NationStates Jolt Archive

What are your thoughts on personal responsibility?

Some of us are strong believers in personal responsibility.

What I want to know is what your personal definition of personal responsibility is.

In what areas of life does personal responsibility fall?

Do you believe that some things are beyond the scope of personal responsibility and fall on the shoulders of the community as a whole? What are those things? Where do we draw the line between personal responsibility and community responsibility?

This written quiz is open book. You have 30 minutes to complete it and hand it in. After you are done, you can go outside and play on the swings or go to the library and read. Start.

If physically possible, you have the personal responsibility to defend and preseve your own life, by force if necessary.

If you are able bodied, you should not have the right to demand that others provide this protection for you in the absence of your willingness to take up that personal responsibility.

Example:
If you're not willing to serve, or have not served in combat in the military, you should not be allowed to vote to send someone else.

If you're not willing to take up some means of personal protection and use it, you should not be allowed to ask the police to provide that protection.

If physically possible, you have the personal responsibility to defend and preseve your own life, by force if necessary.

If you are able bodied, you should not have the right to demand that others provide this protection for you in the absence of your willingness to take up that personal responsibility.

Example:
If you're not willing to serve, or have not served in combat in the military, you should not be allowed to vote to send someone else.

If you're not willing to take up some means of personal protection and use it, you should not be allowed to ask the police to provide that protection.

Well, this is just a little bizarre. Surely as soon as you ask the police for protection you are showing that you are not willing to protect yourself. By your logic, why should there even be police?

And how do you take away someone's right to vote on one specific issue?

I strongly believe in personal responsibility. People must learn to fend for themselves. I do, however, believe we have a moral- and I emphasize the word moral, not legal- obligation to help those who are disadvantaged and poor. That's why I believe everyone should voluntarily contribute as much as possible to respectable charitable organizations.

'Personal responsibility', to me, refers to what you control in your life, such as your actions and inactions.

You have the responsibility to pay your taxes on top, obey the word of the law, ensure that those who are under your care (children, elderly...) receive proper care (as in, you help them get it, even if you don't directly provide it). You also have the responsibility to yourself - to make sure that you're not a total loser in life by giving into peer pressure.

You hold responsibility, both for yourself, your family and your community. If there is a problem with any single one of these it is your damn job to get it sorted out.

I believe in maximizing personal responsibility for yourself - however, as Lewrockwellia just said I also believe we have a moral obligation to help our fellow man. We shuoldn't legislate this obligation into law because then it loses its virtue, however.

Personal responsibility and community responsibility are not mutually exclusive. Every human being should take up their own personal responsibility to themselves and those around them in all aspects of their life. The responsibilities of the community as a whole, made up of those taking personal responsibility, will often overlap the personal responsibilities of the individual.

A for instance:

Every human being, unless physically incapable, should take on the personal responsibility of earning her keep. If she is unemployed, she should be trying to find employment or put together a way to provide for herself while self-employed. If she has any children, they are her personal responsibility as well and she should do all she can to provide for them.

The community also has responsibilties in this case. It must ensure that there is ample opportunity for this person to find employment. It must ensure that, should she be unable to do so on her own, she can find outlets to provide for herself and her children until she can do so on her own - it should provide opportunities to help her find a way to provide for herself on her own.

Note: The feminine pronoun was used here, but one could substitute the male pronoun, or even substitute a couple in its place.

I agree but you need to include "if you don't work you don't eat" and while outside influences are just that influences the ultimateculpability for ones actions is ones self.





If physically possible, you have the personal responsibility to defend and preseve your own life, by force if necessary.

If you are able bodied, you should not have the right to demand that others provide this protection for you in the absence of your willingness to take up that personal responsibility.

Example:
If you're not willing to serve, or have not served in combat in the military, you should not be allowed to vote to send someone else.

If you're not willing to take up some means of personal protection and use it, you should not be allowed to ask the police to provide that protection.

Well, this is just a little bizarre. Surely as soon as you ask the police for protection you are showing that you are not willing to protect yourself. By your logic, why should there even be police?

And how do you take away someone's right to vote on one specific issue?

Senators and Congressmen who have not served in the military in combat should not be allowed to vote to send others. Especially if they are not sending their own sons and daughters.

Once you've demonstrated your willingness to protect yourself, it's ok to call the police for backup. But if you're standing there armed with only a cellphone, they're not obligated to show up if you weren't willing to take the first step and fight back.

