TheGreatStickels
New member
hmm... I think I'll just get people to give me money on a regular basis. A pyramid scheme would require me to think of something they could do for a profit.
OT: PD2: Everyone Makes Mistakes
- Thread starter TheKbob
- Start date
memememe173
New member
join Am-way, or an American equivilent, and then convince friends to join under youTheGreatStickels said:
TheGreatStickels
New member
Am way?
memememe173
New member
combine: Mary Kay, pyramid scheme, tupperware parties and door-to-door sales men, and you sort of have itTheGreatStickels said:
Memememe, How the heck does my name remind you of Golden eye??
Btw... I don't like that Canadia guy...
No clue what am-way is?? Unless it's like one of those things that was in Comic books where you go door to door selling junk... and you can get yourself junk after you buy junk... or you can just get straight junky cash.
Btw... I don't like that Canadia guy...
No clue what am-way is?? Unless it's like one of those things that was in Comic books where you go door to door selling junk... and you can get yourself junk after you buy junk... or you can just get straight junky cash.
memememe173
New member
PP# like the little pistolalainpp66 said:
he is a bit rude at times
in a way
Am-way is a company that produces domestic goods (kitchen ware, make up, etc.) you get a catalogue, and show it to friends, co workers, relatives
You get money for sales, as well as the person who signed you up, and who signed them up etc.
Garbad_the_Weak
New member
From our legal debate thread in the pvp forum:
Fenris, you really have no clue.
Your arguments miss the point completely. I wonder if you have any idea of the context of what you are saying. At this point, all you have going for you is obstinance (and yes, that can be a good thing).
Let me make it clear for you:
The issue is under what circumstances another person can be held liable (responsible financially) for financial or personal damage to another person. This is not a discussion of law, addiction, or even personal responsibility.
Garbad's Introduction to Basic Law 101
There are two types of law--civil and criminal. Criminal law deals with offenses that are deemed so serious they are a crime (such as murder, possesion of drugs, etc). The purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender or to prevent it from happending again (depending on your political slant -_- ). Criminal cases must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Civil law deals with instances where someone thinks someone else has hurt them (usually financially). Usually, no law is broken, but it is a matter of someone thinking another person caused them to lose money. The purpose of Civil law is to provide an equitable (fair) solution. Civil law does NOT have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" but rather simply which is more likely.
There are two main arguments in most Civil liability cases.
1. Whose fault it is and to what degree.
2. How should be person at fault be forced to pay.
Example 1:
Edward deliberately blows up Molly's house that cost $500.
Virtually everyone would agree it is morally appropriate for Edward to be forced to pay Molly $500.
Example 2:
Edward accidentally falls asleep while driving and crashes into Molly's house, doing $500 worth of damage.
Because Edward should have not fallen asleep while driving, Edward will be forced to pay $500.
Example 3:
A few weeks later, Molly jumps in front of Edward's car, hoping to get more money out of him. Edward runs her over, doing $500 worth of damage.
Unfortunately for her, a video camera shows her waiting for the car and deleberatly jumping out from a bush just before the car. Molly is awarded nothing.
Example 4:
Molly decides to cross the street blindfolded on a dare. At the same time, Edward falls asleep at the wheel. Edward runs over Molly and does $500 damage to her.
When looking at the case, a judge is unable to tell who is more at fault. Both clearly have some part in the accident, and both bear some responsibility. Depending on the details, Edward may have to pay Molly a % (or all) of her medical costs or Edward might not have to pay anything.
Example 5:
Edward douses Molly's house in gasoline and lights a match. The house burns down, doing $500 of damage.
Edward claims he really didn't know it would burn down. Lets suppose he is completely honest, he really didn't know.
He is still liable, because a "resonable person" should have known and therefore is still forced to pay $500.
Example 5:
Molly deliberately chops off Edward's hands. Edward is a musician, and can now no longer be employed as a musician. Edward's would earn $500 in wages the rest of his life. Edward is also sent into a fit of depression because he can no longer feed himself, be employed, etc.
Virtually everyone would agree Molly should be forced to pay Edward something, opinion will vary as to how much. Courts have decided its not fair to just force Molly to pay Edward $500, but instead she has to pay the difference between a job he can get (suppose he can still work as a janitor for $15 a year) and his "preferred" occupation.
