Ya know i lost a race because the pain in my back was so bad i had to stop riding. Obviously a negligent manufacturing oversight. I really think i have a case. Panracer watch out.
I`am sure they have sent sublimitle (word?) throught my tv even when I was watching sports like bowling and golf ,also I `am going to sue the cable company cause I have so many kid`s due to the price of cable cause with out cable my wife got preganant ,and while I`am at it the fat kid down the street riding his Go -Ped makes him fat to so he should get millions for that trauma
I think he's got a right to sue. I dont think he's gonna win, and obviously shouldnt win. But this to me is as frivilous as the tobacco lawsuits. People will shirk accountability for their boneheaded decisions when the opportunity to gain arrises. The main difference between this example is that the addictive quality was instilled in the form of nicotene in tobacco, where an addictive personality would have to compel himself into overeatting. But even that said I still believe people should be forced to live with their poor decisions, or we as a society are merely enabling people to prosper from them.
Legalize everything. Defeat problems at the core, don't sacrifice freedom and liberty from fear.
Heavy enough for ya?
Originally posted by Skookum I think he's got a right to sue. I dont think he's gonna win, and obviously shouldnt win. But this to me is as frivilous as the tobacco lawsuits. People will shirk accountability for their boneheaded decisions when the opportunity to gain arrises. The main difference between this example is that the addictive quality was instilled in the form of nicotene in tobacco, where an addictive personality would have to compel himself into overeatting. But even that said I still believe people should be forced to live with their poor decisions, or we as a society are merely enabling people to prosper from them.
Legalize everything. Defeat problems at the core, don't sacrifice freedom and liberty from fear.
Heavy enough for ya?
The two suits are atotally different IMO - The differences bewtween the tobacco and fast food law suits being(though I think both are bogus) : tobacco purposely hid research, misrepresented scientific health data, and did in fact market toward kids who by law are not supposed to be able to consume the product.
Fast food? The restaurants don't claim to be part of Weight Watchers, there ARE some (fairly) healthy alternative menu items compared to the high fat / sodium / cholesterol items (ie. charbroiled chicken sandwich is low fat and moderate sodium vs a high fat burger) and, everyone has to eat...what you eat is up to you. Not all food is crappy for you, and even fast food isn't so bad in moderation. Hell, I eat fast food almost as often as the fat lawsuit guy and I weigh 153lbs. No one has to start smoking to live, and even a little smoking of any kind of cigarette is bad for you.
I think fast food corperations should get sued bacause they mislead the consumer in to thinking that they are eating what humans call food. There is no real substanance in the food, it is mainly sugars and fat, with a whop of extra spices and chemicals yo achieve certain aims (I have heard that there is an anti-vomitting ingrediant in McSomething restaurants special sauce. Wouldn't want to see what the stomach felt about the foods nutritional value.)
All I want to know is where can I sign up to benifit from this lawsuit. I've eaten my share of crap food before I became aware of my body as a fallable system, and the need for a healthy diet. And still they should be sued for cornerring the food markets in certain areas almosr forcing the consummer to deal with them (with there massive size and distribution capacity they have long since gotten ride of the little guys with ther mini-franchise which buy there ingrediants fresh.
No one has to start smoking to live, and even a little smoking of any kind of cigarette is bad for you.
My intention was not to marry these cases as being the same as far as the law is concerned. I really know nothing of law and have not researched either case. My concern is why should any person, group, or business pay for lack of common sense. I'm not going to advocate the use of tobacco, or support the tobacco industry, I mean c'mon just legalized drug pushers really. But at the same time a person who starts smoking regardless of their age will soon have ill health symptoms that its hard to tell me they are oblivious to what the product is doing to them. Now when they are hooked up to lung machines they want someone to bail them out on their medical bills. Your right El Jefe in that these cases are different, but they are linked in my opinion because i believe the smoking suit opened doors for this fast food case.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.