Responsibilty

[Mattryx]

...I just saw on the news some woman who is suing a pub for breaching its duty of care to her and allowing her to get pissed.

Why? Because she drove home and crashed into a tree, suffering brain damage, losing the sight in an eye, and her right arm.

What do I say to that?

POMGSKDMFO(U#W$)(*&#$P(*&RYFOIEWF"LKDSJF

This makes my head want to fucking explode. I fucking hate loser dickhead FUCKING MORON WANKERS like this fuckwit who think "How could it be my fault that I got drunk and hurt myself. "

And before anyone says something like "Imagine if it was my mother", I say this : I don't give a fuck who it is. She fucking got exactly what she deserved. The normal outcome for these things is for her to kill some kid as she's driving home. Oh, and if it WAS my mother, I'd call her a fucking idiot for doing it, and abuse her for trying to blame her own actions on someone else. WHERE IS THE RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS WORLD? I fell off your fence when I jumped it, I'M SUING COZ YOU SHOULD HAVE MADE A BETTER GATE! Fucking loser FUCKWITS.

She said when she woke from her surgery, she wished she was dead. Well, I'd wish you fucking died too you mole, if only you didn't have kids to look after. But in hindsight, they be a lot better off without a fucking alcoholic moron slut like you for a mother.

Eat shit and die you bitch.

/rant

[Cassa]

Marry me.

[DJos]

ppl like that should be (post accident) woken up, told they are fuckwits and then shot in a prememtive strike against their own idocy.

[BtrFly]

the stupidity runs deep within the community.... havent you heard that you can be sued if someone breaks into your house and hurts themselves, or if you hurt them! bloody stupidity!!!! ARGH!!!

[ShadowNemesis]

While yes, I think it is totally her fault. She should never have been behind the wheel whilst under the influence. She will more than likely win the court case, simply because the pub may have still have served her while she was drunk. They are not supposed to serve anyone they suspect has had too much too drink.

[Foxfire]

I say we nuke the american's they started it. *grins* kidding... but well... most of this whole "sue everyone" thinking came from there as far as I can tell.

The worst part about something like this (I work in a grog shop so I know all about assholes and alcohol) is that if you follow 'the law' which says don't serve drunken people you generally get your head ripped off....

I say the pub should sue her for befouling the air with her foul odor.

What's the bet her lawyers said, "Hey yer up shit creek girly, drinking and driving like that, but y'know... we can make a load of cash and take all the heat off of you by suing the pub because they should have stopped serving you."

[Mattryx]

Originally posted by Cassa
Marry me.

I'd love to. But I'm betrothed to pleedy. Don't worry, we can work something out. ;)

In regards to the court case, its going to be interesting. Because whatever the outcome, its going to set a FUCKING BIG precedent(I'm sure you law'ys will agree). If she wins, its going to come to people getting kicked out as soon as they exhibit any sort of intoxicated behaviour, which will be fucked. If she loses, and I think she will (I'll explain why in a tick), then pubs will get a little bit more security, and we can be allowed to get pissed in peace.

I think she'll lose because her lawyer has to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, the pub knew what the outcome of her leaving the pub was (her getting in the car and fucking off). I think any decent barrister would be quite capable of showing that there was no way they could have prevented her from having the accident, and also, due to her "alcoholic" history, it was part of a pattern of behaviour that they could have no bearing on.....

It'll be interesting to follow.

[DJos]

Originally posted by Mattryx

I think she'll lose because her lawyer has to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, the pub knew what the outcome of her leaving the pub was (her getting in the car and fucking off). I think any decent barrister would be quite capable of showing that there was no way they could have prevented her from having the accident, and also, due to her "alcoholic" history, it was part of a pattern of behaviour that they could have no bearing on.....

It'll be interesting to follow.

The lawyers will also have to prove that the pub knew she had driven her car to their establishment and that they also knew she was planning to drive home.

Hopefully common sense will prevail and she'll get told to get lost and at the same time be given a nice big legal bill from both teams of lawyers.

[Al]

I think the fact that she got into the car and drove (drunk) should protect the pub.

The driving while drunk being illegal should make the pubs part in this irrelevant. Well I hope so.

Idiots that are unaware of the fact that they are idiots are the bane of my existence...

*sigh*

People who fail to take responsibility for their own actions should be chained to something...

A plane for instance...

[DrDivad]

the pubs duty of care ends at the door

[RaZ]

A great idea here is to make pubs and club security take all keys to cars and such and not allow them to return them unless they pass a breath test !!

I know you saying "I'll get my friend to drive me !"

NO, the person who owns the car MUST pass a breath test to drive his OWN car, that means the driver for the night MUST be the owner and MUST should full ID to get the keys back, that would solve a few problems, also having a breath tester hooked up to the car.

[geggle]

Civil liberties would have a field day with that one. What are you going to do? Search everyone coming into the pub?

As usual, a minority of idiots stuff it up for the rest of us. :(

[DrDivad]

good idea in principle but the logistics and legislation would be hell,


all it needs is for this crack ho to get her ass kicked to the kerb and the pub is only responsible while the person is on their premises and they alreayd promote safe drinking etc. (i know people ignore this shit) but should be all they are required to do, hence anyone choosing to ignore the warning and laws etc. does so at their own risk and gets eliminated making the gene pool a little cleaner

[SamBo]

blame Canada

[BlueBoy]

Originally posted by SamBo
blame Canada

I know I do. :D

[Cassa]

Whatever happened to 'buyer beware' for this sort of thing...not that I'm saying pubs et al shouldn't be trying to protect people at least somewhat (that's what the safe drinking, don't serve pissed idiots thing is for) but where does it stop? I can just imagine someone suing the bottle shop that sold them the bottle of tequila that got them so pissed they started walking down the middle of a main road and got horribly disfigured in a falling piano accident. People are never going to learn from mistakes if they don't stop blaming someone else for it.

In a sense it doesn't even matter what the outcome of this case is, the mere fact that it's going to court means pubs will be trying to make sure it doesn't happen again. As geggle said, the moron minority ruins it for everyone else, just like the one misbehaved kid in primary school forfeits playtime for the whole class.