Although the financial "value" of pain and suffering, employment, or death, can vary (and is usually the subject of most debate in product liability cases), most people would agree Molly should be forced to "make it up" to Edward in some way (or some amount).
Example 6:
Molly sells Edward a cup of coffee. The coffee is over 200 degrees. Molly spills the coffee on herself, causing severe burns that need skin grafts. It costs her $500 to pay the doctor's bills.
Edward claims he didn't mean to hurt anyone (lets assume he is being honest). He also says no one would buy cold coffee and any idiot should know not to spill coffee on yourself.
The courts decide a "reasonable person" should have known coffee that was over 200 degrees could hurt people and therefore should not have been sold. If people really want coffee that hot, Edward should at least provide a clear warning it can burn people, which he did not.
Although everyone realizes Molly should have been more careful in not spilling the coffee, most people think a "reasonable person" wouldn't think coffee would be so hot as to literally instantly burn the skin off her body. Edward should have known people might spill coffee on themselves, and if they did, if could really hurt them.
Furthermore, because Edward was warned several times his coffee was too hot and didn't do anything about it, he is judged to be liable for the damage to Molly. Edward is required to pay $500 to Molly.
In a seperate decision, the Judge is so disgusted by Edward's lack of concern for his customers that she rules a penalty of $1,000,000 should be given to Edward to force him to finally do something about his hot coffee. (Let's suppose, hypothetically, that Edward's coffee shop serves billions and billions and a mere $500 fine is nothing to him).
Because of a clause set in the constitution intented to prevent judges from stealing private property for personal (or governmental) gain, the $1,000,000 is given to Molly.
Molly rejoices and a local ignorant newspaper writer reads a person was awared $1,000,000 for spilling coffee on themselves. Everyone in the civilized world hears his report and shook thier head in disgust. Then Janet flashed a tit and they ignorantly resumed chewing thier cuds.
Now that we have examined the issue, lets demonstrate a few appropriate, in context arguments against Mule's point.
Specific:
Tobacco companies used the best scientific evidence they had. Because they were are ignorant as everyone else about the long term effects of cigarette smoke, they can't be held maliciously at fault.
General/Principle 1:
Juries are always sympathetic to the "little guy." They will always give outrageous judgements to someone "like them" who was wronged by the evil corperate empire. Even if cigarette companies did lie about the effects of tabacco, the settlements are outrageously high.
General/Principle 2:
The fact is, consumers always have to deal with potentially unknown threats. "Buyer beware" is just the way it is. Cigarette companies used the best scientific evidence they had at the time and thought it was safe. It turns our they were wrong, but they can't be blamed for not knowing as much as we know today. They tried and once they did know, they started labeling everything.
General/Principle 3:
Consumers should have paid at least as much attention to the potential risks of cigarettes before using them as they as they claim the cigarette companies SHOULD have. They bear at least 50% of the blame, no matter what cigarette companies did.
Now I will demonstrate a few noncontextual, offtopic, or irrelevant counterarguments:
Edward is a dumbass for buying from Molly in the first place.
What kind of speaker can blow up?!??!
My mom had a car fall on her while changing the oil and it was her own fault.
People should take responsibility.
Point? Issues, not ancedotes.
Drugs should be legal because they don't hurt anyone.
Tell that to your state legislature. Not the point here.
If someone really wants to quit smoking, they can. Its thier own fault if they die.
Probably untrue, certainly irrelevant. The point isn't if a person can quit smoking, its if a person should have know what they were selling/doing would hurt another person, or worse, knew and tried to cover it up.
Fenris, can you see, even dimly, the difference?
Conclusions:
Very, very few people have any comprehension of law. People read a headline and react stupidly and irrationaly. Like cows, they stampede about as they are poked, without taking time to learn anything about why.
Most of us on these boards (be they european, canadian, or american) are blessed to be in a country governed by a lot of good rational thought. Laws are not arbitrary, but are the result of more intelligent people discussing and reasoning and literally hundreds of years of experience and refienment.
The civil legal system behaves as it was intended. It provides a way for a wronged party to be fairly compensated. This compensation makes it MUCH less likely for further offenses to happen again, making it better for everyone.
