Yes I guess the thing here is this:
Sueing the local council because you jump off a bridge into water and hit your head on a log has a negative effect on me and on the community because it means the council get's worried everybody anybody does anything that could result in a person having an accident and sueing the council.
However Sueing McDonalds or Tobacco companies doesn't really effect me since I don't smoke or eat junk food. Also McDonalds has policies aimed at destroying local buisness and personally I'd much rather eat something interesting than something boring and Tobacco companies really are as close as we're ever going to physically get to the devil - so I'm happy to see them losing billions of dollars in law suits and maybe they'll rise the cost of cigarettes to a point where I don't have be constantly looking at cigarette butts when ever I look at the ground, won't have to breath it in when I go out and won't have to deal with my friends and family dieing because they're addicts.
Yes people who sue McDonalds and Tobacco companies probably should have realised the risks and are just as bad as the people who break both arms while having a water fight at half time in a high school sports game - but costing big multinational companies doesn't really seem to do anything negative for the community, the environment, myself or my friends and family - so really it doesn't bother me at all.
I guess the point of this is I don't like people sueing things because I think it's greedy. But I also don't like McDonalds or Tobacco companies because I think they're greedy. Greedy people deserve each other.
False Columbine-esque Accusations
So it's okay for the obese people to sue McDonalds for making them fat because McDonalds is a big company. But it wouldn't be okay for them to go and sue a small local resturant? Same with the tobacco? If you know the risk you shouldn't be able to sue. That's like me bringing up a lawsuit against Daryl Genz because I bought a Mr. Sandman from his company and sprained my ankle. So basically the "okay to sue" thing goes like this:
Freedom Footbags for spraining my ankle=not okay.
Wham-O for spraining my ankle=okay.
Sueing Mickey Dees for being fat=okay.
Sueing Costello's (local Italian resturant) for being fat=not okay.
Is that the way it works?
Freedom Footbags for spraining my ankle=not okay.
Wham-O for spraining my ankle=okay.
Sueing Mickey Dees for being fat=okay.
Sueing Costello's (local Italian resturant) for being fat=not okay.
Is that the way it works?
Joshua Annis
"Don't Panic..."
"I woke wanting nothing more than a box of Gushers....
DENIED
I shake my first at the sky."-Matt Cross
"Yeah, seriously! When I got back into my cubicle Jazz started throwing dimes at me. What an asshole."-David Wilder
"Don't Panic..."
"I woke wanting nothing more than a box of Gushers....
DENIED
I shake my first at the sky."-Matt Cross
"Yeah, seriously! When I got back into my cubicle Jazz started throwing dimes at me. What an asshole."-David Wilder
hmm. Um yeah actually you've got it spot on.
Actually I'd say it works like this: Sueing=wrong unless it's really a genuine serious reason (ie. all the people dieing of asbestos poisoning because the James Hardy didn't tell them they would die because of their jobs)
Big Multinational companies = wrong.
So it is wrong to sue a tobacco company - but it's also wrong to be a tobacco company - so in those instances you already have two wrongs - it's a matter of finding which of the wrongs is worse.
edit: it's a complicated issue with many mixed reasons. There's definitly no black and white. I mean in every sueing case that you here - unless you were in the court room and heard both arguements I really don't think it's intelligent to make too much of a judgement. However I know for a fact that I will never sue a company for money (although I guess I'd probably get awarded money that I use to treat my obesity from eating McDonalds or give to charity) - and I would never feel compassion for a multi national company like McDonalds if it gets sued and loses to a stupid greedy fucker who is blaming McDonalds for their own lack of control and stupidity.
Actually I'd say it works like this: Sueing=wrong unless it's really a genuine serious reason (ie. all the people dieing of asbestos poisoning because the James Hardy didn't tell them they would die because of their jobs)
Big Multinational companies = wrong.
So it is wrong to sue a tobacco company - but it's also wrong to be a tobacco company - so in those instances you already have two wrongs - it's a matter of finding which of the wrongs is worse.
edit: it's a complicated issue with many mixed reasons. There's definitly no black and white. I mean in every sueing case that you here - unless you were in the court room and heard both arguements I really don't think it's intelligent to make too much of a judgement. However I know for a fact that I will never sue a company for money (although I guess I'd probably get awarded money that I use to treat my obesity from eating McDonalds or give to charity) - and I would never feel compassion for a multi national company like McDonalds if it gets sued and loses to a stupid greedy fucker who is blaming McDonalds for their own lack of control and stupidity.