[DrDivad]

i hate anus monkeys like this, makes me wanna go postal on their asses, and their monkeys,


from an msn conversation:

Cassa says:
theres only so much pubs can do to protect people, if theyre hell bent on being retards its not up to the pub to stop them
Dr Divad says:
indeed
Dr Divad says:
but i'm not sure how far that gay duty of care extends
Dr Divad says:
i'm pretty sure it ends at the door or premises boundaries
Dr Divad says:
but it gets complex
Cassa says:
premises boundaries, from memory
Dr Divad says:
there could be some ghey loophole that will allow this faghort to get away with iot
Cassa says:
if she was seen leaving in a car then its all over
Dr Divad says:
and it's different depending on the pub/clubs licence and the particular people around, i.e. on duty polcie officers, security and pub staff
Cassa says:
cos then teh defence will argue that cops should have been called
Dr Divad says:
BUT if she was allowed to get in a car while still on the premises.......
Cassa says:
what can you do though?
Cassa says:
if they'd prevented her from leaving then she can sue for false imprisonment
Dr Divad says:
exactly
Dr Divad says:
but i bet thats the line they'll play
Dr Divad says:
in fact the offence of drink driving was committed on their property, you only have to look at the car with intent to drive it for it to count as drink driving, (rare i know)
Dr Divad says:
but certaintly placing a key in the ignition counts and hence thats where the offence was
Dr Divad says:
i bet they'll try and argue that it's due to the offence that the thingo occured, and that offence occured on their property therefore the pub is indirectly responsible and they'll be after compensation from the pub some of which will pay for her drink driving charge and driver education
Dr Divad says:
which is so fucked it aint funny
Cassa says:
and her medical bills and ongoing compensation due to pain and suffering and lost earnings

[Mr Bigglesworth]

If a thief comes into your home, just kill him/her, it will save you the trouble of having to get sued at a later date. I have more respect for a murderer than I do for a thief, at least a murderer has probably killed for a reason, a thief does his or her work because they are greedy lowlife fucks who deserve to die anyway. I have no mercy for people like that.

Anyway...back to this case, this woman should be shot and put out of her misery. She has broken a stack of laws in relation to the case:

1) Driving under the influence
2) Negligent driving
3) Violation of her insurance policy due to her mental state at the time.
4) Not exercising self-responsibility (she could have caught the cab, bus or even stayed home to try to solve her marital problems with her husband)
5) She could have exercised self-restraint and not have gotten pissed (and made that decision when she was sober).

What has the pub done:
1) Has traded according to its licence
2) Pubs and restraunts (by law) need to display disclaimers and advice to state that someone who is intoxicated cannot drink any further, and cannot be served. Pubs must also supply payphones and other communications devices to allow patrons to contact a taxi company.
3) As was mentioned, the pubs duty of care ends at the door.

Shes out for the quick money grab.....if the court rules in her favour (which is a possibility knowing the judiciary here is biased and fucked), id permanently disqualify her from driving, and also ban her from acquiring alcohol, due to her being unable to manage responsibility.

[iaidoka]

haaaa, thats the most fucked thing iv read in a while..

more respect for a murderer than a thief?

life is the only thing that is truely irreplaceable.

[jmello]

Originally posted by Cassa
People are never going to learn from mistakes if they don't stop blaming someone else for it.

will you marry me? :D

[Cassa]

Sorry dear I'm already defacto _and_ eloping with Mattryx :p

[DJos]

Originally posted by jmello
will you marry me? :D

Whats with half of ZGeek asking Cassa to marry them? :confused:

[Cassa]

Must be cos of my tight package :p

[DJos]

Originally posted by Cassa
Must be cos of my tight package :p

ROFL, well aside's from the obvious :D

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Originally posted by iaidoka
haaaa, thats the most fucked thing iv read in a while..

more respect for a murderer than a thief?

life is the only thing that is truely irreplaceable.

Well thieves can afford to be replaced with decent people. At least a murderer will (often) kill for love, being ripped off or for revenge. A thief will commit their crime out of basic greed.

[Foxfire]

Originally posted by Mr Bigglesworth
Well thieves can afford to be replaced with decent people. At least a murderer will (often) kill for love, being ripped off or for revenge. A thief will commit their crime out of basic greed.

Basic greed?

There's as many reasons for thievery as there is for murder and quite frankly I'd rather have my possessions stolen than my family taken from me due to some fucked up loser who thinks he loves my sister and can't stand to have her taken away from him because she said no.

Not that's it happened to me, but you get the idea.

[scathing]

Originally posted by ShadowNemesis
They are not supposed to serve anyone they suspect has had too much too drink.

Personally, I think that law is fucked. One of the reasons why alcohol isn't served to minors is because, legally, they are incapable of making decisions. Hence why no contract (bar apprenticeships) signed by an under 18 is legally binding.

While alcohol may alter your mindset, if you choose to put yourself into that condition then you should have to bear the consequences. Its not as if you don't know alcohol fucks with your head. If you're not capable of doing so, then you shouldn't be drinking in the first place. Maybe they should require a license to drink?

Also, the pub isn't exactly her keeper. Did the pub operators know she was stupid enough to drive? She chose to get behind the wheel, and she put it into the tree. How about some personal fucking responsibility?

I mean, some medication warns "do not operate heavy machinery". Does that mean you can charge the doctor / pharmacist if the guy then takes this medication and, under the influence, loses their "better judgement" and operates said heavy machinery and has an accident?

I think they'd refer anyone who tried to push that kind of line to the United States of FUCK THE HELL OFF.

[scathing]

Originally posted by iaidoka
haaaa, thats the most fucked thing iv read in a while..

more respect for a murderer than a thief?

life is the only thing that is truely irreplaceable.

And actually, life can be replaced. Just get a chick to squeeze out another one.

If you want to talk about individuality and personality (as opposed to "life"), just because its irreplacable doesn't mean it has worth. Every time I take a dump, I will *never* have that shit in my body again. Its gone forever. I will never have those individual bits of corn inside my body again. Boo fucking hoo.

[thingy]

I'm pretty sure the duty of care for pubs extends beyond the front door, actually. I believe there's a certain distance from the establishment for those who are/were patrons that it extends (ie, the footpath and up & down it a certain distance), and more often than not they also have to be mindfull of the area in general (however, this usually only applies to things like noise / destruction of property by those who are heading to / from the estrablishment, and it usually results in things such as enforced closing times or being "requested" to keep patrons more sober).

[Snowball]

Originally posted by ShadowNemesis
While yes, I think it is totally her fault. She should never have been behind the wheel whilst under the influence. She will more than likely win the court case, simply because the pub may have still have served her while she was drunk. They are not supposed to serve anyone they suspect has had too much too drink.

It is not always easy to see if people have had too much, they may have consumed a lot of booze quickly and it may have not ht them yet.

[flounder]

Originally posted by scathing
And actually, life can be replaced. Just get a chick to squeeze out another one.

If you want to talk about individuality and personality (as opposed to "life"), just because its irreplacable doesn't mean it has worth. Every time I take a dump, I will *never* have that shit in my body again. Its gone forever. I will never have those individual bits of corn inside my body again. Boo fucking hoo.
Yes "life" can be replaced, although " squeezing" one out is,so I have been told,"like shitting a watermelon"*.So just getting a chick to conveniently do it, I can't imagine for the life of me.
I am sure that an appreciation of her individuality & personality may be helpful in the events leading up to the "squeeze out" stage.
Likewise I would like to feel I had worth,(which I do) and not to associate this feeling with shit or the great void*. For me that analogy was a little bit too cold-blooded to go along with worth,individuality and personality.
What's the point in being that cynical?.
You tell me.


*A female trying to explain childbirth so a male might understand.




*any humour is purely coincidental.

[That Bloke]

Originally posted by Mattryx
...

And before anyone says something like "Imagine if it was my mother",



To tell the truth I'd kinda hope my mum would write off her car & lose her liscense, She's been an alcoholic as long as I can remember(I can remember 20+years), Even before she moved out I could quite literally go entire years without ever seeing her sober.

[Movius]

Is there any news story about this event, that explains the details of what happened?

In my experience, a large percentage of stories about bizarre lawsuits (normally set in America) are either exaggerations or pure fiction. It's all well and good to complain about an overly litigous society, but when an opinion is based on 3rd hand anecdotes and heresay, it's not a very valid one.

Originally posted by Mr Bigglesworth
If a thief comes into your home, just kill him/her, it will save you the trouble of having to get sued at a later date. I have more respect for a murderer than I do for a thief, at least a murderer has probably killed for a reason, a thief does his or her work because they are greedy lowlife fucks who deserve to die anyway. I have no mercy for people like that.

beware of sweeping over-generalisation. By your statement someone cannot possibly be a murderer and a theif.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Originally posted by Movius
beware of sweeping over-generalisation. By your statement someone cannot possibly be a murderer and a theif.

And what makes you think that? A thieving murderer deserves to die as much as a thief as far as im concerned. Im saying that a murderer will often commit his/her crime for motives not related to unjustly enriching themselves at the expense of others. Most murders are love-stories gone wrong, the avenging of an injustice, or other such as gang related. Its very strange for someone to be murdered for no reason.

And as the victim of theft, if I was to catch the thief who robbed my house and attacked my mother, I would kill him without a second thought.

[Movius]

Originally posted by Mr Bigglesworth
And what makes you think that? A thieving murderer deserves to die as much as a thief as far as im concerned. Im saying that a murderer will often commit his/her crime for motives not related to unjustly enriching themselves at the expense of others. Most murders are love-stories gone wrong, the avenging of an injustice, or other such as gang related. Its very strange for someone to be murdered for no reason.

And as the victim of theft, if I was to catch the thief who robbed my house and attacked my mother, I would kill him without a second thought. If you have more respect for a murderer than a thief and David McExample is a thief and murderer, then you have more respect for David Example than David Example, which is absurd. Therefore either your statement is wrong or someone who shares this characteristic with David Example cannot possibly exist.

Generalisations are very stupid and are rarely accurate. Behold the story of Murderous Lachlan & Starving Horatio:

Starving Horatio steals an apple from someone's apple tree in order to stave off starvation for a short period. Therefore, he is a thief.

Murderous Lachlan kills 92 innocent people, grinds up their splines, small intestines and cerebral cortexs and adds water. He then gives the resulting viscous fluid to homeless people and forces them to drink at knifepoint. He is a murderer.

Apparently, I am correct to assume that you have more respect for Murderous Lachlan than Starving Horatio.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

And who, in this day and age, in this country, steals because they are starving??? My heart is bleeding......the last time my store had a $1900 computer stolen from it was because the thief was hungry?? Yeah right.

They either steal to own something theyre not entitled to, or to feed a drug habit, or some other reason which is paramount to selfishness. If they want something that badly, work for it, dont steal it from someone who has worked hard to earn it.

As for your David Examples...what the hell are you talking about? Ive already said that a murdering thief is as bad as a thief.....they both deserve to die as far as im concerned. And as fro your examples, they are invalid because I previously addressed the issue with:

1) theft being due to greed not necessity....(in this country, a correct generalisation)
2) murders rarely taking place in cold blood....(also a correct generalisation)

Actually...I wouldnt kill a thief straight away. Id give him a chance, rehabilitate him/her, return what they stole to the proper owner, then told that if they do it again they would be executed, with the proper evidence of course. Theft would disappear pretty quickly.

[no_dice]

I agree with bigglesworth. I had my snowboard stolen a a couple of years ago....I saved up for 1.5 years in order to be able to buy it....and then some jackass steals it from me and uses it without thinking twice. I don't understand how someone can steal something from it and use it for their own pleasure without feeling abd about it.

Luckily my story has a happy ending, as we found the guy who stole it, beat the crap out of him and then called the cops:P

[Movius]

Originally posted by Mr Bigglesworth
And who, in this day and age, in this country, steals because they are starving??? My heart is bleeding......the last time my store had a $1900 computer stolen from it was because the thief was hungry?? Yeah right

They either steal to own something theyre not entitled to, or to feed a drug habit, or some other reason which is paramount to selfishness. If they want something that badly, work for it, dont steal it from someone who has worked hard to earn it.

Like you I have also been a victim of theft, I believe the individual(s) responsible to be complete cunts because, due to the nature of the theft, I do not believe it to be one of necessity. However I can draw no such conclusions about thieves in general because of this. In fact I am certain I can find at least one person who has stolen because of necessity, thusly rendering a statement about 'thieves as a whole never stealing because of necessity' false.

