View Full Version : So.....where does our responsiblity stop and the government's/society's begin?
gimmethesimplelife
9-29-15, 2:38pm
Here is something I am wondering upon my return to the United States after having spent three weeks in Europe and North Africa. Where does our responsibility to take care of ourselves stop and where does/should society kick in? Something that really brought this issue up for me was while I was on a bus tour of Bratislava, Slovakia, I had my elbow out of the bus window and egads.....no one said anything. No sarcastic comment from the bus driver, no signs telling me not to put my elbow out of the window, nothing.....and I survived! It seems to me that modern American life is constant warnings and signs and consequences and little annoying things to worry about that mean little if anything at all. Another example is that when I was in Spain I was stunned to find that cigarette machines are still legal there - when I was in Austria I was stunned to find out that one can find a smoking room there and legally smoke in it. Now I am a former smoker and I have no wish to ever smoke again and I am glad to be done with cigarettes - but I also respect the fact that these options are open in Spain and Austria for those who care to indulge. Seriously, what right do I have to judge anyone else for smoking for stop them from doing so? For those who say it is for the good of society to lessen the costs to society, I disagree, as Spain and Austria both have socialized medicine.
What I am really asking here is what point is it excessive to monitor and control citizen behavior as in the examples above? For me in America this goes way way way too far.....One example I can think of is the consequences for being caught not using seat belts - I can remember being a passenger in Los Algodones, Mexico, right on the border with the US, where there are no seat belt laws and how nice it felt for once to not buckle up - I know these laws are there for a reason and I know seatbelts being used saved lives, I get this. What I am not down with is the negative rhetoric, the big brother monitoring, and the excessive consequences.
If nothing else, an interesting topic, no? Rob
I really really hate scraping people out of cars who weren't wearing their seat belts. And I really hate searching the accident scene for ejected passengers, who generally are pretty messy as well once you find them.
It's just rude to the first responders not to wear your belt. They need therapy afterwards.
My cousin just got out of the hospital. She spent 6 weeks in there due to injuries from not wearing her seatbelt, she didn't even know that her husband died at the scene. A deer tried to get across the road...it didn't make it either.
I think with freedom comes some restrictions. Do these countries allow their citizens to sue the bus company if their arm gets broken or torn off? Can they sue the building landlord that allows a renter to put up shop and have a smoking room? Can they sue a restaurant owner if a waitstaff trips and spills hot tea on a customer? I think most of our restrictions have come about because of huge payouts and drawn out court cases. It's just something we live with now.
gimmethesimplelife
9-29-15, 2:48pm
I really really hate scraping people out of cars who weren't wearing their seat belts. And I really hate searching the accident scene for ejected passengers, who generally are pretty messy as well once you find them.
It's just rude to the first responders not to wear your belt. They need therapy afterwards.Fair answer, Bae, but really this was not my point. I get that wearing seat belts is a good thing, I'm not in opposition with that at all. My point is that I am against the negative rhetoric, the big brother monitoring, and the high consequences.....to the point that I feel human not wearing a seat belt in another country where such is not required. The toxicity of the American approach to this issue drives me to this stance - that is actually one of my main points here. Rob
"The toxicity of the American approach". Wow.
The "high consequences" are a ticket, much like you would get for any other safety violation. (Do note that by not wearing your belts you are endangering other drivers on the road, your ability to control your vehicle in adverse circumstances is reduced if you are not belted in...) They aren't pulling you over and putting a bullet in your head for not wearing a belt. However, if you don't wear a belt, the real high consequence you face is death or terrible injury. I've never pulled a corpse out of a car that was wearing a seat belt.
Feel free to not wear a seat belt on a closed road course where you are not endangering someone else, and where nobody else has to face the emotional consequences of cleaning you out of the car when you perish.
gimmethesimplelife
9-29-15, 2:55pm
"The toxicity of the American approach". Wow.
The "high consequences" are a ticket, much like you would get for any other safety violation. (Do note that by not wearing your belts you are endangering other drivers on the road, your ability to control your vehicle in adverse circumstances is reduced if you are not belted in...) They aren't pulling you over and putting a bullet in your head for not wearing a belt. However, if you don't wear a belt, the real high consequence you face is death or terrible injury. I've never pulled a corpse out of a car that was wearing a seat belt.
Feel free to not wear a seat belt on a closed road course where you are not endangering someone else, and where nobody else has to face the emotional consequences of cleaning you out of the car when you perish.Bae, you are free to respond as you wish of course. I just want to point out that I am talking of something that goes far beyond a mere ticket and far beyond not wearing a seat belt. I'm speaking of the way a society interacts with and deals with citizen behavior. Fresh from my travels, yes, the American way of handling such things to me is extremely toxic. YMMV and obviously does. Rob
Gimme, it costs me money when you don't wear your seatbelt for healthcare costs that your insurance can't begin to cover never mind all the people who are caught innocently in the consequences of the accident.