-
slapdash21
- Futureless
- Posts: 4681
- Joined: 29 Sep 2004 14:50
- Location: Beantown, kidd
-
SandWraith
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1272
- Joined: 05 Apr 2005 20:39
- Location: Marshfield, Wisconsin
I think part of what Jeremy is trying to convey is that the only way to affect policy for large conglomerates is through suing. With small corporations/institutions, writing a letter or getting an appointment is likely to have a significant impact. Suing them might result in bankruptcy and failure. However, with large companies, we all know how little influence a single letter can have, or how many men they have that'll allay your fears and promise change just to forget you 3 minutes later. The hierarchy of these businesses is such that a single person is just a cog-- it takes great power to make a difference. The two things that can affect these companies are public (majority) opinion and money. Suing targets the second of these, and thus is a more efficacious solution in this situation. They can take the brunt of a multi-million dollar lawsuit, and it just might convince them to change a dangerous or unhealthy practice. If this is in fact what you're saying, Jeremy, then I agree with you whole-heartedly.
All the same, I think America is a bit sue-happy.
All the same, I think America is a bit sue-happy.
Zach Marine - Member of the Tendonitis Club!
blog
blog
-
junkyardjew
- BSOS Beast
- Posts: 457
- Joined: 08 Dec 2004 09:47
- Location: Kingston, ON
- Contact:
The difference between sueing McDonalds and sueing Joe's Burger Palace is that McDonalds has been force feeding you happy pictures of smiling kids eating big-mac after big-mac since you were old enough to watch television. Five years old in most cases.
Do you think it's alright to tell five year old children that smoking cigarettes is okay?
oh, side note, tobacco companies don't put warning labels on their cigarettes, governments do - because tobacco companies still maintain that tobacco is safe and not addictive (
).
anyway, back to McDonalds. Their food isn't just bad for you, it's REALLY bad for you. They promote unethical business practices, quash union drives, underpay their staff (they hire large numbers of minors, pay them less than the minimum wage wherever that is allowed - like ontario, canada where I live, and give them on average six hours of work a week).
Then they spend hundreds of millions of dollars to convince children that they need to eat McDonalds for breakfast. And lunch. And dinner. And a flurry in the afternoon. And they're open late. And they have an after midnight menu. And why don't you just camp out in the parking lot, wouldn't that be easier?
Do you think it's alright to tell five year old children that smoking cigarettes is okay?
oh, side note, tobacco companies don't put warning labels on their cigarettes, governments do - because tobacco companies still maintain that tobacco is safe and not addictive (
).anyway, back to McDonalds. Their food isn't just bad for you, it's REALLY bad for you. They promote unethical business practices, quash union drives, underpay their staff (they hire large numbers of minors, pay them less than the minimum wage wherever that is allowed - like ontario, canada where I live, and give them on average six hours of work a week).
Then they spend hundreds of millions of dollars to convince children that they need to eat McDonalds for breakfast. And lunch. And dinner. And a flurry in the afternoon. And they're open late. And they have an after midnight menu. And why don't you just camp out in the parking lot, wouldn't that be easier?
Jared MacKay
-
slapdash21
- Futureless
- Posts: 4681
- Joined: 29 Sep 2004 14:50
- Location: Beantown, kidd
mmm...all that makes me hungry. i think im gonna get some food in a few.
i honestly feel like many many big corporations use unethical methods in production and in promoting their product, so i cant help but feel that it really is more ethical to sue big companies.
i honestly feel like many many big corporations use unethical methods in production and in promoting their product, so i cant help but feel that it really is more ethical to sue big companies.
Pete Bowler
B$C
keeps it offah da ground.
617 FOR LIFE
B$C
keeps it offah da ground.
617 FOR LIFE
-
bigdirtyfoot
- Sloppy
- Posts: 3142
- Joined: 22 Apr 2002 12:30
- Location: NC
-
slapdash21
- Futureless
- Posts: 4681
- Joined: 29 Sep 2004 14:50
- Location: Beantown, kidd
final update on the original situation...
a day or so later, the school had another meeting with Tyler and his parents. there was also the school psychiatrist. they "strongly recommended" that Tyler meet for counseling on a regular basis. that means, if Tyler's parents agreed, the school would force him to go to counseling. but, fortunatly his parents are stupid, and they obviously know him a lot better than the school, so they refused the counseling. the issue seems pretty much resolved.
mcdonalds sucks, burger king is where its at.
a day or so later, the school had another meeting with Tyler and his parents. there was also the school psychiatrist. they "strongly recommended" that Tyler meet for counseling on a regular basis. that means, if Tyler's parents agreed, the school would force him to go to counseling. but, fortunatly his parents are stupid, and they obviously know him a lot better than the school, so they refused the counseling. the issue seems pretty much resolved.
mcdonalds sucks, burger king is where its at.
Pete Bowler
B$C
keeps it offah da ground.