Personal Responsibility is very important to me.

ie you are personally responsible for your actions, inaction, emotions, words, ect.

Senators and Congressmen who have not served in the military in combat should not be allowed to vote to send others. Especially if they are not sending their own sons and daughters.

Once you've demonstrated your willingness to protect yourself, it's ok to call the police for backup. But if you're standing there armed with only a cellphone, they're not obligated to show up if you weren't willing to take the first step and fight back.

Agreed!

people should earn the right to vote through service.


Well, this is just a little bizarre. Surely as soon as you ask the police for protection you are showing that you are not willing to protect yourself. By your logic, why should there even be police?

And how do you take away someone's right to vote on one specific issue?

L. Ron Hubbard...is that you?

Has the Scientology invasion of NationStates begun?

No, that was Robert Heinlein's idea - suffrage through military service.

No, that was Robert Heinlein's idea - suffrage through military service.

Ah, that's right. Sorry, I sometimes get those two confused. No real reason for it.

Once you've demonstrated your willingness to protect yourself, it's ok to call the police for backup. But if you're standing there armed with only a cellphone, they're not obligated to show up if you weren't willing to take the first step and fight back.

Right. So a person is walking down the street and three guys jump him. He has no way to fight back against all of them, not being someone with ample training in these things, so he instead tries to cover his head and protect himself in that way. He isn't fighting back, so we should just let the three guys beat him to death?

A woman has a gun pointed at her head and a rapist is telling her to be still and not cry out or he will shoot her in the head. If she moves, he could shoot her before she could move the gun. She isn't fighting back, so it's her fault she's being raped and we should all just look the other way?

I think not. Fighting is a matter of size, training, and sheer circumstance. Most people who attack do so because they feel that they have some sort of inherent advantage over those they are attacking. If "Were they fighting back," is our metric on whether or not we hellp someone, we're going to end up with a much larger percentage of dead victims.

I agree but you need to include "if you don't work you don't eat" and while outside influences are just that influences the ultimateculpability for ones actions is ones self.

The problem with "if you don't work you don't eat" is that it also means "if your parents or caregivers don't work you don't eat"...

I strongly believe in personal responsibility. I believe that everything you do, say, act out you're personally responsible for. I also believe the things that you ignore out of willful blindness or simple ignorance you're personally responsible for too.

Right. So a person is walking down the street and three guys jump him. He has no way to fight back against all of them, not being someone with ample training in these things, so he instead tries to cover his head and protect himself in that way. He isn't fighting back, so we should just let the three guys beat him to death?

A woman has a gun pointed at her head and a rapist is telling her to be still and not cry out or he will shoot her in the head. If she moves, he could shoot her before she could move the gun. She isn't fighting back, so it's her fault she's being raped and we should all just look the other way?

I think not. Fighting is a matter of size, training, and sheer circumstance. Most people who attack do so because they feel that they have some sort of inherent advantage over those they are attacking. If "Were they fighting back," is our metric on whether or not we hellp someone, we're going to end up with a much larger percentage of dead victims.

But apart from that, it would be very practical to require people to provide evidence of their history of self-defence before the police intervened :p

Anyway, I don't see how you have a responsibility to defend yourself unless someone else is dependent on your safety. If you don't, you're obviously putting yourself at risk, but that's your problem. The police just enforce the law, which happens to prohibit violence. It doesn't matter who the vilence is directed against. And by the way, running away is protecting yourself as much as fighting back is.

Right. So a person is walking down the street and three guys jump him. He has no way to fight back against all of them, not being someone with ample training in these things, so he instead tries to cover his head and protect himself in that way. He isn't fighting back, so we should just let the three guys beat him to death?

A woman has a gun pointed at her head and a rapist is telling her to be still and not cry out or he will shoot her in the head. If she moves, he could shoot her before she could move the gun. She isn't fighting back, so it's her fault she's being raped and we should all just look the other way?

I think not. Fighting is a matter of size, training, and sheer circumstance. Most people who attack do so because they feel that they have some sort of inherent advantage over those they are attacking. If "Were they fighting back," is our metric on whether or not we hellp someone, we're going to end up with a much larger percentage of dead victims.


That's why I carry a gun.

I strongly believe in personal responsibility. I believe that everything you do, say, act out you're personally responsible for. I also believe the things that you ignore out of willful blindness or simple ignorance you're personally responsible for too.
whoa, steph and I agree on something.

