Lurker > PBusted

Joeydollaz posted...

lol

Need to be an ultra instinct remix to it

Was it your sister

How old is she now, like 40?

Puritans smh

UnfairRepresent posted...

Speculation since the details are unknown but you're confidently arguing an absurdly unlikely sequence of events without justification or logic. Just rather than admit its a poor example of why other people are responsible for your actions.

The speculation comes from you. At the end of the day, the verdict that the jury declared was that the plaintiff was the victor. The rest of it is excuses and you reaching for speculation
.UnfairRepresent posted...

Stop reading clickbait articles and actually look up the case dude.

Only you will never do that because you refuse to admit fault.

So abcnews is clickbait to you? I've looked at a few other articles and none of them mention a waiver about speaking publically that you're talking about. Post the article where you read it.

UnfairRepresent posted...

And you have not demonstrated how the uni has failed to do this. You've just said they have then ranted mostly incoherantly.

You've just ignored, insulted and flip flopped while saying the uni is responsible for the actions of other people.

Hell the entire wavier thing isn't even about personal responsbility.

Actually the only thing I mentioned in the beginning was that "they did it to themselves" isn't an excuse as is with the water case or the Michelle Carter case who only messaged her boyfriend to commit suicide via text and you insisted that it is regardless of context. Context is everything. Which is why I've put "with the proper guidelines" in every of my post to signify that it depends on if they followed to the guidelines or not. If they did, then they're not responsible. If they didn't they are. You've been insisting the whole time that the personal responsibility only lies on the person unless they directly sabotage it and ignoring negligence.
UnfairRepresent posted...

False equivalence again.

The comparison is that simply signing a waiver doesn't resolve the organizer from wrongful death and negligence crimes. It's a logical comparison.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Because the cost of fighting in the appeal would be a lot more than the settlement.

And that applies even more to the plaintiff. It's well known that big corporations take advantage and are hard to fight. There's an entire movie on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action_(film). And of course the Flint case.
UnfairRepresent posted...

No she didn't.

She signed a release that said they could talk about it and her publically. The shit they said about her declaring she was aware of the risk was wrong. Which is why the case ended the way it did.

Again, why are you so unable to admit fault. Stop ignoring and lying.

Where did it say that? Directly from the article

"Those people that are drinking all that water can get sick and possibly die from water intoxication," Brooks said, to which disc jockeys replied they "were aware of that" and that contestants had signed a release "so we're not responsible."

There's nothing about making things public. The disc jockeys said the contestants signed a release saying that they're not responsible. This is exactly the kind of waiver where someone says "they're aware of the risks" that you're talking about. You're making up a fantasy just so you don't have to admit fault.
UnfairRepresent posted...

Most eating contests have a wavier similar to this:

http://www.bu.edu/studentactivities/files/2014/08/Eating-Contest-Waiver.pdf

At this point the University have made no comment on whether or not she signed a wavier.

If she didn't, her family's lawyer may be able to claim that she was not aware of the risks of eating copious amounts of food because she's immensely stupid. And therefore it's not her responsbility.

But you've switched horses. You have at no point argued that the responsbility is the Unis because of a lack of a wavier, you argued that the uni is at fault because the girl ate pancakes and therefore is not responsible for her own actions. Which I disagree with.

It's is incorrect as a view in my opinion and legally there isn't really much of a case for it that I am aware of and you have certainly not provided one.

In my very first post I said "People who organize things badly without the proper care need to take personal responsibility for their own consequences" That means proper safety guidelines which include waivers though waivers still wouldn't protect them from being held responsible if they didn't reach proper safety levels eg. game shows can't have russian roulette as an event even if they make a waiver saying "I agree to possibly play real russian roulette if I'm picked".
UnfairRepresent posted...

Eating contest isn't the same as not peeing
Eating contest is short term
Water girl issue was over a wavier.
People running the contest repeatedly openly showed incompotence towards doing so and lied.
Profressionals making medical judgements on point were ignored.
Setting, scenario, Attitude wasn't the same.

Honestly the only real connection seems to be that both people who died were girls.