Originally posted by Mr Bigglesworth
As for your David Examples...what the hell are you talking about? Ive already said that a murdering thief is as bad as a thief.....they both deserve to die as far as im concerned...
The preceding post did not, this is what I am referring to.

Originally posted by Mr Bigglesworth
... And as fro your examples, they are invalid because I previously addressed the issue with:

1) theft being due to greed not necessity....(in this country, a correct generalisation)
2) murders rarely taking place in cold blood....(also a correct generalisation)
Statement 1: based on what?

Statement 2: Again, based on what? Also it differs to what you have previously posted.

[flounder]

Originally posted by Mr Bigglesworth

1) theft being due to greed not necessity....(in this country, a correct generalisation)
2) murders rarely taking place in cold blood....(also a correct generalisation)


I am going to have to disagree on both these points.
If getting a hit is a necessity due to drug addiction, people steal.
If getting a drink is a necessity due to alcoholism, people steal.
If getting money to gamble is needed because of a gambling addiction, people steal.
In this country now, without generalising.No, they shouldn't be junkies or alkies or losers, but they are. Kill em all?.They do recover you know.

Rarely in cold blood...
Truman Capote wrote a book about this.You should read it.
John Eric Armstrong:
Elizabeth Bathory:
Derrick Todd Lee:
Lawrence Bittaker & Roy Norris:
Theo Durrant:
Carroll Edward Cole:
John Norman Collins:
"Mike" DeBardeleben:
Paul Denyer:
Kendall Francois:
Robert Garrow:
Carlton Gary:
Haven't even got to Green River yet.
MARTIN BRYANT,SNOWTOWN,JULIAN KNIGHT
etc etc etc......................ra ra ra.


:(

[Fuzzy Dice]

Originally posted by Mattryx
Why? Because she drove home and crashed into a tree, suffering brain damage, losing the sight in an eye, and her right arm.
I think the brain damage explains why she decided to sue. What an absolute dickfor.
if you don't know what a dickfor is, best to ask someone...loudly......c'mon...,"what's a dickfor?"

Someone mentioned that she had an alchoholic history? I wonder If she'd ever been picked up for drunk driving before - our provincial law allows the RCMP to install breathalyzers into the vehicles of people who've had a drunk driving charge. You have to blow before you go. hehe.....it makes you humm, too.:D

The vehicle won't start if there's any booze on your breath. And it kicks in while you're driving, too, just in case you got someone else to blow for you when you started.

[rosamund]

Originally posted by Mattryx
Why? Because she drove home and crashed into a tree, suffering brain damage, losing the sight in an eye, and her right arm.

She lost the sight in her right arm??? Oh, the humanity!!!

[Bostonmess]

People who drink and drive are dickheads. But I'll try to defend 'em a bit anyway.

Hasn't anyone done anything really stupid when they're pissed? One of my mates on a new years morn, went home in the snow, pissed. He was on a push bike, obviously it was very cold, he went over the fields, somehow ended up in a little lake and died. Pretty stupid thing to do, I can forgive him the stupidity because he was pissed, he wanted to get home to his girl and kid, wake up and spend new years day with them. He was a great bloke.

Just maybe if he'd had a car, he might have driven home and made it. Obviously he might have wrapped it round a lampost too or some other pissed up reveller.

I don't think drinking and driving is such a bad thing, doing it continually, is though. Putting yourself in that situation where you know you're gonna have a drink, and when you do, you know you're likely to drive, is stupid. If you've done it once, you should never do it again.

Sueing someone for your own stupidity is just making a mockery out of the law. They should let her go ahead with it, and then hit her with a big fine. Court costs, breathalyzer for the pub, a big fence to protect the tree, whatever they can think of.

[Cassa]

I don't have a problem with people fucking themselves up while they're pissed...hey we've all been drunk at one time or another and done something stupid and hurt ourselves (broken coccyx here :D) but the point is she was deliberately engaging in an action that posed a serious danger to others, and that is what is unacceptable.

[beowulf437]

the stupidity runs deep within the community.... havent you heard that you can be sued if someone breaks into your house and hurts themselves, or if you hurt them! bloody stupidity!!!! ARGH!!!

In the US several states have passed laws preventing people from profiting from the comission of a crime. In the state I live in if you are commiting a crime and you get hurt you cannot sue for damages, but you can be sued for causing duress. What's even better if you and your buddy break into aa house and the home owner shoots your buddy, you are charged with second degree murder (because your buddy wouldn't have died if you hadn't been breaking the law).

[ShadowNemesis]

Apparently the woman was a serial drink driver(the news's words not mine) and the publican lent her $50 to buy more drinks. So I think the publican is a goner.

[geggle]

Originally posted by ShadowNemesis
Apparently the woman was a serial drink driver(the news's words not mine) and the publican lent her $50 to buy more drinks. So I think the publican is a goner. If it's true, that is really stupid. What was the publican thinking?!?! I still don't believe that you can hold the publican responsible for the event in it's totality though.

[DrDivad]

yeah but i htink you'll find he wouldn't have lent her $50 "to keep drinking", she probably asked for money for taxi or something and it''s being misconstrued

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Movius...unless someone steals because they are starving, then theft is pre-meditated by greed. And because no-one is starving in Australia, theft takes place because of greed and greed alone. As for murders, when was the last time you heard of a case where someone was killed in cold blood?? Almost all the cases of murder are drug-related, retribution, gang-related or crimes of passion.

Flounder...The argument that a drug addict is a victim/steals for necessity is absolute bullshit. I understand what you are saying but you shouldnt be gambling if you dont have the money, the same with drugs. And if you havea problem with not being able to control yourself, tough shit. Is someone who is a chronic shopper entitled to steal money to buy stuff for him/herself? No.

We live in a society that looks at the criminal with too much compassion, and almost looks at them as victims. They are not victims, they are criminals and should be treated as such, and treated ruthlessly as a deterrent to others. Dont think for a minute that I think murderers are angels and thieves should die, theyre both evil but thieves commit their crimes out of pure greed, a murderer will often to their crime to correct a situation (at least in their mind anyway) or because they are crazy and really dont belong in society.

Edit: Martin Bryant was a psycho, the Snowtown and Belanglo murders were committed by psychos - people who should of never have been allowed into society in the first place. Most of the mass shootings in the US are premeditated by work situations/nervous breakdowns/love etc. They are inexcusable crimes but my point is that some people, when they hit breaking point, go mental/psycho and kill. A thief doesnt go mental, they do it because theyre greedy and low. Like rapists and pedophiles, they are just as bad because they violate other people to feel better themselves.

[Bostonmess]

Click the edit button. Tick the delete box in the top left. Then click the delete button. Should get rid :)

Drug addiction is a disease?

[Mr Bigglesworth]

thanks boston :)

[flounder]

Originally posted by Mr Bigglesworth

Flounder...The argument that a drug addict is a victim/steals for necessity is absolute bullshit. I understand what you are saying but you shouldnt be gambling if you dont have the money, the same with drugs. And if you havea problem with not being able to control yourself, tough shit.


Mr.B. So we will agree to disagree?.
I was only saying that it is happening.
People shouldn't be doing a lot of things, stealing as you have described is just one of them.Piss, drugs, bad manners are some more.Add to the list at your leisure.
Think your argument through.Prisons can't cope now.Northfield womens prison in Adelaide was described by the head of the parole board, Frances Nelson Q.C in these terms "one night in there and I'd string myself up from the nearest rafter".
You would have to build plenty of them to keep these undesirables away from civilised society.It would cost a lot of money.Would they be in a metropolitan area near schools & shopping centres, or do we build some more detention centres out bush?.( Easy to escape from them though)
Simplest way would just be to kill them using your argument.
Less complicated.No loose ends.
Strike one you're out.
Tough shit.

*
flounder, fuck up with your "bleeding heart" crap it's boring.... :p

edit: missed a word

[scathing]

Originally posted by Mr Bigglesworth
And because no-one is starving in Australia

*chortle* Of course there aren't.

Also, there haven't been any children living in poverty in Australia for around a decade now.

[Mattryx]

Originally posted by Mr Bigglesworth
And because no-one is starving in Australia, theft takes place because of greed and greed alone.



Perhaps you should take your nose out of your fucking half caff soy latte with a twist of lemon for five fucking minutes and have a look at the world around you.

:rolleyes:

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Flounder.....i didnt mean my post to be offensive at all, i just meant that what you were saying was incorrect. I still hold to the belief that self-induced poverty via drugs and alcoholism do not warrant theft and should be punished in the most severest possible ways.

Scathing....please give me one example of someone in this country who is suffering from malnutrition, that is not self-induced. I said people are not starving, not people are not poor. Poor people exist everywhere, starving people dont exist in Australia.

Mattryx....You are a twit who needs to grow up to the fact that you live in the luckiest country in the world. Having extensively travelled to 5 of the 7 major cities in this country, as well as extensively in rural areas, I have never seen a single starving person. And like Scathing, I challenge you to find me a documented example of malnutrition causing death as caused by poverty in this country in the past 50 years. Good luck.

[scathing]

I could google for it, but its a trifle late and I honestly can't be arsed.

Just wondering about our Aboriginal population (http://www.abc.net.au/am/s733223.htm), and most humanitarian organisations consider them to be living in Third World conditions......its possible. Of course, the ABC is such a biased organisation...they're just mentioning this to aggravate you.

Of course, those Aboriginals *choose* to not live in the cities with us, and not adopt a western way of life, so their third world poverty, disease, etc is all self-inflicted.

Either that or they're not really Australians.

And, if there's no documented examples, of course then it mustn't exist. Because people who've died of poverty and malnutrition are the kinds of people that mail in their census material (posthumously?), or the police / hospitals give enough of a fuck about to perform an autopsy. They were probably all thieving drug addicts anyway, who OD'ed on smack.

Edit: Well, I got bored so I managed to google up that link on indigeneous Australians. Anyway, you only need one exception to disprove stupid and obviously impossible assertions (unless, as I said, you want to qualify the definitions of "self inflicted" or "Australian").

[flounder]

Originally posted by Mr Bigglesworth
.....i didnt mean my post to be offensive at all, i just meant that what you were saying was incorrect. I still hold to the belief that self-induced poverty via drugs and alcoholism do not warrant theft and should be punished in the most severest possible ways.

I wasn't offended.
I knew that in your opinion what I was saying was incorrect.
I know what I have seen, and I know what you haven't, because you would think differently than you do.
At least I hope you would.

[Bostonmess]

I like watching those cop shows with all the car chases etc shit on it. This guy had broke out of jail, nicked a pick up and smashed through the fence? I think, just so he could get to a dealer and get some heroin. He's driving about, no hands on the wheel, tourniquet around his arm injecting his self. As soon as he was "fixed" he gave up, got out and lay down.

I also saw one where this guy had nicked a bus and he was driving to some place to score some crack. Must have been a radio on the bus 'cos he told the cops as soon as he had had his fix he would give up. He never got there, he got nicked.

Pretty desperate people. Drug addiction, alchoholism (same thing?). What would it be like if you couldn't orgasm? If you knew the feeling, wanted it again. How far would you go?

I've never tried heroin or crack, I imagine it is a very hard addiction to break. I bumped into someone I once knew. I'd heard he was a junkie now. He didn't look any worse for it. He had a load of DVDs under his coat that he'd nicked from a shop. Had to wrestle with the security goard to get away. What a life. Straight off to his local dealer's to get his fix.

When you're young, you try things, confident you're safe in your own immortality. If you manage to get through your youth you might have a few bad habits that have survived with you. Unfortunately these bad habits might have become fully fledged addictions. This time, some of the stupid things you do can have very nasty consequences. Unfortunately when compared to getting sorted, these consequences just don't seem that important.

[ShadowNemesis]

Originally posted by Mr Bigglesworth
starving people dont exist in Australia.

Where are you living? Maybe they are not to the point of malnutrition, but yes there are people out there (children as well) who are starving. They do not get anywhere near the food we take for granted, that is why there are things like soup kitchens, food hampers and food vouchers. I know there are other countries where the conditions are worse.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Originally posted by scathing
I could google for it, but its a trifle late and I honestly can't be arsed.

Just wondering about our Aboriginal population (http://www.abc.net.au/am/s733223.htm), and most humanitarian organisations consider them to be living in Third World conditions......its possible. Of course, the ABC is such a biased organisation...they're just mentioning this to aggravate you.

