You're using responsible as a moral/ethical term
I'm using it as a legal term.
If cleared via self defense, the court would not find me responsible for the death, legally. Which is where I was going, with the lawsuit thing for the affair crap. The guy who rents a hotel room to the 'cheaters' is neither responsible or to blame for the boinking.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Guess I'll keep talking about adultery and its connotations
Seems to me this is just another symptom of our Information Age, using the internet for relationships and/or entertainment. Finding porn used to require a decidedly dedicated effort. Adults used to actually have to pursue girlie magazines like Playboy, let alone find anything hard core. Playboy started as a mail-order-only subscription, sent under wraps, not found in airports or convenience stores. Playboy Clubs were membership-only, and only in certain urban centers. Finding Swingers used to require an effort, as did finding any previously non-traditional or 'uncommon' sexual orientation like homosexuality.
Now everything is on the web, from legitimate dating sites and match-makers, to child porn, and everything in between. I don't think people have changed their interests over time, it's just that everything is made easier with a keyboard. Then that consumer ease finds its way into public advertising, for all sorts of things. What's changed is making money from anything sexual or sex-related. Even sport and juvenile fashions. I remember when Calvin Klein's ads with Brooke Shields saying Nothing comes between me and my jeans was considered controversial.
God, I'm old.
Well, yeah, that was a slight derail...blame Loki as he brought up the suing angle.
I'm sure Lolli would agree.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Heh, you're the mixing things up. And the court would definitely find you responsible for the death. They'd just declare it to be a result of self-defense - which means you won't be punished.Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
After all, if you were not responsible for the death of a person, it would not be necessary to get you in front of a court to see whether it was self-defense or not.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
He's still right. Most civil action is about apportioning responsibility. It's not alleging someone has total responsibility but that they contributed and therefore have some responsibility for whatever happened.
If you're talking about a criminal proceeding, those don't concern themselves with responsibility but with guilt, which is something else. If you're talking about self-defense in terms of a civil wrongful death claim, and the claim is denied on those grounds, while it could mean either judge or jury saw no established responsibility whatsoever, it could also mean that they found insufficient responsibility for the claim being sought, that the responsibility falls into a protected category that is immune to claims, or several other split hairs. And did you not just object to people splitting hairs before? Why then are you bringing up the legal context which does nothing but split hairs?If cleared via self defense, the court would not find me responsible for the death, legally. Which is where I was going, with the lawsuit thing for the affair crap. The guy who rents a hotel room to the 'cheaters' is neither responsible or to blame for the boinking.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
But these don't always go to court. A DA may choose not to got to court if it is patently obvious that the circumstances are such that self defense is a no brainer.
Just because the cops think I may be, does not mean I am. They do their investigation.
@ Fuzzy...I might swallow that there are tiers of responsibility in (the extreme) case of self defense. But trust me...at this time, I would feel no level of responsibility if I was in that situation. Just like if I was a hotel clerk in the above scenario.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
If anything, AshleyMadison being sued by someone going through a divorce for its responsibility in enabling adultery would be thrown out because adultery is not considered a crime. Were it a website encouraging, promoting, helping organize, funding, and providing resources for people to engage in criminal activity, then I could see them being brought to court successfully for their responsibility related to people performing criminal activity in relation to them.
. . .
Adultery isn't necessarily a crime, but in some states it's still considered a breach of (marital) contract. Might as well blame Swingers or Playboy magazine for the demise of a marriage, or the internet in general, for that matter. FFS.
Nice.
I see I'm done here.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Aw, don't let anyone run you off, Ziggie! You give a nice balance to this place.
You make me sound like a flowerpot
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Better that than a crackpot?You make me sound like a flowerpot
Most civil suits are about things which aren't considered crimes.
That's silly. Why would you put an azalea in a flowerpot?You make me sound like a flowerpot
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I would view it as immoral, but as long as the act isn't illegal i would say society needs to accept even this form of business. However, I think a privately owned company ought have the right as to whether or not they associate with a given other company. From a point of view of what ought be their right. It can slow society down though to let things flow naturally... If we make it a rule we can't discriminate based on certain criteria, as we have, it speeds up the natural progression of being open. Which will prevail due to the superior efficiency and profit to be made in not being irrationally discriminatory.
However, sometimes those laws have set us back, like in the ECJ ruling on this car insurance issue. I'm a guy so it means better for me, if i were to live there. However, it's a short-sighted view of fairness. They're view is too either or, and not dynamic, not having the proper scope to see whether a given act is indeed irrationally discriminatory or not.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote