Posted: 2002-11-19 11:07pm
This is a little old, but its just plain annoying. You are responsible for what you eat! Let me say that again. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU EAT!
StarDestroyer.Net BBS
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
Big Mac, extra fry, you want a supersized lawsuit with that?
Page 2 of 2
Posted: 2002-11-19 11:13pm
Hell if more people took responsiblity for their actions we wouldn't get this BS...oi
Posted: 2002-11-19 11:17pm
GUYS
LISTEN
THIS CASE WILL GET THROWN OUT. THE LAW AIN'T THAT FUCKED.
LISTEN
THIS CASE WILL GET THROWN OUT. THE LAW AIN'T THAT FUCKED.
Posted: 2002-11-19 11:23pm
Vympel wrote:GUYS
LISTEN
THIS CASE WILL GET THROWN OUT. THE LAW AIN'T THAT FUCKED.
True, but the people certainly are.
Posted: 2002-11-19 11:28pm
Oh no denying that. If some dickhead comes to me when I'm practicing and offers an idiotic case like this in front of me ...
Posted: 2002-11-20 12:37am
Apparently we have no will of our own now, no means to make choices. What a loser to actually sue McDonalds for that. It isn't that I like McDonalds but this man is insane! He should be sueing the people who give McDonalds the greese for the food and the cows for their part in the burgers and the vegetables for their part in creating oil to fry the food in.
IT is called self will and personal decision making, you dumb a$$. You can't sue someone for you making poor choices. Maybe he should sue the gym for not making him go there and do exercises, it is the same thing.
McDonalds shouldn't need to change their menu to cater to the tubby who want to be thin. They should make what they want and what makes money. If he wants another healthier option then he can walk his butt over to see Jared at subway. Ugh, and it isn't a place you are intended to eat at four times a week. What he should be doing is called grocery shopping.
IT is called self will and personal decision making, you dumb a$$. You can't sue someone for you making poor choices. Maybe he should sue the gym for not making him go there and do exercises, it is the same thing.
McDonalds shouldn't need to change their menu to cater to the tubby who want to be thin. They should make what they want and what makes money. If he wants another healthier option then he can walk his butt over to see Jared at subway. Ugh, and it isn't a place you are intended to eat at four times a week. What he should be doing is called grocery shopping.
Posted: 2002-11-20 12:53am
What the HELL?
Alright, I'm just going to sue the school because they do not hand out utensils, therefore lowering my grade.
I luv broken fuzzy logic.
Alright, I'm just going to sue the school because they do not hand out utensils, therefore lowering my grade.
I luv broken fuzzy logic.
Posted: 2002-11-20 01:09am
And they made us use sporks. Those bastards. SUE SUE SUE SUE!!!Sienthal wrote:What the HELL?
Alright, I'm just going to sue the school because they do not hand out utensils, therefore lowering my grade.
I luv broken fuzzy logic.
Posted: 2002-11-20 04:06am
I honestly have NO pity for these idiots sueing the fast food industry...
Especially after I read the part about him having 2 heart attacks!! Didn't his doctor advise hime to change his diet?
Especially after I read the part about him having 2 heart attacks!! Didn't his doctor advise hime to change his diet?
Posted: 2002-11-20 04:36am
Soon people will be suing each other for every little thing. 
Which is kinda weird, I think, in that the nation would govern itself in a way. Everyone would be so afraid of getting sued that they don't do any bad thing like crimes. But then again they can't do anything else either.
I prefer this world over the one described above any day
Which is kinda weird, I think, in that the nation would govern itself in a way. Everyone would be so afraid of getting sued that they don't do any bad thing like crimes. But then again they can't do anything else either.
I prefer this world over the one described above any day
Posted: 2002-11-20 07:50am
What the hell happened to personal responsibilty?
If that fat stupid fucker wants to blame someone he should start with himself. Fastfood doesn't come in during the night and crawl into your mouth; you've got to buy and eat it yourself. God damn, he did it to himself. And it's the same with smokers.
