Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Can a 4 year, 9 month old...

m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 12:31:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Really be sued for negligence? What's wrong with justices these days?!?

http://www.nytimes.com...
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 1:19:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Apparently under 4 years old is fine, but there's no brightline after the 4 year old mark.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 2:30:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I wouldn't have a problem with it out of context, but presumably the kid hasn't been emancipated. As long as the parent HAS a slave, the issue is their responsibility.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 2:31:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 2:30:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with it out of context, but presumably the kid hasn't been emancipated. As long as the parent HAS a slave, the issue is their responsibility.

/elaborate
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 2:34:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 2:31:39 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 10/29/2010 2:30:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with it out of context, but presumably the kid hasn't been emancipated. As long as the parent HAS a slave, the issue is their responsibility.

/elaborate
Guardians fault.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 2:34:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 2:31:39 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 10/29/2010 2:30:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with it out of context, but presumably the kid hasn't been emancipated. As long as the parent HAS a slave, the issue is their responsibility.

/elaborate

It is inconsistent to hold that a parent can order a kid around without the kid signing a contract and a kid can be responsible for their actions. The parent is, any negligence is attributable to the parent, for the kid's legal status is essentially that of a slave.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 2:36:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 2:30:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with it out of context, but presumably the kid hasn't been emancipated. As long as the parent HAS a slave, the issue is their responsibility.

This.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 2:46:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 2:34:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/29/2010 2:31:39 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 10/29/2010 2:30:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with it out of context, but presumably the kid hasn't been emancipated. As long as the parent HAS a slave, the issue is their responsibility.

/elaborate

It is inconsistent to hold that a parent can order a kid around without the kid signing a contract and a kid can be responsible for their actions. The parent is, any negligence is attributable to the parent, for the kid's legal status is essentially that of a slave.

So why is the case different if the kid is under 4 years old? You didn't address the brightline, which is most confusing to me. Why is a 4 year, 2 day old capable of negligence, not a 3 year, 10 month old?
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 2:49:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 2:46:58 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 10/29/2010 2:34:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/29/2010 2:31:39 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 10/29/2010 2:30:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with it out of context, but presumably the kid hasn't been emancipated. As long as the parent HAS a slave, the issue is their responsibility.

/elaborate

It is inconsistent to hold that a parent can order a kid around without the kid signing a contract and a kid can be responsible for their actions. The parent is, any negligence is attributable to the parent, for the kid's legal status is essentially that of a slave.

So why is the case different if the kid is under 4 years old?
It isn't in my argument. You're confused, I was making a case against the judge.

You didn't address the brightline, which is most confusing to me. Why is a 4 year, 2 day old capable of negligence, not a 3 year, 10 month old?
Well, if they want to be free, both are as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, they aren't free in the present legal system, hence they ought get no more of the drawbacks than the benefits.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 3:09:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A child is not property thus, a child is not a slave.

A child has personal rights and does not exist for the purpose of labor, nor do they generate profit.

In fact, children are very expensive.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 9:03:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 2:49:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/29/2010 2:46:58 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 10/29/2010 2:34:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/29/2010 2:31:39 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 10/29/2010 2:30:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with it out of context, but presumably the kid hasn't been emancipated. As long as the parent HAS a slave, the issue is their responsibility.

/elaborate

It is inconsistent to hold that a parent can order a kid around without the kid signing a contract and a kid can be responsible for their actions. The parent is, any negligence is attributable to the parent, for the kid's legal status is essentially that of a slave.

So why is the case different if the kid is under 4 years old?
It isn't in my argument. You're confused, I was making a case against the judge.

You didn't address the brightline, which is most confusing to me. Why is a 4 year, 2 day old capable of negligence, not a 3 year, 10 month old?
Well, if they want to be free, both are as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, they aren't free in the present legal system, hence they ought get no more of the drawbacks than the benefits.

Which bamboozles me.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 11:23:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 2:34:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/29/2010 2:31:39 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 10/29/2010 2:30:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with it out of context, but presumably the kid hasn't been emancipated. As long as the parent HAS a slave, the issue is their responsibility.

/elaborate

It is inconsistent to hold that a parent can order a kid around without the kid signing a contract and a kid can be responsible for their actions. The parent is, any negligence is attributable to the parent, for the kid's legal status is essentially that of a slave.

I don't know why but that made me laugh. It's so bizarrely logical.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 11:37:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The article states that the old lady died of unrelated causes some months after colliding with the little girl and it was the beneficeries of her estate that are suing the toddler.

What charming people they must be?

"How much did you get in Granny's will, Myrtle?"

"Just a million dollars - I was expecting more."