I think that you are confusing personal freedom to choose with the public's right to be free of breathing secondhand smoke, suffering from accidents because of loss of control due to non-use of seat belts, etc.
Rephrase your questions - when should my freedom to choose whatever negative consequences over the rights of those innocent bystanders, i.e. taxpayers, families, ability to breathe easily...?
Where does our responsibility to take care of ourselves stop and where does/should society kick in?
I have a fairly bright line on this. So long as you cause no harm to anyone else, do what you will. I don't think society should intervene in your life except when you are causing harm, or likely to cause harm, to others.
early morning
9-29-15, 3:04pm
Well, there are laws that protect us from the idiocy of others, and laws that protect from self-idiocy. I'm for the first, and against the second. It seems to me that the insurance lobby and trial lawyers are driving forces here. I don't CARE if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet - your brains will wash off that phone pole eventually, and perhaps you won't add to the gene pool, which is getting really sludgy. Now, if you take a CHILD for a ride on your bike, that kid should have a helmet, because he/she isn't old enough for informed consent. Seat belts, I lean more towards making mandatory. If your seat belt is on, you stay behind the wheel and stand a better chance of regaining control of your vehicle and possibly avoiding a worse outcome - I've been broadsided twice, and if it weren't for my seat belt, I would not have been able to hang onto the car and steer off the road, instead of staying in the way of oncoming traffic, and perhaps involving more vehicles. Now the warning labels on things (Warning: Sharp object! on a knife, Caution: HOT on a cup of coffee - THOSE annoy me. If you're not smart enough to know that hot liquids burn....)
ApatheticNoMore
9-29-15, 3:11pm
I think that you are confusing personal freedom to choose with the public's right to be free of breathing secondhand smoke, suffering from accidents because of loss of control due to non-use of seat belts, etc.
Rephrase your questions - when should my freedom to choose whatever negative consequences over the rights of those innocent bystanders, i.e. taxpayers, families, ability to breathe easily...?
if smoking was still allowed in restaurants and bars etc. many of us simply wouldn't go to those places. Ok we don't really HAVE to go to those places but what if those were our workplaces or smoking was allowed in our workplaces? Then we would have to. So smoke everywhere limits non-smokers freedom to not experience the burning in their lungs from smoke (yea I know smokers don't get how annoying this is because they are used to it). I do think outlawing smoking OUTDOORS (and where there is no great fire hazard) is silly. So yea there is going too far on the whole thing, which is probably done to try to get smokers to quit and not for the good of non-smokers.
(Warning: Sharp object! on a knife, Caution: HOT on a cup of coffee - THOSE annoy me. If you're not smart enough to know that hot liquids burn....)
Those are the ones around only because of lawsuits.
It is nonsensical to demand personal freedom but refuse personal responsibility. You can't insist that the government needs to be responsible for your health care and then consistently stand on your right to engage in unhealthy activities. You can't rant against Big Brother and also keep your cell phone ever ready to document the misbehavior of others. Not with any logical or ethical consistency anyway.
gimmethesimplelife
9-29-15, 5:09pm
Interestingly enough though, apparently in Spain and Austria you can indulge in unhealthy things such as smoking, which I am not in any way advocating, with society picking up the tab and no big brother as in the US. Is this the America we want? Once again I'm against smoking.....but also very much against the American way of handling smoking and it's consequences.
iris lilies
9-29-15, 5:16pm
Interestingly enough though, apparently in Spain and Austria you can indulge in unhealthy things such as smoking, which I am not in any way advocating, with society picking up the tab and no big brother as in the US. Is this the America we want? Once again I'm against smoking.....but also very much against the American way of handling smoking and it's consequences.
Rob, smoking cigarettes is legal in the U.S. You write as though it is not.
if you mean it's a little less convenient here than in say, Spain, ok, it sure is. I can't tell you how pissed off
I was to go to a pub in Edinburgh a few years ago and find that I couldn't have a smoke there with my pint. The whole point of going to a pub was to steal a rare smoke, having given up the evil thing years ago.
Always remember the spanish airline that put smokers on one side of the plane and nonsmokers on the other. Interesting choice.
Advocates of big government (Liberals) are very much in favor of illiberal restraints on individuals. It's a paradox I've never understood.
Williamsmith
9-29-15, 7:16pm
Isn't the point of our government system to make those kinds of choices at the local level as much as possible or if not the State? The national government has inserted itself into the lives of the population in places it don't belong only by using the power of the purse strings.
