Topic: Hold your Wee for a Wii

[WuTangTurtle]

You have a point she did choose not to go to the hospital, I wonder if she knew how bad of a situation it was and the consequences.  Didn't the original report state her and a few other contestants were throwing up?  Maybe the radio station should have chosen to escort those contestants to the hospital.  I don't know all the facts so I'm not about to say anyone's guilty for anything but I will say if I was in that audience or worked for that radio station I know as a human being I would have at least recommended her to go to a hospital if not actually taker her there myself.

[UltimatePartyBear]

My guess is that the DA figures that water poisoning is so little known by the general public that it wouldn't be possible to prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt."  There's more wiggle room in civil cases, though.

The choice thing bugs me a little.  If you choose to do something dangerous with no knowledge of the danger, just how much of that is your fault, and how much is the fault of the person who should have informed you of the danger?  What changes if the person who should have told you didn't know?

[Blue Plant]

I didn't think that the justice system allowed the old "I didn't know that would happen" defense to fly.

[UncleBob]

Quote
Originally posted by: PartyBear
My guess is that the DA figures that water poisoning is so little known by the general public that it wouldn't be possible to prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt."  There's more wiggle room in civil cases, though.

The choice thing bugs me a little.  If you choose to do something dangerous with no knowledge of the danger, just how much of that is your fault, and how much is the fault of the person who should have informed you of the danger?  What changes if the person who should have told you didn't know?

I'm tired of this "inform them of the danger" bullcrap.  That's why we end up with stupid warnings that you can't bypass or turn off in video games and warnings that peanut butter may contain nuts.

People need to learn to be responsible for their own actions, period.  Let's stop enabling the idiots in the public by letting them win lawsuits when they do stupid stuff and get hurt.

Coffee is hot.  Duh.

[UltimatePartyBear]

Just because some warning labels seem stupid doesn't mean that all warning labels are useless.  I don't want to enable idiots, and there are plenty of tort reforms I'd like to see, but you're making an assumption about personal responsibility here that isn't as simple as you'd like it to be.  There are dangers in this world that common sense not only won't warn you about, but may even lead you directly into.  Drinking too much water, for example.  How many times have you heard health advice along the lines of "drink plenty of water?"  Does anyone ever qualify that by saying that too much water can be fatal?

What if someone eating at a restaurant dies because poison somehow wound up in his food?  Would it be his own fault for not taking the time to have the food tested for poison before consuming it?  He chose to eat that food, after all.  Personal responsibility and all that.

I'm all for taking responsibility for my own actions, but I understand that not everything is under my control.  I live in a world so full of random chance that I could be killed suddenly right where I'm sitting, unlikely as it may be.  Deciding blame is not an easy thing to do.  I, for one, do not spend my time searching through medical texts looking for ways to die so that I can avoid them, and I think doing so would generally be unhealthy.  So when I stumble into something dangerous that common sense doesn't warn me about, I'd appreciate it if someone knowledgeable told me to stop.

I think that, in general, anyone putting on a contest that involves anything physical at all has a responsibility to make sure it's completely safe by consulting an expert.  Personal responsibility means accepting the responsibility when your negligence causes harm to someone else, too, you know.

[UncleBob]

Basc common sense tells me that putting too much of *anything* into my body is a bad thing.

It's stupid crazy that we're even having this conversation - How many all-you-can-eat buffets actually encourage you to eat until you're stuffed?  Now, if someone died from eating too much, would we blame the resturant for not consulting with health care professionals before opening each day and determining how much food is "too much", then informing each guest how much food it's reccomended that they eat before they start eating?  Perhaps these resturants should start making customers sign waivers before eating...

In one breath, people will defend the individual for "not knowing" that too much water can kill you, then in the same breath, condem the DJ's for not knowing the exact same thing.  The "They should know because they told people to do it, but she doesn't have to know because she choose to do it" line of thought is bullcrap.

[UltimatePartyBear]

Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
In one breath, people will defend the individual for "not knowing" that too much water can kill you, then in the same breath, condem the DJ's for not knowing the exact same thing.  The "They should know because they told people to do it, but she doesn't have to know because she choose to do it" line of thought is bullcrap.

I'm not condemning anyone.  I'm asking questions about fault here.  I don't want to punish the DJs or anyone else.  If you get someone else to do something, you're at least partially responsible for what happens next, even if we ignore everything else about this issue.  Why do you want to completely release the station from responsibility?  None of this would have even happened if not for the station putting on the contest.