"Yes, me too. I know, let's use our dead grandmother's name to screw some poor innocent little kid out of her pocket money - it would be what she would have wanted."
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2010 10:27:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
presumably the age line is a stand in for the cognitive abilities of the child. since the law has to apply to everyone and most kids develop certain abilities at around the same age, its a somewhat reasonable stand in. (though obviously extensive cognitive testing would be preferable). i agree though, thats its unreasonable to sue after the woman is already dead unless she initiated the legal proceedings herself but died in the interim.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2010 10:36:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 3:09:09 PM, Ren wrote:
A child is not property thus, a child is not a slave.
The law treats them that way.


A child has personal rights and does not exist for the purpose of labor, nor do they generate profit.

In fact, children are very expensive.
An expensive, unprofitable slave is still a slave.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2010 10:53:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Way to continue ignoring the fact that they have personal rights.

Children can be seized for abuse. Parents can be prosecuted for abuse--even mild abuse.

Children can undergo court-ordered emancipation simply by evidencing independence.

The fact is that children are not property. You're just attempting to force language to mold to your conception of the world.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2010 10:59:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/30/2010 10:53:05 AM, Ren wrote:
Way to continue ignoring the fact that they have personal rights.

Children can be seized for abuse. Parents can be prosecuted for abuse--even mild abuse.

Children can undergo court-ordered emancipation simply by evidencing independence.

The fact is that children are not property. You're just attempting to force language to mold to your conception of the world.

Someone having an opinion different to yours... sheesh what a jerk, I would not stand for that sh1t if I were you.

Anyways, what Ragnar is saying is logically based.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2010 11:04:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/30/2010 10:53:05 AM, Ren wrote:
Way to continue ignoring the fact that they have personal rights.
They have them, but the government does not observe them, it violates them and licenses parents to violate them. Especially liberty.


Children can be seized for abuse. Parents can be prosecuted for abuse--even mild abuse.
Including if the child consents to what you call "abuse." Hence, it has nothing to do with "rights." It's simply one of many regulations the state places on how one can treat the things one supposedly controls. The way the government actually does this is no different in principle from how it stops bank owners from treating their money supplies, yet no one speaks of a bank's capital reserves as being rights-bearing entities

Children can undergo court-ordered emancipation simply by evidencing independence.
In other words, they can become independent by already being independent. Unfortunately, it's perfectly legal to refuse to allow a child to exit the house and get a job, thus preventing such a move.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2010 11:12:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/30/2010 10:53:05 AM, Ren wrote:
Way to continue ignoring the fact that they have personal rights.

Children can be seized for abuse. Parents can be prosecuted for abuse--even mild abuse.

In most slave countries, slaves did have variable rights and protections by the law. That doesn't make them no longer slaves.

Children can undergo court-ordered emancipation simply by evidencing independence.

See above.

The fact is that children are not property. You're just attempting to force language to mold to your conception of the world.

And nor are slaves, really. But it's the fact that they're treated like property that makes them "property."
devinni01841
Posts: 1,405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 9:02:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
She's four! her parents should sell the bike in punishment, but suing??? Really, what has this country come to?
There is nothing more bad-@ss than being yourself.

I solemnly swear I am up to no good.

Member of the Texas Army National Guard since 20111212

An Armed society is a polite society.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 11:30:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 11:37:27 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
The article states that the old lady died of unrelated causes some months after colliding with the little girl and it was the beneficeries of her estate that are suing the toddler.

What charming people they must be?

"How much did you get in Granny's will, Myrtle?"

"Just a million dollars - I was expecting more."

"Yes, me too. I know, let's use our dead grandmother's name to screw some poor innocent little kid out of her pocket money - it would be what she would have wanted."

This made me laugh, in my history lecture
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 2:46:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 12:31:44 PM, m93samman wrote:
Really be sued for negligence? What's wrong with justices these days?!?

I doubt that could ever be prosecuted. It's more likely that it either dismissed as an accident or the parents will be charged.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
sydnerella
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 5:29:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
While I feel awful for the dead women, this is absolutely ridiculous. A four year old is in no way old enough to be sued, for many reasons, but mainly her cognitive skills aren't developed enough to make her a suitable candidate....

Ridiculous.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 5:48:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 5:29:53 PM, sydnerella wrote:
While I feel awful for the dead women, this is absolutely ridiculous. A four year old is in no way old enough to be sued, for many reasons, but mainly her cognitive skills aren't developed enough to make her a suitable candidate....

Ridiculous.

Well said.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 5:53:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 5:29:53 PM, sydnerella wrote:
While I feel awful for the dead women, this is absolutely ridiculous. A four year old is in no way old enough to be sued, for many reasons, but mainly her cognitive skills aren't developed enough to make her a suitable candidate....:
Ridiculous.

Lol no offense I just read that and it made me think "Okay we need to sue 5 people this week lets pick them at random. Ooooh 4 year old little girls aren't good enough canidates. Lets find someone to take her spot"
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave