Blame Culture
Blame Culture
(OP)
zdas04 rightly suggested that this belonged in a separate thread to where it was initially posted.
"I personally don't like some of the culture developing in the UK where everything is someone else's fault. No-one accepts responsibility for their own actions any more, however stupid those actions are. It is leading to increasingly restrictive legislation and in some instances corporate and state 'nannying', and an ever-growing level of paperwork designed to keep the ambulance-chaser lawyers at bay. How is it in the rest of the world?"
So - is it just the UK afflicted with this blame culture? Is it right? Or should Darwin's Theory of Evolution be allowed to take effect and reduce the number of stupid people in the world?
"I personally don't like some of the culture developing in the UK where everything is someone else's fault. No-one accepts responsibility for their own actions any more, however stupid those actions are. It is leading to increasingly restrictive legislation and in some instances corporate and state 'nannying', and an ever-growing level of paperwork designed to keep the ambulance-chaser lawyers at bay. How is it in the rest of the world?"
So - is it just the UK afflicted with this blame culture? Is it right? Or should Darwin's Theory of Evolution be allowed to take effect and reduce the number of stupid people in the world?
----------------------------------
If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!





RE: Blame Culture
I cannot imagine how people used to get by in the old days.
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
If you ask me, Darwin's Theory of Evolution helps contribute to rationale of the "blame culture".
With most religions, self-accountability is a central facet of whatever belief is manifested.
The Theory of Evolution, and the subsequent invalidation of religion, means we are left to our own devices; and the product of the "There's no-accountability for myself and my actions due to no existence of a Superior Being to judge me, because I'm just here as an effect of progressive reproduction" culture has been quite simply to blame anything else but yourself for those problems. There's no reason to be accountable, just to make your time on earth as easy on yourself as you can manage to make it.
(Even the Wendy's finger-in-the-chili lady cried the she had been victimized (link) by the foodchain. What!?!?!)
Say what you will about Spirituality, a deeply personal topic to be sure, but recognize that living your life according to the tenets of a religion has the net effect of recognizing the consequences for your own actions.
A good Sunday topic to wrap one's head around...
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
Or, more relevant to the topic of this thread, that most people filing frivolous lawsuits are? Or that most lawmakers creating overprotective laws are? I bet you can't for those cases either. In fact, I'd bet in the U.S. that most of those people (particularly the lawmakers) consider themselves quite religious.
This topic is hot enough as it is. Don't drag in hotter topics that really aren't relevant (given the likely religious inclinations of the parties under criticism here).
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: FAQ731-376
RE: Blame Culture
I don't know about "magical fairies", but yes... most religious faiths hold that humans have a spirit of some sort that lives on past this life, and that actions in this life will be rewarded / punished in the hereafter. Given that the hereafter would seem to last much longer than the short time span of a human life, life and death may not seem such an important motivator to some individuals.
Anyway, it seems to me that greed is more of the issue with the blame culture and frivilous lawsuits, as metengr stated. Of course religions have something to say about that too, but that's another discussion for another site.
RE: Blame Culture
Since we're speaking of a "culture of blame," if you have a supernatural being to pledge your allegiance to, you can be "right" and comfortably blame the gays, atheists, liberals, and illegal immigrants for everything that is wrong with society... isn't that how it's supposed to work?
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
While it is true that most of the world religions define how believers are to live, and normally include exhortation to accept responsibility for one's own actions, it is also true that people who run to lawyers and sue for the purpose of blaming others are not limited to those who reject religions.
Speaking only about the US (the only nation in which I have ever resided) and specifically about Christianity (the only religion where I have personal experience), I believe that a clear distinction would have to be made between those who actually practice Christianity versus those who simply wear the name. In the US anyone can claim to be a Christian and there is no penalty for claiming the name but not living the lifestyle prescribed for believers (in the discussion at hand, not accepting personal responsibility for one's own actions). Hence in the US frivolous lawsuits are filed by and on the behalf of "Christians" as often as they are filed by and on behalf of non-believers. My contention is that only the group of people who actually practice the tenet of Christianity to accept responsibility for their own actions will show a correspondingly low rate of filing lawsuits.
This relates to the main topic of the post in that I believe my contention is a reason (not the only reason, but a strong reason) why even those called Christians participate in the "Blame Culture".
Also, in my opinion, the legal profession has created the rules that make lawsuits almost mandatory for so many things, and this adds to the blame culture. How many of us have been counseled that if we are involved in a traffic accident, "Don't say anything, don't admit to anything"? Why? Because even if you caused the accident, when your insurance company attempts to absolve you of the blame (not because they love you so much, but to avoid paying for the damage you did), then their lawyers will have a better chance of reducing the payout to the injured party if you have not admitted fault.
Oddly enough, I almost used the acronym INHO to begin the last paragraph, but changed it to "in my opinion" before posting. In the interest of practicing a tenet of my own religion to be honest, then I could not use the term "humble" when referring to my opinion. A character flaw that my Lord is working on removing from my personality, even as we chat.
RE: Blame Culture
Maui
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
Can you name a frivolous lawsuit brought by the ACLU? Someone asking for a little too much "freedom of the press," perhaps? Maybe someone wanting to practice the wrong religion, suing the city that prevented him? Oh waaait, now I get it, you're probably just mad that they tried to prevent some public school from teaching Christian Creationism alongside (or in place of) well-founded scientific theories regarding the origins of life...
RE: Blame Culture
With your permission, even though your post was not directed towards me, I would like to suggest an alternative to your point. The ACLU is NOT dangerous to America because they defend civil liberties. In that you and I most certainly agree. However, I believe they are dangerous to America because they are on the leading edge of the movement to circumvent the legislative branch of our government as the birthplace of new law and replace it with the judicial branch of our government.