Irrelevant.
So is not peeing.
No it wasn't.
This is what I'm talking about. These university staff might also have shown incompetence. The whole point is that you can be charged for your incompetence and negligence even if death was by their own hands. You're just immediately dismissing it as "she did it to herself so it doesn't matter"
That doesn't affect culpability.
Irrelevant.

The connection is that they're both cases where the victim died by their own actions.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Jesus Christ.

You're just allergic to admitting fault aint you?

More of your hypocrisy.
UnfairRepresent posted...

Then why did they accept the settlement instead of fighting the appeal?

I mean they already won. If they didn't fear the appeal was going to lose then they would have no issue.

Probably because they're fighting a corporation?
Why did Mcdonalds try to settle rather than win with their superior lawyers and wealth if it was truly frivolous?
UnfairRepresent posted...

No. Unlike you I actually look at things instead of ranting. You just didn't know this.

That's the point. The "Release" was a wavier to make the results of the thing public and talk about it. It never said anything about health or risks. So it didn't help them

True but irrelevant.

It's not a wrongful death if they signed the wavier. That's literally how they lost the suit. The chick who died never declared that she was aware of the risks.

Wait, are you actually this clueless? They said "contestants (which includes her) had signed a release so we (the radio station) aren't responsible" which means she DID sign a wavier declaring she's aware of the risk, no responsibility can be held for the radio station yada yada. And yet they still lost. Waviers that "you're aware of the risks" doesn't override wrongful death or negligence laws. This is exactly like the situation here. Where did the pancake eating girl declare she was aware of the risks? There might not have been a wavier here at all
UnfairRepresent posted...

Except its not for a multitude of reasons you intentionally ignore.

List those "multitude of reasons". You can't.

UnfairRepresent posted...

"You're mentally ill!"

"That's not an insult."

Jesus christ .

I said only mental people don't understand context, an objective fact.
UnfairRepresent posted...

Did you read your own cases?

The first one had nothing to do with law or court, the place pulled it's own contest out of respect to a dude who died.

And the third McDonalds one is an infamous frivilous case with a terible decision that McDonalds settled on because fighting the appeal case which was being dragged out was more expensive than a settlement.

Only relevant example was the water one and that went through because they f***ed up the waiver. Making the people who entered agree that they could be shown and talked about for the contest. It had nothing to do with health or inability to sue.

Personal responsbility didn't shift because she died, it shifted because they didn't get her to agree to the risks.

If you want to argue that this pie eating girl didn't sign a proper wavier than go ahead but that's not what you've been arguing to this point

Once again you flip flopped.

All your examples sucked and were irrelevant (well the water one was only mostly irrelevant)

They pulled their contests because of the possibility of being hit with a wrongful death charge. It's the reason CBS has a policy on instantly removing user suicide or violence threads because they might be held responsible for it.

Again, you ignore that enticing violence is a crime.

It's clearly not a frivolous case if it won. A news reporters and some other insignificant idiots might oppose the ruling but there are even more idiots who think abortion is murder.

Now you're just making shit up. There wasn't anything about not signing a wavier. It actually says the opposite.
"Those people that are drinking all that water can get sick and possibly die from water intoxication," Brooks said, to which disc jockeys replied they "were aware of that" and that contestants had signed a release "so we're not responsible."

Waviers don't override negligence and wrongful death laws.
The water case is the exact same situation as this one.
Blue_Thunder posted...

The complication is that the school shares some of that responsibility and thus must pay a price too in the many millions range, because they were clearly negligent. There were a long list of things they could have done to reduce risk and they didn't.

Personal responsibility applies to more than individuals. It can also apply to large organizations that host events resulting in wrongful death lawsuits. Believe it or not, but these types of accidents are avoidable for many reasons and some of that responsibility lies with the organizers of the event.

Yep, this is something UnfairRepresent is unable to grasp but he's always been like that.

andel posted...

pbusted seems unhinged about this...too bad he is wrong

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/jury-rules-radio-station-jennifer-strange-water-drinking/story?id=8970712 .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/04/voodoo-doughnut-suspends-eating-challenge-after-death/

UnfairRepresent posted...