Of course, those Aboriginals *choose* to not live in the cities with us, and not adopt a western way of life, so their third world poverty, disease, etc is all self-inflicted.

Either that or they're not really Australians.

And, if there's no documented examples, of course then it mustn't exist. Because people who've died of poverty and malnutrition are the kinds of people that mail in their census material (posthumously?), or the police / hospitals give enough of a fuck about to perform an autopsy. They were probably all thieving drug addicts anyway, who OD'ed on smack.


ATSIC receives $2 billion (thats $2,000,000,000) from the Australian government to look after indigenous affairs. This amount doesnt include social security/Centrelink efforts aimed at indigenous people. There are about 400,000 Australians who identify as being First Nations. That means that each person would be receiving $5,000 if ATSIC wasnt such a mismanaged moneygrab which provides nothing for the people its supposed to look after. An average family of 4 would be receiving $20,000 of free money, theres alot of white families which have trouble getting past that figure by working.

I feel very sorry for the Aboriginal populations where disease is common, however the solution to that problem is to hang Jeff Clark and his cronies, and replace them with accountable, ethical and qualified personnel, and end the mafia that is ATSIC.

And I state again, that nobody in this country is starving. People can go hungry for a short period of time but I ask you again to challenge my assertion that noone has died from starvation in Australia in 50 years with any report, news, autopsy findings, coronial inquiries, even urban myth.

[Cassa]

Do anorectics count?

[Mr Bigglesworth]

No :p

[scathing]

Originally posted by Mr Bigglesworth
ATSIC receives $2 billion (thats $2,000,000,000) from the Australian government to look after indigenous affairs. This amount doesnt include social security/Centrelink efforts aimed at indigenous people. There are about 400,000 Australians who identify as being First Nations. That means that each person would be receiving $5,000 if ATSIC wasnt such a mismanaged moneygrab which provides nothing for the people its supposed to look after.

This is actually quite irrelevant to what we're talking about. We're talking about whether people are actually dying of starvation / malnutrition, if they should be if everything was peachy. I posted a link before that quotes experts talking about malnutrition in Australia. No, it doesn't have to happen, but it is.

However, I'll digress and discus this point on its "merits".

By that specious logic no-one in the fucking planet is starving (except by self-choice or whatever other exceptions you made in your previous post. If I remember you limited starvation only to be caused by a lack of food, rather than the mental / social problems that might induce people to not eat, even though such a reflection on said society might not make it seem as "lucky" as you'd like to delude yourself into believing, and thus destroy your point anyway) since we have more than enough to feed the world's population, and donate aid to those in 3rd world countries.

Its just those foolish people choosing to live in 3rd world countries with corrupt ATSIC-like governments bringing it upon themselves. Otherwise they'd be getting heaps in the humanitarian aid the western bleeding hearts send them and eating. Hence, it must be their choice to starve.

So yeah, we should be so lucky to live in such a fantastic world where things can be (but, sadly, aren't) so extremely peachy keen.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

I never referred to the situation outside of Australia, in fact I explicitly stated that my arguments are relevant to Australia only. People in the third world dont choose where they live, or their circumstances, and for the record I never claimed that. My mention of ATSIC is very relevant as the body is designed to assist indigenous people, however its being squandered on trips to Ireland and piss-ups by Geoff Clark.

People are starving because of disproportion....the world collectively grows 4 times the amount of food it needs to keep everyone on UN-standard rations alive and living healthy. We throw out our food here while many people are dying from not enough food. Our pets eat better than most sub-saharan Africans.

The whole discussion stemmed from theft....and why it was wrong. We have digressed incredibly far. In short, theft should only exist if life-threatening circumstances require that the crime be committed, and the only life-threatening circumstance I can think of that would be alleviated by theft is in an instance of starvation, where someone steals food to survive. And because Australia has no starvation, people shouldnt be stealing at all. And those who steal otherwise are greedy fucks who deserve to die. Thats my argument....in a nutshell.

PS. Im still waiting for proof that starvation exists in Australia. :p

[scathing]

Originally posted by Mr Bigglesworth
I never referred to the situation outside of Australia, in fact I explicitly stated that my arguments are relevant to Australia only. People in the third world dont choose where they live, or their circumstances, and for the record I never claimed that. My mention of ATSIC is very relevant as the body is designed to assist indigenous people, however its being squandered on trips to Ireland and piss-ups by Geoff Clark.

Yes, its all Geoff Clark's fault.

Hence, its not individual aborigines getting money and not eating with it. If they were getting the funding, they would be.

Hence, its not self inflicted (which was one of your exceptions to what you felt was the definition of "starvation") since these people would probably eat if given the resources. ATSIC is a commonwealth statutory body, so it still falls under the jurisdiction of the government.

With the starvation (mentioned in the link I posted with my first reply) with the Aboriginal population, it does not fall under any of your exceptions. Apparently "urban myth" evidence was enough for you, and I went one better with a discussion with Professor David Brewster, the Clinical Dean at the Royal Darwin Hospital's department of paediatrics.

Starvation is occuring (according to an expert witness). We've established that its not self-inflicted (by your own assertion). Thus you are disproved.

Q.E.D.



No, you didn't refer to the situation outside Australia. I never claimed you did. However, I was using your flawed logic on the world stage, hence the use of "by your logic (in this Australian example, which was not explicitly stated but implied) when I replied.

[DrDivad]

* high 5's scathing

[Bostonmess]

I can't imagine starvation being the cause of much theft in Australia.

[hazza]

<xterm> The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?



http://www.bash.org/?4753

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Yes, its all Geoff Clark's fault.

No, its the hierarchys fault, Clark and all the managers who have stolen for self-benefit.

Hence, its not individual aborigines getting money and not eating with it. If they were getting the funding, they would be.

Hence, its not self inflicted (which was one of your exceptions to what you felt was the definition of "starvation") since these people would probably eat if given the resources. ATSIC is a commonwealth statutory body, so it still falls under the jurisdiction of the government.

Stop skirting the issue. ATSIC is mismanaged. Its not the only government body that is. ATSIC was set up because Aboriginals resented the fact that whites were providing for them, and they considered this patronising. Aboriginies lived for 40,000 years, living off the land, and im sure that few starved back then. There is malnutrition amony Aboriginal families because the father or mother (or both) are too busy getting trashed at the local, squandering all the money, or drugged up somewhere. While this cant be blamed on them in any racist way, and can only be blamed on the tragic consequences of history, they are poor because they havent adapted to circumstances. Whether that is genetic, or through will I dont know.