Our founding fathers (from the "Federalist Papers" and the "Anti-Federalist Papers", which so far is all the research I have done) realized that social change would come, and intended that social change resulting in changes to the law would and should filter through the legislative branch of government, as it is the branch most directly representing the citizens. They greatly feared social change resulting in changes to the laws coming through the judiciary branch. The judiciary branch was given lifetime appointment status for the express purpose of removing them from political pressure, precisely because their function was only to interpret law in light of the Constitution, NOT to write new laws or create new rights.
Anyway, only my opinion, as I am not a founding father nor am I as informed on their writings as I should be. I am sure your opinion is just as strongly held and as valued as mine.
The beautiful part of all this is that you and I have the right and the freedom to have this very discussion, in large part due to our Constitution and maybe a small part due to the ACLU...at least their early efforts. I find myself considering them to have gone "over the line" with regard to their original purpose.
Best regards,
debodine
RE: Blame Culture
Never discuss politics or religion at work ( maybe even here in Eng-Tips)
My $0.02:
Leading cause of lawsuits = lawyers.
Reason lawyers have so much power: Their culture consists of manipulating people against each other, at a fee of $200/hr minimum.
As opposed to engineers, who mainly worry about getting something to work properly or not fall down.
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
I accept the wisdom of your suggestion. I hereby withdraw from this politics/religion discussion. I appreciate Ivymike's comments because they made me think...always a good exercise for an engineer. I now return to my regularly scheduled agenda of making sure my airplanes do not fall down!
RE: Blame Culture
I don't think that the USA has a "blame culture" at all. Its the legal system that at fault, creating the opportunities that individuals have to pin things on someone when things go wrong and thereby benefit from it. The fault of this clearly rests upon the courts and the lawyers. We have a bunch of lawyers who will bring frivolous cases before the court and a court who is willing to listen to them. Perhaps if there were severe fines for bringing frivolous suits before the court and jurors were selected based upon intelligence, things would be different. But then the lawyers and courts would be out of business wouldn't they? And this is what its really mostly about when it comes to the legal system.
RE: Blame Culture
Maui
RE: Blame Culture
In answer to your question a few posts ago, yes, in simple terms the legal costs are met by the 'loser'. Unfortunately there are an exponentially-growing number of "no-win, no-fee" legal firms infecting my country. These firms actively encourage compensation claims for anything imaginable, because they know their fees will be paid if they win. Obviously they pick cases where the doddering idiots who sit as judges are likely to find in their favour, or where the defence may settle out court.
As many contributors have said, the legal 'profession' are largely to blame, and the law-makers are guilty of allowing them to prosper. Many of our judges are at or beyond retirement age, some bordering on senility and almost all wouldn't be further out of touch with the population if they were on the Moon.
----------------------------------
If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!
RE: Blame Culture
That also means that if your employer stiffs you out of your pay or you get screwed by a commercial company, you will have ZERO recourse. If your doctor screws up, you'll be SCREWED, since the likelihood of winning a malpractice suit was already low to begin with.
There are other ways to deal with frivolous lawsuits. Given that some of you had previously expressed negative feelings about companies and their behavior, it's rather curious that you're so anxious to protect them from being called into account when the need arises.
TTFN
RE: Blame Culture
Everyone should be entitled to justice however rich or poor they are, however when you offer this there is always someone who wants to abuse the system, be it compensation, welfare benefit, or any other benefit. To some it is what any “reasonable “ society should do; to others it is a free meal ticket. I guess it is human nature, not very pleasant creatures humans are they?
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
Well, as they say, one man's religion is another man's belly laugh. As long as I pray to your deities, I am guaranteed a place next to you in the afterlife, right? Or do I have to contribute to your political party too?
Since we're speaking of a "culture of blame," if you have a supernatural being to pledge your allegiance to, you can be "right" and comfortably blame the gays, atheists, liberals, and illegal immigrants for everything that is wrong with society... isn't that how it's supposed to work?
Well, let's just say that the focus of your post went far outside the context, and point, that mine provided.
RE: Blame Culture
Fortunately for the rest of us, there are real-life and immediate consequences to the actions of individuals and groups. We don't have to wait and hope that supernatural beings will eventually intervene. There are real physical consequences to actions, and societies enforce their standards of acceptable behavior to prevent people from injuring each other unjustly.
Darwinian evolution didn't invalidate religion - any religion contradictory to it was invalid already.
RE: Blame Culture
As someone who works with attorneys involved in construction litigation on a daily basis, I feel the need to add some points...
SacreBleu, you are a wise and valued being, however you forgot to mention that some attorneys (not all) will also color or shade the facts to achieve a specific result (just about anything short of an outright lie).
jlwoodward, it is not necessarily 'The Company' that chooses to settle, unless you refer to The Insurance Company. Their attorneys are generally making all the decisions.
I had a situation when I was a part owner of a consulting firm. We were sued due a typographical error listing my company as the engineer of record in a condominium conversion report. We were not. Had nothing to do with the building whatsoever. My company wrote a short report for someone who did NOT purchase the building.
A motion for summary judgement failed in an Illinois State court, even though we demonstrated that we were not the engineer of record. I have nothing kind to say about the Illinois court system nor the cretins that inhabit it.
MY insurance company told us to just pay the $10,000 to make the case 'go away'. This was coincidentially the amount of our deductible. It would have cost our small company $10,000 and the insurance company nothing. At the time, my premiums were around $25,000-$30,000 per year. I refused to pay the $10,000, so our E & O insurance carrier threatened to not cover us if the suit was successful. I felt blackmailed not only by the Plaintiff in this case, but by my own E & O insurance carrier. I fired the insurance company and fought the suit without coverage, and won. I also managed to get the developer to pay our legal costs plus $40,000. This was a very risky and difficult thing to do.
