Quick, get the patent lawyers on the phone!
-
@boomzilla said:
I assume you're talking about the abortion thing. Where is it you thought I went? What is it you think I think about it? Am I a terrible person for thinking about this sort of thing? Why are you afraid of going there? Are you afraid to think deeply about things you do or do not support?
I guess I'm not surprised that you would show outrage instead of thoughtfulness.
Wow, did you just don the horns here, oh Fanner of Flames? What happened in the past hour?
@boomzilla said:
What is it you think I think about it?
I know you don't actually think it's ethical to abort such "defective" foetuses, and I think you posted it for no other reason than to put a bit of baby oil on the fire. Which is disappointing, really. Maybe you should go spend some more quality time with your family.
It's also not terribly creative of you, since such questions have been asked, for true diseases, ever since medical science gained a little bit of control in that area, and for the time being I'm going to let technological progress and zeitgeist stew for a bit and see if we really don't like this murky soup or whether it's delicious for humanity.
-
@dhromed said:
Filed under: baby oil is made from aborted babies which are crushed in a machine not too dissimilar from the one that grinds male chicks
Wait, I thought we were already talking about male chicks here.
evades thrown objects
-
@dhromed said:
no other reason than to put a bit of baby oil on the fire
I don't think this was the intention. He brought up a very real scenario to have you question the idea that this would happen indicates that may people would see this as a defect instead accepting who they are. He in no way advocated doing such a thing, but in true leftist fashion the worst was assumed about the post simply because he disagrees with a view point
-
@dhromed said:
Wow, did you just don the horns here, oh Fanner of Flames? What happened in the past hour?
I was trying to prod flabdablet into something other than his typical knee jerkiness. Still and all, I think it's an important moral question.
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
What is it you think I think about it?
I know you don't actually think it's ethical to abort such "defective" foetuses, and I think you posted it for no other reason than to put a bit of baby oil on the fire. Which is disappointing, really.
Is it somehow not a legitimate concern? If you're a supporter of abortion, and people start aborting fetuses because they believe the child would have been trans, does that change your opinion on abortion? I view abortion generally as a last resort, similar to self defense with lethal force. And possibly OK for things where the fetus is definitely going to die (e.g., ectopic pregnancy, no brain, etc).
@dhromed said:
Maybe you should go spend some more quality time with your family.
Ugh...my son just got home and is talking my ear off.
@dhromed said:
It's also not terribly creative of you, since such questions have been asked, for true diseases, ever since medical science gained a little bit of control in that area, and for the time being I'm going to let technological progress and zeitgeist stew for a bit and see if we really don't like this murky soup or whether it's delicious for humanity.
I don't think it's at all creative, either. I think it's an obvious question to ask once you start talking implying that transedness is genetic. I don't know what flabdablet thinks about abortion generally, but it seems he's against it for the purpose of not having a transgender child. I imagine that he's pro-abortion generally, though that's pure extrapolation and speculation on my part. The cognitive dissonance would explain why he's uncomfortable talking about the topic.
-
@boomzilla said:
@dhromed said:
Wow, did you just don the horns here, oh Fanner of Flames? What happened in the past hour?
I was trying to prod flabdablet into something other than his typical knee jerkiness. Still and all, I think it's an important moral question.
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
What is it you think I think about it?
I know you don't actually think it's ethical to abort such "defective" foetuses, and I think you posted it for no other reason than to put a bit of baby oil on the fire. Which is disappointing, really.
Is it somehow not a legitimate concern? If you're a supporter of abortion, and people start aborting fetuses because they believe the child would have been trans, does that change your opinion on abortion? I view abortion generally as a last resort, similar to self defense with lethal force. And possibly OK for things where the fetus is definitely going to die (e.g., ectopic pregnancy, no brain, etc).
@dhromed said:
Maybe you should go spend some more quality time with your family.
Ugh...my son just got home and is talking my ear off.
@dhromed said:
It's also not terribly creative of you, since such questions have been asked, for true diseases, ever since medical science gained a little bit of control in that area, and for the time being I'm going to let technological progress and zeitgeist stew for a bit and see if we really don't like this murky soup or whether it's delicious for humanity.
I don't think it's at all creative, either. I think it's an obvious question to ask once you start talking implying that transedness is genetic. I don't know what flabdablet thinks about abortion generally, but it seems he's against it for the purpose of not having a transgender child. I imagine that he's pro-abortion generally, though that's pure extrapolation and speculation on my part. The cognitive dissonance would explain why he's uncomfortable talking about the topic.