You've spent the entire topic ignoring what everyone says and calling them stupid and mentally ill.

Those are accurate descriptions.
UnfairRepresent posted...

"I don't insult people who disagree with me and I can't retort"

That's not an insult, just an objective statement.
UnfairRepresent posted...

I don't know the case law but the comparison that springs to mind is commonsense consumption laws where people tried to sue McDonalds for making them fat after they ate copious amounts of burgers and had strokes, to which the courts said "That's dumb."

I know that's for long term eating, but the principle is the same, prevent people from using frivious lawsuits to escape personality accountability. Specific case law probably exists which some poor overpaid lawyer for the Uni is probably putting together as you read this message.

"I consented to eat copious amounts of pie and then got sick/died because I ate copious amounts of pie." is a direct result of personal responsbility.

Sure if the university put arsenic in the pies or fired the pies at the contestants from a shotgun, the responsbility shifts.

But "It's unis fault I put copious amounts of pies in my mouth!" is kinda shameful. Take responsbility for your actions.

Wrong. You're making false equivalency analogies. This is akin to

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/jury-rules-radio-station-jennifer-strange-water-drinking/story?id=8970712
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/04/voodoo-doughnut-suspends-eating-challenge-after-death/
As Learning said learn to research wrongful death and negligence cases because you are incredibly ignorant on how it works.
Also you failed to address the examples with pulling a Uzi at a knock out free for all or having a sack race on a cliff would make them responsible for the death caused by those.

UnfairRepresent posted...

You haven't actually posted a retort, all you've done is screamed insults.

Why is it that to you someone comitting suicide or choking from eating copious amount of pies someone else's actions, but them pulling a gun and shooting someone else isn't?

You said "This isn't the activity they hosted" but neither is choking.

The guys running the show didn't force anyone to put pies in their mouth. That makes it not their responsibility.

The fact you have absolutely no counter for this beyond insults and nonsense comparisons to suicides just confirms that you know this is true.

Someone else is not responsible for what you put inside your own body.

I've made no insults this topic, just accurate descriptions. Speed eating is the activity they hosted which led to choking which they didn't properly prepare for. Only mental people don't understand context. If the event was about a knock out free for all with no restrictions on weapons or security to check people they would be responsible for someone pulling an Uzi too. Same as if the sack race took place on a slippery cliff with no railings. You know this. You just feel the need to play stupid because you know you're wrong but can't let go of your ego.
And yes, that is their responsibility. It's even written in the law. It's why all those cases sided with the plaintiff. inb4 "appurl2authurdur" You have no retorts or evidence to the contrary other than "hurr durr because I said so".

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

The pancake speed eating was the activity they hosted so yes they're responsible for that up to the required guidelines and the death that resulted from it.

So if a chick organizes a sack race and you pull out an Uzi and shoot 7 people, it's her fault for organizing it?

I mean she could have had bullet proof vests issued and armed guards complete with invasive strip searches and metal detectors.

That's not how cause and effect works.
PBusted posted...

Just like if a game show required you to hang yourself they would be held responsible for that too.

False equivalence

You're not actually refuting any points. You're just ignoring them.

Someone pulling out an uzi isn't the activity they hosted and has no relation to a sack race. It would be more akin to someone pulling out an Uzi where people have a contest who can knock out the most people with no restrictions on weapons or if the sack race took place over a cliff.
Learning posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

So if a chick organizes a sack race and you pull out an Uzi and shoot 7 people, it's her fault for organizing it?

If you weren't mentally handicapped, you wouldn't be making analogies like this that bare 0 relation to this incident. Do some research on 'wrongful death cases' before you submit more braindead posts

Now stop with your brain dead posts and hypocrisy. Your moronic sack analogy was an actual false equivalence that you used to ignore my points without refuting them. I also just realized your moronic analogy was also a leading question.

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

It says it all about your intellect and hypocrisy that you're unable to grasp that organizers are also responsible for their actions.

i don't dispute that.

I just refute that they are responsible for pie eating or suicide

If the stage collaspes or the pie has cyanide in it, that's their fault.

They are responsible for any direct activities they host.

I don't dispute that.

I just refute that they are responsible for pie eating or suicide

If the stage collaspes or the pie has cyanide in it, that's their fault.

The pancake speed eating was the activity they hosted so yes they're responsible for that up to the required guidelines and the death that resulted from it. Just like if a game show required you to hang yourself they would be held responsible for that too.

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

It says it all about your intellect and hypocrisy that you're unable to grasp that organizers are also responsible for their actions.

i don't dispute that.

I just refute that they are responsible for pie eating or suicide

If the stage collaspes or the pie has cyanide in it, that's their fault.

They are responsible for any direct activities they host.

fenderbender321 posted...

The "yelling fire in a crowded theater" hypothetical has never made any sense to me. First off, what if there was actually a fire? Should they still not yell fire because people will trample and kill each other? What if a crowded building had a fire drill? Couldn't people trample and kill each other during those too? Why not make those illegal?

I think there should be a consequence for yelling fire in a crowded theater. You should be kicked out of that theater for wasting a bunch of people's time. But in the event that people could not escape the building without hurting and trampling each other, it sounds like the person who yelled "fire" was actually doing the owners of that theater a favor by exposing the fact that their building was ill-equipped to handle such an emergency. Either that, or they were exposing the patrons for being ill-prepared on handling the execution of the evacuation. There's no reason to shove or trample people. We learn that in school. Line up and walk out in an orderly fashion. Be calm.

I could go on for days about it.

Sounds like a bit of trouble with nuance and context. But do go on. I'd by lying if I said I don't think your thoughts on this are awkwardly intriguing

fenderbender321 posted...

PBusted posted...

Of course we're not talking about legality. I'm well aware you support many illegal things. So I just want to understand your stance better, you think a pop star advocating suicide should have no legal consequences?
You also did not address enticing violence.

Yes, a pop star advocating suicide should have no legal consequences. They've done nothing to hurt anybody. Any suicides by fans that occur after the advocation would be a result of the direct actions carried out by the fans that chose to kill themselves.

So long as the end result is 100% in control of the person committing the violent action, I can't support anything that undermines free speech. As long as somebody isn't making direct threats or assisting with the planning of violence, they should be able to say whatever they want.

Everything happens for a reason. We might not like outcomes when looking at them in a vacuum, but we have little understanding or regard about the impacts on society as a whole.

I see. Well, I do appreciate you helping me understand your stance better. Now I know just how truly worthless your opinion is. By your logic there should be no legal consequences for yelling fire in a crowded theater too. It's a good thing the worst you'll do with your dangerous opinions is shitposting on this board.

UnfairRepresent posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

Unfair and fender are the 2 premier contrarian trolls of this board. Stop taking them seriously.

Says it all that the argument for "You should not be responsible for your own actions" boils down to nothing but insults when questioned

It says it all about your intellect and hypocrisy that you're unable to grasp that organizers are also responsible for their actions. The ones trying to absolve people of personal responsibility is you.

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

What about something like a pop star encouraging his fans to commit suicide to reach fame? Do you think enticing violence shouldn't be a crime either because all the fault is only on the person who actually does it?

Another leading question.

Snoop Dogg saying "Smoke Weed Everyday" can be interpreted as telling people to kill themselves.

You don't know what that phrase means. It's a valid question to the logic he's been using. He claims "encouraging suicide should be ok", asking him to elaborate is a normal step afterwards, but you wouldn't know anything about that.
Also, I'm not talking about mental gymnastic interpretations. I'm talking about direct ones.

fenderbender321 posted...

PBusted posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

Encouraging somebody to commit suicide is certainly morally questionable, but at the end of the day it is just one person voicing their opinion. Yes, people can have influences on others this way, but at the end of the day the suicide is the action of the person committing it, and not the fault of anybody else at all.

Assisting suicide is another matter entirely. It's actively participating in the killing of somebody. I think that it should be legal, but only in certain situations such as terminal medical illnesses that are causing a great deal of pain.

What about something like a pop star encouraging his fans to commit suicide to reach fame? Do you think enticing violence shouldn't be a crime either because all the fault is only on the person who actually does it?

Who are we to judge the actions of people who choose to respond in such a manner?

First of all, suicide should not be a crime. We own our bodies. We should be able to remove ourselves from existence at any time for any reason. That's not an unreasonable stance nor an unpopular opinion.

And since suicide should not be a crime, then what crime should we hold pop stars accountable for when encouraging people to do something that should be legal?

And please don't anyone respond to this post with "But it's not legal", because that's not the point of the discussion we're having. We're having a discussion about whether or not certain things should or shouldn't be legal.

Of course we're not talking about legality. I'm well aware you support many illegal things. So I just want to understand your stance better, you think a pop star advocating suicide should have no legal consequences?
You also did not address enticing violence.

fenderbender321 posted...

Encouraging somebody to commit suicide is certainly morally questionable, but at the end of the day it is just one person voicing their opinion. Yes, people can have influences on others this way, but at the end of the day the suicide is the action of the person committing it, and not the fault of anybody else at all.

Assisting suicide is another matter entirely. It's actively participating in the killing of somebody. I think that it should be legal, but only in certain situations such as terminal medical illnesses that are causing a great deal of pain.

What about something like a pop star encouraging his fans to commit suicide to reach fame? Do you think enticing violence shouldn't be a crime either because all the fault is only on the person who actually does it?

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

I'm talking about a game show putting Russian Roulette as an event,

Which is illegal and wouldn't happen.

Finally you're getting it. Yes, exactly, just like this is and for the same reason.

No a pie eating contest is not comparable to Russian Roulette, that's silly.

It's illegal to drive a tank across the Golden Gate Bridge that doesn't make it illegal to drive a car

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
In the context of improperly organizing an event that resulted in a death no matter if the person who died "did it to themselves" or not they are exactly the same.

Tanks and cars are different on the Golden Gate Bridge because of the weight restrictions. A complete non-sequitor.

fenderbender321 posted...

PBusted posted...

"I was incited" isn't a good enough excuse for me
And "they did it to themselves" isn't a good excuse to organize a suicide club or have game shows like Fear Factor risk people's lives even if they sign up for it.

I disagree. People should be free to make choices. Our bodies are ours to expend, are they not?

So you think encouraging and assisting suicide should be legal?

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

I'm talking about a game show putting Russian Roulette as an event,

Which is illegal and wouldn't happen.

Finally you're getting it. Yes, exactly, just like this is and for the same reason.

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

This is not about suicide being illegal. This is about encouraging suicide and other life risking behavior being illegal. A suicide club would be encouraging its members to commit suicide. A game show would not be allowed to have their players play real Russian Roulette.

And as I said, I can see the argument for it being illegal to broadcast people playing Russian Roulette. That's a debatable stance.

Won't I don't accept is that it is the guy holding the camera's fault that people playing Russian Roulette shot themselves.

Personality responsibility is a thing.

I know you're just pretending to be stupid on purpose to commit to your dumb contrarian gimmick .No one is talking about being an observer. It's about organizing the event in the first place.

I still don't get how that eliminates personal responsibility.

I understand you have a lot of trouble grasping things but this doesn't eliminate personal responsibility. Personal responsibility applies to many people including the ones who improperly organized a dangerous event without the proper warnings and guidelines.

Russian Roulette has no guidelines or "proper warnings." it's just suicide.

And if you do it, it's not the fault of the guy filming you even if she told you that she was going to film you doing it, you still did it.

You can't have it both ways, you can't flip from Fear Factor and Pie Eating contests to suicide when your argument fails.

And then when your suicide argument fails flip back to Pie eating contests and fear factor.

I'm talking about a game show putting Russian Roulette as an event, obviously. It has nothing to do with filming and everything about organizing a dangerous event. Stop playing stupid.

Learning posted...

PBusted posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

This is not about suicide being illegal. This is about encouraging suicide and other life risking behavior being illegal. A suicide club would be encouraging its members to commit suicide. A game show would not be allowed to have their players play real Russian Roulette.