There is opportunity for every person in this country to live well, if they dont want it and choose to live in a gutter thats too bad

With the starvation (mentioned in the link I posted with my first reply) with the Aboriginal population, it does not fall under any of your exceptions. Apparently "urban myth" evidence was enough for you, and I went one better with a discussion with Professor David Brewster, the Clinical Dean at the Royal Darwin Hospital's department of paediatrics.

That article only specified that malnutrition, NOT starvation, existed in Aboriginal communities. I knew that, however you still havent presented me with the evidence that I asked you to present - an article describing the death by starvation of a person in Australia in the past 50 years. Someone cant understand English.

Starvation is occuring (according to an expert witness). We've established that its not self-inflicted (by your own assertion). Thus you are disproved.
Q.E.D.

Right............you make perfect sense. You should work for the American Government, selling foreign policy to Middle Eastern states.


* high 5's scathing
High 5 my arse. Geez there are some dumb, politically correct, bleeding heart sods on Zgeek nowadays.

[DrDivad]

i happen to agree with all of scathings comments so bite me

[scathing]

Originally posted by DrDivad
i happen to agree with all of scathings comments so bite me

Is it because apparently *I* am a model for being politically correct and a bleeding heart?

[DrDivad]

PS. Im still waiting for proof that starvation exists in Australia.

Originally posted by Mr Bigglesworth
[B] however you still havent presented me with the evidence that I asked you to present - an article describing the death by starvation of a person in Australia in the past 50 years.




i know who needs the english lesson, nothing in that original request about death or 50years

[Bostonmess]

Define actual "clinical starvation" ?

[rascuache]

Dammit , this thread has been going for days and i hadnt read it, in the meantime i have been bitching about this particular news story to everyone....where is the responsibility in our community, when will people start taking responsibility for their own actions...

you know the thing that pisses me off most about this woman?

She blames the pub for serving her too much, however at the time, if they had refused her service she would have been bitching and possibly even got violent as most patrons do when you refuse them service when they've had too much

god people, start taking responsibility for your own actions, look after yourself, watch your step

[DrDivad]

Originally posted by scathing
Is it because apparently *I* am a model for being politically correct and a bleeding heart?

i dunno, i'm jsut identifying wiht your statements and they match my own opinions and sentiments :)

[scathing]

Originally posted by Mr Bigglesworth
Stop skirting the issue. ATSIC is mismanaged.

Amazingly, I never disputed that. The indigenous population don't say it means "Abos Talking Shit In Canberra" for nothing. ATSIC's management (or lack thereof) never was the issue. The issue was the personal choice of people to starve in Australia. Hence the only person skirting the issue would be you.

ATSIC is a statutory body that represents a demographic, however they are not responsibile for each individual. If a lack of resources is inflicted upon that populace, its hardly a "personal choice" of that populace.

As for "I knew that, however you still havent presented me with the evidence that I asked you to present", lets hearken back (http://forums.zgeek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10200&perpage=15&pagenumber=4#post206178), shall we?

Originally Posted by Mr Bigglesworth
Scathing....please give me one example of someone in this country who is suffering from malnutrition, that is not self-induced.

Holy fucking shit! No way! Ask and ye shall receive.

[scathing]

Originally posted by rascuache
Dammit , this thread has been going for days and i hadnt read it, in the meantime i have been bitching about this particular news story to everyone....where is the responsibility in our community, when will people start taking responsibility for their own actions...

Tell me about it. Like I said, the law's a bit fucked. Then again, more and more laws are. They're trying to legislate against personal responsibility, to a point where anyone working at any place is going to be liable for the general fuckwittedness of any customer, unless you have an encyclopedia's worth of disclaimers.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

I have repeated no less than 3 times what I asked you to present as evidence. You have failed and failed, and then failed again. I will desist from this discussion, knowing full well that I am correct and you are blaitantly wrong, and too busy towing the politically correct line of "Aboriginies are victims of white aggression" and all that crap that comes associated with it. Yet, after all your hot-windedness, you still havent shown me what it will take to convince me - a simple article that states "John Doe died on the 20th March 1990, in Melbourne/Sydney/Canberra/Brisbane/Adelaide/Whatever, as a result of starvation due to the aforementioned not having money to purchase/acquire food".

Your posted "evidence" demonstates an unacceptible malnutrition amongst Aboriginals. I also know for a fact that blindness through cataracts, various forms of cancer and other illnesses have hit indigenous populations hard because of a lack of proper health care. These people are entitled to vote for an executive to ATSIC, and they have failed. They have voted in a bunch of corrupt pricks who dont give a hoot in hell about their people. If whites intervene, then the white is being neo-colonialist. If they stand and watch, then the white is guilty of letting a people destroy themselves. The Aboriginies would not be suffering if it wasnt for ATSICs mismanagement, and therefore malnutrition would not exist if they actually voted in a progressive board, and not whoever drunk more at the pub and shouted his mates more beer.

If the Aborigines wanted, the Government would run indigenous affairs using qualified, accountable people. But because this would be politically incorrect, we let a bunch of half-arsed morons take charge of $2 billion dollars per year. And then those who criticise the system for all its failings (like me) get ripped to shreds by soy latte-sippers who think that they know this country because they have gone as far west as Anzac Parade.

Pull your finger out, Scathing. The suffering of Aborigines would be spared if their own people decided to take ownership, or be humble enough to realise that they need white help that goes beyond monetary assistance. Unfortunantly they care more about "sorry" and "reconciliation" and proving a 215 year old point than their current situation, and until they look forward rather than backward, they will remain a poor, depressed race with a bleak future.

As for you DroneDivad - the pinnacle of mindlessness, open your eyes and wake up.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Originally posted by scathing
Tell me about it. Like I said, the law's a bit fucked. Then again, more and more laws are. They're trying to legislate against personal responsibility, to a point where anyone working at any place is going to be liable for the general fuckwittedness of any customer, unless you have an encyclopedia's worth of disclaimers.

Personal responsibility.....there may be hope for you yet, Scathing. Good to see at least we agree on this concept.