617 FOR LIFE
B$C
keeps it offah da ground.
617 FOR LIFE
-
bigdirtyfoot
- Sloppy
- Posts: 3142
- Joined: 22 Apr 2002 12:30
- Location: NC
McDonalds also were (and there's no reason to think that they still are) responsible for some of the logging going on in the Amazon Rainforest to clear land for cattle.
I think the burgers are better at Burger King too - but I don't eat there very much either. I guess when I'm hungover or exausted I'll eat that kind of food occasionally - but usually I regret it afterwards. I think of fast food restaurants as about the bottom of food qualilty (in terms of taste) that you can get to.
I think the burgers are better at Burger King too - but I don't eat there very much either. I guess when I'm hungover or exausted I'll eat that kind of food occasionally - but usually I regret it afterwards. I think of fast food restaurants as about the bottom of food qualilty (in terms of taste) that you can get to.
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
-
slapdash21
- Futureless
- Posts: 4681
- Joined: 29 Sep 2004 14:50
- Location: Beantown, kidd
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
They arrested a girl at one of our local high schools (in Chandler maybe) for some kind of shooting plot. When they searched her parents house, they found one or more handguns, and an SKS 7.62, and a bunch of ammo.
They say it was an "Assault" rifle, but it's just one the cheapest rifles you can buy.
I think if they really fear more school shootings, they should just post several local parents around school entrances with their own rifles. How they would be deployed would be determined later.
Stopping a heavily armed individual from entering a school could be prevented, and a massacre already underway could be stopped sooner.
This would not be the answer for all schools, but should be considered at least.
You could avoid turning the entrance of your school into an absurd ,airport security checkpoint.
-n
p.s.
Airport screener:
"Please drop your pants, Sir, and bend over for the probe. You wouldn't want to be un-American , would you?"
Tangent:
Suing tobacco companies just passes the cost onto the poorest people, and encourages cigarette counterfeiting(which I don't really understand).
They say it was an "Assault" rifle, but it's just one the cheapest rifles you can buy.
I think if they really fear more school shootings, they should just post several local parents around school entrances with their own rifles. How they would be deployed would be determined later.
Stopping a heavily armed individual from entering a school could be prevented, and a massacre already underway could be stopped sooner.
This would not be the answer for all schools, but should be considered at least.
You could avoid turning the entrance of your school into an absurd ,airport security checkpoint.
-n
p.s.
Airport screener:
"Please drop your pants, Sir, and bend over for the probe. You wouldn't want to be un-American , would you?"
Tangent:
Suing tobacco companies just passes the cost onto the poorest people, and encourages cigarette counterfeiting(which I don't really understand).
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
slapdash21
- Futureless
- Posts: 4681
- Joined: 29 Sep 2004 14:50
- Location: Beantown, kidd
What good will metal detectors do if the assailant is crazed lunchlady???
Cafeteria cook arrested for Waconia school threats
A 34-year-old cook at Waconia Middle School was charged in connection with a string of threats that closed every school in the district earlier this month.
Shannon Rae Voeller was charged with eight felony counts of making terroristic threats. Each count carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
According to charges filed in Carver County Court, Voeller admitted to police that she was responsible for all of the threats at Waconia schools in early May. Voeller allegedly left threatening messages in bathrooms and mailed threatening letters to the school and to school district officials.
The district closed all four of its schools for three days and toughened security measures when classes resumed.
When Voeller was interviewed by police, she stated she "believed she was responsible" for the letters, but that she didn't remember what the letters said. When investigators asked her why she made the threats, she said she "was not sure," but then said she "put stuff she had read about Columbine and Red Lake in the letters."
A handwriting analysis by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension concluded that the messages in the bathrooms and some of the letters "could have been produced by Voeller."
http://fox9.com/news/story.asp?1645850
Cafeteria cook arrested for Waconia school threats
A 34-year-old cook at Waconia Middle School was charged in connection with a string of threats that closed every school in the district earlier this month.
Shannon Rae Voeller was charged with eight felony counts of making terroristic threats. Each count carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
According to charges filed in Carver County Court, Voeller admitted to police that she was responsible for all of the threats at Waconia schools in early May. Voeller allegedly left threatening messages in bathrooms and mailed threatening letters to the school and to school district officials.
The district closed all four of its schools for three days and toughened security measures when classes resumed.
When Voeller was interviewed by police, she stated she "believed she was responsible" for the letters, but that she didn't remember what the letters said. When investigators asked her why she made the threats, she said she "was not sure," but then said she "put stuff she had read about Columbine and Red Lake in the letters."
A handwriting analysis by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension concluded that the messages in the bathrooms and some of the letters "could have been produced by Voeller."
http://fox9.com/news/story.asp?1645850