NationStates Jolt Archive

As "Common Sense Act II" fell just 5 votes shy of reaching quorum, I have resubmitted it, and ask for your support once again. We can still return common sense to society. Please support this proposal once more.

It can be found by typing "Common Sense Act II" into the search box at the bottom of the first page of proposals, or currently in the middle of page 17.

To do it justice, it has now been submitted under "Human Rights," as that is what it upholds.

Description:: Far too many civil injustices occur each and every day in courts around the world. Frivolous lawsuits plague innocent homeowners and businessmen, who have done nothing wrong but earn enough money to become a target of an opportunist.

Lawsuits on the basis of idiotic neglegence on the part of the victim shall no longer be heard in the courts of UN member nations, as they violate the civil liberties of those being sued.

Idiotic neglegence shall be defined as such:
1:Burning oneself with a hot beverage, such as coffee.
2:Injuring oneself while using a tool in a reckless or improper manner, such as without safety gear or for a purpose the tool is obviously not supposed to do.
3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco.
4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home.

This proposal will lower the tax burden on all citizens, it will make the jobs of Judges and Juries easier, and will help restore a modicum of common sense to the world.

Former Approvals at 7:30 this morning: 119
----------------------

I'm sorry, I once again can not support this proposal.

Good Luck though,

Peace,
Stephanie.

I'm sorry, I once again can not support this proposal.

Good Luck though,

Peace,
Stephanie.

That's quite all right. We can't all be right all the time.

If you took out the one about the not being able to sue for harmfull products and modified it a bit to not allow loopholes I would support it. But I know you will not do that because you wan't to make it illegal to sue companies that sell harmfull products. :roll:

You know my debate, I still don't know yours because you have yet to say anything other than a string of insults and telling me what I'm saying. You can't assume companies will be all nice and not do anything bad, they won't, that's not up for debate, anyone who has ever watched the news in the past month knows they wont.

I'm sorry, I once again can not support this proposal.

Good Luck though,

Peace,
Stephanie.

That's quite all right. We can't all be right all the time.

I wouldn't call it a matter of right vs. wrong. I think it's more a question of political slants and different ways of thinking. It's simply a difference of opinion. Since there is not really any factual issues other then opinion in this resolution, that's all it is, as personal opinion. So, I don't think I'm pe se right or wrong, nor are you.

Peace,
Stephanie.

I'd like to point out one thing. The hot coffe issue made popular by the old lady suing McDonald's. Well her case was not unique . there were hundreds of prior cases, they all signed silence riders on their out fo court settlements though. McD's coffe used to be served at 190 F. Thats pretty close to boiling. That they had hundreds of burn victems and refused to do anythign about it until the old lady and her very public lawsuit, well that simply speaks to the fact that corporations need to be held accountable for their actions, and that this law needs a lot more work. Post old lady, McD's coffe i snow served at 170 F. Thats still piping hot, but wont cause 3rd degree burns to the inside of your thigh if you spill it.

I'd like to point out one thing. The hot coffe issue made popular by the old lady suing McDonald's. Well her case was not unique . there were hundreds of prior cases, they all signed silence riders on their out fo court settlements though. McD's coffe used to be served at 190 F. Thats pretty close to boiling. That they had hundreds of burn victems and refused to do anythign about it until the old lady and her very public lawsuit, well that simply speaks to the fact that corporations need to be held accountable for their actions, and that this law needs a lot more work. Post old lady, McD's coffe i snow served at 170 F. Thats still piping hot, but wont cause 3rd degree burns to the inside of your thigh if you spill it.

Anybody who makes coffee knows you have to do this magical thing to make it. It's called boiling it. The fact that McDonald's coffee is served at 170 now just means it's old crap coffee which tastes bad. Coffee's supposed to be hot!!! Stop the insanity!

If you took out the one about the not being able to sue for harmfull products and modified it a bit to not allow loopholes I would support it. But I know you will not do that because you wan't to make it illegal to sue companies that sell harmfull products. :roll:

You know my debate, I still don't know yours because you have yet to say anything other than a string of insults and telling me what I'm saying. You can't assume companies will be all nice and not do anything bad, they won't, that's not up for debate, anyone who has ever watched the news in the past month knows they wont.