Steph, you had better get to Niagara Falls and jump off...

But apart from that, it would be very practical to require people to provide evidence of their history of self-defence before the police intervened :p

Anyway, I don't see how you have a responsibility to defend yourself unless someone else is dependent on your safety. If you don't, you're obviously putting yourself at risk, but that's your problem. The police just enforce the law, which happens to prohibit violence. It doesn't matter who the vilence is directed against. And by the way, running away is protecting yourself as much as fighting back is.

If you own a gun, and carry it, it is symbolic of that effort.

What are your thoughts on personal responsibility?

Some of us are strong believers in personal responsibility.

What I want to know is what your personal definition of personal responsibility is.

In what areas of life does personal responsibility fall?

Do you believe that some things are beyond the scope of personal responsibility and fall on the shoulders of the community as a whole? What are those things? Where do we draw the line between personal responsibility and community responsibility?

This written quiz is open book. You have 30 minutes to complete it and hand it in. After you are done, you can go outside and play on the swings or go to the library and read. Start.

The problem nowadays is that everyone tries to duck personal responsibility as much as possible, thus making almost everything that goes wrong in one's life somebody else's fault. So, if I pour hot coffee down my lap, it's McDonald's fault, not mine. Or if a child gets shot by police because his father is using the child as a shield while he himself started the gunfire exchange, it's the police's fault the child is killed, not the father's. Etc., etc.

That's why I carry a gun.

And being able to use it in a manner helpful to you is a matter of training. If the person attacking you has a better gun, can shoot before you see them, or has more training, your gun isn't likely to do you much good.

So, if I pour hot coffee down my lap, it's McDonald's fault, not mine.

Bad example. First of all, the lady didn't pour hot coffee down her lap, it was spilled there by accident. Second of all, no one ever claimed that the spill itself was McDonald's fault. What they claimed was that the extreme temperature of the coffee (not simply hot, but well above any reasonable temperature) was the fault of McDonald's - as it clearly was, since they decided to keep it at that temperature. It was a problem they had been warned about before, and had chosen to do nothing about. In other words, McDonald's didn't take personal responsibility for the harm they were causing people (this lady was not the first to receive major burns from the coffee) and were thus punished severely for it, especially since they tried to lie in court about their own records.

Or if a child gets shot by police because his father is using the child as a shield while he himself started the gunfire exchange, it's the police's fault the child is killed, not the father's. Etc., etc.

I really haven't hear anyone, with the possible exception of the family, who probably just want anyone to blame, put more fault on the police officers than the father in this exchange.

First of all, the lady didn't pour hot coffee down her lap, it was spilled there by accident. Second of all, no one ever claimed that the spill itself was McDonald's fault. What they claimed was that the extreme temperature of the coffee (not simply hot, but well above any reasonable temperature) was the fault of McDonald's - as it clearly was, since they decided to keep it at that temperature.
.

Uh, coffee is SUPPOSED to be hot, as that's the way most coffee drinkers like it. Any moron should know that without being told. Starbuck's coffee is just as hot as McDonald's, as is just about all coffee served by any establishment.

Uh, coffee is SUPPOSED to be hot, as that's the way most coffee drinkers like it.

Coffee is supposed to be hot - yes. It is not supposed to be so hot that it causes third degree burns within seconds.

Any moron should know that without being told.

"Any moron" would expect that the product they are getting is only as hot as it is in a normal situation, not so hot that it will cause them third degree burns within a few seconds.

Starbuck's coffee is just as hot as McDonald's, as is just about all coffee served by any establishment.

This is true.....now. At the time of this incident, McDonald's coffee was kept well above industry standard.

Edit: During the case, McDonald's claimed that they kept the coffee intentionally hotter than it was safe to drink, because (they said) people did not drink it right away, but took it to work with them. This was shown to contradict their own market research, which clearly showed that most customers began drinking the coffee in the car, just after they left the drive-thru.

On that note, this lady was much more careful than most customers. She was not driving, and asked the driver to pull into a parking space while she put her cream and sugar in the coffee - specifically so that she wouldn't be trying to deal with it in a moving car.

This is true.....now.

As it was then. Being an avid coffee-drinker and not limiting myself to just one place, I really can't remember McDonald's coffee ever being any hotter than any other place's. Even vending machine coffee is hot enough to scald you, if you care to pour in your lap. The thing is, most people already know this.

