Responsibility and the law

[Aught3]

Is this about the prostitution thing? 'Cause I think that's the only issue we've had a major disagreement on

I recognise the Nash equilibria that are in effect everywhere in our society and that most of the 'fix-all' ideas will not satisfy everyone. I don't think we have the best situation that we could have - but removing laws to try and force people to take personal responsibility for their actions is completely ass-backwards.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Is this about the prostitution thing? 'Cause I think that's the only issue we've had a major disagreement on

Feel free, although I had no specific meaning. With the demands on my attention, I don't associate you or anyone else here with any one thread. I had categorized you as "not an idiot, don't treat as such if we disagree" and that's about as far as it goes. I guess my concerns about prostitution and porn fall under the same general viewpoint that informs my posts here, because I have a generally consistent worldview. That's the idea that saying "personal responsibility" seems to be an excuse for people to avoid having any empathy for other people. If you claim that everyone is 100% responsible for not only their own actions, but their situation tracing back to when they were infants, you can avoid feeling any sympathy for them or the abuses they suffer throughout their lives.

I recognise the Nash equilibria that are in effect everywhere in our society and that most of the 'fix-all' ideas will not satisfy everyone. I don't think we have the best situation that we could have - but removing laws to try and force people to take personal responsibility for their actions is completely ass-backwards.

I agree that the laws aren't perfect, but I am also a proud proponent of the idea that "the perfect is the enemy of the good."

I am not willing to sacrifice "good" answers simply because they are not "perfect" answers. Only fools would use the imperfections of the system to advocate throwing away the entire system.

 

[Aught3]

I agree that the laws aren't perfect, but I am also a proud proponent of the idea that "the perfect is the enemy of the good."

I am not willing to sacrifice "good" answers simply because they are not "perfect" answers. Only fools would use the imperfections of the system to advocate throwing away the entire system.

Yeah, I agree and I was careful not to say perfect - I only want to do away with good answers if we can find better ones but to be honest there's probably a bunch of bad solutions that we can try and improve on first. To try to stay on topic I don't think the OP has even found an imperfection other than he doesn't like other people telling him what to do.

 

[You]

I agree that the laws aren't perfect, but I am also a proud proponent of the idea that "the perfect is the enemy of the good."

I am not willing to sacrifice "good" answers simply because they are not "perfect" answers. Only fools would use the imperfections of the system to advocate throwing away the entire system.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

]Yeah, I agree and I was careful not to say perfect - I only want to do away with good answers if we can find better ones but to be honest there's probably a bunch of bad solutions that we can try and improve on first. To try to stay on topic I don't think the OP has even found an imperfection other than he doesn't like other people telling him what to do.

That's the same thing I see... and the reason why my very first post to this thread mentions the fact that a complaint about a law isn't grounds to throw out laws, because as you noted there's a need to replace a lesser law with a greater law. Anyone who seeks to replace an imperfect law with no laws at all?

They had better be smarter than me... not bloody likely!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I couldn't agree more.

Time for a group hug?

 

[You]

Time for a group hug?

Only with rigorous back-slapping and inquires about sports teams in order to reaffirm our manhood. :lol:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Only with rigorous back-slapping and inquires about sports teams in order to reaffirm our manhood. :lol:

Or lots of expensive liquor. I've got some ridiculously expensive Johnny Walker that would work. Drunk enough, on classy enough booze, and the group hug becomes EXPECTED.

 

[WolfAU]

re the OP, I completely agree. This trend towards using the law to more or less solve all disputes, even more and more trivial ones concerns me. And while I don't think personal responsibility has been as common as we may like to believe, I think people in ages past had more respect for ideas of 'talking things over' or just accepting their losses.

An example is my grandad got a pretty decent injury off a neighbour's dog. He says the issue of sueing them wasn't even discussed, and they both chipped in for medical expenses (just a few stitches), they apologised and that was that. No idea if the dog was put down or not.

I think a core issue is people expect something for nothing, particularly in America where they think they'll strike it rich by becoming a movie/rock star, or getting injured and getting rich off a settlement. I suppose part of it is seeing others doing the same (ie some no name being discovered and becoming instantly rich/famous).

