Our Litigious Society
-
Christian Graus wrote:
especially one who needs the web to meet girls ?
I don't think makes someone a bad person, anti-social maybe but not neccasirly bad. What happened is wrong and terrible, but these people are blaming the wrong damned thing - probably just trying to milk it for what it's worth for money. It's digusting IMO. [edit] Oh man, this got a one-vote? Really, it's pathetic that some CPians are this stupid. [/edit] Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I don't think makes someone a bad person, anti-social maybe but not neccasirly bad.
Well, that would make me anti social, b/c if my wife left me, and I wanted to start dating, I'd probably start online. Hell, I live online. My point tho is that when my daughter is 14, I will be VERY closed minded about stuff like this, I'd tend to fear the worst rather than let her take risks I would take myself. She was *14*, that's really my core point here.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
It's digusting IMO.
I agree, although the word I would use is 'sad'. It's sad that they can't see that they didn't take sensible precautions themselves, and that they think a pile of money will help them get through this. It won't, it will increase their tendency to blame others and feel sorry for themselveS ( not that it's not tragic, but it's also not the fault of the web site ). Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I don't think makes someone a bad person, anti-social maybe but not neccasirly bad.
Well, that would make me anti social, b/c if my wife left me, and I wanted to start dating, I'd probably start online. Hell, I live online. My point tho is that when my daughter is 14, I will be VERY closed minded about stuff like this, I'd tend to fear the worst rather than let her take risks I would take myself. She was *14*, that's really my core point here.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
It's digusting IMO.
I agree, although the word I would use is 'sad'. It's sad that they can't see that they didn't take sensible precautions themselves, and that they think a pile of money will help them get through this. It won't, it will increase their tendency to blame others and feel sorry for themselveS ( not that it's not tragic, but it's also not the fault of the web site ). Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Christian Graus wrote:
I will be VERY closed minded about stuff like this, I'd tend to fear the worst rather than let her take risks I would take myself. She was *14*, that's really my core point here.
I'd be the exact same way if I had a kid. But, I'd be on the lookout if the guy was met offline too. Jeremy Falcon
-
I'm pretty sure it's the definition. Socialism is the dispersal of one's personal responsibility across the state.
espeir wrote:
Socialism is the dispersal of one's personal responsibility across the state.
Huh? Jeremy Falcon
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I will be VERY closed minded about stuff like this, I'd tend to fear the worst rather than let her take risks I would take myself. She was *14*, that's really my core point here.
I'd be the exact same way if I had a kid. But, I'd be on the lookout if the guy was met offline too. Jeremy Falcon
Sure - that he was 19 is the core point IMO. I just meant that as a parent, I'd be using the 'he's 19 and he looks for 14 yo girls on the web' argument as part of my 'never speak to that person again, let alone meet him' platform. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Nobody feels responsible for themselves.
You say it's not a conservative thing, but isn't that the definition of socialism?
Socialism: A system based on public ownership of the means of production and distribution of wealth. I don't see any reference to personal responsibility in that definition, or any Socialist monopoly on abdication of the same.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
and they fail to adequately prevent abuse of their services by sexual predators
And how do you propose that they do that exactly? This makes ANY community site (CP Included) liable for anything that results when people don't use their heads. That is no different than being able to sue a bar where a man and a women meet up if he rapes her.
Ray Cassick wrote:
And how do you propose that they do that exactly?
By providing a chastity belt[^] :-D Dang...couldn't find an image of Maid Marion's chastity belt in Robin Hood: Men In Tights "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" - Ross Edbert Sydney, Australia
-
Ray Cassick wrote:
Was it her fault?
Uh...Yes it was. He may have committed the crime, but wouldn't you say that crawling into a lion's den covered in meat will predictably result in your own death? He deserves prison time, but her behavior deserves no reward.
-
I prefer the approach taken by a "chainsaw disco" I once visited in Alabama: the sign above the dance floor read "No Guns on dance floor". Appearently guns were ok anywhere else in the establishment...
Rob Graham wrote:
Appearently guns were ok anywhere else in the establishment...
Guns could fall out while you are dancing and accidently shoot someone. Shootings anywhere else in the establishment are deliberate.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I bet the guy had a bad childhood.
Who the fuck cares? I had a bad childhood, and I know others have as well. Having a bad childhood may fuck a kid up, but the ability to harm other people stems from somewhere else - that is to say the personality/individual. I don't care if his parents shoved pitchforks up his ass as a kid, he has no right to hurt others because of it. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Who the f*** cares? I had a bad childhood, and I know others have as well. Having a bad childhood may f*** a kid up, but the ability to harm other people stems from somewhere else - that is to say the personality/individual.
Me thinks Mr. Gaskey was being facetious. "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
-
Socialism: A system based on public ownership of the means of production and distribution of wealth. I don't see any reference to personal responsibility in that definition, or any Socialist monopoly on abdication of the same.
