Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[voliol]

Well identity politics do affect people doing crimes, crimes that happen due to a person’s identity, that’s what the hate crime label is for. Not every crime is a hate crime though.

[ChairmanPoo]

I am black

Huh, I didn´t know Th4DwArfY was black

[TD1]

I think you know that's a hypothetical 

I am from Ulster, after all. I knew the grand total of one black person in high school, though she was a blast.

[LordBaal]

She was explosive?!!

[TD1]

Again, it's Ulster.

 

[Naturegirl1999]

She was explosive?!!

Again, it's Ulster.

 

Location doesn’t determine whether someone’s explosive, fuel does

[Rolan7]

Fuel is important, but Ulster is also famously full of oxidizing agents

[LordBaal]

So, what happens in Ulster dont stay in Ulster because is vaporized?

[Lord Shonus]

Suing for this however.... but USA being the "sue your way to richness, happiness and regain your lost hair land"

This is a corporate-created myth. All those lawsuits you hear about somebody getting millions for trivial reasons fall into one of four categories (ranked from least to most common)

1. The defendant was forced to pay for ancillary reasons - for example, there really are a few cases of "trespasser sues property owner and wins", but in those cases it was a "this setup is so incredibly dangerous that it was going to hurt somebody, so you don't get to avoid consequences of your negligence because you only hurt the "right" person.

2. There's a ton more to the story than you commonly hear - such as the McDonalds Coffee Lady. She didn't simply spill coffee on herself, she spilled coffee *hot enough to melt polyester pants and inflict second and third degree burns* on herself *due to a defective cup* after *McDonalds had recieved and ignored a large number of "You are serving your coffee way too hot for safety" warnings. She was awarded a huge sum of money in punitive damages because McDonalds flatly refused to pay the $10,000 (in 80s money!) in medical bills that was all she initially asked for. Another example is the "Red Bull doesn't give you wings" one - which was actually a "you claim these ingredients give an energy boost, but there's no evidence to support it" case.

3. Dismissed out of hand, but the filing made more headlines than the dismissal - the guy who wanted $2,000,000 for ruined pants got laughed out of court.

4. (By far the most numerous category) Made up out of whole cloth. A prominent example is the "I thought cruise control was autopilot and wrecked my RV while I was napping" story.


This notion is spread around because the lawsuit is the primary method for holding corporations responsible in the US, so the corporations want them banned. So they spread as much bullshit as they can so that people look at the false version of things they've created and think "lawsuits really do go too far!" and vote their weapon away.

[delphonso]

It's almost like the most powerful class don't want to be held responsible for their actions, and have the ability to sway public opinion in their favor.

It's almost exactly like that.

[LordBaal]

I cant concieve how people could even try to renounce to that. Or how even legally suing can be banned.... in fact penal denounces/acusations which would be the only other way to settle things would be worst dont they?

[Lord Shonus]

Basically, the reformers want a hard cap on awards, which would kill the core function of a lawsuit. Even limiting it to actual damages by axing punitive damages would weaken things considerably - the entire reason punitive damages exist is that companies like Ford were saying things like "Well, this probably won't kill more than an dozen people, and a dozen wrongful death suits would cost less than fixing the problem so we won't bother."

[Reelya]

2. There's a ton more to the story than you commonly hear - such as the McDonalds Coffee Lady. She didn't simply spill coffee on herself, she spilled coffee *hot enough to melt polyester pants and inflict second and third degree burns* on herself *due to a defective cup* after *McDonalds had recieved and ignored a large number of "You are serving your coffee way too hot for safety" warnings. She was awarded a huge sum of money in punitive damages because McDonalds flatly refused to pay the $10,000 (in 80s money!) in medical bills that was all she initially asked for. Another example is the "Red Bull doesn't give you wings" one - which was actually a "you claim these ingredients give an energy boost, but there's no evidence to support it" case.

Another example that gets used is a guy who was in a phone box, and the phone box was hit by a drunk driver, and he sued the phone company, and won. This one was actually referenced by Ronald Reagan on video as a ridiculous case when arguing for tort reform / limited liability. In that one the missing context was that the phone box was located on a dangerous corner, it had been hit many times, and they didn't repair the phone box properly. So the guy in the phone box saw the car coming for him, tried to get out of the phone box, and the door jammed. Hence it was negligence since they should have moved the phone box or at least kept it in a good state of repair.

EDIT: btw "$10,000 (in 80s money!)" is actually more money, not less. $10000 now is worth less than then.

[hector13]

I think that was his point.

A billion dollar corporation didn’t pay the drop-in-the-ocean medical fees that wouldn’t have happened had they not served magma in a paper cup.

[Reelya]

I think that was his point.

A billion dollar corporation didn’t pay the drop-in-the-ocean medical fees that wouldn’t have happened had they not served magma in a paper cup.

That's not what I'm saying.

They emphasized "in 80s money" in a way that implies that means it's a less significant amount. But that's flipping around what the effects of inflation would be. If you said "$10K, and that's in modern money, adjusted for inflation!" you'd be highlighting how small the original amount was.