This whole concept is incredibly stupid for reasons that have nothing to do with morailty.
If we have the technology to find if someone would be born trans, we would certainly have the technology to change, or really, even to force it if we want. IVF is trivial enough nowadays, and soon will be constructive IVF, taking specific genes to craft the genome.
So, yeah, I'm gonna go with this being to get someone's goat
-
@DrakeSmith said:
He in no way advocated doing such a thing, but in true leftist fashion the worst was assumed about the post simply because he disagrees with a view point
That was his intent.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
This whole concept is incredibly stupid for reasons that have nothing to do with morailty.
If we have the technology to find if someone would be born trans, we would certainly have the technology to change, or really, even to force it if we want. IVF is trivial enough nowadays, and soon will be constructive IVF, taking specific genes to craft the genome.
That doesn't follow. We can detect a lot of things already. Has anyone been successful with serious genetic engineering and IVF?
-
@boomzilla said:
I was trying to prod flabdablet
Indeed.
@boomzilla said:
@dhromed said:
Maybe you should go spend some more quality time with your family.
Ugh...my son just got home and is talking my ear off.
You're good at multitasking. Maybe you're a woman?
[stifled, uncomfortable laughter]
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
If we have the technology to find if someone would be born trans, we would certainly have the technology to change, or really, even to force it if we want.
I was kinda sorta going in that direction, but it's not certain at all. We an scan for lost of things, but changing is another matter.
Anyway it's 20:00 and past my mind's bedtime. Gotta go watch insipid youtube things.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
This whole concept is incredibly stupid for reasons that have nothing to do with morailty.
If we have the technology to find if someone would be born trans, we would certainly have the technology to change, or really, even to force it if we want. IVF is trivial enough nowadays, and soon will be constructive IVF, taking specific genes to craft the genome.
That doesn't follow. We can detect a lot of things already. Has anyone been successful with serious genetic engineering and IVF?
Your premise was that it was possible to detect whether someone was trans while still a fetus. I claim we are far closer to serious genetic engineering and IVF than to being able to detect trans-ness. If you honestly believe we'd have that technology without having the ability to avoid/force/change it, that's you. I don't think you believe that, though, I think you're still trying to get goats.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
@boomzilla said:
Well, he has a 2/3rd chance of getting my goat if he stays with the curtain he's on, but only 1/2 if he switches.@Buttembly Coder said:
This whole concept is incredibly stupid for reasons that have nothing to do with morailty.
If we have the technology to find if someone would be born trans, we would certainly have the technology to change, or really, even to force it if we want. IVF is trivial enough nowadays, and soon will be constructive IVF, taking specific genes to craft the genome.
That doesn't follow. We can detect a lot of things already. Has anyone been successful with serious genetic engineering and IVF?
Your premise was that it was possible to detect whether someone was trans while still a fetus. I claim we are far closer to serious genetic engineering and IVF than to being able to detect trans-ness. If you honestly believe we'd have that technology without having the ability to avoid/force/change it, that's you. I don't think you believe that, though, I think you're still trying to get goats.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
Your premise was that it was possible to detect whether someone was trans while still a fetus. I claim we are far closer to serious genetic engineering and IVF than to being able to detect trans-ness. If you honestly believe we'd have that technology without having the ability to avoid/force/change it, that's you.
I'm not sure we'll ever figure out how to detect, or if there's even something to be detected. If it's as "simple" as figuring out some sort of gene expression, I think it's possible and likely that we'll be able to detect and not alter it. I'm no geneticist, but it seems that things are not necessarily simple, and changing something complex might be more difficult than what we do now. I could easily be wrong.
@Buttembly Coder said:
I don't think you believe that, though, I think you're still trying to get goats.
Sort of. It seems like an interesting discussion topic to me, regardless of flabdablet's mental hobgoblins. But it is fun to watch him froth like he does. It's sort of like dangling git in front of blakeyrat, but about more serious issues, and so it's really sad in a way that blakeyrat isn't.
-
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
@dhromed said:
Maybe you should go spend some more quality time with your family.
Ugh...my son just got home and is talking my ear off.
You're good at multitasking. Maybe you're a woman?