Ownership denotes responsibility. If you own an airplane and it crashes because of your negligence in maintaining it, that's your responsibility. If you own a food packaging company, and poisonous food is shipped, that's your responsibility. If you own an office building and you allow ice to build up at the entrance and somebody slips, that's your responsibility. If you own a car and it breaks down, it's your responsibility. If you disperse the ownership of your goods evenly across the state, you absolve responsibility and transfer it to the state.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Nobody feels responsible for themselves.
You say it's not a conservative thing, but isn't that the definition of socialism?
espeir wrote:
You say it's not a conservative thing, but isn't that the definition of socialism?
Being responsible for yourself doesn't mean you have to perform open heart surgery on yourself. Steve
-
espeir wrote:
You say it's not a conservative thing, but isn't that the definition of socialism?
Being responsible for yourself doesn't mean you have to perform open heart surgery on yourself. Steve
No, but it means you should pay for it.
-
No, but it means you should pay for it.
espeir wrote:
No, but it means you should pay for it.
Which implies that poor people will die of heart failure if they need it (and can’t afford it)? Do you really want such a society? Are you rich? The intent of my reply was to point out that while a society may be best characterized as capitalist or socialist, any real society will be a blend of both philosophies. One may dominate but aspects of both will exist. Steve
-
espeir wrote:
No, but it means you should pay for it.
Which implies that poor people will die of heart failure if they need it (and can’t afford it)? Do you really want such a society? Are you rich? The intent of my reply was to point out that while a society may be best characterized as capitalist or socialist, any real society will be a blend of both philosophies. One may dominate but aspects of both will exist. Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Which implies that poor people will die of heart failure if they need it (and can’t afford it)?
Poor people will also die in a car accident if they're driving a cheap unsafe car. Does that mean the burden should be on the state to buy them a Lincoln? The fact is that health care can be a priority in any American's life and anybody who gives a damn can afford it.
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Which implies that poor people will die of heart failure if they need it (and can’t afford it)?
Poor people will also die in a car accident if they're driving a cheap unsafe car. Does that mean the burden should be on the state to buy them a Lincoln? The fact is that health care can be a priority in any American's life and anybody who gives a damn can afford it.
So your answer to my question is "yes" (you want a society in which someone who can't afford open heart surgery but needs it is left to die).
espeir wrote:
Poor people will also die in a car accident if they're driving a cheap unsafe car. Does that mean the burden should be on the state to buy them a Lincoln?
No, it doesn’t. In fact there are laws that say that a car must be roadworthy (and therefore safe) before it is allowed on the roads. If a person, rich or poor, drives an un-roadworthy vehicle on the roads they are breaking the law. The burden of enforcing these laws does indeed rest with the government. There is also the fact that lacking a car isn't terminal. Your argument is flawed.
espeir wrote:
The fact is that health care can be a priority in any American's life and anybody who gives a damn can afford it.
Rubbish. Steve
-
Ownership denotes responsibility. If you own an airplane and it crashes because of your negligence in maintaining it, that's your responsibility. If you own a food packaging company, and poisonous food is shipped, that's your responsibility. If you own an office building and you allow ice to build up at the entrance and somebody slips, that's your responsibility. If you own a car and it breaks down, it's your responsibility. If you disperse the ownership of your goods evenly across the state, you absolve responsibility and transfer it to the state.
-
Ownership denotes responsibility. If you own an airplane and it crashes because of your negligence in maintaining it, that's your responsibility. If you own a food packaging company, and poisonous food is shipped, that's your responsibility. If you own an office building and you allow ice to build up at the entrance and somebody slips, that's your responsibility. If you own a car and it breaks down, it's your responsibility. If you disperse the ownership of your goods evenly across the state, you absolve responsibility and transfer it to the state.
I should clarify my view though: That you don't own something doesn't necessarily mean you aren't responsible for it. But a governmental system that is based on the assumption that people will normally act responsibly regarding something that does not belong directly to them is very naive.
-
The other half of the equation is the stupid judges that let this stuff happen. Lawyers want the money, so I can see that, but why oh why do the stupid judges let this happen? Jeremy Falcon
A good point. I'm not sure why you got oned for this one. I've given a 5 to balance the books (my vote didn't have much effect). Steve
-
Christian Graus wrote:
especially one who needs the web to meet girls ?
I don't think makes someone a bad person, anti-social maybe but not neccasirly bad. What happened is wrong and terrible, but these people are blaming the wrong damned thing - probably just trying to milk it for what it's worth for money. It's digusting IMO. [edit] Oh man, this got a one-vote? Really, it's pathetic that some CPians are this stupid. [/edit] Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
[edit] Oh man, this got a one-vote? Really, it's pathetic that some CPians are this stupid. [/edit]
I agree. We don't often agree but the point you make here seems obvious and it's hard to see why it would be oned. I've given 5 as compensation. Steve
-
The other half of the equation is the stupid judges that let this stuff happen. Lawyers want the money, so I can see that, but why oh why do the stupid judges let this happen? Jeremy Falcon