 

[Canto]

Wolf is closer to what I was mulling over, but apparently failed to express well enough.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Wolf is closer to what I was mulling over, but apparently failed to express well enough.

I doubt there is any way to express your opinion that doesn't fail the "basic human decency test" but unless you are going to trip over some bandwidth restriction I would encourage you to keep on trying. Maybe I've been wrong about you, and I'm willing to give you as many chances as you need to show me where I misread your intent.

 

[Aught3]

Maybe you should try some different examples topless coffee shops and wearing a seatbelt might not have got to the core of what you were really trying to talk about.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Maybe you should try some different examples topless coffee shops and wearing a seatbelt might not have got to the core of what you were really trying to talk about.

True enough... neither of those have anything to do with government getting in the way of personal responsibility, do they?

Of course, the "personal responsiblity" argument against government restrictions is fundamentally stupid in any case... which means maybe he meant something else?

 

[Ozymandyus]

re the OP, I completely agree. This trend towards using the law to more or less solve all disputes, even more and more trivial ones concerns me. And while I don't think personal responsibility has been as common as we may like to believe, I think people in ages past had more respect for ideas of 'talking things over' or just accepting their losses.

An example is my grandad got a pretty decent injury off a neighbour's dog. He says the issue of sueing them wasn't even discussed, and they both chipped in for medical expenses (just a few stitches), they apologised and that was that. No idea if the dog was put down or not.

I think a core issue is people expect something for nothing, particularly in America where they think they'll strike it rich by becoming a movie/rock star, or getting injured and getting rich off a settlement. I suppose part of it is seeing others doing the same (ie some no name being discovered and becoming instantly rich/famous).

This seems ass backwards to me. The issue is a loss of personal responsibilty, and you are saying the problem is laws that enforce personal responsibility, Like dog owners who have dangerous dogs and let them bite people? It's not like the fact that there is a leash law means that you are now LESS responsible for not having your dog on a leash. I'm baffled by the logic. And, as you can see with your grandfather, you can still decide such things out of court.

How is it that people get a sense of entitlement from the fact that we are held moreresponsible for our actions? If you want to complain about the ludicrously high settlements for this kind of thing, that's fine, I agree wholeheartedly. But to say that we shouldn't punish people for not being responsible - I have no fricking idea how that follows from the logic that people are less responsible nowadays.

Yes: there is a sense of entitlement and star-seeking behavior out there. But it sure as hell wasn't caused by laws about seatbelts or against topless coffee shops. If anything, that sense of entitlement the root of this topic 'I should be more free to do whatever I want/fuck you I've got mine'.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'm baffled by the logic.

No, you are "baffled" by the stupidity... no logic was used to come to that conclusion.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

This seems ass backwards to me. The issue is a loss of personal responsibilty, and you are saying the problem is laws that enforce personal responsibility on people who are not willing to be responsible, Like dog owners who have dangerous dogs and let them bite people? It's not like the fact that there is a leash law means that you are now LESS responsible for not having your dog on a leash. I'm baffled by the logic.

How is it that people get a sense of entitlement from the fact that we are held responsible for our actions. If you want to complain about the general settlements for this kind of thing, that's fine, and you'd better believe iIagree wholeheartedly.... but to say that we shouldn't punish people for not being responsible - I have no fricking idea how that follows from the logic that people are less responsible nowadays.

Yes: there is a sense of entitlement and star seeking behavior out there. But it sure as hell wasn't caused by laws about seatbelts or against topless coffee shops. If anything, this movement towards 'I should be more free to do whatever I want' that is at the root of this thread is the result of the sense of entitlement.

To be fair, I should go into a bit more detail.

This relates back to my initial posts in this thread. The viewpoint that you and I are arguing against is a fundamentally immature and unrealistic one. Only fools, deluded folks, and children would want fewer rules for the sake of "personal resonsibility" or "freedom," because the concept is completely frakking stupid.

