RANT!!
-
ALL empires fail. ALL of them. It allows history to reinvent itself and fail in exactly the same manner as it has scores of times before. I don't forsee humans becoming any more conscious of that. Short term gain, profit and power overrule all as they have throughout history. At least until we run out of resources, that will put a damper on things.
-
Tea Party. The protestation of taxation without representation, name now usurped to give carte blanche to businesses to drill for oil (corporations), give tax breaks to corporations, and in general make things better for corporations. I don't see any independence here, just the citizenry handing the reins of power to entities that have no accountability or resposibility except to line the pockets of politicians who let them get away with whatever they want. I mean really, if a business screws up, they just claim bankruptcy, get a bailout and come back under a different name. That's independence all right.
-
Smokers! Hanging right outside the entrance of buildings blowing puffs of smoke in your face as you pass them. raaarggh! I'll start packing a water pistol - or maybe a supersoaker.
-
@solo said:
I will start...
Okay so you have a high end restaurant with a strict dress code clearly displayed in your window. A group of World war 2 veterans decide to frequent your establishment but they are clearly in violation of the dress code as they are wearing shorts, hats and jeans that the dress code does not allow, do you overlook your rules because they are veterans?
Well this is an issue that has been on the news in Dallas as a restaurant turned them away, and they made it a huge issue by going to the TV stations to make a scene about it, citing that they were discriminated against as veterans in veteran paraphernalia, and the restaurant being owned by a German (Wolfgang Puck) made the story even more tantalising for the media.
It's about RESPECT!!
WTF!! why does being a veteran make you an untouchable? -
I agree, respect the rules of the restaurant.
-
New York child sued for woman's death after bike crash
A girl aged four can be sued for crashing a bicycle into an elderly pedestrian and causing injuries that led to her death, a judge in New York rules.
BBC News (www.bbc.co.uk)
edit: if you insist chris
4 year old kid being sued for crashing in to an old woman during a bike race, causing injuries that led to the womans death. Its just plain old stupid. Im sure the kids going to feel guilty enough as it is without dragging them through a lengthy legal process that will ultimately change nothing.
-
You gotta put a brief explanation of the article so I know if I care enough to click on the link.
-
@chris fullmer said:
You gotta put a brief explanation of the article so I know if I care enough to click on the link.
You dare not click a BBC link?
-
@remus said:
New York child sued for woman's death after bike crash
A girl aged four can be sued for crashing a bicycle into an elderly pedestrian and causing injuries that led to her death, a judge in New York rules.
BBC News (www.bbc.co.uk)
edit: if you insist chris
4 year old kid being sued for crashing in to an old woman during a bike race, causing injuries that led to the womans death. Its just plain old stupid. Im sure the kids going to feel guilty enough as it is without dragging them through a lengthy legal process that will ultimately change nothing.
I couldn't believe the judge's statement that the child's lawyer didn't prove that she "lacked maturity" - isn't being 4-5 years old the very definition of "lacking maturity"? And, even if she is sued, what are they gonna collect, the girl's duplo blocks?
-
Agree on the 4 yr. old hoodlum.
However I can't imagine they'll expose the child to the trial proceedings. In any case the kid will know about it sometime later and have that guilt or pall over all the rest of her life. Terrible thing for the plaintiffs to do to a person.
-
@daniel said:
And, even if she is sued, what are they gonna collect, the girl's duplo blocks?
In this case it seems likely the kids are rich. If it was your average kid they likely wouldn't bother to lawyer up. But if that kids are heirs to a family fortune it makes more sense to sue. Greed is a strong motivator. I'd bet if Bill Gates kid's irresponsible behaviour caused any of our dear Moms' deaths we'd all be thinking of suing Master Gates (
) too. -
In the US, children are considered "accidents waiting to happen".:-) The extent of liability extends to parents to the extent of their providing reasonable upbringing, and supervision.
Sigh........Lawyers, almost as bad as Architects.:-)
-
@ross macintosh said:
@daniel said:
And, even if she is sued, what are they gonna collect, the girl's duplo blocks?
I'd bet if Bill Gates kid's irresponsible behaviour caused any of our dear Moms' deaths we'd all be thinking of suing Master Gates (
) too.I'm thinking of suing him anyway for putting me through "Undue Duress" and "Illusory Promise"
-
The children aren't to blame - they are children!
The children's parents are to blame as the failed to educate and supervise their children appropriately - the proof of this is in what they did!
This is exactly as if the parents had kept a viscous dog and had let it roam freely out in public, and it had injured someone - the dog is not to blame it's its owners.
The dog should of course be 'put down' but as of yet this sanction doesn't extend to viscous [or careless] children - but it could/should/might/etc [delete according to your prejudices].
I'm not sure if it still stands, but some years ago in Russia if you had a 14 year-old kid who did a robbery you as the parent would do the jail term just as if you had done the robbery yourself! He's not to blame you are!On a separate note of 'lunacy'... if you visit Saudi Arabia [I assume you might have a moment of madness] and are driving down the road and an Arab drives straight over a red-light and crashes into you, then YOU are to blame - even when it is clearly his fault! The logic is that you are a foreigner and chose to be in the country, and if you had not been there the accident would not have happened... ipso facto YOU are the sole cause of the incident, even if the real fault lies with the Arab
Can't argue with the logic! -
So I wonder if it applies that if you hired a driver In Saudi Arabia, and someone drove through a red light and crashed into your chauffeured car, if it would still be your fault because if you weren't a foreigner who chose to be in the country then the driver wouldn't have been hired and be in that situation, therefore it is your fault (still).
Does this then apply to buses? Plane crashes? (Sorry the logic escapes me) -
Don't know about SA, but in many societies with a substantial Muslim culture, if you hire a driver, you are responsible. Don't think that only applies to foreigners, and if it applies to riding a bus, but subject to one's culture, I don't think it's totally unreasonable. Some cultures believe that Western laws about criminal's rights is wrong. Well, some Westerners believe it too. It's the old story of "living in Rome" that governs.
-
This is quite intriguing.
In the car goes through red light scenario, lets say it is actually caused because the driver chooses to do something on his cell phone which causes the chain of events. However, since I am still responsible...
Is the actual cause of the accident ever tried to be determined?
I ask: I am responsible because I am a foreigner?
I am responsible because I retained the driver?
If I am responsible because I retained the driver, would I still be responsible if I were not a foreigner.
Am I only not responsible if I am of the nationality of the country?
Would I be responsible if I were of Arab descent, but were a Christian from Syria, or a Copt from Egypt?
Are there any other countries where this is the norm?
Am I getting off topic?
-
Dale,
Saudi Arabia is a monarchy where girls can be forced into marriage at 8 years. Don't hurt your brain trying to find justice or reason there.
Peter
-
Fun little clip.
-
.
Advertisement