Actually, I'm terrible at multi-tasking. Wasn't there a study recently that said that women (or anyone who thinks they can efficiently multi-task) aren't really as good at it as everyone thought. What I'm good at is focusing on something in the face of distractions. And since I'm happily married, I'm also good at chiming in with a well time, "Uh-huh...", "OK," etc.
-
@boomzilla said:
Wasn't there a study recently that said that women (or anyone who thinks they can efficiently multi-task) aren't really as good at it as everyone thought.
Shocking!
@boomzilla said:
What I'm good at is focusing on something in the face of distractions.
That is possibly the thing I am absolutely the wor-- [alt tabs to imgur] [writes po][food].
-
Wow, this thread got long.
I am so good at trolling.. wipes tear from eye
-
Until you've visted TDWTForums, you ain't seen topic drift.
-
@boomzilla said:
Wasn't there a study recently that said that women (or anyone who thinks they can efficiently multi-task) aren't really as good at it as everyone thought.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@El_Heffe said:
They have eleventy gazillion dollars and you don't. No matter how "strong" your case is, you could still lose. It happens. A lot. Congratulations, now you're on the hook for BigMegaCorp's legal bills.
Any case where BigMegaCorp has sizeable legal fees is going to be a case where I have sizeable legal fees, too. So I'm already out that. And then they'll probably countersue and may get a settlement against me. So ultimately, it doesn't make much difference to toss their legal fees on top of that.
I don't think you understand how the U.S. legal system actually functions in practice. See, most plaintiffs lawyers work on contingency. Which means that if they lose (and they lose often) not only do they not get paid, they also eat the costs of hiring expert witnesses, taking depositions, legal research, e.t.c. On the other hand, defense firms hired by large corporations tend to work on an hourly+costs system. And they rack up the bill as much as possible since they know that even if they lose, they still get paid. And countersuits don't work that way either. A countersuit only makes sense if the defendant is claiming that the plaintiff also did something to him as well.
Let's take an example of a case I sat in on once. A guy got in an accident towing a U-Haul trailer and died. His kids sued U-Haul, arguing that the trailer hitch had some mechanical defect that led to the accident. U-Haul's defense was that the accident was caused by driver error. The defense team was 3 big-shot lawyers from Fullbright & Jaworski plus the small town lawyer I was interning with. I'm pretty sure their billing rate was at least $400 an hour each, not to mention the costs involved in flying lawyers and support from houston out to bumfuck nowheres-ville. The plaintiff's lawyer worked on contingency. Honestly, I can't remember who won or who lost, and ultimately it doesn't really matter. It was pretty clear that the driver made a few mistakes, and U-Haul also made some mistakes, so the jury could have gone either way. Do you really wanna fuck the grieving kids of a guy who died with an additional $100,000 bill just because a jury decided that him driving 75mph with a loaded trailer was more likely to cause the accident than the fact that the trailer hitch was 10 years old and hadn't been through regular maintenance in the past 5.Besides, if I really get fucked I can just declare bankruptcy. Meanwhile, this provides a big benefit for someone filing a lawsuit. Here's the thing: there are tons of lawyers who will take my money and pursue a case they know I will lose. What does it matter to them if I lose? They get paid and I'm fucked. This happens all the time.
No, usually they won't take a losing case because:(A) losing hurts their reputation, (B) they get stuck with the bills if you decide not to pay, and (C) most of them take cases on contingency.But if they know I have to pay if I lose, then they will be much more cautious in taking my case or not. And they'll be more likely to take the case on contingency if they know it has a good chance of succeeding, which at least spares me from paying my own lawyers because they will be paid by the defendant when I win.
I don't think you understand how contingency works. A lawyer who takes a case on contigency is banking on getting 30-40% of the final pay-off, NOT the chumpchange that he can get after dicking around with his bills.It will make suing a big company a bit more difficult to get off the ground, but I don't see that as a bad thing. If my case has merit, the impact should be negligible (or it might even help me). I think you underestimate how many cases truly are frivolous, even ones that win.
And I'm pretty sure you overestimate it.
-
@Snooder said:
See, most plaintiffs lawyers work on contingency.
[citation needed]
@Snooder said:
Do you really wanna fuck the grieving kids of a guy who died with an additional $100,000 bill just because a jury decided that him driving 75mph with a loaded trailer was more likely to cause the accident than the fact that the trailer hitch was 10 years old and hadn't been through regular maintenance in the past 5.