This was a nighmare for a very clearcut case. I would hate to think of the pressure on companies if there is any degree of exposure.
If there is blame to spread around like so much manure on a field, a substantial portion of that stuff has to plopped right down on the E & O carriers.
RE: Blame Culture
I find it truly amazing how many "find the culprit" individuals end up in management positions (I won't say "leadership positions"). What is there about that type of person that allows them to gravitate upwards? Could it be that they tend to be ineffective engineers so they get elevated to positions where they won't have to make technical decisions?
Whatever the reason, I think that the blame culture starts with people who won't take personal responibility, evolves to those losers in leading positions, and finally reaches the court systems--the out-of-control lawyers are more a symptom than a root cause.
David
RE: Blame Culture
William
RE: Blame Culture
You provide a good case study showing that nothing ends up as "clear cut" as it initially looks once the legal system gets involved.
ivymike brings case law into the discussion as a way of resolving conflicts between and within existing statutory law. It is when these exceptions are built upon so that they become the new "rule" that dangers can arise (my opinion). The current "fashion" within the practice of law appears to be working the exceptions rather than the rule in order to win.
Regards,
RE: Blame Culture
Lawyers aren't all that bad - it's only that 98% of them bad apples the make the remaining 2% look bad.
I would not be at all surprised if the E & O Insurance Carriers are owned/directed by lawyers.
RE: Blame Culture
So companies are forced to take counter-measures, disclaimers written all over the products they sell, making their customers look like and feel like they're idiots. My theory is that if you treat someone like an idiot long enough, he/she will eventually become one. So in that sense, yes, this faulty legal system is a kind of an anti-Darwinistic mechanism by which the unfittest survive and are even rewarded.
I personally don't even care to read the disclaimers page of any instruction manual of a product I buy, since it's simply not meant for the country I live in.
RE: Blame Culture
Somehow, people still get killed at railroad crossings for example. It’s very well documented that trains are big, loud, and dangerous, but it still happens. Quite regularly too. And of course, their family sues: the railroad, the DOT, the signal maker.....
To me, it's just natural selection, but this does not float with a sympathizing, blaming culture. Have you ever heard the relative say "Well, the train was big and loud but my brother-in-law got hit anyway trying to beat it. It was his fault." Nope. Enter the lawyers.
RE: Blame Culture
So far I have seen greed, lawyers, lack of religious belief, religious belief, and the theory of evolution being blamed for the “blame culture.”
I choose to blame the popular philosophic position that is ingrained in society. People are largely held responsible for the intent of their actions and not the consequence of their actions. Evaluating intent results in less perceived personal responsibility, and as such, fuels the blame culture.
RE: Blame Culture
How is justice established? By what standard? Shall we take a poll? Of whom? Who is to say one culture is "better" than another? Hitler better than Mugabe or Chamberlain? Without an objective standard, how can any enforcement of any law be truly legitimate?
These questions underpin the problems we're facing in the U.S.--a culture in which almost all law can be challenged because for some reason it is not just to apply a particular law to ME, though it's right for some reason or other to apply it to others. This delegitimizes the concept of law and right enforcement of law.
Truth is that which conforms to reality. It is not merely asserted, but must be observed, tested, proven. Not all ideas can be tested empirically, yet they exist--they are true only as much as they conform to reality. And certainly some of reality is imperceptible (except to the materialist, who has an intangible mind, nonetheless). What do we do with such ideas? You seem a fan of Darwin's work--a brilliant man--but you also seem to have far more faith than I, judging by your bold assertions.
I don't want to wander too far afield from the topic of this thread. If you'd like to discuss this further, my email address is posted at the site listed below.
"And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?"
--Plato, Symposium (supposedly--I've found it only from Pirsig)
Jeff Mowry
www.industrialdesignhaus.com
Reality is no respecter of good intentions.
RE: Blame Culture
Not all ideas can be tested empirically, yet they exist--they are true only as much as they conform to reality.
Is that part of the "true unless proven otherwise" philosophical technique? If it is impossible to test an idea empirically, then how can it be known to conform to reality? Does an untestable or unprovable idea with no testable corollaries or derivatives have any practical importance? I think not.
You seem a fan of Darwin's work--a brilliant man--but you also seem to have far more faith than I, judging by your bold assertions.
Which bold assertions are those? The consequences of the theory of evolution have been tested and confirmed experimentally on many thousands, if not millions, of occasions. It has been proven roughly as well as any physical law can ever be proven, and is understood by biologists at least as well as gravity or electricity is understood by physicists. Nonetheless, many people in the US are STILL trying to prevent it from being taught to schoolchildren, and.. (excerpt from the liberal secular humanist left-leaning media rag "National Geographic"):
According to a Gallup poll drawn from more than a thousand telephone interviews conducted in February 2001, no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Evolution, by their lights, played no role in shaping us.
Only 37 percent of the polled Americans were satisfied with allowing room for both God and Darwin—that is, divine initiative to get things started, evolution as the creative means. (This view, according to more than one papal pronouncement, is compatible with Roman Catholic dogma.) Still fewer Americans, only 12 percent, believed that humans evolved from other life-forms without any involvement of a god.
The most startling thing about these poll numbers is not that so many Americans reject evolution, but that the statistical breakdown hasn't changed much in two decades. Gallup interviewers posed exactly the same choices in 1982, 1993, 1997, and 1999. The creationist conviction—that God alone, and not evolution, produced humans—has never drawn less than 44 percent. In other words, nearly half the American populace prefers to believe that Charles Darwin was wrong where it mattered most.