ALL laws came into being specifically BECAUSE people didn't do the right thing without someone telling them to, and without mandated consequences. People who advocate for less laws for the sake of less laws? They do so because they want to get away with breaking the current laws, or because they are short-sighted morons. They are like the idiots who claim that government regulation is the problem, and deregulation would make corporations act more responsibly... how many cans of paint are you huffing?!? If people and corporations barely behave in a neutral way WITH punishments, isn't it reasonable that they would act even worse WITHOUT those consequences?

This is why libertarians should be locked away until their brains make it through puberty, no matter how many decades it takes. :lol:

 

[Canto]

First, I'm not a libertarian Sadly I would fall into the conservative stance if you pressed me on my views.

This stems from a conversation my mom and I had about the medical care I recieved in an ER here in town.

I was given a wrong diagnosis, they did not follow standard procedures for an ER visit with the symptoms I had. At the time I went in I was completely numb on the right side of my body with facial droopage and impaired speech, vision, and balance. About a year later, the symptoms came back with a vengeance and I was numb from the neck down(went to a different hospital this time).

I was given two different diagnosis, one of which turned out to be somewhat accurate and considerably cheaper(about 1/4th the cost). During the first visit, I was given a brain scan and a check of the vitals and told that aside from some pre-existing brain damage (from a fall on a concrete floor playing dodgeball as a kid) they could find nothing wrong and was reccomended to bedrest and some medication for Bell's Palsey. The second visit, they took blood, checked the vitals again, and given a serious examination. My mother also has these physical problems, hers stem from pernicious anemia combined with diabetes and a thyroid problem(hyper/hypo, cant remember which). I was tested for all of those things and they came back negative. The doctor advised that I follow a dietary plan similar to my moms in regards to diabetic issues and start on a light excersize program. Within a week of following his advice, I returned to my normal state of being with only slight numbness remaining in the fingertips. It took 6 months after the first visit to regain feeling.

We were discussing the merits of a lawsuit against the first hospital as they were completely off the mark, ran me about 4,000 into debt, and did nothing to help figure out what was wrong with me. The second visit not only got me back on my feet and going again faster, but cost me around 800 total and improved my situation immensely.

I argued against the lawsuit because nothing irreversable came from the wrong diagnosis and treatment and that if it were somthing permanent, I would be looking for lawyers. She argues for it because "We need the money". And we do, but thats NOT why you sue someone in my mind.

I guess I'm not really able to give you specific laws that are at fault here, because I do not know law well, I was talking more about our letigious nature here in the states and how the laws seem to condone, if not promote such things. Looking back at the time when the lady sued McDonalds over the spilled coffee, won, and then companies had to put "This product may be hot" on coffee cups afterwards.

I didnt explain it well because I didnt want to explain my situation in detail, but since my original post seems to be completely NOT what I wanted to say, fuck it.

And no, I am not diabetic, nor stuck with any disease. The doctor says that I was on the verge of becoming a diabetic, and that I'll have to remain on this diet and excersize program for the rest of my life if I want to avoid that fate (bye bye 3 ltrs of Mountain Dew a day, yes, I know its bad).

 

[ImprobableJoe]

First, I'm not a libertarian Sadly I would fall into the conservative stance if you pressed me on my views.

This stems from a conversation my mom and I had about the medical care I recieved in an ER here in town.

Then why bring up seatbelts?

I was given a wrong diagnosis, they did not follow standard procedures for an ER visit with the symptoms I had. At the time I went in I was completely numb on the right side of my body with facial droopage and impaired speech, vision, and balance. About a year later, the symptoms came back with a vengeance and I was numb from the neck down(went to a different hospital this time).

I was given two different diagnosis, one of which turned out to be somewhat accurate and considerably cheaper(about 1/4th the cost). During the first visit, I was given a brain scan and a check of the vitals and told that aside from some pre-existing brain damage (from a fall on a concrete floor playing dodgeball as a kid) they could find nothing wrong and was reccomended to bedrest and some medication for Bell's Palsey. The second visit, they took blood, checked the vitals again, and given a serious examination. My mother also has these physical problems, hers stem from pernicious anemia combined with diabetes and a thyroid problem(hyper/hypo, cant remember which). I was tested for all of those things and they came back negative. The doctor advised that I follow a dietary plan similar to my moms in regards to diabetic issues and start on a light excersize program. Within a week of following his advice, I returned to my normal state of being with only slight numbness remaining in the fingertips. It took 6 months after the first visit to regain feeling.