Although you may disagree with the amount of money that is awarded or if a particular person/company was really at fault, remember the people in that courtroom heard a lot more evidence than you did.
The end.
I want this to be my sig O_O
Garbad
Fenris, you really have no clue.
Your arguments miss the point completely. I wonder if you have any idea of the context of what you are saying. At this point, all you have going for you is obstinance (and yes, that can be a good thing).
Let me make it clear for you:
The issue is under what circumstances another person can be held liable (responsible financially) for financial or personal damage to another person. This is not a discussion of law, addiction, or even personal responsibility.
Garbad's Introduction to Basic Law 101
There are two types of law--civil and criminal. Criminal law deals with offenses that are deemed so serious they are a crime (such as murder, possesion of drugs, etc). The purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender or to prevent it from happending again (depending on your political slant -_- ). Criminal cases must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Civil law deals with instances where someone thinks someone else has hurt them (usually financially). Usually, no law is broken, but it is a matter of someone thinking another person caused them to lose money. The purpose of Civil law is to provide an equitable (fair) solution. Civil law does NOT have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" but rather simply which is more likely.
There are two main arguments in most Civil liability cases.
1. Whose fault it is and to what degree.
2. How should be person at fault be forced to pay.
Example 1:
Edward deliberately blows up Molly's house that cost $500.
Virtually everyone would agree it is morally appropriate for Edward to be forced to pay Molly $500.
Example 2:
Edward accidentally falls asleep while driving and crashes into Molly's house, doing $500 worth of damage.
Because Edward should have not fallen asleep while driving, Edward will be forced to pay $500.
Example 3:
A few weeks later, Molly jumps in front of Edward's car, hoping to get more money out of him. Edward runs her over, doing $500 worth of damage.
Unfortunately for her, a video camera shows her waiting for the car and deleberatly jumping out from a bush just before the car. Molly is awarded nothing.
Example 4:
Molly decides to cross the street blindfolded on a dare. At the same time, Edward falls asleep at the wheel. Edward runs over Molly and does $500 damage to her.
When looking at the case, a judge is unable to tell who is more at fault. Both clearly have some part in the accident, and both bear some responsibility. Depending on the details, Edward may have to pay Molly a % (or all) of her medical costs or Edward might not have to pay anything.
Example 5:
Edward douses Molly's house in gasoline and lights a match. The house burns down, doing $500 of damage.
Edward claims he really didn't know it would burn down. Lets suppose he is completely honest, he really didn't know.
He is still liable, because a "resonable person" should have known and therefore is still forced to pay $500.
Example 5:
Molly deliberately chops off Edward's hands. Edward is a musician, and can now no longer be employed as a musician. Edward's would earn $500 in wages the rest of his life. Edward is also sent into a fit of depression because he can no longer feed himself, be employed, etc.
Virtually everyone would agree Molly should be forced to pay Edward something, opinion will vary as to how much. Courts have decided its not fair to just force Molly to pay Edward $500, but instead she has to pay the difference between a job he can get (suppose he can still work as a janitor for $15 a year) and his "preferred" occupation.
Although the financial "value" of pain and suffering, employment, or death, can vary (and is usually the subject of most debate in product liability cases), most people would agree Molly should be forced to "make it up" to Edward in some way (or some amount).
Example 6:
Molly sells Edward a cup of coffee. The coffee is over 200 degrees. Molly spills the coffee on herself, causing severe burns that need skin grafts. It costs her $500 to pay the doctor's bills.
Edward claims he didn't mean to hurt anyone (lets assume he is being honest). He also says no one would buy cold coffee and any idiot should know not to spill coffee on yourself.
The courts decide a "reasonable person" should have known coffee that was over 200 degrees could hurt people and therefore should not have been sold. If people really want coffee that hot, Edward should at least provide a clear warning it can burn people, which he did not.
Although everyone realizes Molly should have been more careful in not spilling the coffee, most people think a "reasonable person" wouldn't think coffee would be so hot as to literally instantly burn the skin off her body. Edward should have known people might spill coffee on themselves, and if they did, if could really hurt them.
