Norseman82 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 [quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 5 2006, 06:37 PM']Our society tends to frown on parents leaving kids home alone for hours at a time. It's called "neglect" and can be a felony. In order for a parent to be able to take time to work it's necessary to have a reliable, trustworthy person to watch the chilluns. [right][snapback]876616[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I understand that. But my point is that we should also look at the question of why we need to have both parents working outside the home so much. I know that there are a lot of different situations, but lately I've also been on a "quality of life" kick in regards to stable family life. And getting back to what this thread is originally about, idiotic lawsuits only serve to drive up costs. I know that it is not going to reverse overnight, but the sooner we get started, the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 [quote name='Norseman82' date='Feb 5 2006, 08:51 PM']I understand that. But my point is that we should also look at the question of why we need to have both parents working outside the home so much. I know that there are a lot of different situations, but lately I've also been on a "quality of life" kick in regards to stable family life. And getting back to what this thread is originally about, idiotic lawsuits only serve to drive up costs. I know that it is not going to reverse overnight, but the sooner we get started, the better. [right][snapback]876625[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Right ... I wrote that before you expanded your original post. I've since revised ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 [quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 5 2006, 06:37 PM']However, the reality of the situation is that lower paying jobs simply don't pay enough to support a family. And, if we're talking about impoverished families, often those are single parent (woman-headed) families. [right][snapback]876616[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes, I understand that there are some who are simply lower income. But let's also ask: why are there single mothers? OK, there are widows and cases in which someone cannot afford a college education due to family situations or because they need to work in order to support parents/siblings. But other situations - out of wedlock pregancies and no-fault divorces - pardon me for sounding judgmental, but I think we need to stress more morality in order to avoid getting into these positions in the first place. [quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 5 2006, 06:37 PM']There is a lot of talk about tort reform and how frivolous suits hamper business ... I have heard pretty strong arguments on both sides, but I tend to lean towards providing more protection towards those least able to protect themselves (the plaintiffs). There will always be frivolous lawsuits filed; the trick is to minimize those while still leaving room for legitimate suits. Automatically giving corporations the benefit of the doubt is a dangerous road to take. [right][snapback]876616[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Minimize them in two ways: 1) Cap on punitve damages - EXCEPT IF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IS INVOLVED 2) Adopt a general principle of law that YOU CAN'T SUE SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU ARE A STUPID CARELESS IDIOT (like refusing to turn the volume down, which is what this thread is originally about. Don't you just like how I can always relate this back to the topic at hand!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted February 6, 2006 Author Share Posted February 6, 2006 The problem with trying to dialog anything with you is that you seem only to remember a post at a time and fail to recall so many other things already posted that answer your questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 5 2006, 09:03 PM']The problem with trying to dialog anything with you is that you seem only to remember a post at a time and fail to recall so many other things already posted that answer your questions. [right][snapback]876637[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The problem with trying to dialogue anything with you is that 95 percent of your posts are senseless rants. So now we're even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 [quote name='Norseman82' date='Feb 5 2006, 09:02 PM']Yes, I understand that there are some who are simply lower income. But let's also ask: why are there single mothers? OK, there are widows and cases in which someone cannot afford a college education due to family situations or because they need to work in order to support parents/siblings. But other situations - out of wedlock pregancies and no-fault divorces - pardon me for sounding judgmental, but I think we need to stress more morality in order to avoid getting into these positions in the first place. [right][snapback]876635[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Nice thought, really, and I agree with you that there needs to be better moral guidance. I'm really not sure how that can in a practical sense be put into law without creating serious issues. (i.e., how do you encourage marriage without harming the people who aren't married for whatever reason and still need help. [quote name='Norseman82' date='Feb 5 2006, 09:02 PM']Minimize them in two ways: 1) Cap on punitve damages - EXCEPT IF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IS INVOLVED 2) Adopt a general principle of law that YOU CAN'T SUE SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU ARE A STUPID CARELESS IDIOT (like refusing to turn the volume down, which is what this thread is originally about. Don't you just like how I can always relate this back to the topic at hand!!) [right][snapback]876635[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I love the way you keep bringing it back around. Beautiful. I'm fine with caps on punitive damages, as long as people still retain the ability to recover real damages. On your second point ... if you can craft legislation that keeps dumbarses from getting into the courtroom, more power to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 [quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 5 2006, 07:14 PM']The problem with trying to dialogue anything with you is that 95 percent of your posts are senseless rants. So now we're even. [right][snapback]876639[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I think you're cute when you're mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cow of Shame Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 [quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 5 2006, 11:55 PM']I think you're cute when you're mad. [right][snapback]876754[/snapback][/right] [/quote] So, all this is just to intentionally piss her off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Walker Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Feb 5 2006, 11:00 PM']So, all this is just to intentionally piss her off? [right][snapback]876794[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Not that it is any of my business (I CAN read all of it on my monitor screen though), but whenever Sojourner and Ironmonk go at it, they tend to go at eachother's throats as well (at least they start to raise their hands TOWARD eachothers throats ). I think Ironmonk is right about one thing regarding you, Sojourner. MANY of your remarks are snide. And it doesn't make for very good discussion. I think I disagree with you on the basis of "attitude" toward things. I don't have a "liberal" attitude about many things. You seem to. The thing I don't get is that Ironmonk seems to PROVOKE snide remarks from his opposition! Ironmonk: I agree with you most of the time, but why in the heck do you BAIT opponents in a debate over "liberal" and "conservative" ideas? And why do you gobble up THEIR BAIT when they throw it out in front of you? I understand how it can be frustrating to have a discussion with a liberal, but why get INCENSED as a result? In the end you will prove MANY of the other side's points, because many of their points are founded on what they believe to be the "conservative attitude." You know what their definition of that attitude consists of so why confirm it? ----- If either side challenges me on these observations, let me warn you that I WILL go back through your posts and find examples that will prove that my observations have a degree of validity. Why did I post this? Because I would like to see a true exchange of valid IDEAS when these kinds of debates arise. That's my passion. The reactionary stuff gets in the way of coming to a MUTUAL understanding of truth. So does incorrigible bias. I'd love to see that come to an end. Edited February 6, 2006 by Desert Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Walker Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 (edited) Hmmm. It is possible that the stuff I addressed to Ironmonk could also be addressed to you Socrates... Edited February 6, 2006 by Desert Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 [quote name='Desert Walker' date='Feb 6 2006, 09:55 AM']Not that it is any of my business (I CAN read all of it on my monitor screen though), but whenever Sojourner and Ironmonk go at it, they tend to go at eachother's throats as well (at least they start to raise their hands TOWARD eachothers throats ). I think Ironmonk is right about one thing regarding you, Sojourner. MANY of your remarks are snide. And it doesn't make for very good discussion. I think I disagree with you on the basis of "attitude" toward things. I don't have a "liberal" attitude about many things. You seem to. ----- If either side challenges me on these observations, let me warn you that I WILL go back through your posts and find examples that will prove that my observations have a degree of validity. Why did I post this? Because I would like to see a true exchange of valid IDEAS when these kinds of debates arise. That's my passion. The reactionary stuff gets in the way of coming to a MUTUAL understanding of truth. So does incorrigible bias. I'd love to see that come to an end. [right][snapback]876995[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I agree that I'm snide when it comes to IM. And Akalyte. And occasionally Socrates. If I were a better person, I'd just let his (their) inflammatory remarks go, but I'm not. I'd also like to be able to have rational debates, but when the thread is titled "Something's wrong with the way they think" you have to know going into it that it's going to be emotion-based, not reason-based. IM may have some valid points, but it's couched in such inflammatory language that he loses any credibility in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 After reading that article, I'm on my way to buy myself an Ipod! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Walker Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 [quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 6 2006, 08:03 AM']I'd also like to be able to have rational debates, but when the thread is titled "Something's wrong with the way they think" you have to know going into it that it's going to be emotion-based, not reason-based. IM may have some valid points, but it's couched in such inflammatory language that he loses any credibility in my eyes. [right][snapback]876999[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes... I know... (hopes now that Ironmonk doesn't hit him with fists) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cow of Shame Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 [quote name='Desert Walker' date='Feb 6 2006, 01:35 PM']Yes... I know... (hopes now that Ironmonk doesn't hit him with fists) [right][snapback]877263[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Why? Is he wearing gauntlets of ogre strength? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Walker Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 [quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Feb 6 2006, 02:02 PM']Why? Is he wearing gauntlets of ogre strength? [right][snapback]877490[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Hmmm... I'm not sure and I hope not! I just assumed, among other things about his name, that he had iron hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now