Based on the recurring themes of discussions on this site, I believe that the proportions above are very similar amongst US engineers. I find that frightening - if anyone who isn't a scientist should understand the scientific method, how theories are tested, and what it means for something to be "only a theory," I would guess that engineers should. No such luck. Any science that doesn't match preconceived notions is summarily dismissed with a "they must have fudged the numbers" and a "they're just trying to make some money off of us." Heck, if someone simultaneously mapped the genetic codes of every living thing on the planet, and back-calculated a worldwide family tree reaching tens of millions of years into the past, that would still leave 44% or more of engineers saying "evolution doesn't apply to me." I wonder how often the same hubris results in botched designs ("this thing is going to work - I don't care what the test says")? It probably doesn't happen as often as the above commentary would imply - I'll bet the engineers who'd make that mistake find their way quickly enough to jobs where it can't happen, and those with a more keen investigative talent move just as quickly in the other direction.
One of my more memorable conversations with another engineer (a coworker at a major US vehicle mfr) went something like this:
"I saw a thing on TV last night about how the moon is believed to have been broken off of the earth in a huge impact some billions of years ago."
"There's no way someone could know that. It's just another theory."
"Well the composition of the moon certainly suggests that it is made from the lighter components of the earth's crust, and there is other evidence as well. The scientists involved put together a computer model and calculated the approximate mass and trajectory of an impactor that would result in the current arrangement of bodies, and the math seemed to work out."
"That doesn't mean anything."
"Did you know that the rotation of the earth relative to the moon is gradually slowing, and that the moon is growing ever more distant, which suggests that at one time it was much closer than it is now?"
"That's ridiculous. That doesn't happen. There's no way they can prove that."
"Actually, the recession of the moon can be, and has been, measured by reflecting lasers from an object on its surface."
"That's stupid. I don't know why anyone would want to know something like that anyway."
(At that point I walked away dazed and trying not to mutter to myself - no point in trying to inspire curiousity in someone who would rather avoid it, or was born without it.)
RE: Blame Culture
"It (Darwin's Theory) has been proven roughly as well as any physical law can ever be proven..."
I think read that about Cold Fusion once.
One mistake: Theory
equalsLawI think that ivymike's post, while not directly related to the topic at hand, does in fact bring up an interesting topic for another thread. We are all amacable here, and I think we are above the traditional "flamewars" prevalent on other forums. Let's discuss in another thread, if the board administrators do not object. I'm not certain if the resources of the servers are meant to be allocated for such topics.'
RE: Blame Culture
What about the other questions? In the first paragraph? Those are difficult to answer. Those are philosophical. Empiricists tend to veer sharply away from those sorts of questions. Yet the answers people assert drive societies and cultures. The answers either illuminate or dim the basis for justice, law, and civilization. There must be an objective standard, lest we’re faced with billions of subjective standards (anarchy). Am I rightly responsible for my own conduct or not? To what degree? We must go back to the basis of justice, or stop talking about such a notion.
“True unless proven otherwise”? No, that would be irrational, wishful thinking. Let’s not do that. (Yes, I’ve found plenty of theists and atheists who take flying leaps of faith into the irrational. Conceded. I don’t think that’s the point.)
One such difficult-to-test idea to which I alluded might include, “There is no such thing as God.” How do we truly put that to the test empirically? The fact is this statement is either true or false. This statement either conforms to reality or it doesn’t. How is it adequately tested? Should we conduct a test on the adherents of each side to see whether they are coherent and rational? Doesn’t sound very scientific to me. It’s not looking very empirically verifiable so far.
Another idea might be, “There must be a point to all this (life, the universe, and everything)”. How do we put to the test the concept of purpose? If there truly is no point to existence, why do we seem to look for purpose in everything? We even find it, and drive design with purpose. Why should there not be a purpose behind living much as we may find purpose in my vacuum cleaner? That, at least, would be consistent with our findings in things designed. Why do people ever despair?
Another is, “The beginning of all things happened without cause.” OK, I think empiricists would be quick to answer this. Then the question becomes, “How, then did the beginning occur?” Judging by the way things naturally decay over time, a beginning is implied. (Life is the only thing I can think of that swims up this stream of decay—and it eventually succumbs to decay.) Nobody observed the beginning. It is not empirically verifiable. We can test only circumstantially, as with all events in the past that cannot be duplicated.
Reality, it seems, is not nearly as simple as we would like to find it. Just when we think we have something figured out, deeper channels are discovered with vast complexity.
The cell, for instance, was once considered the basic building block of life. Soon enough, we discover DNA and its construct. Certainly the complexity of this protein chain is now an enigma—since such complexity would have difficulty evolving in a rich primordial soup within an oxygen-rich environment—which would oxidize (disassemble) the chain—or without oxygen—which would not permit the eventual life as we now have it.
Every theory has its problems. The problems lie not in the simple, larger concepts, but in the deeper details.
We must be honest with the problems associated with our theories—if we’re in search of science and philosophy—ultimately, of knowledge of reality as it truly is.
Your bold assertions demonstrate your strong faith in the veracity of the theory of evolution. However, that theory seems to leave some of the largest questions of life untouched—much as you left some of the philosophical questions in my post untouched. The questions of justice, devotion, love, and purpose need to be asked, or we’re not really looking for knowledge that conforms to reality.
People be what they are, this universe appears to be rational.
Jeff Mowry
www.industrialdesignhaus.com
Reality is no respecter of good intentions.
RE: Blame Culture
Possibly, but since very few people could replicate the experiment, it must have been rather early in the whole fiasco.
http:/
suggests that substantial controversy and generally negative results were present within six weeks of the first public press conference.
Darwin/Mendel's 'modern synthesis' been around for 100+ years, and so far as I am aware no-one has come up with any generally agreed observations that this evolutionary theory cannot explain.
It would, after all, only take one example.