They shouldn't have sued in the first place, duh. So, yes, the point is to discourage people from filing asinine lawsuits like this.
@Snooder said:
No, usually they won't take a losing case because:(A) losing hurts their reputation, (B) they get stuck with the bills if you decide not to pay, and (C) most of them take cases on contingency.
A) Only if someone pays attention to their reputation. Either it would have to be a very public case or a very diligent plaintiff.
B) That's why you get them to pay as you go. Or hound them for any money they owe you.
C) [citation needed]@Snooder said:
I don't think you understand how contingency works. A lawyer who takes a case on contigency is banking on getting 30-40% of the final pay-off, NOT the chumpchange that he can get after dicking around with his bills.
Once again, depends on the case, but even in cases where they could get a huge payout the point is to discourage frivolous cases, not guarantee the plaintiff's lawyers get rich.
@Snooder said:
And I'm pretty sure you overestimate it.
Which is funny, because you just gave an example of a frivolous case where some guy's ghoulish kids tried to cash in while daddy was still warm. "Hey, dad's dead, but at least we can sue someone and get money for more drugs and Xbox games! Woohoo!"
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Which is funny, because you just gave an example of a frivolous case where some guy's ghoulish kids tried to cash in while daddy was still warm. "Hey, dad's dead, but at least we can sue someone and get money for more drugs and Xbox games! Woohoo!"
God you are such a fucking asshole.
Btw, for everyone else paying attention, this is what I mean by overestimation. If you listen to morbs and other assholes like him, every person who ever tried to recover after the death of a loved one is a ghoul filing a frivolous claim to cash in. Nevermind that someone actually died. Or that his death may have been caused by bad practice by a company. Nope, every single case is frivolous, and the families are all douches.You know what morbs, I almost hope something bad happens to you, and you need to sue someone. Maybe then you'll realize what a fucking ignorant dumbass you are.
-
@Snooder said:
If you listen to morbs and other assholes like him, every person who ever tried to recover after the death of a loved one is a ghoul filing a frivolous claim to cash in. Nevermind that someone actually died.
Yeah, that's exactly what I said. It's not that the first thing on his kids' minds was "Hey, who can we sue?"
@Snooder said:
Or that his death may have been caused by bad practice by a company.
You already said that it wasn't. You said the driver made mistakes. Then you gave some vague hand-waving about how maybe the equipment was bad, too. But equipment fails. That's not the company's fault. Sure, if they were extremely negligent, but it sounds pretty clear that the guy made a mistake and the mistake caused the equipment failure. I'm not saying "Hey, what an asshole" and I feel sorry for the guy. But the kids saw a payday, and that's sick.
@Snooder said:
You know what morbs, I almost hope something bad happens to you, and you need to sue someone. Maybe then you'll realize what a fucking ignorant dumbass you are.
The US has more lawyers than every other country on Earth combined. We spend several times more (as a percentage of GDP) than most other developed countries on legal expenses. Nearly every other common law country on Earth uses "loser pays". And as reluctant as I am to make a "Europe does it" argument, it's hardly caused those countries to spiral into chaos or destruction. Hell, the UK has "loser pays" and it's still an overly-litigious country (albeit nowhere near the same as the US.)
Really, for you to maintain the position that the country isn't vastly over-lawyered reveals how shameless you are. I know you failed out of law school and missed your opportunity to become a parasite, but damn, son.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Snooder said:
No that is not at all what I said. What I said was that it was a toss-up either way. You are the one who somehow managed to completely ignore any imputation of wrong doing by the company and focus entirely on the driver's possible mistakes.Or that his death may have been caused by bad practice by a company.
You already said that it wasn't.
@morbiuswilters said:@Snooder said:
You know what morbs, I almost hope something bad happens to you, and you need to sue someone. Maybe then you'll realize what a fucking ignorant dumbass you are.
The US has more lawyers than every other country on Earth combined. We spend several times more (as a percentage of GDP) than most other developed countries on legal expenses. Nearly every other common law country on Earth uses "loser pays". And as reluctant as I am to make a "Europe does it" argument, it's hardly caused those countries to spiral into chaos or destruction. Hell, the UK has "loser pays" and it's still an overly-litigious country (albeit nowhere near the same as the US.)
