Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 07 Jan '15 02:28 / 2 edits
    http://news.yahoo.com/liability-concerns-prompt-cities-limit-sledding-150707212.html

    It appears that lawyers once more are making the US a white padded cell piece by piece. Now children are being told that sledding is too dangerous and will be banned soon.

    From the article:

    "Most people realize that cities must restrict potentially dangerous activities to protect people and guard against costly lawsuits, said Kenneth Bond, a New York lawyer who represents local governments. In the past, people might have embraced a Wild West philosophy of individuals being solely responsible for their actions, but now they expect government to prevent dangers whenever possible."

    Wild West philosophy? So kids who like to sled are compared to Jesse James?

    Liberalism, the death of the mind, will, and emotions.
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    07 Jan '15 02:58
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://news.yahoo.com/liability-concerns-prompt-cities-limit-sledding-150707212.html

    It appears that lawyers once more are making the US a white padded cell piece by piece. Now children are being told that sledding is too dangerous and will be banned soon.

    From the article:

    "Most people realize that cities must restrict potentially dangerous activit ...[text shortened]... to sled are compared to Jesse James?

    Liberalism, the death of the mind, will, and emotions.
    The title of the thread and your first sentence is wildly inaccurate. Sledding isn't going to be banned; some cities are banning it on certain public property due to liability issues i.e. people have been suing cities for sledding injuries.

    Please at least read the articles you cite before beginning your hysterical shrieking.
  3. 07 Jan '15 06:39
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The title of the thread and your first sentence is wildly inaccurate. Sledding isn't going to be banned; some cities are banning it on certain public property due to liability issues i.e. people have been suing cities for sledding injuries.

    Please at least read the articles you cite before beginning your hysterical shrieking.
    Whodey is our hysterical town shrieker.
  4. 07 Jan '15 07:03
    Damn it, don't tell me I have to stop my freestyle skateboarding in the public library too!
  5. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    07 Jan '15 07:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Damn it, don't tell me I have to stop my freestyle skateboarding in the public library too!
    Privatise the library, let the owners set the terms of use.
  6. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    07 Jan '15 09:57
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://news.yahoo.com/liability-concerns-prompt-cities-limit-sledding-150707212.html

    It appears that lawyers once more are making the US a white padded cell piece by piece. Now children are being told that sledding is too dangerous and will be banned soon.

    From the article:

    "Most people realize that cities must restrict potentially dangerous activit ...[text shortened]... to sled are compared to Jesse James?

    Liberalism, the death of the mind, will, and emotions.
    What's the matter whodey? Running out of things to complain about??
  7. 07 Jan '15 11:52 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://news.yahoo.com/liability-concerns-prompt-cities-limit-sledding-150707212.html

    It appears that lawyers once more are making the US a white padded cell piece by piece. Now children are being told that sledding is too dangerous and will be banned soon.

    From the article:

    "Most people realize that cities must restrict potentially dangerous activit ...[text shortened]... to sled are compared to Jesse James?

    Liberalism, the death of the mind, will, and emotions.
    just by reading the title of the link: limit, not ban
    the excerpt you pasted: limit, not ban


    rush limbaugh type of alarmist, twisting the truth crap
  8. 07 Jan '15 11:53 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The title of the thread and your first sentence is wildly inaccurate. Sledding isn't going to be banned; some cities are banning it on certain public property due to liability issues i.e. people have been suing cities for sledding injuries.

    Please at least read the articles you cite before beginning your hysterical shrieking.
    So only public property will be banned? So tell us, how long before private property owners also ban sledding cause they don't want to get sued either? In fact, the only people who will be able to sled are those lucky enough to have a large hill and own the property but they will have to sled alone unless they have brothers or sisters. Is this what liberals want? Do they want the poor folk not to be able to sled?

    The bottom line is that this is the fault of the legal system. Children should be able to go sledding and not be able to sue the poor soul who may own the tree they ride into. If the children get hurt, any fault should fall on the shoulders of the parents who are suppose to supervise them.

    It's like everything else in this country, they don't ban it outright, they simply begin to slowly regulate and restrict it away to avoid the hysteria you are talking about. It's like a frog in a pot as the heat is slowly turned up. We are being reduced day by day to a joyless society whose will for any independent action is stripped away.

    In fact, I drove by a housing development the other day and was used to seeing children fish in a local pond. Then I noticed the children were gone. I then saw a sign that had said they had just decided to ban fishing due to council from their lawyers. Is fishing now too dangerous? What in the hell is this country becoming?
  9. 07 Jan '15 11:56 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by bill718
    What's the matter whodey? Running out of things to complain about??
    I at least complain instead of just ignoring the abuse inflicted on my rump.

    Long ago, Americans would revolt if you tried to mount them. Now they don't so much as ask for lube.
  10. 07 Jan '15 12:01
    Originally posted by whodey
    I at least complain instead of just ignoring the abuse inflicted on my rump.
    On a chess website, no less!

    They won't be able to ignore you this way, Whodey!
  11. Standard member Quarl
    Quarl
    07 Jan '15 18:20
    There is an easy solution to avoid problems of legal blackmail. Adopt British tort rule of: Loser pays all costs.

    Of course this solution really isn't "easy" due to your political bodies being almost entirely populated by lawyers. You will not see a lawyer curtail his/her ability to earn, should they lose next election!
  12. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    07 Jan '15 18:38
    Originally posted by whodey
    So only public property will be banned? So tell us, how long before private property owners also ban sledding cause they don't want to get sued either? In fact, the only people who will be able to sled are those lucky enough to have a large hill and own the property but they will have to sled alone unless they have brothers or sisters. Is this what liberal ...[text shortened]... l from their lawyers. Is fishing now too dangerous? What in the hell is this country becoming?
    I do not see the joy in blaming a parent for the preventable maiming of their child. It's impossible to supervise children 24/7, and, speaking for myself, my childhood would have been diminished for it. If a hazard is predictable then it makes sense to guard against it. The real problem with your fishing example is that the local authority simply banned the activity rather than mitigating whatever the hazard they were worried about was. Had they been able to raise a little more revenue through taxes you might find that they could have done that.
  13. 07 Jan '15 19:29
    Originally posted by whodey
    It appears that lawyers once more are making the US a white padded cell piece by piece.

    Liberalism, the death of the mind, will, and emotions.
    Yeah, because US corporate and damages lawyers are well known examples of lily-livered, soft-hearted gullibility and kindness to others, and not steel-souled, rapacious proponents of hardline capitalism at all.
  14. 08 Jan '15 03:23
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    I do not see the joy in blaming a parent for the preventable maiming of their child. It's impossible to supervise children 24/7, and, speaking for myself, my childhood would have been diminished for it. If a hazard is predictable then it makes sense to guard against it. The real problem with your fishing example is that the local authority simply bann ...[text shortened]... able to raise a little more revenue through taxes you might find that they could have done that.
    I see, so since the parent is unable to supervise the children then the local neighbor or government official should be?
  15. 08 Jan '15 03:34
    Originally posted by whodey
    I see, so since the parent is unable to supervise the children then the local neighbor or government official should be?
    that would be a boring topic.


    how about instead we mock you for your hilarious twisting of the facts from your own link?