By the way, for the 'it's only a theory' crowd (from wiki again):
In plain English, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion". In contrast, a scientific theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation. In this sense, "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Blame Culture
Simply because we can imagine something to be true, does not make it a viable theory. A theory's viability can be measured by the problems it cannot explain. So whereas the theory of evolution allows almost anything that can be thought of to be rationalized, this alone does not make the theory viable. We need to look at the problems it cannot explain to measure its viability. (The same goes for intelligent design and all other theories.) Would you like examples of evolution's problems by which to better measure its viability?
This direction misses the mark of the thread, so I'll return. We seem to have a parasite-host relationship within litigious society. In almost every case a parasite and a host can be distinguished. Sometimes the parasite is an individual (insurance fraud), sometimes it's a corporation (Worldcom). From what does the litigious attitude sprout? It seems akin to the leech's attitude--feed self without regard for the host that feeds it. This collapses when the host dies (or quits, as in Rand's Atlas Shrugged).
Perhaps we have difficulty with leeches because litigious society allows leeches not to regard the law as something that benefits society, but as something that benefits themselves at the expense of society. And why are the strange decisions being made in favor of the leeches? Again, we’ve lost grip on an objective standard of judging right from wrong—what is just from what is not just. If one person can lay claim to what is right in one way, what stops anyone else from laying claim to doing the same? Soon, we have exceptions without rules. When that happens, true justice is no longer understood (or respected) and we enter a strange form of anarchy (in which case it strength of lawyer instead of strength of physical force that reigns).
My original questions are ignored in litigious society much as they are in this thread.
Jeff Mowry
www.industrialdesignhaus.com
Reality is no respecter of good intentions.
RE: Blame Culture
Um, no it doesn't. It would be convenient for your argument if it did, though, wouldn't it?
My original questions are ignored in litigious society much as they are in this thread.
Well, why not step up and answer them yourself, then? It's not as much fun that way, is it? As long as you only ask questions, you can never be wrong...
RE: Blame Culture
An example would be a frog turning into a princess (as a species anyway). If that's not the true vein up which the tree branches, the true vein is even less plausible--that life spontaneously erupted from a protein-rich soup into something much more "simple" than a frog. That's a strange thing to which to lend credence, and qualifies as "almost anything that can be thought of" being rationalized.
The reason I don't answer those questions is because I am not asserting a construct of understanding under which everything can be explained. That is a bold statement to make. That is a statement that you have made repeatedly, but which seems to fail in answering my questions. I do not believe the theory of evolution has accounted for such grave philosophy (nor does it attempt to--which is why it seems to be a limited philosophy).
Jeff Mowry
www.industrialdesignhaus.com
Reality is no respecter of good intentions.
RE: Blame Culture
Maui
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
That's a straw man, and not worth responding to. If you went to almost any high school biology class you could probably learn quite a bit more about the theory than you currently seem to understand.
I do not believe the theory of evolution has accounted for such grave philosophy (nor does it attempt to--which is why it seems to be a limited philosophy).
It's not a philosophy at all. It's a scientific theory based on observations and measurement. The "philosophy" of gravity doesn't address any of the above either - but that won't save you if you stumble out of a window.
RE: Blame Culture
The cumulative text of all of my statements on the subject is currently above this line on this web page - I can't seem to find the comments which you attribute to me. Perhaps you could point them out specifically?
RE: Blame Culture
I can it explain it this way:
Somehow, lawyers are being spontaneously generated.
Sorry, couldn't resist!
RE: Blame Culture
TTFN
RE: Blame Culture
The prime statement I alluded to is:
"Darwinian evolution didn't invalidate religion - any religion contradictory to it was invalid already."
That's the bold statement of faith in the theory. On what grounds does the theory of evolution trump any religion? Is this theory truly infallible?
Given the inherent inability to empirically test any event that occurred in the past, this theory is far from the stability of veracity given to laws (such as in Newtonian physics). There appears to be plenty of room for improvement.
Maui,
I agree. I've gotten to busy with a new project to post anyway, so I need to drop it.
ajack1, SacreBleu, IRstuff,
Thanks for the levity.
Jeff Mowry
www.industrialdesignhaus.com
Reality is no respecter of good intentions.
RE: Blame Culture
If I can summarize my limited understanding of the discussion above: "the 'blame culture' can be blamed on equal parts religion, evolution, and lawyers"? Interesting how strident many of us get about these things.
David
RE: Blame Culture
"Darwinian evolution didn't invalidate religion - any religion contradictory to it was invalid already."
That's the bold statement of faith in the theory. On what grounds does the theory of evolution trump any religion? Is this theory truly infallible?
I didn't say that evolution actually invalidates any religions. What I said was that if any religion directly contradicts the theory, it is invalid. If your hypothetical religion is contradicted by the real, measurable phenomena described by the theory of evolution, your religion is measurably in conflict with reality, and is thus invalid by your own standard.
It sounds to me like you may be fond of a religion that you believe to be directly contradicted by the theory of evolution. Maybe you just don't understand as much as you think you do about your religion - perhaps some reflection on what it actually says would be in order. Then again, it's possible that you're right, in which case your well-meaning parents set you off on an unfortunate path. Your religion must not be Catholocism - it is not contradictory to the theory of evolution, per the Pope. No wonder you're so averse to the possibility that biologists have been getting it right all these years...
Given the inherent inability to empirically test any event that occurred in the past, this theory is far from the stability of veracity given to laws (such as in Newtonian physics). There appears to be plenty of room for improvement.
You don't have to be able to see into the past to witness evolution in action. It is happening all around you, little by little, at this very moment. You have only to select a group of living organisms and watch carefully for long enough. If you want to speed things up, pick some organisms that reproduce quickly, and provide them with some difficult environmental challenges to overcome. Just do us all a favor, and don't make the challenge "overcome this popular antibiotic and successfully invade the medicated human body."