I believe in personal responsibility and collective capability.

I also believe in the power of economies of scale, and in the tragedy of the commons.

I believe in TANSTAAFL, and I believe that a balance must be struck between short-term and long-term happiness.

And because of these beliefs, I believe taxation, reasonable welfare, public health, and corporate regulation are good things. Not because I'm a bleeding heart, but because I'm self-interested. I recognize that not supporting these things has the potential to put me in an adverse situation far more dire than what supporting and paying for them does -- even if I take every step to ensure I never use the benefits personally.

As it was then. Being an avid coffee-drinker and not limiting myself to just one place, I really can't remember McDonald's coffee ever being any hotter than any other place's. Even vending machine coffee is hot enough to scald you, if you care to pour in your lap. The thing is, most people already know this.Your memory notwithstanding, it would do you good to read up on the facts of the case. The fact is the coffee at that particular McDonald's was well hotter than the industry standard, that they had been warned about the danger of it repeatedly, that they had settled previous cases out of court for trivial sums before (probably specifically because the people affected were worried about idiots claiming "Duh.. didn't you know it was hot?") and when this lady wanted nothing more than her medical expenses for it, they decided to go to court.

As it was then.

Read up on the case. You will find that you are wrong.

Being an avid coffee-drinker and not limiting myself to just one place, I really can't remember McDonald's coffee ever being any hotter than any other place's.

I'm sorry if I take court documents to be a little more reliable than your personal memory of whatever few McDonald's out of who knows how many that you have been to in your life.

Even vending machine coffee is hot enough to scald you, if you care to pour in your lap. The thing is, most people already know this.

You are aware, I would assume, of the difference between scalding and third degree burns?

Look, if I lack a sense of personal responsibility, it's not my fault.

This thread is majorly indicative of what is wrong with America. You guys don't have a clue.

This thread is majorly indicative of what is wrong with America. You guys don't have a clue.

You know, if you were trying to make a point, you're going to have to elaborate a bit more. There have been quite a few things said in this thread, and not everyone has agreed on them. So what exactly do you think is so indicative of the problem?

You know, if you were trying to make a point, you're going to have to elaborate a bit more. There have been quite a few things said in this thread, and not everyone has agreed on them. So what exactly do you think is so indicative of the problem?

You don't understand what makes a person the person they are. You don't just decide to be a hard-worker, or a decent person or whatever. Your enviroment makes you who you are, whether you like that or not. There's no true self-determination as there is no true self, you are who you have been made to be, not who you have made yourself to be.

Or, much more simply, to those who say 'don't work, don't eat', why should it be 'daddy doesn't work, so little girl doesn't eat'?

You don't understand what makes a person the person they are. You don't just decide to be a hard-worker, or a decent person or whatever. Your enviroment makes you who you are, whether you like that or not. There's no true self-determination as there is no true self, you are who you have been made to be, not who you have made yourself to be.

Or, much more simply, to those who say 'don't work, don't eat', why should it be 'daddy doesn't work, so little girl doesn't eat'?
I wholly disagree with that.

I grew up in a pretty bad environment and I think I turned out okay.
yes it is easier to blame your environment so you don't have to work hard but it isn't true.

you choose who you want to be, you choose how you deal with life. falling into the trap that other people control how you act or who you are is very dangerous.

You don't understand what makes a person the person they are.

Really? That is quite a statement to make. Is "you" referring to me, or to Americans as a whole? Do you know most Americans?

You don't just decide to be a hard-worker, or a decent person or whatever.

You can, although your conception of whether or not those are good things, or what constitutes a decent person, or what constitutes hard work will be shaped by your life experiences. I could decide tomorrow that I want to work harder. However, my idea of what that means, and what it entails, would be rather different than others'.

Your enviroment makes you who you are, whether you like that or not.

Your environment contributes, certainly. But there are things about each individual that are just that - individual.

There's no true self-determination as there is no true self, you are who you have been made to be, not who you have made yourself to be.

Philosophical nonsense. If this is true, how were the people who made you what you are made? How were the ones before them made? At some point, you have to get back to something that is self-determined.

Or, much more simply, to those who say 'don't work, don't eat', why should it be 'daddy doesn't work, so little girl doesn't eat'?