Far be it from me to speak for Fantasan, but I'll gladly give you my take, since I've been having a telegram conversation with another country on just this topic. Here's the gist.

As far as people being able to sue because they've got a big ass from eating 3 burgers a day for the last 20 years, all I can say is "What did you expect?" Look, burgers are designed to taste a certain way, and the way they taste requires a lot of fat and a lot of carbs, and both of those things cause humans to gain weight. This is no great secret, and hasn't been for quite some time. So if you eat a bunch of burgers and it makes you look like the Michelin man, well, I'd say the product is doing exactly what it was designed to do. If you don't want the big ass, then stop shoveling fast food down your piehole a dozen times a week, eat a salad and get on the treadmill.

As far as cigarettes are concerned, for almost my entire life, and I'm in my mid-thirties, cigarettes have had explicit warnings on their packages and in their advertisements saying that if you use this product, you will probably die sooner than you have to, and likely from a particularly disgusting illness. This, again, is no secret. And yet millions of people, myself included at times, decide that it's important enough to suck tobacco smoke into our lungs that we're willing to chance it. The cigarette does its job--it provides a nicotine buzz, but at a cost--lung capacity. If you as a consumer decide it's worth the cost, what right do you have later on to say "sorry, I made a mistake when I was younger and now I'd like you to pay for my mistake." That's not the way the real world ought to work--you made the call, so you deal with the consequences.

There is another way to deal with this, though. If you don't want your citizens to smoke, then outlaw the industry. If you don't want your citizens getting fat, then outlaw the fast food industry and mandate exercise regimens. But it seems extraordinarily unfair to me to punish a legal industry because its products do exactly what they are designed to do.

Representing The Holy Republic of Falsonia, I, Liakeze, the
Devil's Advocate-General and Ambassador from Hell, wish
to congratulate the brillaint tactics of the *budding genius*
who proposed this issue!

This is really *quite* phenominal! Hats off to a gifted
spin-doctor if ever there was one!

Yes, we all *know* that *any* time someone comes to
harm, it was *strictly and totally* the fault of the *loser*
who *did it to himself,* and no other entity should ever
take the responsibility that so rightly belongs to *that
loser.* If the coffee is too hot, you don't have to buy it!

Of course, no company would *ever* willingly ignore
a problem that could *hurt* somebody. That would be
just plain bad for business! For example, The Boss
(we all know who that is) sees to it that thousands of
souls have all their earthly desires satisfied every day!
Some claim that he short-changes some of his customers,
but we all know better than that. Just look at me! I'm
a great example of how one can rise through the
"corporate ranks" through a little hard work and de-
termination. Failure is for losers, and I'm here to show
everyone just how good being a winner is!

Would Falsonia support this measure? Well....that's
something we'll have to think about. It depends on
how fast the bribes come in---er, um---how we feel
when we've studied the minute details of this proposal.
We *can* say, though, that we're generally favorable
to the proposal (and can be easily bought)! We think
that we'd make great spokespersons for this idea, too.
We're *exactly* the kind of people who would be
interested in a deal like this one.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got this priestess to talk
with. Seems she needs a little Religious Experience...
(and you'd better believe that I've got a deal for *her!*)

Liakeze
The Devil's Advocate-General
(Hell's PR Man)
P.S. So, Fantasan, does this mean that you're making
us an offer?
:wink: :wink: :wink:

If you took out the one about the not being able to sue for harmfull products and modified it a bit to not allow loopholes I would support it. But I know you will not do that because you wan't to make it illegal to sue companies that sell harmfull products. :roll:

You know my debate, I still don't know yours because you have yet to say anything other than a string of insults and telling me what I'm saying. You can't assume companies will be all nice and not do anything bad, they won't, that's not up for debate, anyone who has ever watched the news in the past month knows they wont.

Far be it from me to speak for Fantasan, but I'll gladly give you my take, since I've been having a telegram conversation with another country on just this topic. Here's the gist.

As far as people being able to sue because they've got a big ass from eating 3 burgers a day for the last 20 years, all I can say is "What did you expect?" Look, burgers are designed to taste a certain way, and the way they taste requires a lot of fat and a lot of carbs, and both of those things cause humans to gain weight. This is no great secret, and hasn't been for quite some time. So if you eat a bunch of burgers and it makes you look like the Michelin man, well, I'd say the product is doing exactly what it was designed to do. If you don't want the big ass, then stop shoveling fast food down your piehole a dozen times a week, eat a salad and get on the treadmill.

