To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 5757
5756  |  5758
Subject: 
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 25 May 2000 23:14:51 GMT
Viewed: 
2841 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
[snip]
> > There was risk involved, the accident was not my fault, but I should
> > assume the responsibility for the damages?
> 
> You bear ultimate responsibility for your situation.  In every way.  To claim
> less is to give up something so valuable that I can't even approach why you
> might want to.

You lost me there - "To claim less is to give up something so valuable that I
can't even approach why you might want to."  I have no idea what the comment
means.

> > Not a court in the land would agree.
> 
> Is this what we're discussing?  Is it legal liability or responsibility in • some
> kind of more real sense?

Just stating my case that a person is not always responsible for the risks
that they take by showing a legal example.

> > Yes there is no fault insurance, however, in my example above, my rates would
> > instantly be raised by my insurance company through no fault of my own.
> 
> Through no fault of your own?  What if you hadn't been out driving?  What if
> you'd been driving in places where the roadway association assured more • careful
> drivers?  What if you didn't make a claim against your insurance?

And your point is?  That because I drove, the accident is my fault because I
was in the wrong place and the wrong time?

[snip]

> Thinking of your example above, what about the consequences if you'd been
> uninsured?  Shouldn't you bear the responsibility for that decision?

If I had been uninsured, that would have been a risk against the laws of the
state of NY, which would be pretty stupid in the first place.

> > > Now, the government as an absorber or moderator of risk is basically
> > > insurance.  Right?  Insurance is a good thing.
> > > 
> > > Why must we all be forced into a particular insurance system, or to have
> > > insurance at all?
> 
> Was this not worth comment?

All of life is a risk.  The government is certainly not the only "absorber or
moderator of risk."  Would you consider your parents "insurance?"



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
 
(...) Right, sorry about that. I mean that to give up ultimate responsibility for your own situation is essentially the same thing as volunteering for a kind of slavery. It's like saying that you're not capable of taking responsibility for your (...) (26 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
 
(...) Oh, OK, Thanks. :-) (...) Something that struck me while reading Ed's and Larry's responses to all this is that ultimately it's not a matter of need. We _DO_ take moral and financial responsibility for these things. If you sleep around, you (...) (26 years ago, 25-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR