Englund? Franse? where?

by **CreepingCharlie** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:21 am

Originally posted by Wairudo Enjin
It's good to see that there is a shallow end to the gene pool in England too and not just here.

Agree. Silly British.

by **Sabres** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:01 am

That's pretty sweet. People can be really stupid sometimes.

by **Darknut** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:54 pm

Originally posted by SavageParrot
Then it's the mothers fault. Christ no-one takes responsibility for their own actions anymore. If the babies mother wasn't trying to be a jackass and avoid traffic by going where she shouldn't then there'd be no problem.

I fail to see why the government should have to make provision for every idiotic action its people want to make. If she drove the wrong way down a free way should the government be responsible for that too? Or if she decides her car is amphibious and drives into a river? This litigation culture is insane. The search for anyone to blame other than the person who is actually responsible.

It's like wet floors. There was a time when if you slipped on a wet floor you would apologise to the janitor for not looking where you were going and ruining his hard work. You'd have been embarassed. Now a person slips on a wet floor and it's lawsuit time. Like it's someone else's fault that they weren't looking where they were stepping. Ok so if the floor wasn't wet they might not have slipped, but equally if they opened there damn eyes they wouldn't have slipped either. The little give away signs that the floor is wet, like there is a janitor with a mop and bucket, the air smells like cleaning fluid or there is a sign that says, wet floor...

You can't protect people from their own stupidity. It doesn't work.

An issue that we see the same way: personal responsibility. Nobody else should have to suffer for your mistakes or misfortune.

by **Chacal** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:55 pm

Accidents are different: they're not on purpose.

I wasn't thinking litigation, I was wondering if it's a good idea to risk hurting someone just to prevent them from entering a forbidden way.

If there's no safe way, then don't prevent them, it's not worth a baby's life.

What about the good ol' tire-shredding "teeth" in the pavement we used to see at the exits of parking lots? Those weren't life-threatening and the effect was hilarious.

by **petersapien** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:12 pm

Man even I saw that coming a mile away. Sad but true

by **Darknut** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:57 am

It doesn't take a genius to read a sign thought. The parent who endangers their child's life by trying to blow throw a barrier ought to go to jail.

by **Alofwar** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:51 am

Originally posted by Chacal
Accidents are different: they're not on purpose.

I wasn't thinking litigation, I was wondering if it's a good idea to risk hurting someone just to prevent them from entering a forbidden way.

If there's no safe way, then don't prevent them, it's not worth a baby's life.

What about the good ol' tire-shredding "teeth" in the pavement we used to see at the exits of parking lots? Those weren't life-threatening and the effect was hilarious.

Yes Chacal, but the bus has to stop before they go down, and anyone behind should stop further behind a bus then a car, for the reason of view, and its only when they speed off and actually try to get over them that you shouldnt be able to stop in time.

Plus you saw them, they're like auotmatic doors, stopping if something is obstructing them so they are not going to hurt anyone.

by **Darknut** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:30 am

If people followed the rules there would be a lot less accidents on the road.

I see people less than five feet from the rear of my car when I'm going 90MPH. Tell me, does that seem very safe? I mean, if I just tapped the brake or even let off the gas they'd plow into me.

Anyway, if you were at the distance you're supposed to be when following a bus, those barriers would be all the way up with enough room for you to see them and stop.

by **Wairudo Enjin** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:20 am

Originally posted by Chacal
I wasn't thinking litigation, I was wondering if it's a good idea to risk hurting someone just to prevent them from entering a forbidden way.

If there's no safe way, then don't prevent them, it's not worth a baby's life.

I'm sorry Chacal, but that has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard uttered. :roll:

To continue with this line of thinking...

If there's no safe way to mop floors in a grocery store without the possibility of someone falling then maybe we shouldn't do it.

If there's no safe way to let kids play on a play ground then maybe we should not let them, or better yet not build playgrounds.

If there's no safe way to prevent people fom robbing banks then maybe we should let them.

If there's no safe way to stop murderers then maybe we should let them.

We can not dumb down the world for every idiot on the planet. We should be trying to promote evolution not devolution.

That woman, and that woman alone, put that baby's life in danger; no one else!!!

If that is the type of mother that she is then social services should take the baby away from her in the interest of its protection; she probably does other stupid things to endanger the baby's life too, only this time it was caught on camera.

I'm still sitting here dumbfounded by these comments that I'm replying to.

Englund? Franse? where?

Who is online