If that fat stupid fucker wants to blame someone he should start with himself. Fastfood doesn't come in during the night and crawl into your mouth; you've got to buy and eat it yourself. God damn, he did it to himself. And it's the same with smokers.
Posted: 2002-11-20 08:14am
Its know as the bain of the trial Lawyers
The ability to sue for redicioulious things was only recently written into Laws in the past thirty years and it shows... Belive me it shows
The ability to sue for redicioulious things was only recently written into Laws in the past thirty years and it shows... Belive me it shows
Posted: 2002-11-20 08:55pm
Indeed Bean, I think that any lawyer assigned to the case would go through this:
1. Receive paper, open, and examine, and cry aloud, "What the FUCK?!"
2. Read paper again
3. And again
4. Find his name assigned at the bottom, before uttering, "Shit"
5. Sell his soul to satan to find a tiny little thing that they could go upon, and probably win.
1. Receive paper, open, and examine, and cry aloud, "What the FUCK?!"
2. Read paper again
3. And again
4. Find his name assigned at the bottom, before uttering, "Shit"
5. Sell his soul to satan to find a tiny little thing that they could go upon, and probably win.
Posted: 2002-11-20 09:11pm
Actually, since lawyers are the only ones who can launch major lawsuits without back-breaking fees, this society would become a lawyer's paradise, where lawyers can do pretty much anything they want, and anyone who gets in their way is promptly sued into oblivion. Sadly, this is already happening; in America, there have been cases of lawyers suing their next-door neighbours for playing basketball in their driveways (supposedly, the noise caused them psychological trauma and massive lost income because they couldn't concentrate). The worst part is that it doesn't matter whether they win or lose; the legal fees were bankrupting them, so the victims eventually sold their house, settled with the lawyer, and moved away.Shinova wrote:Soon people will be suing each other for every little thing.
Which is kinda weird, I think, in that the nation would govern itself in a way. Everyone would be so afraid of getting sued that they don't do any bad thing like crimes. But then again they can't do anything else either.
Me too.I prefer this world over the one described above any day
Posted: 2002-11-20 09:13pm
Three words: Loser Pays System.
Posted: 2002-11-20 09:59pm
These fatasses don't deserve a cent. They're the ones who decided to eat it, and they'll only open the door for more frivolous lawsuits, and even more restrictions on consumer freedom. Common semse ain't so common nowadays...
Posted: 2002-11-20 10:37pm
Next thing you'll know, a nurse will sue a newborn baby boy for sexual harassment because he was born naked, and was she offended by it. Anyways, what these fatasses need is to excercize.
Healthy food ain't gonna do shit if you don't excersize. In the end, it all comes down to calorie intake, and how much you can burn them off.
Healthy food ain't gonna do shit if you don't excersize. In the end, it all comes down to calorie intake, and how much you can burn them off.
Posted: 2002-11-20 10:52pm
It doesn't really matter if the restuarant industry wins or looses, we the consumer are still fucked. The cost of a Wopper will rise anyway because even if Burgeraddictman loses, the resturants would still had to have payed literally millions on legal defense.
What would help solve this kind of legal extortion:
What would help solve this kind of legal extortion:
Damn straight! Next time Georgia goes looking for a congressman, make sure Durran Korr is on the ballot.Durran Korr wrote:Three words: Loser Pays System.
Posted: 2002-11-20 11:22pm
Im starting to think this is the only way to curb frivelous lawsuits.Originally posted by Durran Korr:
Three words: Loser Pays System.
Posted: 2002-11-20 11:24pm
Lemme guess the slogan for his campaign: "Durran Durran! Durran Durran!"
/cheesy pun
Sorry about that,
Anyway, totally agreed...If your argument can't stand up in court, why the hell should you get off free for wasting everyone's time and resources?
/cheesy pun
Sorry about that,
Anyway, totally agreed...If your argument can't stand up in court, why the hell should you get off free for wasting everyone's time and resources?
Posted: 2002-11-20 11:31pm
This has been proposed many times. 20/20 showed an excerpt from a judge who said that it would "cast a chill" upon litigation. Of course, THAT'S THE FUCKING IDEA!!!!!Sienthal wrote:Anyway, totally agreed...If your argument can't stand up in court, why the hell should you get off free for wasting everyone's time and resources?
But you see, judges are lawyers. And lawyers make a lot of money from frivolous litigation. Therefore, no one's going to get rid of this extortion scheme because the only people in a position of authority to do so are its recipients.
Posted: 2002-11-21 12:31am
Not to mention that trial lawyers have some of the most powerful lobbying in the country.Darth Wong wrote:This has been proposed many times. 20/20 showed an excerpt from a judge who said that it would "cast a chill" upon litigation. Of course, THAT'S THE FUCKING IDEA!!!!!Sienthal wrote:Anyway, totally agreed...If your argument can't stand up in court, why the hell should you get off free for wasting everyone's time and resources?
But you see, judges are lawyers. And lawyers make a lot of money from frivolous litigation. Therefore, no one's going to get rid of this extortion scheme because the only people in a position of authority to do so are its recipients.
Posted: 2002-11-21 06:35am
We don't have nearly that number of frivolous lawsuits here, and nobody in his right mind would ever even posit such a ridiculous argument, because it would be summarily dismissed, for reasons outlined below.
Punitive damages are what drives the fucked up system more than anything else. As I understand it, in the US (no idea about Canada, is it the same in this respect?) damages are assigned out according to the ability of the accused to pay, not according to how much damage was done. This is so massively fucked up that there are no words for it, really.
We have a nice straightforward system: Damages can only be awarded to the amount of damage caused, with the clarification that there must be a demonstrated causal link for them to be awarded, and there is a very specific section that says that no one is allowed to profit from being awarded damages.
Of course, massive monetary fines for companies that break the law and intentionally cause harm (the tobacco companies, polluters and so forth) should be in place to curb such illegal behavior (because just the amount of actual damages would be a pittance to many big companies), but that money should go directly to government coffers and those who were damaged by the activity should have only their actual damages (medical costs, replacement of broken stuff, whatever) compensated.
Naturally if you're poor and can't afford to pay damages, it doesn't excuse from the responsibility, which is why we have the system that in that case the government can and often will compensate the injured party and then get medieval on the culprit's wallet. There's also clauses that prevent people from being sued to bankruptcy if they accidentally cause something e.g. at work that the employer has to pay damages for.
So, do you think something like this should be put in place over there?
Edi
Punitive damages are what drives the fucked up system more than anything else. As I understand it, in the US (no idea about Canada, is it the same in this respect?) damages are assigned out according to the ability of the accused to pay, not according to how much damage was done. This is so massively fucked up that there are no words for it, really.
We have a nice straightforward system: Damages can only be awarded to the amount of damage caused, with the clarification that there must be a demonstrated causal link for them to be awarded, and there is a very specific section that says that no one is allowed to profit from being awarded damages.
Of course, massive monetary fines for companies that break the law and intentionally cause harm (the tobacco companies, polluters and so forth) should be in place to curb such illegal behavior (because just the amount of actual damages would be a pittance to many big companies), but that money should go directly to government coffers and those who were damaged by the activity should have only their actual damages (medical costs, replacement of broken stuff, whatever) compensated.
Naturally if you're poor and can't afford to pay damages, it doesn't excuse from the responsibility, which is why we have the system that in that case the government can and often will compensate the injured party and then get medieval on the culprit's wallet. There's also clauses that prevent people from being sued to bankruptcy if they accidentally cause something e.g. at work that the employer has to pay damages for.
So, do you think something like this should be put in place over there?
Edi