For example, there is no federal law for mandatory seat belt use but virtually every jurisdiction has one. One should not overlook the federal highway administrations influence on highway safety regulations merely by threat of cutting off funding to the state.
My state has a secondary violation for seat belt usage. The only way you can be stopped or cited for not wearing seat belts is if you commit a primary violation such as speeding and are stopped for that. Child safety seat violations are primary. So here, if you get it for seat belt violation you are getting another ticket on top of that.
The patriot act has also eroded our freedoms.....by quite a substantial bit and that was primarily permitted under conservative politics. It is a paradox I've never understood. Or maybe I do.
flowerseverywhere
9-29-15, 7:37pm
Interestingly enough though, apparently in Spain and Austria you can indulge in unhealthy things such as smoking, which I am not in any way advocating, with society picking up the tab and no big brother as in the US. Is this the America we want? Once again I'm against smoking.....but also very much against the American way of handling smoking and it's consequences.
What about my rights. I have terrible asthma through no fault of my own. Never smoked anything ever. It could potentially kill me. By the way, once we were itravelling in South Carolina which allows lots of smoking. We could not find a non smoking restaurant until we happened upon a Pizza Hut. Do I not have just as much right to eat food in a restaurant?
actually I looked it up. The smoking ban is on a state by state basis. Many states have no smoking bans.
ApatheticNoMore
9-29-15, 7:44pm
What about my rights. I have terrible asthma through no fault of my own. Never smoked anything ever. It could potentially kill me. By the way, once we were itravelling in South Carolina which allows lots of smoking. We could not find a non smoking restaurant until we happened upon a Pizza Hut. Do I not have just as much right to eat food in a restaurant?
with the restaurants I could kind of go either way. The smokers want to be able to smoke. The non-smokers want to be able to breathe (and smokers don't know how irritating smoke can be to the respiratory system even of healthy people). I think what tips the balance in many cases is the employees though. Should people really have to breath smoke all day long just to earn a living as a bartender or an airline stewardess etc..
You would be hard pressed to find anywhere in Austin that allows smoking. That's one rule I don't mind at all.
flowerseverywhere
9-29-15, 7:48pm
Interestingly enough though, apparently in Spain and Austria you can indulge in unhealthy things such as smoking, which I am not in any way advocating, with society picking up the tab and no big brother as in the US. Is this the America we want? Once again I'm against smoking.....but also very much against the American way of handling smoking and it's consequences.
it is not America. It is state by state.
In Mexico, we do not have insurance on our house. This is an average little town, not a seacoast resort village. When we bought it I asked, and the response was basically, "que?" Ya buys ya house and ya takes ya chances. I sd but what if someone sues me, and again, the answer was, "que?" It simply isn't part of the culture. Now I realize that if you don't have a mortgage it's not mandatory to have home insurance in the US either, but the idea of not insuring your home is as foreign as ... Mexico.
The weight of law and rules here in the US seems oppressive to me. In one of my doctor's offices is a printed sign asking patients not to discuss their medical issues with each other. I assume this is a fear of violating HIPAA but, newsflash, HIPAA has nothing to do with disclosing Your Own circumstances to others if you so choose. They are in fact violating the first amendment to post this, to say nothing of both overstepping their bounds and treating their patients like idiots. The foolishness just layers and layers.
Well, in the abstract, I don't think you have a "right" to eat in any particular restaurant, or a "right" to have a job in a particular restaurant.
So, I am supportive of restaurants that allow smoking, but I'd not dine in one. Or work in one.
I did observe that when WA state banned smoking in restaurants and bars a few years back, several small local smoke-filled establishments initially complained that they'd lose their all-smoking customer base and go out of business. What they found after the smoke cleared was that they now had an *increased* volume of business, and could more easily hire workers. I still think the law smacks of Big Brother.
Heck, when I go to Seattle the stores are forbidden to provide paper sacks for goods I buy. At least I can still get a large coke if I wanted one.
And then there's the lightbulb, toilet, and window regulations... I'm going to have to move to some free country one of these days.
The patriot act has also eroded our freedoms.....by quite a substantial bit and that was primarily permitted under conservative politics. It is a paradox I've never understood. Or maybe I do.
I agree that it eroded our freedoms, but disagree with the conservative politics angle, it was reactionary politics. Republicans had a very small (6 or 7 seat) majority in the House and the Democrats had a one seat majority in the Senate at the time of the vote which passed by a very large majority in both Houses of Congress.
Indeed, Alan, I seem to recall members of both parties falling all over themselves to pass the Patriot act (what a great name, eh?) and to renew and extend it on subsequent opportunities.
And so many of them went on to be re-elected.
Shameful.