It shouldn't be. If daddy truly isn't trying to work, little girl should get put somewhere where she will be provided for.

The exact tempurature at which coffee should be brewed is 187 degrees (fahrenheit), that WAS the tempurature McDonalds used until some old biddy sued them. They now brew at a lower tempurature and I no long go there for coffee, I go where they still brew coffee to make coffee not appease lawers and the people who want to live in a Nerf world.


Coffee is supposed to be hot - yes. It is not supposed to be so hot that it causes third degree burns within seconds.



"Any moron" would expect that the product they are getting is only as hot as it is in a normal situation, not so hot that it will cause them third degree burns within a few seconds.



This is true.....now. At the time of this incident, McDonald's coffee was kept well above industry standard.

Edit: During the case, McDonald's claimed that they kept the coffee intentionally hotter than it was safe to drink, because (they said) people did not drink it right away, but took it to work with them. This was shown to contradict their own market research, which clearly showed that most customers began drinking the coffee in the car, just after they left the drive-thru.

On that note, this lady was much more careful than most customers. She was not driving, and asked the driver to pull into a parking space while she put her cream and sugar in the coffee - specifically so that she wouldn't be trying to deal with it in a moving car.

I wholly disagree with that.

I grew up in a pretty bad environment and I think I turned out okay.
yes it is easier to blame your environment so you don't have to work hard but it isn't true.

you choose who you want to be, you choose how you deal with life. falling into the trap that other people control how you act or who you are is very dangerous.

If you turned out okay, obviously your enviroment wasn't bad for you. It's not clear cut as much as being rich = better person, being secure = better person. Referencing, for example (and I;m aware you haven't done this) a case where someone from a very poor and difficult background became a great contributor to society doesn't disprove my point. There's no graph of condition/goodness but your experiences & genes shape who you are and the decisions you will make. That's obvious. Maybe we should try and create enviroments that'll allow more people to become better decision makers would be more helpful than letting those who are lucky enough to have turned out ok to dominate those who haven't, further aggravating the conditions that aren't conducive to creating better decision makers?

What are your thoughts on personal responsibility?

Some of us are strong believers in personal responsibility.

What I want to know is what your personal definition of personal responsibility is.

In what areas of life does personal responsibility fall?

Do you believe that some things are beyond the scope of personal responsibility and fall on the shoulders of the community as a whole? What are those things? Where do we draw the line between personal responsibility and community responsibility?

This written quiz is open book. You have 30 minutes to complete it and hand it in. After you are done, you can go outside and play on the swings or go to the library and read. Start.

Essentially, each person has three main areas of personal responsibility. Two fall within the political sphere exclusively, while the third applies generally.

The first and foremost rule of responsibility is that every person is obligated to do good and avoid evil. This might also be cast in the terms of personal virtue: every person has the responsibility of cultivating virtuous habits and avoiding vicious ones.

The other two responsibilities that all people have relate to the political order: when the order operates for the common good, all people as citizens of that society have the responsibility of upholding the rule of law. Secondly, when the order acts in a way contrary to the common good, it is the responsibility of people as citizens to defy that law and rearrange the social contract to better accord with the common good and natural law.

"Philosophical nonsense. If this is true, how were the people who made you what you are made? How were the ones before them made? At some point, you have to get back to something that is self-determined."

You could use the same argument against Darwinism, I wouldn't accept it as a valid one though.

Simply, being affected by our conditions is consistent all the way back until wherever life came from comes from. From whatever we evolved out of, up and up, up and up it could mainly be considered darwinism as their brains would not have been complex enough to be truly affected in as noticable a way. You do notice it with dogs & cats who have bad starts in life or suffer from a horrible incident and you notice it in chimps etc. Now as humans you can really see the full affect. I defy you to prove me wrong and say that we are not affected by our conditions in a massive, massive way if not totally.

If you turned out okay, obviously your enviroment wasn't bad for you. It's not clear cut as much as being rich = better person, being secure = better person. Referencing, for example (and I;m aware you haven't done this) a case where someone from a very poor and difficult background became a great contributor to society doesn't disprove my point. There's no graph of condition/goodness but your experiences & genes shape who you are and the decisions you will make. That's obvious. Maybe we should try and create enviroments that'll allow more people to become better decision makers would be more helpful than letting those who are lucky enough to have turned out ok to dominate those who haven't, further aggravating the conditions that aren't conducive to creating better decision makers?
my environment was plenty bad for me.
I grew up in poverty, in a house without electricity water or gas, I was physically and sexually abused. I was addicted to crack by the time I was 12.
you shouldn't assume that my childhood was wonderful just because I have grown out of it.
I do understand that there are some who will not be able to overcome like I have but that doesn't mean they can't, they just need help.
saying that you are destined to be "bad" or irresponsible because you had a crappy life, is not my version of helping.

my environment was plenty bad for me.
I grew up in poverty, in a house without electricity water or gas, I was physically and sexually abused. I was addicted to crack by the time I was 12.
you shouldn't assume that my childhood was wonderful just because I have grown out of it.
I do understand that there are some who will not be able to overcome like I have but that doesn't mean they can't, they just need help.
saying that you are destined to be "bad" or irresponsible because you had a crappy life, is not my version of helping.

Dude, read what I wrote. I said that yes, on the whole people being in your conditions is likely to produce a poor decision maker. However, it does not exclude you from becoming a good one. Your enviroment shaped who you are. Fact. Just because you had an unfortunate upbringing doesn't mean you must be a bad person at the end of it, it just means that whilst the stuff that happened to you was horrible, the end result (ie you as the person) wasn't that bad. But the point is, that you dealt well with it, because of the person your enviroment made you. Do you see? It's a complex idea because you've got to drop a lot of assumptions that are made and it really isn't as simple as a clear cut formula. If you don't follow the logic, it can appear to be contradictory but it's not.

Dude, read what I wrote. I said that yes, on the whole people being in your conditions is likely to produce a poor decision maker. However, it does not exclude you from becoming a good one. Your enviroment shaped who you are. Fact. Just because you had an unfortunate upbringing doesn't mean you must be a bad person at the end of it, it just means that whilst the stuff that happened to you was horrible, the end result (ie you as the person) wasn't that bad. But the point is, that you dealt well with it, because of the person your enviroment made you. Do you see? It's a complex idea because you've got to drop a lot of assumptions that are made and it really isn't as simple as a clear cut formula. If you don't follow the logic, it can appear to be contradictory but it's not.
first off. I am a chick please do not refer to me as 'dude' because it annoys me
second, I didn't become who I am because my "environment" shaped me, I became who I am because that is who I choose to be.

but I will try to understand your theory, could you maybe reword it or use a hypothetical example so I can wrap my head around it and respond properly?

first off. I am a chick please do not refer to me as 'dude' because it annoys me
second, I didn't become who I am because my "environment" shaped me, I became who I am because that is who I choose to be.

but I will try to understand your theory, could you maybe reword it or use a hypothetical example so I can wrap my head around it and respond properly?

Sorry, chick ;)

The idea is though, that yes, you do choose stuff but the reason you think what you think, decide what you decide, choose what you choose and so on is because of how your experiences & enviroment have conditioned you into thinking.

Now, please bear in mind these are just general patterns so pointing out situations that don't comply doesn't oppose the argument. I would ask you to consider why more people born poor stay poor than not. I'd ask you to consider why more murderers are poor or had major issues through their life, like abuse. Now, I'm not claiming that all murders had a very hostile enviroment or that those who shared a similar enviroment couldn't have turned out to be awesome people. Please don't mistake the difference between the two as personal choice, it's just down to the subtle differences of enviroment and the affect they have on the psyche. It's rather strange and bewildering argument when you first hear it, indeed I struggled with it initally but it's clearly the most logic explanation given all we know about the human mind and social conditions. The best way to think of it, imo is to stop considering humans as yourself or the people you know look at the situation on an unidentified person. Or even as an animal if it makes it easier.

Sorry, chick ;)

The idea is though, that yes, you do choose stuff but the reason you think what you think, decide what you decide, choose what you choose and so on is because of how your experiences & enviroment have conditioned you into thinking.

Now, please bear in mind these are just general patterns so pointing out situations that don't comply doesn't oppose the argument. I would ask you to consider why more people born poor stay poor than not. I'd ask you to consider why more murderers are poor or had major issues through their life, like abuse. Now, I'm not claiming that all murders had a very hostile enviroment or that those who shared a similar enviroment couldn't have turned out to be awesome people. Please don't mistake the difference between the two as personal choice, it's just down to the subtle differences of enviroment and the affect they have on the psyche. It's rather strange and bewildering argument when you first hear it, indeed I struggled with it initally but it's clearly the most logic explanation given all we know about the human mind and social conditions. The best way to think of it, imo is to stop considering humans as yourself or the people you know look at the situation on an unidentified person. Or even as an animal if it makes it easier.

okay you got me with the poor one. I can kinda see your point, I guess. anyway I got a date tonight so I gotta go I will post again later if I have anything intelligent to add. ;)

Example:
If you're not willing to serve, or have not served in combat in the military, you should not be allowed to vote to send someone else.

Who ever heard of the people voting to got to war?

'Personal responsibility', to me, refers to what you control in your life, such as your actions and inactions.

You have the responsibility to pay your taxes on top, obey the word of the law, ensure that those who are under your care (children, elderly...) receive proper care (as in, you help them get it, even if you don't directly provide it). You also have the responsibility to yourself - to make sure that you're not a total loser in life by giving into peer pressure.

I'm agreeing with this.

No, that was Robert Heinlein's idea - suffrage through military service.
Think about it. Is it such a good idea for such a huge number of people to be entering the military (i.e. living on the government paycheque) at the same time?

Also, having such a large number of soldiers is blatantly unnecessary. The plan would additionally disqualify the disabled from voting.

Simply, being affected by our conditions is consistent all the way back until wherever life came from comes from. From whatever we evolved out of, up and up, up and up it could mainly be considered darwinism as their brains would not have been complex enough to be truly affected in as noticable a way. You do notice it with dogs & cats who have bad starts in life or suffer from a horrible incident and you notice it in chimps etc. Now as humans you can really see the full affect. I defy you to prove me wrong and say that we are not affected by our conditions in a massive, massive way if not totally.

Ah, you've changed your tune now. I never said we weren't affected by the conditions in which we live or the environment around us. In fact, I said exactly the opposite in the post you are quoting. And, originally, you weren't saying anything about being affected by them. You were stating that who a person is is nothing more than their environmental influences and that their own choices are nothing. It was this statement that I countered.

Like I said, your view of what is good, what is your responsibility, what is the appropriate response to something are affected by your environment and the experiences you have had in life. This does not mean, however, that your environment is the only factor.

Think about it. Is it such a good idea for such a huge number of people to be entering the military (i.e. living on the government paycheque) at the same time?

Also, having such a large number of soldiers is blatantly unnecessary. The plan would additionally disqualify the disabled from voting.

I didn't say it was a good idea. Probably better than universal suffrage, provided you take the time to educate each person and minimize the ignorance.

I wouldn't have a problem with universal service as a prerequisite for the right to vote if you gave people a choice - military for 2 years or civilian service for 2 years. And make it fair - give everyone, even the paraplegics a job to do.

Read up on the case. You will find that you are wrong.



I'm sorry if I take court documents to be a little more reliable than your personal memory of whatever few McDonald's out of who knows how many that you have been to in your life.



You are aware, I would assume, of the difference between scalding and third degree burns?

It still all boils (pardon the pun) down to this: It was not McDonald's fault that the old bag poured coffee down her lap. This whole thread is about personal responsibility. The hag couldn't admit that she was stupid enough to pour hot coffee down her lap, so she blamed McDonalds. That's the point of this thread: Nobody wants to take personal responsibility for their own stupid acts anymore. So we have to have warning labels on everything, even though the warning should be quite obvious to all but the terminally stupid.

It still all boils (pardon the pun) down to this: It was not McDonald's fault that the old bag poured coffee down her lap. This whole thread is about personal responsibility. The hag couldn't admit that she was stupid enough to pour hot coffee down her lap, so she blamed McDonalds. That's the point of this thread: Nobody wants to take personal responsibility for their own stupid acts anymore. So we have to have warning labels on everything, even though the warning should be quite obvious to all but the terminally stupid.

You are still saying things that are completely incorrect. The lady didn't blame McDonald's because she spilled her coffee - she blamed them for having coffee hotter than any reasonable person would expect it to be.

If she had spilled coffee on a nice suit and ruined it and then tried to sue McDonald's for the cost of her suit, that would be an example of her not taking personal responsibility for her actions - as McDonald's in no way caused the spill itself - she did.

However, the spill is not the issue here. The third degree burns that resulted from it are, and those burns are a result of McDonald's keeping it's coffee dangerously high. If a company puts out a product, it must ensure that the product is safe to use in the expected way. If the lady had immediately tried to drink the coffee, she would have received severe burns to her mouth and throat - not something you expect from normal coffee use.