We were discussing the merits of a lawsuit against the first hospital as they were completely off the mark, ran me about 4,000 into debt, and did nothing to help figure out what was wrong with me. The second visit not only got me back on my feet and going again faster, but cost me around 800 total and improved my situation immensely.

Still waiting for the seatbelt bit, or the personal responsibility?

I argued against the lawsuit because nothing irreversable came from the wrong diagnosis and treatment and that if it were somthing permanent, I would be looking for lawyers. She argues for it because "We need the money". And we do, but thats NOT why you sue someone in my mind.

So, you're saying that doctors who screw up shouldn't have to take responsibility for their mistakes if YOU don't think that the victim of their mistake needs the money? Nothing about seatbelts...

I guess I'm not really able to give you specific laws that are at fault here, because I do not know law well, I was talking more about our letigious nature here in the states and how the laws seem to condone, if not promote such things. Looking back at the time when the lady sued McDonalds over the spilled coffee, won, and then companies had to put "This product may be hot" on coffee cups afterwards.

Yeah, you're pretty damned ignorant. That woman who sued McDonalds was burned so badly by the coffee that she needed skin grafts and needed two years to recover. It takes all sorts of stupid ignorance to claim that she had no good reason to sue.

I didnt explain it well because I didnt want to explain my situation in detail, but since my original post seems to be completely NOT what I wanted to say, fuck it.

And no, I am not diabetic, nor stuck with any disease. The doctor says that I was on the verge of becoming a diabetic, and that I'll have to remain on this diet and excersize program for the rest of my life if I want to avoid that fate (bye bye 3 ltrs of Mountain Dew a day, yes, I know its bad).

Yeah, fuck it. Fuck logic, fuck having a reason to back up your claims, fuck educating yourself, fuck having to explain why you started a thread for the purpose of taking a giant shit on modern civilization.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Well, I most certainly agree that malpractice law and liability law that allows for multi-million dollar damages is completely screwy and needs to be looked at, but the root of those laws is good, not bad. The bad part is the completely disproportionate settlements, and complete crap that is perpetrated by lawyers so they can make more and more money. We still want hospitals and business to care about the effects they have on their customers and their environment and in no way should we stop making laws enforcing responsibility.

I have to say though, your experience sounds like pretty standard procedure for an ER visit and I personally don't see that they did anything wrong. I doubt you would win such a case - Bell's palsy is the right diagnosis for your symptoms and history and it sounds like you were fine for a year afterwards. As soon as I mentioned your symptoms to my wife she said 'sound's like Bell's palsy... did he have any brain damage?' If you had mentioned that you drink 3 liters of mt dew a day to the people in the ER they would have told you the same thing your other doctor told you: fucking stop it.

It sounds like whatever it is that is causing you trouble is not understood even by your second doctor, and the first diagnosis was probably at least partially correct. Something happening a year later that presented with some seriously different symptoms, that was fixed by eating well and doing exercises which was prescribed basically on a total hunch is hardly evidence that the first hospital seriously misdiagnosed you, if they did at all.

Not that I know your situation, and I am admittedly biased towards ER docs.

 

[Coma White]

This post seems very arbitrary in the way it presents itself. I'd chime in, but I don't think I would be able to do so in any rational or reasonable fashion. To simply state that law is becoming "too big" or "is not big enough" is a vast, sweeping statement with little ground on which to base any sort of sound discussion. This is equitable to saying that everybody gets the death penalty, no matter their crime. We know this is untrue, and it would be absurd if it wasn't.

In order to really have a real discussion about this sort of thing, it needs to be provided more concrete context. You also can't just state "this is what I think", and have that be the end of it. You haven't really said much of anything in the original post. You've just provided us with an unsubstantiated opinion.

CW