RE: Blame Culture
I think you have convincingly (to my mind) asserted and supported microevolution (deviations within a species). Scientific experiments have already documented this. Now assert and support macroevolution (changing from one species to another or developing a body part such as an eye out of a body part that is not an eye), with scientific experiments please. (NOTE: Requires billions of years. Forgive me if I don't wait around).
And to stay on this thread topic (blame culture), the logical final result if macroevolution is the source of life would be that no one is responsible for any actions, as there is no such thing as responsibility and therefore no blame. This is the lifestyle of the animal kingdom. Kill or be killed, eat or be eaten.
If the reason for my existence is an accident of evolution, not creation, and my final destination is nothingness, not heaven or hell...then if I am bigger, stronger, meaner and happen to be hungry you are doomed. Vice versa if you are bigger, stronger, meaner and hungrier than I am.
To me, the fact that you espouse ideas, and those ideas cause me to think, and have the potential to cause me to alter my behavior, means I have a responsibility to think and possibly alter my behavior. And if I have responsibility to my fellow humans, then I am the product of something more than accidental combinations of chemical and biological processes. And if I have responsibility, then I have a requirement to stand up for my own actions and accept the credit or the blame for them.
So for the poster who asked how we got to evolution from blame, I believe that is how we got there.
Every one of you challenges my mind. Every one of you teaches me and helps me grow. Thanks!
RE: Blame Culture
Except of course that my behavior alteration posits I have responsiblity, which supports my point about accepting blame for own actions, which.........(sounds of gurgling as hands tighten around my throat) and a scream escapes, "GET BACK TO ENGINEERING!"
Oh wait, that was my boss screaming! Ciao to all!
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
That's not logical at all. It just doesn't add up, unless you make some really crass and unfounded assumptions about the limits of human reasoning. Why wouldn't anyone be responsible for their actions? What definiton of responsibility is precluded by the idea that a person is derived from biological processes? We still have to interact successfully with other humans to get what we want, as they have to interact with us. We are still rewarded for conducting mutually beneficial interactions, and we are ostracized or punished if our behavior is unacceptable. We have the ability to remember past perceived injustices (even house cats can do this), and we currently have the ability to verbally communicate our likes and dislikes to others. Even without verbal and written communication, body language and reinforcement should be sufficient to train new people how to behave properly in a group. I don't see why one would assume that human social skills would have remained static for the 5000 generations (or more) that modern humans have been on the earth, even if one makes the unfounded assumption that early humans had less ability to live in groups than some of the furrier modern primates.
RE: Blame Culture
Rob Campbell, PE
Finite Monkeys - www.livejournal.com/users/robcampbell
RE: Blame Culture
It is OK until we get into a situation where a client will not pay his bill, a drug endorsed by the FDA damages our heart, or a weirdo down the street cuts our tires for no reason.
Then we can turn to:
The engineering profession
The politicians in our state capital
The federal government
The local mayor
Or ?
Give the lawyers a break. They are professional, ethical people just like us..
fd
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
They are:
Dewey Cheatham and How, Pinchaum Fleceham and Fleah Attorneys at Law.
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
As always, you stretch me. In our mutual search to define the "blame culture", we have dug down to the bottom line: morality.
If we are the product of biological processes only, and upon my death the living cells that make up "me" simply cease to exist (no heaven or no hell, as the Christian religion would define it), what motivation exists to influence any action I might deign to choose?
For example, if we are evolutionary accidents only, then please define these terms I found in your post. Please do so without any reference to morality or right and wrong. Remember, we are just combinations of living cells chosen by biology to exist for a period of time and destined for annihilation. And please note that regardless of whatever definition you assign, since there is no overarching morality I hereby reject all your definitions without consideration and substitute my own. Prove me wrong for doing so, if we are biologically existant only. I also reject your definition of proof, as my reasoning power (assigned to me by evolution) tells me that without a moral basis for our interaction, I need not even consider what you want but should make all my decisions solely upon my own wants and needs.
If I reject your definitions, and you can likewise reject mine, who defines these terms for us?
"successfully"
"responsibility"
"rewarded"
"mutually beneficial"
"ostracized"
"punished"
"unacceptable"
"injustices"
"behave properly"
My contention is that one foundation of our blame culture is a reasonable application of the the theory of evolution. Since evolutionay beings are without a moral system unless they artificially impose one, and are without an eternity to motivate adherence to any moral system, corporately agreed upon or not, then no such thing as right or wrong or responsibility or blame exists. In our culture it has devolved to "whoever has the better lawyer wins".
Best regards,
debodine
RE: Blame Culture
I am already in violation of my own moral code as I had previously promised to stop my posting in this forum. In keeping with the topic of this forum, I blame...anyone else but me!
Of course the moderator of this forum can choose to impose their own moral code and delete me for not keeping my word.
If evolutionary accidents can experience forgiveness, please forgive me Mr. moderator?
debodine
RE: Blame Culture
For those of you in private consulting, if you are really concerned about the legal liability, then bring an attorney into your firm and make her/him a board member.
You will be suprised how things smooth out.
All the best to you all. It is a tough road out there, and it always has been.
RE: Blame Culture
They blamed the lords and kings and anyone else they could think of, including the Church. That's why Confucianism was developed, to convince that peasants that they got a crappy deal and they just had to suck it up.
The only reason they had to suck it up was that there was no other recourse, other than armed rebellion, hence Communism.
Now, after millenia of abuse, the common people have other champions that rob the rich and give to the poor, e.g., the lawyers; carrying on the traditions of Robin Hood.
TTFN
RE: Blame Culture
You should be a good person because it is right. I define what is right, because I am me and have the freedom of choice and the intelligence to do so. If I choose to look for input from a holy book I choose to do so without interpretting that to mean I have found the only source of right. Obviously, that's only my opinion and my 2 cents.