We discussed a hypothetical case in class* once where that was an issue.  It involved two women at a ski resort.  The ski resort was supposed to survey the ski trails every morning and mark off any that had dangerous conditions, but it failed to do so for whatever reason.  The women went down a trail with hard, icy snow, and one fell and broke a leg.  The other one went to get help, but ran into an old boyfriend and got distracted for a few hours.  By the time paramedics were alerted and arrived, the first woman had suffered severe frostbite in addition to her other injuries.  The question put to the class was what was the ski resort responsible for in regards to the woman's medical expenses.  I got it wrong.  I thought it wasn't fair to hold the resort responsible for the frostbite when that wasn't their fault, but her flaky friend's.  The professor pointed out that she wouldn't have suffered frostbite if she hadn't had the accident in the first place.  If you set things in motion, you have to answer for everything that happens from that point on.

I am not trying to defend or attack anybody.  I am trying to look at this from as neutral a point of view as I can muster.


(*I'm not a law student.  It was a Business Law class in which we learned about the responsibilities businesses have to the public and to the government.  I make no claims of expertise based on it.)

[UncleBob]

Quote
Originally posted by: PartyBear

Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
In one breath, people will defend the individual for "not knowing" that too much water can kill you, then in the same breath, condem the DJ's for not knowing the exact same thing.  The "They should know because they told people to do it, but she doesn't have to know because she choose to do it" line of thought is bullcrap.

I'm not condemning anyone.  I'm asking questions about fault here.  I don't want to punish the DJs or anyone else.  If you get someone else to do something, you're at least partially responsible for what happens next, even if we ignore everything else about this issue.  Why do you want to completely release the station from responsibility?  None of this would have even happened if not for the station putting on the contest.

That's not entierly fair though...  I mean, none of this would have happened if this individual's mother hadn't had sex with her father, do we blame them?  It wouldn't have happened if Nintendo hadn't made the Wii, do we blame them?  It wouldn't have happened if her kids didn't want the Wii so badly, do we blame her kids?  It wouldn't have happened had Columbus not "discovered" America, should be blame him?

Perhaps, had "God" not "created" the universe, it wouldn't have happened...  Is it his/her fault?

[UltimatePartyBear]

Like I said, it's not an easy question.  In court, a lot of it comes down to how compelling an argument your lawyer can make.  Your examples are just playing with words, though.  Maybe I shouldn't have used the phrase "None of this would have even happened."  There's a difference between causes and prerequisites.  The universe, the Wii, and the people involved had to have existed for this situation to have occurred, but unless you want to start discussing fate, none of that's material to the case at hand.

[vudu]

Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
That's not entierly fair though...  I mean, none of this would have happened if this individual's mother hadn't had sex with her father, do we blame them?  It wouldn't have happened if Nintendo hadn't made the Wii, do we blame them?  It wouldn't have happened if her kids didn't want the Wii so badly, do we blame her kids?  It wouldn't have happened had Columbus not "discovered" America, should be blame him?

Perhaps, had "God" not "created" the universe, it wouldn't have happened...  Is it his/her fault?

Quote
Originally posted by: vudu

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
But like I said, had Wii supply been better, this woman wouldn't be dead.

It's not directly Nintendo's fault, but it's still a fact.

If the woman didn't have kids she wouldn't be dead.
If the woman didn't live in Sacramento she wouldn't be dead.
If the woman had learned Japanese and gone to work for Nintendo five years ago, thus securing herself a Wii she wouldn't be dead.
If the woman's mother was addicted to heroin while pregnant thus giving birth to a mentally handicapped child she wouldn't be dead.

These are all facts.

I already made this argument like two months ago.

[wandering]

Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
I'm tired of this "inform them of the danger" bullcrap.  That's why we end up with stupid warnings that you can't bypass or turn off in video games and warnings that peanut butter may contain nuts.

Oh, so it's not Nintendo's fault that they choose to put unskipable warnings in their games? You're going to blame Nintendo's actions on people who have no control over the company's policies? Why not blame God for creating the universe, instead?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Most warnings go away after 5 minutes.

[UncleBob]

Quote
Originally posted by: wandering

Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
I'm tired of this "inform them of the danger" bullcrap.  That's why we end up with stupid warnings that you can't bypass or turn off in video games and warnings that peanut butter may contain nuts.

Oh, so it's not Nintendo's fault that they choose to put unskipable warnings in their games? You're going to blame Nintendo's actions on people who have no control over the company's policies? Why not blame God for creating the universe, instead?

Unfortunatly, it is these people who have control over Nintendo's policies - through their lawsuits (and those of their families).  Nintendo has to do what it takes to protect the stability of their company - which includes warning screens that help protect them against stupid lawsuits.

You're right - Nintendo does have a choice - they could not put the warning screen there and hope they don't get sued.  Again, that is.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Thanks to all these warning screens, loading times have increased tenfold.

BRING BACK CARTRIDGES.

OR GO SOLID STATE.