What the fuck does "loser pays" have to do with how many lawyers there are in the US? The number of lawyers has nothing do with who pays the fees in litigation and everything to do with a series of supreme court cases eroding the ABA's ability to mantain a monopoly on legal services. It's extremely irritating when blowhards like you who know fuck-all spout off a bunch of bullshit they got from some propaganda puff piece without ever actually researching the facts or investigating all sides of the story.
-
@Snooder said:
The number of lawyers has nothing do with who pays the fees in litigation and everything to do with a series of supreme court cases eroding the ABA's ability to mantain a monopoly on legal services.
So, what you're saying is that we need to start detecting these bastards in the womb and abort the fuck out of them?
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
The number of lawyers has nothing do with who pays the fees in litigation and everything to do with a series of supreme court cases eroding the ABA's ability to mantain a monopoly on legal services.
So, what you're saying is that we need to start detecting these bastards in the womb and abort the fuck out of them?
Or maybe the problem is that we apparently have a legal system (or, rather, set of systems) so complex that an entire field is dedicated to it.
-
@Snooder said:
investigating all sides of the story
How many sides are we supposed to investigate in a tale about pathogenic mycetozoans?
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
I'm strongly pro-life, but if there were a way to detect in utero that the fetus would grow up to be a lawyer, I'd consider that to be a valid exception.The number of lawyers has nothing do with who pays the fees in litigation and everything to do with a series of supreme court cases eroding the ABA's ability to mantain a monopoly on legal services.
So, what you're saying is that we need to start detecting these bastards in the womb and abort the fuck out of them?
-
@Snooder said:
No that is not at all what I said. What I said was that it was a toss-up either way. You are the one who somehow managed to completely ignore any imputation of wrong doing by the company and focus entirely on the driver's possible mistakes.
He was in control of the vehicle. What, did U-Haul cut the brake lines? Seriously, non-parasitic people get this.
Besides, when your father dies, what kind of sick ghoul's first reaction is to call a lawyer? Yeah, sue if somebody is truly at-fault and there are expenses they need to cover, but who says "I know what will soothe my father's death: $100,000. Then I can buy those new rims for my car, which is what daddy would have wanted."
@Snooder said:
What the fuck does "loser pays" have to do with how many lawyers there are in the US? The number of lawyers has nothing do with who pays the fees in litigation and everything to do with a series of supreme court cases eroding the ABA's ability to mantain a monopoly on legal services. It's extremely irritating when blowhards like you who know fuck-all spout off a bunch of bullshit they got from some propaganda puff piece without ever actually researching the facts or investigating all sides of the story.
As I said, it discourages frivolous lawsuits. Parasites only thrive when there's healthy flesh to be infected. Honestly, you're not so bright, are you? It's amazing you failed out of law school considering the kinds of people they let pass..
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
The number of lawyers has nothing do with who pays the fees in litigation and everything to do with a series of supreme court cases eroding the ABA's ability to mantain a monopoly on legal services.
So, what you're saying is that we need to start detecting these bastards in the womb and abort the fuck out of them?
Or maybe the problem is that we apparently have a legal system (or, rather, set of systems) so complex that an entire field is dedicated to it.
Not just an entire field, an entire group of fields. There's 1 lawyer for every 300 normal people in this country. Think about that: there's enough legal shenanigans that 1 parasite can live off of a mere 300 hosts. That's impressive.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
I'm strongly pro-life..
Why do you hate wimmen????
Well, except for all the women who are murdered in the womb. Fuck those cunts.
America: If you can't get some psychotic lesbians to throw hissy fits on-camera we'll chop you up and turn you into dog food.
@HardwareGeek said:
but if there were a way to detect in utero that the fetus would grow up to be a lawyer, I'd consider that to be a valid exception.
Not gonna happen. Lawyers will always be above the law. They will always grant themselves privileges they don't grant their hosts. Expect abortion against lawyers to be illegal before anything other kind of abortion is.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Snooder said:
No that is not at all what I said. What I said was that it was a toss-up either way. You are the one who somehow managed to completely ignore any imputation of wrong doing by the company and focus entirely on the driver's *possible* mistakes.
He was in control of the vehicle. What, did U-Haul cut the brake lines? Seriously, non-parasitic people get this.
Again, I am absolutely fucking amazed at your ability to read exactly half of what I wrote and make wild inferences to justify your bias. Let me reiterate. The trailer hitch on the U Haul trailer broke. The plaintiff had evidence that U Haul hadn't kept up maintenance on the U Haul as much as it should have. Did the faulty trailer hitch cause the trailer to jacknife? Who knows. It's about as likely a cause as driving the speed limit while towing a loaded trailer.