Now, move up one rung and consider group and small/medium scale social responsibility, and maybe you will start to understand that my "ramblings" make sense after all.

Once the world realises that responsibilities are far more important than rights, humanity will progress forward. In terms of social progress, humanity is probably close to its lowest ever point in its history nowadays. Things will improve, however this is still many, many years away.

[DrDivad]

GGF!




scathing has made points indicating that you have requesting a different thing on each occasion, i've merely agreed with what another individual has said, now that is the height of bigotry therefore i propose that is you who should open their eyes,


anyways i'm tired o' this bs.


this thread was supposed to be about responsibilty of drunkenness in pubs not starvation so you're off topic anyway

[Mr Bigglesworth]

oh yes....of course....the cry of bigotry........often heard from those who lack half a brain to construct a valid rebuttal to an argument.

I made an error in what I requested the first post....boo fucking hoo. Typical of pedantic tossers like yourself to notice something like this and yell and scream about it.

[scathing]

Originally posted by Mr Bigglesworth
I made an error in what I requested the first post....boo fucking hoo. Typical of pedantic tossers like yourself to notice something like this and yell and scream about it.

You asked for something, and you were answered. When you realised that it didn't do you much good, "oh you're all being pedants".

This might seem strange, but most of us aren't mind readers. We can only answer you on what you ask, not what you were thinking of asking.

Remember that reality vs ideal world thing I mentioned before? Which apparently was "skirting the issue" (so I guess reality has very little to do with the issues you'd like to discuss).

[DrDivad]

go toss your own salad!


i don't fucking NEED a rebuttal because my comments are those indicating that i agree with someone, and my choice to agree or disagree is not one that can be argued they simply are,

so get bent! since you're rather weak invective attack is not warranted or apropriate in this case,




on a side note, interesting how you can make a 'mistake'
and go from requesting "evidence of malnutrition" then "evidence of starvation" and then finally "evidence of death by starvation in the last 50 years"


*edited for typos

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Reality has everything to do with what I am talking about. You made mention that Jeff Clark isnt to blame for ATSIC, who is then? Explain to me the waste. Explain to me that, if funds were distributed evenly, every Aboriginal would be getting $5000 per year for doing absolutely nothing, that excludes other benefits available to other Australians.

Im tired or arguing. I respect your choice to disagree with me, Scathing. As for you Divad....the first sign of a brainless fool is a person who cries "racist" or "bigot" as soon as someone makes a statement pertaining to race/religion/ethnicity. Thats not a "weak invective" argument, rather its a sign of a weak imploding little mind, one which you very likely possess. Twit.

[DrDivad]

answer me thusly,

where in the rules of the world does is state that my opinions must match yours?


one person says something, i decide to agree with them and for some reason my choice to agree or disagree become a contentious element in the discussion.............to my logic that jsut doesn't work. so i agree, big fucking deal, i didn't say i agreed for your benefit,

[scathing]

Originally posted by Mr Bigglesworth
Reality has everything to do with what I am talking about. You made mention that Jeff Clark isnt to blame for ATSIC, who is then?

Did I mention that? Strange, I don't recall putting the blame on someone for the shambles that is ATSIC. Strange how one man has so much power in a democratically elected body, and manages to propagate his power for so long. Not saying that its not all his fault, I just don't recall saying either way.

Of course, its quite possible that me not actually saying something that you thought I did is me just being pedantic (as opposed to you being hallucinational). I would have said those things, of course, if I'd thought of them (which I didn't) but lets not let what I actually said get in the way of your little delusions.

Anyway, your initial assertion was that no-one was dying from starvation or suffering from malnutrition, except self-inflicted (its really hard to tell since of your self-confessed inability to communicate, so for all I know you could actually have been referring to the exorbitant price of beef in the southern Himalayas being the root cause of starvation in Africa, since apparently what you did initially ask is not what you actually meant). I replied that some aborigines are suffering from malnutrition.

Then you decided to make mention that ATSIC gets a fuckload of cash so Aborigines *shouldn't* be starving if it wasn't for the corrupt leaders. The reality is, of course, that malnutrition is there. Your entire diatribe about ATSIC, which started on how things would be if they weren't (insert rant here) was really entertaining, but little bearing on the current realities. As I said, not particularly relevant.


At any rate, I'm tired too. Its been quite draining repeatedly demonstrating how inconsistent you are, your tenuous link with reality, or your penchant for ranting about the most irrelevant things in a discussion. I do respect your right to express an opinion, and its in the nurturing of that opinion that I'd actually point out the lack of credibility that results when you start talking shit, and then getting uppity when people point out that your opinion, or questions, fluctuate faster than the weather.

[Bostonmess]

Restate your points in one or two sentences?

[Mr Bigglesworth]

whatever...

[beer_cAN]

Originally posted by Mr Bigglesworth
oh yes....of course....the cry of bigotry........often heard from those who lack half a brain to construct a valid rebuttal to an argument.

I made an error in what I requested the first post....boo fucking hoo. Typical of pedantic tossers like yourself to notice something like this and yell and scream about it.


'... you know it makes sense, I'm Sam Kekovich.'

[Cassa]

Hooray

Sense prevails (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/18/1061059757479.html)

[DrDivad]

yay, a small iota of my respect for the system has returned

[Wolfette13]

She sounds like a Darwin Award candidate, next time she may actually win the award. Hopefullt without taking an innocent bystander with her.

[Princess]

Originally posted by ShadowNemesis
While yes, I think it is totally her fault. She should never have been behind the wheel whilst under the influence. She will more than likely win the court case, simply because the pub may have still have served her while she was drunk. They are not supposed to serve anyone they suspect has had too much too drink.

the pub cant breathalise every person they think may have had one too many...... and besides... what ever happened to anarchism??? self governemnt??? you are responsible for your own friggen actions for christs sake

[ShadowNemesis]

Originally posted by Princess
the pub cant breathalise every person they think may have had one too many...... and besides... what ever happened to anarchism??? self governemnt??? you are responsible for your own friggen actions for christs sake


No, the pub can't breathalyze every patron they think is under the influence, but they can refuse the service of alcohol to those they think have had too much. It's called the "Responsible Service of Alcohol"

Try here for information (http://www.dgr.nsw.gov.au/HTML/LIQUOR/rsaproviders.html)