Here's a slightly exaggerated example to make the point:

Suppose a company made knives. Normal use for a knife is cutting food on a cutting board. If someone does something unusual, like stab the knife into their eye, the company is obviously not at fault. If they are not as careful as you should be with a regular knife, there is a chance that they will sustain a cut, but it will be due to their own negligence - not the fault of the company. This would be like the lady spilling coffee and ruining her clothes.

However, suppose the knife was faulty, and could easily break under normal use. I sit down and try to cut a tomato with the knife. The blade portion comes apart from the handle and, because of this defect, slices off my finger. I was using the knife exactly how it should be used, but ended up with an injury. That is the fault of the company.

You are still saying things that are completely incorrect. The lady didn't blame McDonald's because she spilled her coffee - she blamed them for having coffee hotter than any reasonable person would expect it to be.

If she had spilled coffee on a nice suit and ruined it and then tried to sue McDonald's for the cost of her suit, that would be an example of her not taking personal responsibility for her actions - as McDonald's in no way caused the spill itself - she did.

However, the spill is not the issue here. The third degree burns that resulted from it are, and those burns are a result of McDonald's keeping it's coffee dangerously high. If a company puts out a product, it must ensure that the product is safe to use in the expected way. If the lady had immediately tried to drink the coffee, she would have received severe burns to her mouth and throat - not something you expect from normal coffee use.

Here's a slightly exaggerated example to make the point:

Suppose a company made knives. Normal use for a knife is cutting food on a cutting board. If someone does something unusual, like stab the knife into their eye, the company is obviously not at fault. If they are not as careful as you should be with a regular knife, there is a chance that they will sustain a cut, but it will be due to their own negligence - not the fault of the company. This would be like the lady spilling coffee and ruining her clothes.

However, suppose the knife was faulty, and could easily break under normal use. I sit down and try to cut a tomato with the knife. The blade portion comes apart from the handle and, because of this defect, slices off my finger. I was using the knife exactly how it should be used, but ended up with an injury. That is the fault of the company.

I agree w/ you. A company should not be responsible for the misuse of its products. I'm of mixed opinion on the McDonalds case (won't bother getting into it now). There are quite a few people, encouraged by lawyers and a "sue 'em" mentality that just want money or to blame someone else.

There is the issue w/ firearm companies being sued by cities and organizations for criminals (ussually third or fourth party or more) committing crimes. A law to prevent this is in place in most states and is being voted on at the Federal level.

Personal responsibility is important. You have a mind, so use it well.

Personal responsibility is important. You have a mind, so use it well.

Amen.

You are still saying things that are completely incorrect. The lady didn't blame McDonald's because she spilled her coffee - she blamed them for having coffee hotter than any reasonable person would expect it to be.

.

I guess that's where we disagree. To me, any reasonable person would expect coffee to be very hot. Yes, hot enough to burn you if you insist on wearing it.

Ah, you've changed your tune now. I never said we weren't affected by the conditions in which we live or the environment around us. In fact, I said exactly the opposite in the post you are quoting. And, originally, you weren't saying anything about being affected by them. You were stating that who a person is is nothing more than their environmental influences and that their own choices are nothing. It was this statement that I countered.

Like I said, your view of what is good, what is your responsibility, what is the appropriate response to something are affected by your environment and the experiences you have had in life. This does not mean, however, that your environment is the only factor.

Personal choice exsists but the choice you make will be determined by your enviroment & your genes because anything you choose to do will be because of the person you have been shaped into. What I said is entirely consistent with that.

Meh.

"Personal Responcibility" always sounded like an insult to me for some reason. Especially when certain people talk about it.

I have no problem accepting responcibilty.....

Along Sierra's train of thought...

If you are not a woman, you cannot vote on abortion issues.
If you are not a CPA you cannot vote on anything relating to economic issues.
If you are not a Doctor, you cannot vote on healtcare issues.
If you are not a gun owner, you cannot vote on gun laws.

Blah blah blah. What a crock.

I guess that's where we disagree. To me, any reasonable person would expect coffee to be very hot. Yes, hot enough to burn you if you insist on wearing it.

You think coffee should be so hot that when you drink it you suffer severe burns on your lips and throat? Because that's what happened to some of the other customers that were settled with.