Subject:
|
Re: PCisms (was :Re: Yet Another Episode 1 Question)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Apr 2000 02:46:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
505 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> >
> > > Knowing how kids (adolescents, really) are, isn't raising kids in an
> > > environment where racisim is embraced really the same as advocating the
> > > initiation of force? I think that parents who raise racist kids should • expect
> > > them to potentially act foolishly and violently based on their beliefs. • Even
> > > if the parents would never dream of supporting such actions.
> >
> > Wow, that's an interesting angle. I'm not sure I have any pat answer • there.
> > What liability do parents have for their children's actions? After they • are
> > adults, most would say not much. But while they are kids? I dunno.
>
> I want to point out that liability, in a legal sense, and responsibility in • a
> pseudo-philosophical sense are different things. I agree that for • practical
> reasons parents can't be held liable for actions of their adult children. • On
> the other hand, if parents beat or molest their kid(s) and that child grows • up
> and subsiquently has some of those problems and so on, there is a degree of
> responsibility and fault that each person in the chain has for the future • of
> their chain.
>
> As far as legal liability, I think that the crucial determinant is whether • or
> not the parents acted in ways that were intentionally designed to (or
> negligently allowed to) make their children behave inappropriately. Such • as
> raising them to be biggots. If you haven't, rent and watch the movie • American
> History X. I believe the parents (the dead father in particular) were • somewhat
> culpable for their sons' behavior. I think there is a more clear link to • the
> mentor guy that lead the local kids of hate group.
I agree with the above. For 99.9999% of parents out there, there is nothing
that their grown children could do that they would be liable for (without
contracting for that liability, obviously if a parent co-signs for a loan or
credit card, they are contracting to share liability). The little exception
cases are one reason I dislike the direction some of the tort reform is
going in. The courts need to be available to settle these far out unusual
cases. What I would much rather see for tort reform is 1. for lawyers to be
more ethical in which cases they bring, and 2. for judges to be more willing
to throw out cases once it is determined that there is likely almost nothing
to them (though I'm not exactly sure how they should make that
determination).
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
52 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