As far as cigarettes are concerned, for almost my entire life, and I'm in my mid-thirties, cigarettes have had explicit warnings on their packages and in their advertisements saying that if you use this product, you will probably die sooner than you have to, and likely from a particularly disgusting illness. This, again, is no secret. And yet millions of people, myself included at times, decide that it's important enough to suck tobacco smoke into our lungs that we're willing to chance it. The cigarette does its job--it provides a nicotine buzz, but at a cost--lung capacity. If you as a consumer decide it's worth the cost, what right do you have later on to say "sorry, I made a mistake when I was younger and now I'd like you to pay for my mistake." That's not the way the real world ought to work--you made the call, so you deal with the consequences.

There is another way to deal with this, though. If you don't want your citizens to smoke, then outlaw the industry. If you don't want your citizens getting fat, then outlaw the fast food industry and mandate exercise regimens. But it seems extraordinarily unfair to me to punish a legal industry because its products do exactly what they are designed to do.

I hear every thing you're saying. I also agree with it. My problem with this resolution is an ideological one. I don't believe this proposal should be tabled at the U.N. even more so then most. Why? Because this is not a universal issue. This problem is completely unique to the United States of America. I know of no other country where such frivolous lawsuits take place. In other words, it's not a problem for the rest of the world. Thus should stay a domestic issue and not an international one.

Think about this for a second, can you imagine if you heard on the news tonight that the U.N. has passed a resolution condemning any country who's population sued McDonalds? Now you sit there and tell me with a straight face that sounds right to you!

That is why I will not support this proposal nor do I think any one else should.

Peace,
Stephanie.

Were this the real world, I would be inclined to agree with you Stephanie, and I understand your position. I've taken it myself in the past on other resolutions. But this isn't the real world--it's a bunch of people playing a silly game, and I look at these proposals more as an opportunity to foster debate--hopefully intelligent debate--than worrying whether or not they would work in the real world.

As I've said before, this is not a matter of you got fat, you can't sue. This (if this passes) would end up being a matter of, you died, you can't sue.

It's about what would happen in the future if this were passed, the only thing stopping companies from making thier products unsafe is threat of lawsuit, and threat that thier product would become much less popular if millions were dying. Now, the popularity issue only goes so far, who is going to care if 100 people get ebola and die a year from Mcdonalds? Nobody, and the company can make the product addictive meaning they don't even have to worry about the populatiry issue.

If there is no threat of a lawsuit, the company will just go with what is more cost efficient in order to save money, regardless of if it is safe or not. And they will not spend such extensive time testing thier products to make sure they are safe. And don't tell me companies can be trusted to do the right thing and not make thier products unsafe just for the sake of money, because if that were so, Enron would not be bankrupt and Cigarretes would not even be on the market.

Am I the only one who remembers the thousands of recalled canned foods because of botchelism and how just recently land o' lakes recalled butter packages because one was filled with metal shards? If this were passed, what is the company's motivation to even recall that? If thousands of people dying a year because of cigarretes doesnt stop people, why would 30 or 40 people dying of food poisoning matter?

This resolution doesn't cover things like that... those things are covered within typical products liability... if it is defective and you didn't know about it (i.e. ebola) they are liable. If the hamburger has a high fat content it is not defective, it is supposed to have a high fat conent to taste a certain way. People know burgers are fatty, they don't know if there is ebola... big difference. Tisonica's entire arguement is a red herring.

This resolution doesn't cover things like that... those things are covered within typical products liability... if it is defective and you didn't know about it (i.e. ebola) they are liable. If the hamburger has a high fat content it is not defective, it is supposed to have a high fat conent to taste a certain way. People know burgers are fatty, they don't know if there is ebola... big difference. Tisonica's entire arguement is a red herring.

No, there is no exceptions in there for liability. It simply states; 3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco.
And ebola is damagin to the, so is shards of metal or glass. But since they are all legal products (ebola is technically a legal product if I can recall, because drug companies need it to make vaccines) you cannot sue if they damage you in any way. I see no exceptions for liability, which means since it is a legal product you cannot sue if you are damaged by it.