Well, in the abstract, I don't think you have a "right" to eat in any particular restaurant, or a "right" to have a job in a particular restaurant.
So, I am supportive of restaurants that allow smoking, but I'd not dine in one. Or work in one.
I did observe that when WA state banned smoking in restaurants and bars a few years back, several small local smoke-filled establishments initially complained that they'd lose their all-smoking customer base and go out of business. What they found after the smoke cleared was that they now had an *increased* volume of business, and could more easily hire workers. I still think the law smacks of Big Brother.
Heck, when I go to Seattle the stores are forbidden to provide paper sacks for goods I buy. At least I can still get a large coke if I wanted one.
And then there's the lightbulb, toilet, and window regulations... I'm going to have to move to some free country one of these days.
And building codes and safety requirements like air bags for cars. And pollution limitation requirements all over the place. Life was more free when power plants in one state could freely cause acid rain in another, and people could impale themselves on steering wheels during car accidents like real men.
I agree that things like bans on paper bags (at least in San Francisco one can still purchase a paper bag at the store for a dime) seem like overkill. Trying to make cars, already very clean, run even cleaner seems like overkill. Other things don't. Everyone's opinion of where to draw the line is bound to be different. That's the tricky part.
JP1 - but things like pollution produce impacts on others, and seem reasonable to regulate. Hairshirt-environmentalist rules like my county's window-size calculations are pretty much silly - the nexus between harm and the activity is thin at best, with our temperate climate, sources of heating energy, and population density. Indeed, our window size rules simply encourage people to build really huge houses, so they can have a view out the window of our lovely shores and forests. Building a small house here pretty much guarantees you will be living in a dark cave. Foolishness.
Ditto the low-water-use toilets - required, not all that helpful in many of the areas here, and in the areas here that they would be especially helpful the better solution, composting toilets, is sort of forbidden. Just someone trying to force their values on another, contrary to local circumstances.
Bae, I actually mostly agree with you. If I lived in your county I would probably also find the window size rules pointless. Personally I would rather see rules that focus on achieving a stated goal and then allowing it to be achieved by whatever method the person chooses. For instance, Rule: "houses should be built with anticipated heating energy needs not greater than X per anticipated # of occupants." Let the builder then decide whether that will be achieved by small windows, more insulation, limiting the overall size of the house, adding solar panels, whatever.
ToomuchStuff
9-29-15, 11:46pm
The weight of law and rules here in the US seems oppressive to me. In one of my doctor's offices is a printed sign asking patients not to discuss their medical issues with each other. I assume this is a fear of violating HIPAA but, newsflash,
Newsflash: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3M6kKmW5CE
Ask them, don't assume. If I were to assume, I would think it would have more to do with customers comparing notes, trying to be their own doctors, or causing themselves to believe they have other symptoms.
We live in a country of laws. Unfortunately, so much of the law is like a foreign language, specialists in that language are required and have the intellect to use that knowledge to their benefit, our detriment. It is part of the reason this country was designed to be ruled by representatives of the people rather then a democracy. They were hopeful that the cream would rise over the ignorant, uneducated masses, back long before what we have for an education system.
Now, if we had one of them and one of us in the same place, we would know more in some area's, while they would be much wiser in others.
Ask them, don't assume. If I were to assume, I would think it would have more to do with customers comparing notes, trying to be their own doctors, or causing themselves to believe they have other symptoms.
In the land of tv commercials telling people "ask your doctor if Viagara might be right for you" and webmd.com, and "if you've been hurt in an accident and it wasn't your fault, call us" a sign in a waiting room preventing two patients from talking to each other seems kind of pointless.
Williamsmith
9-30-15, 6:15am
I agree that it eroded our freedoms, but disagree with the conservative politics angle, it was reactionary politics. Republicans had a very small (6 or 7 seat) majority in the House and the Democrats had a one seat majority in the Senate at the time of the vote which passed by a very large majority in both Houses of Congress.
There was a legislative act ....which I agree was bipartisan. And there was the actually policy and use of that act to justify a myriad of ways to relinquish citizens of their constitutional rights in the so called interest of homeland security. Many of those were misuses and abuses adopted by arms of the government enabled by conservative republican elected officials and their plausibly deniable surrogates. In others words, it became a big excuse to act in manners otherwise illegal in order to pursue outcomes not especially necessary for the protection of the safety of Americans more than it was the protection of a few people's wealth.
flowerseverywhere
9-30-15, 6:21am
Well, in the abstract, I don't think you have a "right" to eat in any particular restaurant, or a "right" to have a job in a particular restaurant.
So, I am supportive of restaurants that allow smoking, but I'd not dine in one. Or work in one.
I did observe that when WA state banned smoking in restaurants and bars a few years back, several small local smoke-filled establishments initially complained that they'd lose their all-smoking customer base and go out of business. What they found after the smoke cleared was that they now had an *increased* volume of business, and could more easily hire workers. I still think the law smacks of Big Brother.
Heck, when I go to Seattle the stores are forbidden to provide paper sacks for goods I buy. At least I can still get a large coke if I wanted one.
And then there's the lightbulb, toilet, and window regulations... I'm going to have to move to some free country one of these days.
correct, it is not a right to eat in a restaurant. But when you are doing everything you can to be healthy despite your medical condition, and you have to navigate through a crowd of smokers to get into a building or attend an outside event, it can be disheartening. I could stay home or sit in my own yard. But again, this is not the US government, this is state law many of the quoted instances, like plastic bag bans, are state laws. Not to say there are not many overreaching federal laws.
I could disable my airbags and not use seat belts if I wanted since we have no car inspection here, another state by state regulation. I have not heard of not wearing seat belt stops here, which were common in NY, just citations if you happen to get into an accident.
flowerseverywhere
9-30-15, 6:24am
So I have two questions.
what are you doing to work on changing some of these far reaching big brother laws? (Posting anonymously on an Internet forum does not count)
what at could be done to change some of these loss of freedoms?
gimmethesimplelife
9-30-15, 8:32am
Kib. Thank You. This is just what I was getting at. The oppressive weight of all the rules and regulations which I find very soul sucking. To someone like me, who is old enough to remember a different America, and someone like me who doesn't fit into this one very well at all, the constant perception of potential negative consequences for just waking up in the morning......sometimes this just doesn't seem worth what you get in return, if you have had the chance to travel and comparison shop the citizenship.
All the warnings that are out there today have begun bothering me in the last few years, perhaps my ripe old age? Warning labels on everything, like the entire population is stupid or something. Last week I bought a can of paint. The fellow stuck a "keep upright" with a not liable warning on the can. I Joked about which way carry it and such. He tells me the company paid out $30,000 last year alone in cans falling on the side in a car, while rolling his eyes. Well dah. On to more serious warnings, Don't leave children,pets and elderly in a hot car. Another no brainer.
Seems like the population should be so much more educated today just from all the warning labels, yet seems to be going in the opposite direction!
Ultralight
9-30-15, 8:51am
I try to be as responsible for myself as possible so I do not put strain on a social safety net that others may truly need -- or that I may truly need in the future.
There was a very sad accident here. Van taking employees a long distance to do factory work crashed and several died and others were injured.
1. 12 person van overloaded with 24 people many were Haitians. Plank bench seats installed. No seat belts or other safety features.
2. All four tires were seriously over worn and suffered dry rot according to the accident investigator. Tire blow out appears to have caused crash in addition to the overweight condition.
Indiana has no personal car inspection law and I doubt any serious commercial vehicle inspections. We have had a number of fatal bus/van crashes due to mechanical/tire issues and often they are church vans or such.
Who protects the citizens from such drivers/companies?
When I read these discussions, I applaud the freedom of expression that makes it all possible. That is a precious right that many countries don't have.
iris lilies
9-30-15, 10:59am
I try to be as responsible for myself as possible so I do not put strain on a social safety net that others may truly need -- or that I may truly need in the future.
This is a good, simple philosophy to follow. I like it.
Ultralight
9-30-15, 11:12am
This is a good, simple philosophy to follow. I like it.
Thanks. :)
Newsflash: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3M6kKmW5CE
Ask them, don't assume. If I were to assume, I would think it would have more to do with customers comparing notes, trying to be their own doctors, or causing themselves to believe they have other symptoms.
We live in a country of laws. Unfortunately, so much of the law is like a foreign language, specialists in that language are required and have the intellect to use that knowledge to their benefit, our detriment. It is part of the reason this country was designed to be ruled by representatives of the people rather then a democracy. They were hopeful that the cream would rise over the ignorant, uneducated masses, back long before what we have for an education system.
Now, if we had one of them and one of us in the same place, we would know more in some area's, while they would be much wiser in others.
IMO this actually supports my perception: it's inappropriate to create a rule that tells other people what they can and can't talk about. It might be beneficial if they didn't. That doesn't make the setting of rules that violate personal freedoms appropriate.
The point I was making was addressing a larger issue, which you could call "rule creep". Mrs. X says to Mr. Y, "So why are you here?" Mr. Y doesn't wish to disclose why he is here. Instead of saying so, he says to his doctor, "Boy that Mrs. X sure is nosy." And Dr. then posts A RULE, so that no one will ever do anything bad again.
