OT: Where does the legalese stop and common sense start anymore?

[AngryScientist]

I was at a buddy's house this weekend and he just had new windows installed. nice stuff, energy efficient.

every single screen had a warning plate embedded in the window frame warning the user "screen is not strong enough to hold children from falling out window", or some such nonsense.

really?

is this the age we live in that people need to be warned of such obvious things for legal purposes?

will my next oven have a label to tell me "Warning - children should not play in oven", maybe my next set of Thule roof racks should warn me that they are not safe for the elderly to ride on the roof.

where does this kind of nonsense end? are we going to become a society of jackasses that do literally anything unless we are implicitly told not to? has common sense left the building?

[dekindy]

Would warnings on handguns answer your question?

[SEABREEZE]

Because there's an opportunist learking out there now, looking for the next easy buck.

Using windows for a moment as an example, from your side of the window pane most view things as workers, thus your comment, from the manuufactures side, he see's things as owners trying to protect themself from the liability...

Put yourself on either side and you can see cleary now....Know PUN intended

Glass.......... clear on both sides.....

[johnnymossville]

almost the same as putting a "Caution, Hot" sign on the top of a hot coffee.

[slowandsteady]

...are we going to become a society of jackasses that do literally anything unless we are implicitly told not to? has common sense left the building?


Ummm, yes.
(unfortunately)

[Bruce K]

While it isn't the origin of this BS of no more persoanl responsibility or thought, it is one of the biggest reason for the legalese....

Remember the old lady who won a $2.5M lawsuit vs McD's (or someone like that) because she put her cup of hot coffee between her knees and drove away from the window only to go over a speed bump about 10 yds. down the lane and crushed the cup spilling her HOT coffee on her lap and apparently getting 2nd degree burns?

Anyone for social Darwinism? :help: :rolleyes:

BK

[Vientomas]

While it isn't the origin of this BS of no more persoanl responsibility or thought, it is one of the biggest reason for the legalese....

Remember the old lady who won a $2.5M lawsuit vs McD's (or someone like that) because she put her cup of hot coffee between her knees and drove away from the window only to go over a speed bump about 10 yds. down the lane and crushed the cup spilling her HOT coffee on her lap and apparently getting 2nd degree burns?

Anyone for social Darwinism? :help: :rolleyes:

BK

From Wikipedia:

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants,[1] also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, is a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $2.86 million to a woman who burned herself with hot coffee she purchased from fast food restaurant McDonald's. The trial judge reduced the total award to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.

[RPS]

are we going to become a society of jackasses that do literally anything unless we are implicitly told not to?
In my opinion it’s more like we’ve become a society of jackasses that do what we want regardless of what we are told, or for that matter what is good for us. Stupidity doesn’t mix well with an innate urge for instant gratification.

[avalonracing]

Would warnings on handguns answer your question?

How one that reads: "WARNING: If you are one of those gun nuts that thinks that you have to have a gun strapped to your side at all times for self-defense and the free exercise of your 2nd Amendment rights you do not have the intellectual acuity to own this weapon"

[Ahneida Ride]

I agree ... concealment is the better option.

[dekindy]

How one that reads: "WARNING: If you are one of those gun nuts that thinks that you have to have a gun strapped to your side at all times for self-defense and the free exercise of your 2nd Amendment rights you do not have the intellectual acuity to own this weapon"

It is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

Tell that to the lady in Texas that left her gun in the car because of lack of right to carry laws and could not protect herself and others while in a restaurant. She saw her mother and several others gunned down right before her eyes and could have easily prevented it.

I find it ironic that folks screaming at the top of their lungs to protect their rights think nothing of taking others' rights away.

[JMerring]

It is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

Tell that to the lady in Texas that left her gun in the car because of lack of right to carry laws and could not protect herself and others while in a restaurant. She saw her mother and several others gunned down right before her eyes and could have easily prevented it.

I find it ironic that folks screaming at the top of their lungs to protect their rights think nothing of taking others' rights away.

don't know the story to which you're referring, but a few observations:
1. it's always easy to kill someone in theory; in reality, not so much.
2. it's always easy to use a gun to stop a crime with no unintended consequences, in theory ; again, in reality, not so much.
3. the 2nd amendment is a truly horrible thing. one of those vestiges from some 200+ years ago when the world was completely different. it has no place in modern day america, especially in light of the selfishness and lack of common sense that prevails and which is the original subject of this thread.

i'd venture to say that if the framers knew then what we know now, the constitution would be quite a different document.

[Vientomas]

Serious thread drift in progress. ;)

[oldpotatoe]

It is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

Tell that to the lady in Texas that left her gun in the car because of lack of right to carry laws and could not protect herself and others while in a restaurant. She saw her mother and several others gunned down right before her eyes and could have easily prevented it.

I find it ironic that folks screaming at the top of their lungs to protect their rights think nothing of taking others' rights away.

Calm down, nobody is going to take your guns away.

I doubt the lady if had brought her gun with her 'she could have easily prevented it'. It 'may' have turned into a shootout, with others getting hit as bullets flew. Hitting somebody with a handgun is harder than it seems. Ain't TV or the moovies.

For every instance of the above there is at least one of somebody taking their legally obtained gun and killing somebody because they are pissed off.

In spite of what the Supreme Court ruled, the entire 2nd amendment needs to be included in all discussions, not just the 'individuals right' part.



Here we go, I'm sure this is gonna go downhill fast.

[konstantkarma]

This thread reminds me of a conversation......

Jerry to Kramer: Coffee's supposed to be hot!

Kramer to Jerry: Not that hot!

[SoCalSteve]

I'm not gonna let it go "downhill fast". Serious thread drift on a very emotional and personal subject. One that will never have the "right" answer.

So, I'm going to close this thread before it really gets out of hand and off topic.

Thanks for understanding!

[Pete Serotta]

Could not agree more .


Pete

I'm not gonna let it go "downhill fast". Serious thread drift on a very emotional and personal subject. One that will never have the "right" answer.

So, I'm going to close this thread before it really gets out of hand and off topic.

Thanks for understanding!