectly OK to be exposed to onions, that might feel like a personal attack on your onion preferences.
The difference is that I wouldn't say onions are unsafe. I'd simply say they're gross.
Luxx wrote:creates an unhelpful pages long argument out of a really minor detail that could have been encapsulated by "inclusions entirely within the silicone are safe, but that sucks that you got this unexpectedly when you don't want it."
That's
what I said last page. Arumaeruma
chose to continue to attack me.
I wouldn't feel comfortable using a toy that had some object partially embedded in it, that sounds frightfully unsanitary.