Do you remember the old Bill Cosby sketch about the family on a car trip. "Stop touching me." "He's touching me." "Stop Touching ME!" "Dad, make him stop touching me!" Dad, in a fit of exasperation: "OK THAT IS IT! NO ONE IN THIS CAR WILL EVER TOUCH ANYONE EVER AGAIN!" (Of course in Bill's case that might have been prudent, but ... )
I think we've become a nation besotted with the idea that we can control everything bad with an announcement.
catherine
9-30-15, 12:16pm
IMO this actually supports my perception: it's inappropriate to create a rule that tells other people what they can and can't talk about. It might be beneficial if they didn't. That doesn't make the setting of rules that violate personal freedoms appropriate.
The point I was making was addressing a larger issue, which you could call "rule creep". Mrs. X says to Mr. Y, "So why are you here?" Mr. Y doesn't wish to disclose why he is here. Instead of saying so, he says to his doctor, "Boy that Mrs. X sure is nosy." And Dr. then posts A RULE, so that no one will ever do anything bad again.
Do you remember the old Bill Cosby sketch about the family on a car trip. "Stop touching me." "He's touching me." "Stop Touching ME!" "Dad, make him stop touching me!" Dad, in a fit of exasperation: "OK THAT IS IT! NO ONE IN THIS CAR WILL EVER TOUCH ANYONE EVER AGAIN!"
I think we've become a nation besotted with the idea that we can control everything bad with an announcement.
Yes, I agree, as evidenced by the number of schools that have expelled 7 year old boys who draw pictures of guns, or bomb squads that are called out because of a Muslim student's science project.
ApatheticNoMore
9-30-15, 12:28pm
Maybe the rule is to stop two patients from talking about how awful the doctor is :). "This doctor has done nothing for me but throw pills at me, doesn't even have a full diagnosis and won't get one, unfortunately they are one of the few that takes my health insurance". "Me too, and he never spends more than 10 minutes with you!" Two is the beginning of a class action suit .... :laff:
I think it can go beyond mere paranoia about violence or litigation. There is a sense in which we have become a nation of scolds. There is no shortage of "microaggression meter maids" handing out tickets for slights undetectable by the naked eye. We're seeing the rise of university speech codes, trigger warnings and safe zones to protect against troublesome points of view. Any celebrity who offends can be expected to endure a ritual humiliation at the hands of the PC Puritans. With the rise of "victim culture", taking offense and whining has become a sort of perverse route to power.
Maybe the rule is to stop two patients from talking about how awful the doctor is :). "This doctor has done nothing for me but throw pills at me, doesn't even have a full diagnosis and won't get one, unfortunately they are one of the few that takes my health insurance". "Me too, and he never spends more than 10 minutes with you!" Two is the beginning of a class action suit .... :laff:
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=67&thumb=1&d=1293921865
I think it can go beyond mere paranoia about violence or litigation. There is a sense in which we have become a nation of scolds. There is no shortage of "microaggression meter maids" handing out tickets for slights undetectable by the naked eye. We're seeing the rise of university speech codes, trigger warnings and safe zones to protect against troublesome points of view. Any celebrity who offends can be expected to endure a ritual humiliation at the hands of the PC Puritans. With the rise of "victim culture", taking offense and whining has become a sort of perverse route to power.
Precisely. I guess for me not so much the whining, but the "pseudo-power" move of creating mountains of rules.
I'd suggest America has become more and more "The Land of the Stupid" except that others complain about all the stupids in their countries too, so it's probably just humanity in general. :)
Things like smoking and not wearing a seatbelt harms other people besides oneself, so I can see the wisdom in rules concerning them, but when it comes to stuff like getting sued for an uninvited someone slipping on ice on your sidewalk on your property...as if those people had *any* right to be there in the first place and were also too stupid and irresponsible not to walk on an icy sidewalk, then I just get irate thinking about it. But of course it's always someone else's fault. (Note that I haven't actually had any disputes about my sidewalk, but just using it as an example of something I find really stupid about American culture.)
It's those people, however, that force us all to need to get extra insurance against stupid people and put up warning and no trespassing signs and labels everywhere to tell the stupid that the sidewalk is icy and not to walk on it.
I always thought these safety warnings were pretty darned silly:
http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Untitled6.png
The one I always thought was weird was the ban on Kinder eggs. Apparently people considered responsible enough to keep loaded weapons, power tools, and countless other dangers around their children were not considered capable enough to keep their kids safe from chocolate eggs with toys in them.
Then again lots of kids get sick getting into those brightly colored laundry detergent gel packs that look like candy.
On the wall at tonight's take out place: "We have policy of first come first serve. But some dishes take longer time. Please be patient if someone get their food before you. Thank you." Really? This is necessary? Who do we have to thank, obnoxious diners or sign-happy restaurant owners?
Obnoxious diners for sure. There are a lot of diners out there that really dont understand that every restaurant is not a $100 per plate place. They want McDonalds service.
True, very true. I just find that this fits into the "rule-happy" theme, though. Does putting up instructions about how to feel actually stop these boors from complaining?
Probably not, but when they do complain then the staff can point to the sign and not be accused of making up a BS answer.
I'd suggest America has become more and more "The Land of the Stupid" except that others complain about all the stupids in their countries too, so it's probably just humanity in general. :)
Things like smoking and not wearing a seatbelt harms other people besides oneself, so I can see the wisdom in rules concerning them, but when it comes to stuff like getting sued for an uninvited someone slipping on ice on your sidewalk on your property...as if those people had *any* right to be there in the first place and were also too stupid and irresponsible not to walk on an icy sidewalk, then I just get irate thinking about it. But of course it's always someone else's fault. (Note that I haven't actually had any disputes about my sidewalk, but just using it as an example of something I find really stupid about American culture.)
It's those people, however, that force us all to need to get extra insurance against stupid people and put up warning and no trespassing signs and labels everywhere to tell the stupid that the sidewalk is icy and not to walk on it.
It's not really the stupid people, or Big Brother at fault. It's the insurance companies. Why can't people make this connection (not talking about you personally, just people in general) Last year I broke both my arms, wrist and ankle (in unrelated accidents..ugh!) The first thing the insurance company asks me is where did this happen? Was it your driveway? Was it your dog? (don't ask!) What they wanted was to blame someone else, or hold someone else's insurance responsible. They were both just simple accidents that happened on my own property (and my own dog) but would have still been just simple accidents had they happened on someone else's property. But if they had happened elsewhere, you bet your behind my insurance company would have demanded they pay for it and if they balked would have sued. This is the reason for all the warning signs and obvious notations everywhere.
Now granted Universal healthcare wouldn't eliminate all the greedy ways insurance companies intrude in our lives (freedoms?) but it would eliminate quite a lot. Instead of 'who do we blame/sue" it would be "oh gee, I'll bet that hurts. Let's fix you up"
true. it just seems to be following a trend of pointless babbling instruction. "If this restroom needs attention please contact the management." Anyone who was bothered enough about the state of the restroom would have contacted the management anyway, the rest of us are going to read the sign, shrug and ignore it. I guess we now have permission to mention that the toilet paper roll is empty without feeling ashamed.
correct, it is not a right to eat in a restaurant. But when you are doing everything you can to be healthy despite your medical condition, and you have to navigate through a crowd of smokers to get into a building or attend an outside event, it can be disheartening. I could stay home or sit in my own yard. But again, this is not the US government, this is state law many of the quoted instances, like plastic bag bans, are state laws. Not to say there are not many overreaching federal laws.
I could disable my airbags and not use seat belts if I wanted since we have no car inspection here, another state by state regulation. I have not heard of not wearing seat belt stops here, which were common in NY, just citations if you happen to get into an accident.
Yes...I find it ironic that 1. most of those who complain about 'nanny government' and 'government overreach' are really railing against state and local laws and regulations and 2. those very same people puff up and 'talk' about states rights like they know what they're talking about that would, in fact, give the states and local government even more power over much more important issues than paper bags in grocery stores. Issues like fuzzy definitions on what discrimination is and does granny really need to eat AND buy meds (or does she really need those meds) and educational standards. Should we go with actual science or shall we just teach the 6,000 year old center of the universe flat earth theory which is in fact true cause the bible says so? And regulations? We don't need no stinking regulations. If you want to indulge in eating and drinking water and breathing, well, then you takes your chances.;)
Yes...I find it ironic that 1. most of those who complain about 'nanny government' and 'government overreach' are really railing against state and local laws and regulations and 2. those very same people puff up and 'talk' about states rights like they know what they're talking about that would, in fact, give the states and local government even more power over much more important issues than paper bags in grocery stores. Issues like fuzzy definitions on what discrimination is and does granny really need to eat AND buy meds (or does she really need those meds) and educational standards. Should we go with actual science or shall we just teach the 6,000 year old center of the universe flat earth theory which is in fact true cause the bible says so? And regulations? We don't need no stinking regulations. If you want to indulge in eating and drinking water and breathing, well, then you takes your chances.;)
So would your solution be to remove lawmaking authority from all those ignorant yokels at the state and local level and give it to a wise and prudent central government?
flowerseverywhere
10-1-15, 4:38pm
So would your solution be to remove lawmaking authority from all those ignorant yokels at the state and local level and give it to a wise and prudent central government?