And as I said, I can see the argument for it being illegal to broadcast people playing Russian Roulette. That's a debatable stance.

Won't I don't accept is that it is the guy holding the camera's fault that people playing Russian Roulette shot themselves.

Personality responsibility is a thing.

I know you're just pretending to be stupid on purpose to commit to your dumb contrarian gimmick .No one is talking about being an observer. It's about organizing the event in the first place.

I can assure you he's not pretending to be stupid. Especially not with his severe mental condition

The thing he's playing stupid on is him knowing that organizers are held responsible for things they don't take the proper care for so he's purposely deflecting to something unrelated like being a camera man (special pleading https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/163/Special-Pleading). Though whether he actually believes that's a valid argument or not is up in the air and I'm inclined to believe your judgement on it.

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

This is not about suicide being illegal. This is about encouraging suicide and other life risking behavior being illegal. A suicide club would be encouraging its members to commit suicide. A game show would not be allowed to have their players play real Russian Roulette.

And as I said, I can see the argument for it being illegal to broadcast people playing Russian Roulette. That's a debatable stance.

Won't I don't accept is that it is the guy holding the camera's fault that people playing Russian Roulette shot themselves.

Personality responsibility is a thing.

I know you're just pretending to be stupid on purpose to commit to your dumb contrarian gimmick .No one is talking about being an observer. It's about organizing the event in the first place.

I still don't get how that eliminates personal responsibility.

I understand you have a lot of trouble grasping things but this doesn't eliminate personal responsibility. Personal responsibility applies to many people including the ones who improperly organized a dangerous event without the proper warnings and guidelines.
Or do you think encouraging/assisting suicide should be legal because "personal responsibility"? That game shows are allowed to have real death recorded or otherwise as long as they sign up for it?

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

This is not about suicide being illegal. This is about encouraging suicide and other life risking behavior being illegal. A suicide club would be encouraging its members to commit suicide. A game show would not be allowed to have their players play real Russian Roulette.

And as I said, I can see the argument for it being illegal to broadcast people playing Russian Roulette. That's a debatable stance.

Won't I don't accept is that it is the guy holding the camera's fault that people playing Russian Roulette shot themselves.

Personality responsibility is a thing.

I know you're just pretending to be stupid on purpose to commit to your dumb contrarian gimmick .No one is talking about being an observer. It's about organizing the event in the first place.

UnfairRepresent posted...

PBusted posted...

Are you actually stupid enough to think it's ok to host a suicide club or that game shows wouldn't be help responsible for someone dying due to a stunt on their show?

Jumped from Fear Factor and pie-eating contests to suicide.

But no I don't think suicide should be illegal. And while you can make a case for it being illegal to distritube footage of people killing themselves, you can't blame a dude with a camera for another dude jumping off a cliff.

That's madness.

It's not McDonalds fault that you ate that burger.

UnfairRepresent posted...

And "they did it to themselves" isn't a good excuse to organize a suicide club or have game shows like Fear Factor risk people's lives even if they sign up for it

Why not?

Yes we get it. You're lacking in intelligence and reading comprehension.
This is not about suicide being illegal. This is about encouraging suicide and other life risking behavior being illegal. A suicide club would be encouraging its members to commit suicide. A game show would not be allowed to have their players play real Russian Roulette.
It's why mandatory safety guidelines exist in the first place rather than "hurr durr our workplace is a dangerous hazard but you guys signed up for it!"
Should be common sense for children but it's never been something you and fender had

UnfairRepresent posted...

This is were I feel like Libertarians really get it right.

Liberals and conservatives are like "I died because I ate waaaaaaaaaaaaay too many pancakes. And that's YOUR fault I did that!"

And it's fucking stupid.

Take some responsibility.


And "they did it to themselves" isn't a good excuse to organize a suicide club or have game shows like Fear Factor risk people's lives even if they sign up for it.

Why not?

Are you actually stupid enough to think it's ok to host a suicide club or that game shows wouldn't be help responsible for someone dying due to a stunt on their show?

fenderbender321 posted...