Furthermore, because Edward was warned several times his coffee was too hot and didn't do anything about it, he is judged to be liable for the damage to Molly. Edward is required to pay $500 to Molly.
In a seperate decision, the Judge is so disgusted by Edward's lack of concern for his customers that she rules a penalty of $1,000,000 should be given to Edward to force him to finally do something about his hot coffee. (Let's suppose, hypothetically, that Edward's coffee shop serves billions and billions and a mere $500 fine is nothing to him).
Because of a clause set in the constitution intented to prevent judges from stealing private property for personal (or governmental) gain, the $1,000,000 is given to Molly.
Molly rejoices and a local ignorant newspaper writer reads a person was awared $1,000,000 for spilling coffee on themselves. Everyone in the civilized world hears his report and shook thier head in disgust. Then Janet flashed a tit and they ignorantly resumed chewing thier cuds.
Now that we have examined the issue, lets demonstrate a few appropriate, in context arguments against Mule's point.
Specific:
Tobacco companies used the best scientific evidence they had. Because they were are ignorant as everyone else about the long term effects of cigarette smoke, they can't be held maliciously at fault.
General/Principle 1:
Juries are always sympathetic to the "little guy." They will always give outrageous judgements to someone "like them" who was wronged by the evil corperate empire. Even if cigarette companies did lie about the effects of tabacco, the settlements are outrageously high.
General/Principle 2:
The fact is, consumers always have to deal with potentially unknown threats. "Buyer beware" is just the way it is. Cigarette companies used the best scientific evidence they had at the time and thought it was safe. It turns our they were wrong, but they can't be blamed for not knowing as much as we know today. They tried and once they did know, they started labeling everything.
General/Principle 3:
Consumers should have paid at least as much attention to the potential risks of cigarettes before using them as they as they claim the cigarette companies SHOULD have. They bear at least 50% of the blame, no matter what cigarette companies did.
Now I will demonstrate a few noncontextual, offtopic, or irrelevant counterarguments:
Edward is a dumbass for buying from Molly in the first place.
What kind of speaker can blow up?!??!
My mom had a car fall on her while changing the oil and it was her own fault.
People should take responsibility.
Point? Issues, not ancedotes.
Drugs should be legal because they don't hurt anyone.
Tell that to your state legislature. Not the point here.
If someone really wants to quit smoking, they can. Its thier own fault if they die.
Probably untrue, certainly irrelevant. The point isn't if a person can quit smoking, its if a person should have know what they were selling/doing would hurt another person, or worse, knew and tried to cover it up.
Fenris, can you see, even dimly, the difference?
Conclusions:
Very, very few people have any comprehension of law. People read a headline and react stupidly and irrationaly. Like cows, they stampede about as they are poked, without taking time to learn anything about why.
Most of us on these boards (be they european, canadian, or american) are blessed to be in a country governed by a lot of good rational thought. Laws are not arbitrary, but are the result of more intelligent people discussing and reasoning and literally hundreds of years of experience and refienment.
The civil legal system behaves as it was intended. It provides a way for a wronged party to be fairly compensated. This compensation makes it MUCH less likely for further offenses to happen again, making it better for everyone.
Although you may disagree with the amount of money that is awarded or if a particular person/company was really at fault, remember the people in that courtroom heard a lot more evidence than you did.
The end.
TheKbob said:
I want this to be my sig O_O
Garbad
memememe173
New member
Garbad and Fenris both need Anger Management
All I need to know about law is: Law and Order is a kick *** show
All I need to know about law is: Law and Order is a kick *** show
Garbad_the_Weak
New member
Every time judge judy airs, the founding fathers roll over in thier graves. It is kinda funny though.
Garbad
Garbad
memememe173
New member
Fine, idiocy managementÆ’enris said:
memememe173
New member
whatever...either way I get control so PFFT!Æ’enris said:
TheDragoon
New member
I'm sorry, but this is a really self-centered and very likely incorrect line of thinking.
I seriously hope that lawmakers don't think of themselves sas "more intelligent" than everyone else.-TheDragoon
memememe173
New member
you say tomato, I say tomatoÆ’enris said:
and that's either because
a) you're slacking
b) I'm better then you
c) your an idiot
d) all of the above
memememe173
New member
my average is on the rise, while yours is going down...
