Oh....I never watch the show....sorry.
htf can you sue teh govt over a natural disaster which was out of their control?
thats just plain stupid, if they succeed, the precedent will just up america a new one in the future since ur region is prone to natural disasters....
INSURANCE get it jackass....
+1,000,000,000,000,000
Im sorry, I agree with Handy Hint, if your THAT ing stupid to live in a flood plain, you! Now Im just waiting for that cesspool California to drop off the west coast and listen to all the "Woa is me" es for living on a fault.
"Duh, We are gonna rebuild, derherherher!"
Im not a ing moron, if my house gets flooded out and its possible to happen again.... IM ING MOVING!!!!
Got damn, it ing amazes me how ing stupid people are, its a wonder we aren't extinct! Thank God for people like me
Floods and fires = Darwinism at work.
Last edited by phyzik; 01-10-2008 at 01:49 AM.
Maybe these lawsuits are more about NO residents being left to fend for themselves, and then the city not being rebuilt for the affected residents. Aren't swathes of the city still wasteland? If my government let me down three times like that (bad levies, no assistance during crisis, slow rebuilding), I think I'd be suing the ers for as much as I could get too.
Idealistic I know, but governments are meant to be there to help people in situations exactly like this and they failed over and over and over again.
If you are talking about Darwinian evolution by natural selection, um no. Most of the people who lived there during Katrina lived there because they grew up or worked there, so their reason for being below the water level was not blatant stupidity. Most of the affected areas were poor, and poor people have lower mobility levels (they simply don't have the money to move). The flood affected thousands of people regardless of their level of "survivability" or "fecundity", so it has nothing to do with natural selection. In fact, natural selection doesn't really operate on humans in the modern developed world any more because social factors like income and education level have a far great effect on survival and fecundity than any "natural" factors. Poor people in the third world are still subjected largely to natural selection though.
Our more modern and advanced culture has reduced the Darwinism by natural selection, but there is a new form of "natural selection" at work that still separates many, something that hasn't really been coined yet as far as I know. It is in regards to death from technology for those who are too stupid or inexperienced to use it properly (i.e. automobiles). Stupid people will always find a way to up and die young, unfortunately they can now take you or I with them through abuse of technology.
I would argue that technology hasn't just "reduced" natural selection, it has removed it from the equation for much of the planet's human population. A great example of this is antibiotics - they have now saved billions of lives that would otherwise have been lost to microbial infections under natural selection.
As for "Stupid people will always find a way to up and die young" - really? I think a lot of very stupid people don't died young because they are saved by modern technologies like seat belts, or societal rules against dangerous behaviour that they choose to obey. The Darwin Awards are funny, but few people kill themselves through sheer stupidity. I've had two friends die in their late-teens/early 20s, both smart guys - one in a car crash as the passenger of a drunk driver (he did a dumb thing, but he was not generally a stiupid person), and the other of leukemia. Sorry, but your statement is overblown.
You are talking about "social" selection or social evolution, there's nothing "natural" about it. There is a lot of sociological, ecological and economic literature out there on this subject.
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 01-10-2008 at 04:32 AM.
On a side note, the idea of Social Darwinism, which I won't explain (read the wiki) gets into some touchy ethics when it comes to eugenics and what's good for the human race:
"Despite the fact that social Darwinism bears Darwin's name and his works were widely read by social Darwinists, the theory also draws on the work of many authors, including Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, and Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics. Darwin himself gave serious consideration to Galton's work, but thought the ideas of "hereditary improvement" impractical. Aware of weaknesses in his own family, he was sure that families would naturally refuse such selection and wreck the scheme. He thought that even if compulsory registration was the only way to improve the human race, this illiberal idea would be unacceptable, and it would be better to publicize the "principle of inheritance" and let people decide for themselves.[1] In The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex of 1882 he described how medical advances meant that the weaker were able to survive and have families, and commented on the effects of this, while cautioning that hard reason should not override sympathy, and considering how other factors might reduce the effect –
'Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. ... We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.[2]'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
Have a read, it is interesting stuff!
I think im going to sue olive garden for giving me the s today..
i think one brazillion dollars would suffice.
I don't give a what any of you say. I don't care what ed up way you can justify this bull and the bull that has ensued because of this. Life ing sucks and no matter how much engineering you put into something when introduced to a massive larger than above average catastrophic event you can't guarantee anything. There isn't an endless pile of money to develop each and every structure in this world, there has to be some tolerances but not infinite.