PBusted posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

VipaGTS posted...

TiamatLover posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

Why hold the university accountable rather than the people who voluntarily choose to put themselves at risk?

That's not how anything works.

But it should be. If the university had slack food standards and accidentally chucked rat poison or whatever in the pancakes, I'd say THAT would be 100% fair to hold them responsible. But when the students - adult students at that - choose of their own accord to enter something like this, that's their fault if it goes wrong. They're fucking universities, not babysitters.

Its still the universitys responsibility to take proper safety precautions. Adult or not. If youre holding this type of event on campus as a school advertised event its their responsibility. Did the school have them sign waivers letting them know this could happen that would absolve them from blame? Nope. But theyre adults! Shouldnt be how laws in this situation work.

I get that's how things work in this day and age, but is it really the best system? In many ways I would prefer a system where we make adults more accountable for their actions.

For example, let's say I told somebody that I think they should ride their bike off a cliff into the ocean. And they do it. And they die. Do I get in trouble? Hell no. That was their choice. But let's say I post on Facebook "hey I'm organizing an event where we ride our bikes off a cliff. Let me know if you want to sign up." and then people sign up, we go through with the plan, but one of the guys dies. Then do I get in trouble? Maybe not, but why wouldn't I? How is that different than if the University organized the event? And if I would get into trouble...again why? At the end of the day, the person's action of getting on his bike and riding it off the cliff are 100% responsible for their death.

Really gets you to think...when you get right down to it, the only reason we hold things like universities and businesses accountable for things that go bad is because they have money.

Yes. Inciting people to commit crimes is still a crime by itself. Game shows can't get its participants to kill each other or do things like "film the best suicide" no matter if it's the "players themselves who choose to harm each other". People who organize things badly without the proper care need to take personal responsibility for their own consequences

"I was incited" isn't a good enough excuse for me.

And "they did it to themselves" isn't a good excuse to organize a suicide club or have game shows like Fear Factor risk people's lives even if they sign up for it.

Questionmarktarius posted...

PBusted posted...

AvantgardeAClue posted...

PBusted posted...

If they were that easy to look up then they'd be that easy to report too. Can't see how something like this can last unless it's really recent.

Some of those sites are probably FBI mouse traps to catch noobs

But TC said there were actual pics. If the FBI is actually distributing CP themselves that's a very troublesome can of worms there.

Were you not in high school during the DARE era, when a cop would send a petri dish of hemp flowers down the class?

DARE is pretty controversial

AvantgardeAClue posted...

PBusted posted...

If they were that easy to look up then they'd be that easy to report too. Can't see how something like this can last unless it's really recent.

Some of those sites are probably FBI mouse traps to catch noobs

But TC said there were actual pics. If the FBI is actually distributing CP themselves that's a very troublesome can of worms there.

If they were that easy to look up then they'd be that easy to report too. Can't see how something like this can last unless it's really recent.

Alucard188 posted...

@PBusted posted...

Alucard188 posted...

Error1355 posted...

Darkninja42 posted...

Error1355 posted...

Darkninja42 posted...

I thought it was good but hot damn it's overrated. More power to anyone who enjoys it that much though.

It clicked with me in ways no other game in this entire generation has.

How so? Not being combative, just truly wondering what so many people see as so groundbreaking. It just seems overly angst filled to me

It's weird, but it gave me feelings I haven't felt towards a game since the PS2 era. I think it cared more about being a game than being some realistic 'next gen' experience or something like that. That plus the music, the themes. The game just clicked with me SO HARD.

@Error1355

That part of Route C. That part. It destroyed me. It's part of the reason why I haven't gone back to the game.

You can't just end it on that! You've got to see where it heads!

Oh, I've beaten it through and through. I just haven't gone back to play through a 2nd time because route C is just so soul crushing.

Ah, I get you now. Kind of like To the Moon.

Seeing that she's a child director with children herself she doesn't seem malicious, just careless and stupid. The fact that she killed 3 kids because of her stupidity is going to weigh on her conscious for as long as she is alive.