I think you are reading it wrongly (or to suit your purpose of letting the comsumers pick up the tab of other's irresponsibility (at best) or idiocy (at worst)). Perhaps the proposal can be reworded to do away with such "misinterpretations" but we will still support this resolution as is. I don't see how any sane court interprets this proposal the way Tisonica reads it, even in the US, where courts tend to be a little more strict with interpretation (while int'l courts look much more at the spirit of legislation than the litteral word... the spirit is pretty clear here).

The sensible approach is not to implement more silly laws, but to foster a culture of common sense and personal responsability. 94% of all lawsuits in the world happen in the US. This isn't because all other countries have "Common Sense" acts.
More pointless, nitpicking laws means more lawyers, and that means more litigation, more wasted resources, more clogged courts, etc.

This resolution doesn't cover things like that... those things are covered within typical products liability... if it is defective and you didn't know about it (i.e. ebola) they are liable. If the hamburger has a high fat content it is not defective, it is supposed to have a high fat conent to taste a certain way. People know burgers are fatty, they don't know if there is ebola... big difference. Tisonica's entire arguement is a red herring.

No, there is no exceptions in there for liability. It simply states; 3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco.
And ebola is damagin to the, so is shards of metal or glass. But since they are all legal products (ebola is technically a legal product if I can recall, because drug companies need it to make vaccines) you cannot sue if they damage you in any way. I see no exceptions for liability, which means since it is a legal product you cannot sue if you are damaged by it.

Hold on a sec, Tisonica. There's nothing in the proposal that keep you from requiring certain standards from the companies that process such products. That's still a purely local decision the way I read this--so just make your local companies adhere to specific safety standards and make them liable for stepping outside those standards. The way I read the proposal, the company isn't protected from negligent behavior; it is siumply protected from being sued when people misuse a legal product. I think it's fair to say that a hamburger tainted with the ebola virus is not a legal product in any administration.

What I've gathered from Tisonica's post: Tisonica won't be happy until all companies are run by the government, and the world adopts a universal Communist system to administrate all things. That would only be fair.

This proposal is brilliant. Idiots shouldn't be allowed to file lawsuits. And if you choose to smoke and eat burgers then that your problem if you get fat and have lung cancer. Next thing you'll hear in court is some crack Ho asking for damages against her drug dealler.

What I've gathered from Tisonica's post: Tisonica won't be happy until all companies are run by the government, and the world adopts a universal Communist system to administrate all things. That would only be fair.

Not at all--Tisonica's objection is a legitimate one, even thougfh I happen to disagree with it. Keep the politics out of this argument Fantasan--there's no need for it and your hostility to any system that differs from yours weakens your case.

This resolution doesn't cover things like that... those things are covered within typical products liability... if it is defective and you didn't know about it (i.e. ebola) they are liable. If the hamburger has a high fat content it is not defective, it is supposed to have a high fat conent to taste a certain way. People know burgers are fatty, they don't know if there is ebola... big difference. Tisonica's entire arguement is a red herring.

No, there is no exceptions in there for liability. It simply states; 3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco.
And ebola is damagin to the, so is shards of metal or glass. But since they are all legal products (ebola is technically a legal product if I can recall, because drug companies need it to make vaccines) you cannot sue if they damage you in any way. I see no exceptions for liability, which means since it is a legal product you cannot sue if you are damaged by it.

Hold on a sec, Tisonica. There's nothing in the proposal that keep you from requiring certain standards from the companies that process such products. That's still a purely local decision the way I read this--so just make your local companies adhere to specific safety standards and make them liable for stepping outside those standards. The way I read the proposal, the company isn't protected from negligent behavior; it is siumply protected from being sued when people misuse a legal product. I think it's fair to say that a hamburger tainted with the ebola virus is not a legal product in any administration.

Would you prefer if I said a hamburger with shards of glass in it? Because I am positive that is legal. And, it being legal, you would not be able to sue if Mcdonalds sold you one.

What I've gathered from Tisonica's post: Tisonica won't be happy until all companies are run by the government, and the world adopts a universal Communist system to administrate all things. That would only be fair.

Like I said, if you have a debate, please say it. If you don't, just tell me, don't spout insults just to draw attention away from it.