These people are asking for compensation for a one in over a million event that was controlled for the most part by mother nature. They deserve assistance which they have recieved for two plus years and they deserve some compensation to rebuild but to ask for million or quadrillions of illions is a complete waste of time and resources.
We have illegal immigrants that can jump a fence find gainful employment and start a life completely under the radar all while not even speaking the language ten times faster than any one of these worthless life sucking time wasting victims. They should have fled instead of pompously sticking it out like a bunch of lazy....well you know.
The federal government shouldn't have to bail someone out with millions of dollars for an act of God. Particularly when they knew it was coming.
It's pretty comical that the city is filing suit as well, those idiots had the government offer everything on a platter but were too incompetent to take advantage of it. Next time the government gives you millions of dollars for levy repairs, spend it on the ing levy - not building a casino.
'em.
If I remember right the government always stated that the levies were built to spec to hold against a category 3 hurricane. Katrina was a strong 4, nearly a 5.
Everyone in New Orleans knew what would happen if a 4/5 hit them. They chose to live there. Come on. They were living in a bowl, below sea level, protected by levies built to withstand a category 3, and were hit by a strong 4.
At what point is the government responsible for common sense of the people?
I guess, then, I wonder why the corps of engineers has accepted blame for the failure. If it was the strength of the hurricane that caused the levees to fail, why acknowledge that it was, instead, a consequence of improper construction?
I understand that, but I also think that if the government is going to tell people that it built levees that would protect them during certain types of storms, people rely on that representation, and then their homes are destroyed because the levees weren't built to the standard the government claimed, there's a degree of responsibility that falls to the government.
If you buy a car that claims to have seatbelts that will protect you in a crash and then are injured when the car is in a crash and the manufacturer admits that your injuries came from a problem with the seat belt, should the manufacturer be immune from liability because you assumed the risk that their promise was a good one? That concept is completely foreign to the law.
Perhaps at the point that it gives unwarranted assurances that the things its doing to protect people will protect them and those who are injured have relied upon those assurances.
So its ok to sue if the seatbelt failed during a massive Tornado. I mean its designed to protect you right?
This is what we get for Thomas Jefferson cheaping out and not getting the extended warranty and coverage. Still, I say send the bill to the frogs.
If the manufacturer says that you were injured because the seatbelt was supposed to protect you in the event of a tornado, sure. No manufacturer is going to say that.
It's not as if these people are saying that the levees failed to protect them from a bomb or something. The levees were supposed to divert rising water away from these areas; they did not do that. The government has said that it is resposible for the levee failure. After all of that, the government should bear no financial responsibility to those who were harmed as a result of that failure? I don't see that being reasonable at all.
I never said they didn't deserve compensation. I said its getting ing ridiculous and its a giant waste of time to deal with these greedy idiotic dumb s. I'm not arguing over a 100k lawsuit here we're talking about millions and trillions and quadrillions and enough already. These people need to get off their asses and get a job and stfu already.These people are asking for compensation for a one in over a million event that was controlled for the most part by mother nature. They deserve assistance which they have recieved for two plus years and they deserve some compensation to rebuild but to ask for million or quadrillions of illions is a complete waste of time and resources.
Not to mention wasn't it stated before that the structure was designed to protect against cat 3 not a 4 or 5.
Somehow I doubt these people had millions and billions of dollars in property damage and loss of income.
Some of the responses in this thread are amusing considering how the Feds aren't so forgiving when they expect something of you.
Then why is the Corps of Engineers accepting responsibility for the failure?
Lets do this the right way. Link me an article and we'll take the debate from there. Although I never stated that they didn't deserve some kind of compensation.
This could be as simple as "yes they were built to withstand a CAT 3 not a 4 or 5, you guys didn't sign up for the 4 or 5 job you signed up for the discounted CAT 3 build sorry it failed cheap loser"
This is from the article that you posted to start this thread:
Levee system was poorly designed, and there had been reports circulating for years at both the local and federal level stating that the New Orleans area was pretty much ed if hit directly by a hurricane.
The quadrillion dollars is just plain ridiculous and could/would never hold up in court, but I think that the assertion that the people in this situation should just shut the up and get a job might be going a bit far. Government failed to properly handle the situation before AND after the hurricane at every level and in every manner conceivable and I think people are well within their rights to be pissed off about it.
For what its worth, I agree with you that the claims that are being made are, in some cases at least, outrageous. That's unfortunate because there surely are some claimants who are making perfectly reasonable claims and they are being unfairly vilified in the general contempt for those who are seeking recompense. I don't think anyone should realize a windfall from this, but I do object to the suggestion that these people don't deserve anything for their losses.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