2b is kind of ugly imho

fenderbender321 posted...

VipaGTS posted...

TiamatLover posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

eston posted...

Because the University did not take proper safety precautions when holding an eating contest

Why hold the university accountable rather than the people who voluntarily choose to put themselves at risk?

That's not how anything works.

But it should be. If the university had slack food standards and accidentally chucked rat poison or whatever in the pancakes, I'd say THAT would be 100% fair to hold them responsible. But when the students - adult students at that - choose of their own accord to enter something like this, that's their fault if it goes wrong. They're fucking universities, not babysitters.

Its still the universitys responsibility to take proper safety precautions. Adult or not. If youre holding this type of event on campus as a school advertised event its their responsibility. Did the school have them sign waivers letting them know this could happen that would absolve them from blame? Nope. But theyre adults! Shouldnt be how laws in this situation work.

I get that's how things work in this day and age, but is it really the best system? In many ways I would prefer a system where we make adults more accountable for their actions.

For example, let's say I told somebody that I think they should ride their bike off a cliff into the ocean. And they do it. And they die. Do I get in trouble? Hell no. That was their choice. But let's say I post on Facebook "hey I'm organizing an event where we ride our bikes off a cliff. Let me know if you want to sign up." and then people sign up, we go through with the plan, but one of the guys dies. Then do I get in trouble? Maybe not, but why wouldn't I? How is that different than if the University organized the event? And if I would get into trouble...again why? At the end of the day, the person's action of getting on his bike and riding it off the cliff are 100% responsible for their death.

Really gets you to think...when you get right down to it, the only reason we hold things like universities and businesses accountable for things that go bad is because they have money.

Yes. Inciting people to commit crimes is still a crime by itself. Game shows can't get its participants to kill each other or do things like "film the best suicide" no matter if it's the "players themselves who choose to harm each other". People who organize things badly without the proper care need to take personal responsibility for their own consequences

This enrages me. What an awful situation it must be for them

SageHarpuia posted...

And now we're giving sexualities to animals

Fucking brilliant

Animals have always had sexualities

Alucard188 posted...

Error1355 posted...

Darkninja42 posted...

Error1355 posted...

Darkninja42 posted...

I thought it was good but hot damn it's overrated. More power to anyone who enjoys it that much though.

It clicked with me in ways no other game in this entire generation has.

How so? Not being combative, just truly wondering what so many people see as so groundbreaking. It just seems overly angst filled to me

It's weird, but it gave me feelings I haven't felt towards a game since the PS2 era. I think it cared more about being a game than being some realistic 'next gen' experience or something like that. That plus the music, the themes. The game just clicked with me SO HARD.

@Error1355

That part of Route C. That part. It destroyed me. It's part of the reason why I haven't gone back to the game.

You can't just end it on that! You've got to see where it heads!

DarkTransient posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

DarkTransient posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

DemonBuffet posted...

Xbox One without online will get stale super fast lol, especially as I imagine that the prison wont let him buy any games he wants as its not on their commisary list

You can't even play Xbox One without being connected to the internet. It's the reason I picked PS4 over it.

Uhh, no. That is not true, lol.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm a huge Xbox fan and I know for a fact I would have gotten it if it weren't the case. I remember them getting massive backlash.

It was the original plan, but they backpedalled on it.

I'm not an Xbox fan at all and even I know that.

So you're saying I boycotted them for nothing? Bullshit.

Go look it up for yourself dude.

Also it's not too late to get one. Heck, you could go straight to the XB1X, rather than having to mid-gen upgrade; in that sense, you saved yourself some hassle.

With that being said, this is an excellent example of how the damage is already done simply by proposing such a ridiculous policy.

And that's a good thing.

Poor simba got rekt

Damn, I grew up in a city of 15,000.

FairyLeviathan posted...

Are you guys so out of touch that you're really confusing Japan and Germany?

Germany is still shit on for the Holocaust and is currently plagued by political correctness and all the shit Europe is getting into with mass immigration.

Japan on the other hand is generally touted as a technology leader.

Sageharpuia shitpost