I'll paste something that I wrote in another thread so people can understand why exactly I am against this. I asked Fantasan to make changes to it to not allow these things to happen but he did not do so. So he clearly must support them and want them to be able to happen. I realize these things most likely would not happen in real life at present time, but if these laws were passed it is very likely, if not a certainty, that companies would become more careless for the consumer's wellbeing since there is no threat of being sued. So many of these things, along with others, could indeed happen.

I will say however that if the proposal were just that people couldnt sue because they misued a product then I would support it. But it isn't, it clearly states that you cannot sue a company that sells you a legal product that is harmfull. A hamburger filled with glass shards is legal (dont ask me how it got filled with glass shards, perhaps someone broke a window or something, but something along those lines) so you would not be able to sue if Mcdonalds sold you a hamburger filled with glass shards.

It also states that if you weren't using proper saftey gear while using the product, you cannot sue if you were hurt. This would mean that, if someone was using thier computer, and the capacitor shorted out or somehting and caused it to explode, you could not sue for the glass blinding you.

And the proposal also states, that you cannot sue for any injury incured during the commision of a crime. Now, we already have laws like this in US, people can't sue the homeowner if they were injured while stealing things from thier house, the only reason people get money is because the courts were not able to convict the criminal of the crime, so in the eyes of the law they weren't an intruder, they were only a guest. So this proposal is useless in that form. What it does do is make it impossible to file a police brutality case. If you got caught running a red light, and the police officer pulled you over and punched you in the face, you could not sue him for that. Fantasan admitted to that, and supports that legislation be enacted to make police brutality cases illegal.

I'm not accusing Fantasan of misleading people just so he can get his radical legislation passed, for all I know he could have not thought the proposal through all the way and submitted it without thinking of all the consequences. I'm only pointing out what this proposal does do.

I'll paste something that I wrote in another thread so people can understand why exactly I am against this. I asked Fantasan to make changes to it to not allow these things to happen but he did not do so. So he clearly must support them and want them to be able to happen. I realize these things most likely would not happen in real life at present time, but if these laws were passed it is very likely, if not a certainty, that companies would become more careless for the consumer's wellbeing since there is no threat of being sued. So many of these things, along with others, could indeed happen.

I will say however that if the proposal were just that people couldnt sue because they misued a product then I would support it. But it isn't, it clearly states that you cannot sue a company that sells you a legal product that is harmfull. A hamburger filled with glass shards is legal (dont ask me how it got filled with glass shards, perhaps someone broke a window or something, but something along those lines) so you would not be able to sue if Mcdonalds sold you a hamburger filled with glass shards.

Okay, I've defended you before, but I can't do it when you make outlandish statements like this. Your example is crap--there is no way that a hamburger filled with glass shards is legal, unless the regulating agencies in your country--not the US or whatever country you live in IRL--your country according to this game say that it is legal, and if your country's regulating agencies say that's legal, well, you've got issues of your own to work with. Ergo, a hamburger with glass shards in it is defective and the company is not covered by the negligence agreement.

It also states that if you weren't using proper saftey gear while using the product, you cannot sue if you were hurt. This would mean that, if someone was using thier computer, and the capacitor shorted out or somehting and caused it to explode, you could not sue for the glass blinding you.

Again, your example is crap. If the computer were to explode, then the computer is not working properly, i.e. it is defective and the company is not protected from lawsuit. What it means is that if the manufacturer warns you not to use a bandsaw without goggles and the blade guard in place, and you do so anyway and as a result you slice off a finger and a bone chip blinds you, the saw manufacturer isn't responsible. Your computer example fails to meet that criteria.

And the proposal also states, that you cannot sue for any injury incured during the commision of a crime. Now, we already have laws like this in US, people can't sue the homeowner if they were injured while stealing things from thier house, the only reason people get money is because the courts were not able to convict the criminal of the crime, so in the eyes of the law they weren't an intruder, they were only a guest. So this proposal is useless in that form. What it does do is make it impossible to file a police brutality case. If you got caught running a red light, and the police officer pulled you over and punched you in the face, you could not sue him for that. Fantasan admitted to that, and supports that legislation be enacted to make police brutality cases illegal.