@morbiuswilters said:
Besides, when your father dies, what kind of sick ghoul's first reaction is to call a lawyer? Yeah, sue if somebody is truly at-fault and there are expenses they need to cover, but who says "I know what will soothe my father's death: $100,000. Then I can buy those new rims for my car, which is what daddy would have wanted."
Who says that? Fuck if I know. Certainly not the people in the story I related. You just made up some random assholes and decided to interject them into the real story because it wasn't interesting enough for you.
@morbiuswilters said:
@Snooder said:
What the fuck does "loser pays" have to do with how many lawyers there are in the US? The number of lawyers has nothing do with who pays the fees in litigation and everything to do with a series of supreme court cases eroding the ABA's ability to mantain a monopoly on legal services. It's extremely irritating when blowhards like you who know fuck-all spout off a bunch of bullshit they got from some propaganda puff piece without ever actually researching the facts or investigating all sides of the story.
As I said, it discourages frivolous lawsuits. Parasites only thrive when there's healthy flesh to be infected. Honestly, you're not so bright, are you? It's amazing you failed out of law school considering the kinds of people they let pass..
You still haven't proven a link between "frivolous lawsuits" and the number of lawyers in the US. And you can't, because anyone with an ounce of sense would realize that lawyers don't pay judgements. If some asshat hires a lawyer to file a suit, even with Loser Pays, the lawyer won't be paying the winning party shit. What he will be paying, and this would apply in any case, is the costs for depositions, expert witnesses, research, travel, etc for his party. The only person that Loser Pays hurts is the poor plaintiff in a suit with a rich defendant. Not the lawyers, not the poor plaintiff in a suit against a similarly impoverished defendant. And certainly a rich plaintiff. It's only fucks the guy who ironically, needs the most help from the legal system.
-
@Snooder said:
You still haven't proven a link between "frivolous lawsuits" and the number of lawyers in the US. And you can't, because anyone with an ounce of sense would realize that lawyers don't pay judgements.
Sure you can prove it, and you can do it with one (or two) words: (mandatory) insurance.
-
I stopped caring about Bomzilla's opinion a long time ago. Maybe you should do the same. On a sidenote typing here on a phone is a fucking hard. So fuck you auto complete and retarded web design.
-
@too_many_usernames said:
@Snooder said:
You still haven't proven a link between "frivolous lawsuits" and the number of lawyers in the US. And you can't, because anyone with an ounce of sense would realize that lawyers don't pay judgements.
Sure you can prove it, and you can do it with one (or two) words: (mandatory) insurance.
What the hell are you talking about? Mandatory insurance exists because the people who commit the tort can't pay the bills incurred by the victims. That's has nothing to do with whether the claim is frivolous or with the number of lawyers in the population. Hell, you shouldn't even need a lawyer to collect an insurance claim.
Now, if you said that mandatory insurance leads to a rise in the number of insurance companies, or even in the number of insurance agents, that would be a logical thing to say.
-
@boomzilla said:
But it is fun to watch him froth like he does.
Because it's a joke, just like on Top Gear.
-
@Snooder said:
Who knows. It's about as likely a cause as driving the speed limit while towing a loaded trailer.
He was driving the speed limit (I assume on a highway) with a loaded trailer? Definitely his fault.
@Snooder said:
Who says that? Fuck if I know. Certainly not the people in the story I related. You just made up some random assholes and decided to interject them into the real story because it wasn't interesting enough for you.
You're right, they were probably angels and they just needed the $100k for halo repairs.
@Snooder said:
You still haven't proven a link between "frivolous lawsuits" and the number of lawyers in the US. And you can't, because anyone with an ounce of sense would realize that lawyers don't pay judgements.
Quote For Stupid.
Really, man? You don't see how an easily-abused legal system attracts parasites like your mom attracts meth-addicted truckers?
@Snooder said:
The only person that Loser Pays hurts is the poor plaintiff in a suit with a rich defendant. Not the lawyers, not the poor plaintiff in a suit against a similarly impoverished defendant. And certainly a rich plaintiff. It's only fucks the guy who ironically, needs the most help from the legal system.
You lie. Worst case, a poor person only has so much they can pay and then they can declare bankruptcy. A rich person would be forced to keep paying out.
No, "loser pays" hurts two groups: trial lawyers and scum-sucking criminals. The former have bought off the DemoKKKratic Party and the latter group is part of the "big tent" of slimeball parasites, child murderers and terrorists that make up the party. And that's why nothing will be fixed until the Dems are driven into the sea and their wickedness cleansed from the Earth.
(Oh, and don't think I didn't notice how you, once again, evaded the point that "loser pays" is how the rest of the world does it. Is there anyone who thinks the UK courts are so horrible that only King Money can afford to file suit? The UK courts are still riddled with frivolous lawsuits--just as your mother's loins are riddled with semi-truck-borne parasites--but at least not as many as the US..)
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Snooder said:
You still haven't proven a link between "frivolous lawsuits" and the number of lawyers in the US. And you can't, because anyone with an ounce of sense would realize that lawyers don't pay judgements.
Quote For Stupid.
Really, man? You don't see how an easily-abused legal system attracts parasites like your mom attracts meth-addicted truckers?
After hearing about the "Cell Phones Don't Cause Cancer" study, which refutes a claim made by the World Health Organization (just Google the debate, the comic doesn't focus much on it), Black Hat plots "Total Cancer Incidence" per 100,000 and "Cell Phone Users" per 100 on the same graph. The graph in frame 3 shows that the number of cell phone users rises after the number of cancer incidence, which makes Black Hat comically come to the conclusion that cancer causes cell phones.
The comic highlights a well-known fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc, often shortened to simply post hoc. The Latin translates to "after this, therefore because of this," referring to the common mistake that because two events happen in chronological order, the former event must have caused the latter event. The fallacy is often the root cause of many superstitions (e.g., a person noticing he/she wore a special bracelet before getting a good test score thinks the bracelet was the source of his/her good fortune), but it often crosses into more serious areas of thinking. In this case, the scientific research community, which often prides itself on its intellectual aptitude, is gently mocked for being nonetheless prone to such poor reasoning all too often.
The title text refers to the way Black Hat holds the laptop in panel 2, which is generally discouraged because it puts a large amount of stress on the laptop's hinge and screen.
-
@Ben L. said:
After hearing about the "Cell Phones Don't Cause Cancer" study, which refutes a claim made by the World Health Organization (just Google the debate, the comic doesn't focus much on it), Black Hat plots "Total Cancer Incidence" per 100,000 and "Cell Phone Users" per 100 on the same graph. The graph in frame 3 shows that the number of cell phone users rises after the number of cancer incidence, which makes Black Hat comically come to the conclusion that cancer causes cell phones.
The comic highlights a well-known fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc, often shortened to simply post hoc. The Latin translates to "after this, therefore because of this," referring to the common mistake that because two events happen in chronological order, the former event must have caused the latter event. The fallacy is often the root cause of many superstitions (e.g., a person noticing he/she wore a special bracelet before getting a good test score thinks the bracelet was the source of his/her good fortune), but it often crosses into more serious areas of thinking. In this case, the scientific research community, which often prides itself on its intellectual aptitude, is gently mocked for being nonetheless prone to such poor reasoning all too often.
The title text refers to the way Black Hat holds the laptop in panel 2, which is generally discouraged because it puts a large amount of stress on the laptop's hinge and screen.
Ben, copy-and-paste isn't an ethos.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Ben, copy-and-paste isn't an ethos.
Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@flabdablet said:
I find it fascinating that you appear to feel so threatened by it.Because your "I am an utterly irredeemable prick" online schtick has always struck me as shallow, predictable, tedious, pathetic and sad, and I see no upside to emulating it.
So I take your resort to ad hominem as an admission you've got nothing and are just going along with this because you are a moronic joiner.
-
@dkf said:
I find it fascinating that you appear to feel so threatened by it.
Fascism? Why? Shit, without us, your country would have been conquered by them.
-
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
But it is fun to watch him froth like he does.
Because it's a joke, just like on Top Gear.You do a good job of living up to the stereotype of a leftist who values diversity of opinion but can't conceive of anyone having an opinion different than yours.
-
@Snooder said:
What the hell are you talking about?
Really? This isn't rocket science, folks.
I know why insurance is mandatory. But it definitely increases legal costs in aggregate. Legal costs couldn't be as high as they are without insurance, because as you stated: [without insurance] "people who commit the tort can't pay the bills incurred by the victims" . So the only way the bills can be as high as they are (including legal fees) is because insurance exists: if insurance didn't exist, the bills couldn't be as high as they are because there would be no funds with which to pay those costs.
You could probably even conduct a study (heh) that shows that incidents of tort would decrease without insurance, because people would suffer some other consequence than increase in insurance premium otherwise. Put another way: perhaps if insurance didn't exist, people would be much more careful about things because they wouldn't be able to afford the situations for which insurance is purchased.
Is it really that difficult to see that spreading the cost of something across a large population or longer time period, though perhaps much less expensive per individual or per unit time, tends to be much more expensive overall in nominal terms?
-
@boomzilla said:
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
But it is fun to watch him froth like he does.
Because it's a joke, just like on Top Gear.You do a good job of living up to the stereotype of a leftist who values diversity of opinion but can't conceive of anyone having an opinion different than yours.
Yes, he does. He's probably one of those people who is like "I'm open-minded because I'm tolerant of people even more radically left-wing than myself!"
-
@too_many_usernames said:
You could probably even conduct a study (heh) that shows that incidents of tort would decrease without insurance, because people would suffer some other consequence than increase in insurance premium otherwise. Put another way: perhaps if insurance didn't exist, people would be much more careful about things because they wouldn't be able to afford the situations for which insurance is purchased.
Yeah, that's a well-studied phenomenon. A similar thing is that air bags and seatbelts make people drive less safe.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@too_many_usernames said:
You could probably even conduct a study (heh) that shows that incidents of tort would decrease without insurance, because people would suffer some other consequence than increase in insurance premium otherwise. Put another way: perhaps if insurance didn't exist, people would be much more careful about things because they wouldn't be able to afford the situations for which insurance is purchased.
Yeah, that's a well-studied phenomenon. A similar thing is that air bags and seatbelts make people drive less safe.
Not to mention traffic lights.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Fascism? Why? Shit, without us, your country would have been conquered by them.
Don't worry about that! Uncle Joe “Mass Murdering Bastard” Stalin would have liberated us all a few years later.
-
@dkf said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Fascism? Why? Shit, without us, your country would have been conquered by them.
Don't worry about that! Uncle Joe “Mass Murdering Bastard” Stalin would have liberated us all a few years later.You mean the country that--even with a truly astonishing influx of materiel from the United States--was still sending soldiers out to fight with rocks and sticks?
-
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
What about things like athletic participation?
This is truly the only area where I might see some issues, but it's not really anything you should be concerned with, and again it's only caused by the rigid categorization of men/women. Fuck, some people might say Serena Williams should have been in the men's competition.
I just came across an old Steve Sailor piece about the gender gap in track. It actually looks at both ethnic and sex differences, so there's something there for everyone. Also, drugs.
-
@boomzilla said:
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
What about things like athletic participation?
This is truly the only area where I might see some issues, but it's not really anything you should be concerned with, and again it's only caused by the rigid categorization of men/women. Fuck, some people might say Serena Williams should have been in the men's competition.
I just came across an old Steve Sailor piece about the gender gap in track. It actually looks at both ethnic and sex differences, so there's something there for everyone. Also, drugs.
It's pretty easy to memorize the hypocrites' position. Just remember this easy rule: if treating people differently based on sex benefits women, it's good; if treating people differently based on sex benefits men, it is bad.
The same thing goes for children: if girls do it It's Good™; if boys do it It's Bad. For example, if boys are more resistant to having their spirits crushed by the public education system, and are a bit fidgety when locked in a windowless room and endlessly rambled at by some moronic teacher, then they clearly have a disease. Just diagnose them, punish them and pump them full of psychoactive medications.
Put them in a "special ed" class (the school gets more money that way, so there's a financial incentive) and they will branded as mental incompetents; a label that will follow them for the rest of their life. And God help them if they happen to nibble a Pop Tart into the shape of Idaho or draw a picture of a ninja; then you can suspend them and start a paper trail in the criminal justice system. If you're lucky, they'll be in prison before they turn 18.
But never forget that it's girls that are at risk..
-
@morbiuswilters said:
It's pretty easy to memorize the hypocrites' position. Just remember this easy rule: if treating people differently based on
The template works with all forms of Affirmative Action/Positive Discrimination/Political Correctness/whatever it's being called this week.sexskin colo(u)r benefitswomenblacks, it's good; if treating people differently based onsexskin colo(u)r benefitsmenwhites, it is bad.
See also: Religion. Sexuality.