That was not my take at all. Most politicians are not idiots. Some are beholden to their donors, but they are not idiots. Well, I guess a couple are and somehow get elected anyway. Sometimes we need to step back when talking about abortion, welfare, schools, bag bans, sanctuary laws and so on and realize that these vary widely from state to state. Some laws a person could think are good. Some could be not good. The point is I often hear people (especially here) Criticize the U.S. When they should realize it is the laws more local people passed, not always the federal government.
Gun in control is another interesting example. I live where you can "stand your ground" and it is relatively easy to get a concealed carry permit. In NY friends who tried to get them said it was extremely difficult. Some states encourage water conservation through billing practices and promoting conservation through education. Some wait until the earth is collapsing and the farms are blowing away before anyone says it is a crisis. Some counties in the south are still dry counties.lots of variation in this big country.
It's not really the stupid people, or Big Brother at fault. It's the insurance companies. Why can't people make this connection (not talking about you personally, just people in general) Last year I broke both my arms, wrist and ankle (in unrelated accidents..ugh!) The first thing the insurance company asks me is where did this happen? Was it your driveway? Was it your dog? (don't ask!) What they wanted was to blame someone else, or hold someone else's insurance responsible. They were both just simple accidents that happened on my own property (and my own dog) but would have still been just simple accidents had they happened on someone else's property. But if they had happened elsewhere, you bet your behind my insurance company would have demanded they pay for it and if they balked would have sued. This is the reason for all the warning signs and obvious notations everywhere.
Now granted Universal healthcare wouldn't eliminate all the greedy ways insurance companies intrude in our lives (freedoms?) but it would eliminate quite a lot. Instead of 'who do we blame/sue" it would be "oh gee, I'll bet that hurts. Let's fix you up"
While I still think there are a lot of stupid people... :)
Insurance companies really are a direct representation of the devil. It seems like it's gone so far beyond the concept of simply being insured in case of disaster, so now not only do we have to pay an arm and a leg for 537 different types of insurance, we also must fight tooth and nail to get what we paid for in the unlucky event of needing to submit a claim. Of course, then we are no longer "claim free" and our rates go up even more regardless of fault. Dealing with medical insurance is probably the worst of the lot. (I was even recently required to get insurance to be a student teacher in case someone sued me at the school. It's ridiculous how far things have gone.) I agree that insurance companies are a large part of the problem and less and less of a solution as time has passed since their creation.
While I still think there are a lot of stupid people... :)
Insurance companies really are a direct representation of the devil. It seems like it's gone so far beyond the concept of simply being insured in case of disaster, so now not only do we have to pay an arm and a leg for 537 different types of insurance, we also must fight tooth and nail to get what we paid for in the unlucky event of needing to submit a claim. Of course, then we are no longer "claim free" and our rates go up even more regardless of fault. Dealing with medical insurance is probably the worst of the lot. (I was even recently required to get insurance to be a student teacher in case someone sued me at the school. It's ridiculous how far things have gone.) I agree that insurance companies are a large part of the problem and less and less of a solution as time has passed since their creation.
Yep :laff:
and yep
That was not my take at all. Most politicians are not idiots. Some are beholden to their donors, but they are not idiots. Well, I guess a couple are and somehow get elected anyway. Sometimes we need to step back when talking about abortion, welfare, schools, bag bans, sanctuary laws and so on and realize that these vary widely from state to state. Some laws a person could think are good. Some could be not good. The point is I often hear people (especially here) Criticize the U.S. When they should realize it is the laws more local people passed, not always the federal government.
Gun in control is another interesting example. I live where you can "stand your ground" and it is relatively easy to get a concealed carry permit. In NY friends who tried to get them said it was extremely difficult. Some states encourage water conservation through billing practices and promoting conservation through education. Some wait until the earth is collapsing and the farms are blowing away before anyone says it is a crisis. Some counties in the south are still dry counties.lots of variation in this big country.
This +1
flowerseverywhere
10-3-15, 11:35am
So Rob, the OP, I have. Question for you. In your opening post, you noted smoking, which is much more of a state than federal thing, and the freedom to put your elbow on a windowsill without being told you might get injured and to please not do that. Many posters have pointed out much of our regulation is the direct result of lawsuits.
Now in the numerous police brutality threads you have stated that you have your cell phone ready to tape any police misconduct and you hope they get slapped with multi million dollar lawsuits so they will learn. Well due to lawsuits people have learned. If you don't want to get sued you put warnings and restrictions. You only let bus windows open a few inches or not at all for example so someone won't fall out. Do you see any correlation between the effects of lawsuits and the resultant restrictions that then occur? Everything is related you know. Laws just don't materialize out of then air. Much consideration is given before a bus company spends the money to put warning labels on their windows not to stick your hands out.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.