Again, your example is garbage. Using your own logic, if the person is not convicted of a crime, his right to sue the police is still intact, correct? In addition, your individual country can enact exceptions to any UN legislation it sees fit to.

I'm not accusing Fantasan of misleading people just so he can get his radical legislation passed, for all I know he could have not thought the proposal through all the way and submitted it without thinking of all the consequences. I'm only pointing out what this proposal does do.

And I'm not accusing you of misleading others who may decide to recommend this proposal. I'm merely pointing out the flaws in your examples. Please don't take this personally--your opposition is no doubt honest and well-meaning, but I think it's flawed, and I think I've shown how it's flawed.

I can not support this proposal. I find it far too restrictive in it's lay out.

There are cases where a person may die from a infectious bacteria that has lived in a fast food burger or something like that but if this proposal is passed it will not allow the family of the victims to sue. There is no middle ground on this legislation

I would urge the delegate of Fantasan to make some changes to their proposal so that judges and juries have some clearer definitions of what is allowed and what isn't

I can not support this proposal. I find it far too restrictive in it's lay out.

There are cases where a person may die from a infectious bacteria that has lived in a fast food burger or something like that but if this proposal is passed it will not allow the family of the victims to sue. There is no middle ground on this legislation

I would urge the delegate of Fantasan to make some changes to their proposal so that judges and juries have some clearer definitions of what is allowed and what isn't

Your argument is unnecessary. As has been stated before, a burger isn't supposed to have bacteria or anything of that sort in it. If someone gets sick or dies from a bacterial compound found in a burger, criminal charges can be made against the company. It all depends on what your individual government's laws are. It is in plain language that if someone does something stupid, like getting fat for eating to much, they are responsible for their own actions. Not if they eat an ebola burger (in that case the company is guilty of criminal negligence, willful distribution of a deadly substance, etc...). Your own government does some interpretation on the law, and if judge is too stupid to prosecute a company for feeding people lethal substances (not fatty, or addictive products someone consumes of their own free will), then that judge should be disbarred, and it's a proble with your country's justice system, not this proposal.

We the People's Republic Of Amyth would like to lend our voice of support to the nation of Tisonica. This regulation does not seem to make allowances for inadvertant mislabelling of product (who would you sue, the company or the government?) Accidents in either design or manufacture, (design of many products go through a testing phase, but sometimes things pass through) or the possibility that with restrictions lifted it allows the oppurtunity of lawful citizens to go to extreme measures in the protection of their property. (take for example the south-african anti-carjack device, which is basically a flamethrower). While perhaps justified, such devices have a great potential of enexpected casualities. (Look at the numbers of self inflicted gunshot wounds in the USA)

In conclusion we fully oppose this resolution, and feel that if these silly lawsuits are trying up your counties legal system, that would be your problem.

I'll paste something that I wrote in another thread so people can understand why exactly I am against this. I asked Fantasan to make changes to it to not allow these things to happen but he did not do so. So he clearly must support them and want them to be able to happen. I realize these things most likely would not happen in real life at present time, but if these laws were passed it is very likely, if not a certainty, that companies would become more careless for the consumer's wellbeing since there is no threat of being sued. So many of these things, along with others, could indeed happen.

I will say however that if the proposal were just that people couldnt sue because they misued a product then I would support it. But it isn't, it clearly states that you cannot sue a company that sells you a legal product that is harmfull. A hamburger filled with glass shards is legal (dont ask me how it got filled with glass shards, perhaps someone broke a window or something, but something along those lines) so you would not be able to sue if Mcdonalds sold you a hamburger filled with glass shards.

Okay, I've defended you before, but I can't do it when you make outlandish statements like this. Your example is crap--there is no way that a hamburger filled with glass shards is legal, unless the regulating agencies in your country--not the US or whatever country you live in IRL--your country according to this game say that it is legal, and if your country's regulating agencies say that's legal, well, you've got issues of your own to work with. Ergo, a hamburger with glass shards in it is defective and the company is not covered by the negligence agreement.

A hamburger filled with glass is legal to sell in every country in RL, before you go around calling everything crap you should do some research first, they don't make laws that make it illegal to sell anything that could be harmfull to anybody else, and since they don't usually tell you what is in fact in a hamburger, you cannot claim that the hamburger is defective, or that you were decieved.

It also states that if you weren't using proper saftey gear while using the product, you cannot sue if you were hurt. This would mean that, if someone was using thier computer, and the capacitor shorted out or somehting and caused it to explode, you could not sue for the glass blinding you.

Again, your example is crap. If the computer were to explode, then the computer is not working properly, i.e. it is defective and the company is not protected from lawsuit. What it means is that if the manufacturer warns you not to use a bandsaw without goggles and the blade guard in place, and you do so anyway and as a result you slice off a finger and a bone chip blinds you, the saw manufacturer isn't responsible. Your computer example fails to meet that criteria.

2:Injuring oneself while using a tool in a reckless or improper manner, such as without safety gear or for a purpose the tool is obviously not supposed to do.

A computer is a tool no? Now, Fantasan does not specify anywhere in here anything about what is classified as proper saftey gear, and for what. And if it is just a simple warning label on the product telling you that you should wear certain gear while using it I have no quarrell with that, those are basically the same requirements in every country. But since he doesn't say what it is and since the proposal is about "common sense" (which in and of itself needs a definition because making laws and not telling people what they are is just plain moronic) I can only assume people are just supposed to know what gear to use. And any computer company would have no problem arguing that it is common sense to wear goggles while using a computer, just as you would using a bandsaw, to a judge. And they would probably succeed in doing so because they could afford a much better lawyer than a person blinded by an exploding computer, so this proposal only creates even more loopholes to make courts even more backed up.

And the proposal also states, that you cannot sue for any injury incured during the commision of a crime. Now, we already have laws like this in US, people can't sue the homeowner if they were injured while stealing things from thier house, the only reason people get money is because the courts were not able to convict the criminal of the crime, so in the eyes of the law they weren't an intruder, they were only a guest. So this proposal is useless in that form. What it does do is make it impossible to file a police brutality case. If you got caught running a red light, and the police officer pulled you over and punched you in the face, you could not sue him for that. Fantasan admitted to that, and supports that legislation be enacted to make police brutality cases illegal.

Again, your example is garbage. Using your own logic, if the person is not convicted of a crime, his right to sue the police is still intact, correct? In addition, your individual country can enact exceptions to any UN legislation it sees fit to.

But if he indeed ran the red light, and was convicted of running the red light, he cannot sue the police officer, don't call my example garbage just because you misread it.

I'm not accusing Fantasan of misleading people just so he can get his radical legislation passed, for all I know he could have not thought the proposal through all the way and submitted it without thinking of all the consequences. I'm only pointing out what this proposal does do.

And I'm not accusing you of misleading others who may decide to recommend this proposal. I'm merely pointing out the flaws in your examples. Please don't take this personally--your opposition is no doubt honest and well-meaning, but I think it's flawed, and I think I've shown how it's flawed.

And I have shown you why your rebuttal to my example is flawed, I've repeatedly asked Fantasan to revise the proposal to make it so things like this wouldn't be able to happen, but he hasn't, he has actually admitted that he doesn't believe people should be able to sue in police brutality cases, most likely meaning he did indeed mean to make them illegal in with this proposal.

Fantasan, if you are not trying to illegalize lawsuits against neglegent companies then why did you not edit the proposal when I asked you to?

Why don't you just tell these people that you are in fact trying to illegalize police brutality cases and that you do not want people to be able to sue neglegent companies. If that isnt so, then please explain to us why you are so reluctant to make your proposal less vague and specify what you cannot exactly sue for.

Because anyone with "Common Sense" knows that is totally BS. Stop trying to attack my character to win your argument!

Every law has loopholes, and if you're too stupid to be able to interpret this law, than you'd better never try for a Judgeship! This law is plain and clear, and stops greedy idiots who injure themselves from suing without just cause. It doesn't say anything about police brutality. You made that up. The law specifies if someone is committing an obvious crime, they can't sue for cash. It doesn't say if a cop beats the crap out of somebody for speeding that they can't punish the cop. If your country has laws that lets cops get away with beating people up for minor offenses, that's your country's problem, and this proposal won't do anything to change that!

If I were to add the "changes" you think are necessary, this proposal woudl be a 6 page document which accomplished nothing. Just say it, you'd never be satisfied with this proposal in any form, because you're against people being forced to take responsibility for their own actions.

Idiotic neglegence shall be defined as such:
1:Burning oneself with a hot beverage, such as coffee.

Just because the warning is there doesn't mean that you should be free of neglect if someone pours it on you...

2:Injuring oneself while using a tool in a reckless or improper manner, such as without safety gear or for a purpose the tool is obviously not supposed to do.

How much safety gear? You can't protect everyone from everything.

3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco.

Air is harmful. Are we going to ban breathing?

4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home.

Okay, I'll give you that one. I don't want to get sued if someone running from the cops and breaks a toe and sues.

Perhaps some "supidity institute" or some organization should determine where it becomes stupidity and where it is merely an accident in regards to lawsuits.

And the proposal also states, that you cannot sue for any injury incured during the commision of a crime. Now, we already have laws like this in US, people can't sue the homeowner if they were injured while stealing things from thier house, the only reason people get money is because the courts were not able to convict the criminal of the crime, so in the eyes of the law they weren't an intruder, they were only a guest. So this proposal is useless in that form. What it does do is make it impossible to file a police brutality case. If you got caught running a red light, and the police officer pulled you over and punched you in the face, you could not sue him for that. Fantasan admitted to that, and supports that legislation be enacted to make police brutality cases illegal.

Again, your example is garbage. Using your own logic, if the person is not convicted of a crime, his right to sue the police is still intact, correct? In addition, your individual country can enact exceptions to any UN legislation it sees fit to.

This is inaccurate.

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

Therefore, no UN nation may enact exceptions to UN resolutions. Furthermore...4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home. Therefore, Tisonica is correct. I read that as blocking police brutality cases, unless your police brutality law is extremely cleverly worded.

I oppose this resolution. I will be fighting against this resolution on the floor. If it passes, Lord Goobergunch has informed that he is drafting a law with language to circumvent this resolution.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

I second every thing Goobergunchia has just said above.

Peace,
Stephanie.

Because anyone with "Common Sense" knows that is totally BS. Stop trying to attack my character to win your argument!

Every law has loopholes, and if you're too stupid to be able to interpret this law, than you'd better never try for a Judgeship! This law is plain and clear, and stops greedy idiots who injure themselves from suing without just cause. It doesn't say anything about police brutality. You made that up. The law specifies if someone is committing an obvious crime, they can't sue for cash. It doesn't say if a cop beats the crap out of somebody for speeding that they can't punish the cop. If your country has laws that lets cops get away with beating people up for minor offenses, that's your country's problem, and this proposal won't do anything to change that!

If I were to add the "changes" you think are necessary, this proposal woudl be a 6 page document which accomplished nothing. Just say it, you'd never be satisfied with this proposal in any form, because you're against people being forced to take responsibility for their own actions.

Fantasan, quit dancing around the problem, you did not rebut or give any reason why my examples were false. Which must mean you agree they are true, if you don't give an arguemnt why they don't instead of sputing off nonsense. It would not be 6 pages, at most if would be maybe a sentence or two longer. You must obviously just want all these things to be passed, so quit lying to people and tell them what you are really doing.

Because anyone with "Common Sense" knows that is totally BS. Stop trying to attack my character to win your argument!

Every law has loopholes, and if you're too stupid to be able to interpret this law, than you'd better never try for a Judgeship! This law is plain and clear, and stops greedy idiots who injure themselves from suing without just cause. It doesn't say anything about police brutality. You made that up. The law specifies if someone is committing an obvious crime, they can't sue for cash. It doesn't say if a cop beats the crap out of somebody for speeding that they can't punish the cop. If your country has laws that lets cops get away with beating people up for minor offenses, that's your country's problem, and this proposal won't do anything to change that!

If I were to add the "changes" you think are necessary, this proposal woudl be a 6 page document which accomplished nothing. Just say it, you'd never be satisfied with this proposal in any form, because you're against people being forced to take responsibility for their own actions.

Fantasan, quit dancing around the problem, you did not rebut or give any reason why my examples were false. Which must mean you agree they are true, if you don't give an arguemnt why they don't instead of sputing off nonsense. It would not be 6 pages, at most if would be maybe a sentence or two longer. You must obviously just want all these things to be passed, so quit lying to people and tell them what you are really doing.