RE: Blame Culture
I am grateful you have helped to prove my point. You expect me to "be a good person because it is right". You therefore imply there is a right and a wrong. Voila, you have morality. Morality is simply a system for defining right and wrong, and as you correctly stated, history has shown that moral systems can be devastating to mankind...just as history has also shown they can be beneficial.
And if morality exists, then we must be more than just biological accidents, because biological processes do not have morality. And if we are not just biological accidents, then we must have responsibilities to each other, imposed by an intelligent designer, as the opposite of accident is intentional. And if we do, then one of those responsibilities is to accept that our actions have consequences and not to blame others for things we do.
See, I keep trying to keep us all on the "Blame Culture" topic because if we stray then this forum could be shut down!
Thanks to all for making me think. I hope I have done the same for you. Logical reasoning is the backbone of engineering, and when added to creativity, has resulted in marvelous gains for mankind. If we have sharpened each other a bit in our thinking processes, then we have accomplished one of the goals of this website.
debodine
RE: Blame Culture
You have taken UcfSE's tautology and used it to prove your desired outcome.
Don't do this with structures.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Blame Culture
I certainly hope my logical abilities are better at work too! You rightly determined that I was having some fun with the assertions made by UcfSE. One of the very experienced engineers I work with likes to say, "Our job is to create a way to get from Point A to Point B...but first you have to start at the correct Point A!"
Thank you for making me consult a dictionary to look up "tautology", as I had never learned the definition (though I recognized that form of logic from prior experience), and I certainly profited from the effort.
P.S. I am better at starting from the correct "Point A" on aircraft.
RE: Blame Culture
It is my experience that decent behavior and belief in a higher power are not particularly correlated. It is completely possible to believe in a higher power and be a nasty sonofabitch, or even a psychopathic killer. It is completely possible to be an atheist and be a considerate and constructive contributor to society.
You can hold whatever theories you like about *why* we have developed social structure, morals, ethics, etc.--but to claim that religious beliefs are necessary for one to have what might be called "strong moral fibre" is patently false. And it is indeed what you are claiming, since it's the contrapositive of your statement that diminishing belief in particular tenets of religious dogma are responsible for what seems to be seen as an overall decline of character among our fellow first-worlders.
There have *always* been plenty of evils in society, on both institutional and individual levels, even back in the days when much of the world was theocracy. Yearning for the "good old days" (or imagining that all would be right with the world if only we would all bow down before a vengeful higher power) is naive.
The reason that people keep leaping up to argue with you is not because they want to persecute you for your religion, but because you are INSULTING. You keep implying that religious belief is a necessary part of moral strength. It is not, and to claim otherwise is to claim that everyone who is not religious has no sense of right and wrong. If you are a Christian, you should be particularly aware that YOU are not the one to make judgement about whether other people who you have never met have a sense of right and wrong, or live their lives in a moral and ethical manner.
Stop it.
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: FAQ731-376
RE: Blame Culture
Overall, they're basically existentialists.
TTFN
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
By the way, it was not my intent to insult you or anyone else by the sharing of my ideas. Nor am I insulted by you sharing your ideas, so I will not request you to stop. To claim offense is the modern way to shut off ideas that are unpalatable.
My original point was to address the forum topic of the blame culture and to share my belief that the spread of the theory of evolution (specifically macroevolution) was one of the reasons for the blame culture. However, in doing so, all of us appear to have steered WAY off the original topic, and a share of the blame for that is mine.
Good red meat for me to chew on though, HgTX. I will ponder and work my way through your points, but I will keep my conclusions to myself as you requested to avoid further offense.
debodine
RE: Blame Culture
Although, I enjoy bashing lawyers as much as anyone else. I will have to admit like any other profession there are good ones and bad ones; every profession has this problem.
Earlier post mentioned 'loser pays'. Well, this is not entirely accruate the plaintiff pays, not the lawyer. IMO lawyers filing ridiculous lawsuits will only stop when they too are held accountable. For them it's largely a win situation immaterial of the verdict.
However, as mentioned earlier this may have drawbacks as some cases will not be accepted as it would be too expensive (time consuming) on a shaky case.
RE: Blame Culture
-- Why do humans seem to have an innate sense of right and wrong at all?
-- Why does that sense of right and wrong seem to be so very similar amongst both the religious and irreligious?
-- Why do we often feel guilt for behavior contrary to that sense of right and wrong?
Anyway, maybe I'm just a bumbling, small-minded fool who can't grasp the wonder of human biology and the evolutionary processes from which we result, but the simple fact that we can feel, understand, and debate such abstract concepts as morality at all leads me to believe that there's more to humanity than simple chemical and biological processes, and fuels my faith in a higher power (the Master Engineer, if you will). If that makes me a poor engineer... so be it.
RE: Blame Culture
I could add another intriguing question:
- why do elephants have trumps?
Probably (it's still a theory) because having a larger nose came in handy, so the large-nosed lived longer and had more time to make large-nosed elephant babies. The small-nosed eventually disappeared. Maybe proto-elephant women were even attracted more to large-nosed proto-elephants than small-nosed. The large nose escalated in a couple million years and became a trump. The theory also says that this is just a bio-genetico-statistical phenomenon, there's no master plan behind it.
A similar theory is that our brain with all its funny features (right and wrong, guilt, but also sense of direction and maybe even sense of humour) came in handy as well a couple million years ago so it developed further into what it is right now.
The next 64k$ question is whether people with no sense of right and wrong will all become extinct within the next coupe million years, will be all be sweet ET-like creatures?
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
I think HgTX hit it right on.
RE: Blame Culture
However, I stand by my contention:
"Lawyers aren't all that bad...it is the 98% of tha bad ones that are giving the remaining 2% (good ones) a bad name"
RE: Blame Culture
I agree that all lawyers aren't bad, not even most lawyers. They are simply fulfilling a need. It seems that the convoluted judicial system should shoulder much of the blame. This is not to say that we don't need laws, only just laws. Why should someone be put away for life for having a lb of pot, but someone else get probation for manslaughter or only a couple of years for murder?
RE: Blame Culture
I believe you just can't do your job as a lawyer in a manner as beautifully clean and perfect as a mathematician does his/hers. The edges are rugged, dirty and sometimes covered in blood. My pessimistic theory is that lawyers who work for murderers and robbers eventually become infected with... *evil*....
RE: Blame Culture
One evening after close of business, my assistant and I drew the outline of a body in chalk on the floor of the elevator used by the lawyers. It was interesting to see the reaction both from the lawyers and from the lawyers’ clientele.
I remain,
The Old Soldering Gunslinger
RE: Blame Culture
Maui
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
You are so right! I'm usually working as a defense expert, and I've always wanted to know if the Plaintiff's attorneys are upfront about the amount the 'injured' receives out the overall settlement. It's my guess that most homeowners in construction class action lawsuits are not told what they can expect.
I'm horrified by the amount of money spent by the attorneys and experts as it compares to the amount of most claims, eventhough it the main purpose for my current employment.
RE: Blame Culture
This case should have been thrown out and the plantiff's lawyer fined heavily. Its long past time that ALL law schools in the US be shut down for a minimum of 20 years.
RE: Blame Culture
Anyway, supposedly, many years before the colonies became the United States of America, the Massechusetts Colony had a standing rule that any lawyer found within the boundaries of the colony was immediately tarred, feathered and ejected across the boundary.
Sadly, I imagine a lot of good chickens went naked to keep the colony clean!
RE: Blame Culture
If it had been your two-yr old child that was attacked, you'd sing a different tune. There have been increasing numbers of attacks by dogs that were historically bred for viciousness and brutality. Owners of those animals have continued to take a very cavalier attitude towards public safety. There have been repeated discussion about licensing of engineers, but there is essentially zero requirements on animal owners where there actually is a significant impact to public safety.
One of the purposes of the law is to provide a deterence. If the penalties are insufficient, there is no deterence. While that particular award may be excessive, the deterence factor may prevent a future tragedy with your children or mine. This particular dog owner was a repeat offender and it would only be a matter of time before his animal maimed or killed a child.
TTFN
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
I generally agree with you, except this should have been a matter for Animal Control. The dog would have been "impounded", and if determined to be untrainable, it would have been put down.
I understand the grief of the cat owner, but the award was absurdly large.
RE: Blame Culture
Since I am a "Owner of those animals", not a chow owner; I find the owner to be truly derelict in his responsibilities. It is a matter of one being responsible and having a breed like this carries a lot of responsibility. There is no governing body to determine if someone should have a breed of this nature or any other type.
Any type of dog can be made to be aggressive.
I haven't researched this in awhile, but at the time I got my dog I did do a little research. At that point (1992) poodles held the top ranking for biting people, and it was estimated that a large percentage of bites were not reported.
The issue with large breeds is that if they attack they carry a lot more power behind it.
I believe that this fits well within the "blame culture" in many ways. First, we had an irresponsible dog owner stating "I wasn't there so it's not my fault" WRONG. Next the lawyers saying $$$, out of the $45K how much are they getting.
It was very unfortunate that this happened.
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
Even though I feel that the $45k is greedy (since the lawyer is on contingency fee basis), there are people in this world who don't have or cannot have children. A beloved cat or dog can be a child substitute. However, the $45k will not bring the pet back; the death of the cat did not require a large cost for funeral, etc. Only if the dog owner deliberately set the dog to attack the cat, would I agree with a large award, but not necessarily as much as $45k. There is a lot of much more extreme grief in this world being compensated for less than that.
RE: Blame Culture
And again, part of the decision process is DETERRENCE. The point is not that it was simply a cat, but that it could have been a child. If the guy was merely penalized for actual and reasonable replacement cost, he'll be back with the same dog in the same situation next time, only it will be a child that got maimed or killed.
This is not unlike the 3 strikes laws that are currently on the books. While it's sad that some schmuck decided to steal a loaf of bread for his 3rd strike, he made a free choice to break the law, KNOWING that it could be his 3rd strike. The intent of the law is to convince the ones that come after him to refrain from doing the crime.
Unfortunately, this idiot dog owner and criminals have same inability to accept responsibility for their actions and also seem to be unable to control their own actions. Of course, one common thread amongst people of those ilks is an innate belief that they can get away with their actions.
TTFN
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
TTFN
RE: Blame Culture
All things being equal, no matter how attached you are to your cat and regardless of your ability to have kids, a cat is NOT a human child. It is a cat, with no civil rights under any law or the Constitution. Animal cruelty laws are not the same thing as civil rights or civil liberties. You don't ruin someone's life with a $45k fine over a damn cat. You get another cat, do your time and move on with life.
RE: Blame Culture
3 strikes is ALL about deterrence
TTFN
RE: Blame Culture
If we executed car thiefs and shop lifters that would be a hell of a deterrent but we don't do that here. Along that same logic, I don't believe $45k for a dead cat is reasonable, but I don't make the laws. I have only an OPINION about them.
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
I have to disagree with you regarding not being punished for something you didn't do. There is a case going on right now here in San Antonio regarding a grandmother who ignored the fact that her grandchild was being starved to death. She was aware of what was going on, but chose not to do anything. The child died in her custody on Christmas day. Dollars to donuts she gets time for what she "didn't do".
I do agree that no cat is worth a $45,000 punishment, though I am a cat lover, and my cats are priceless to me. He should be punished though, for what he "didn't do". It can be turned around to "what he did" which is chose to ignore the problem, which was an obvious danger to the public.
RE: Blame Culture
As the others ahve already stated, the value of the cat is irrelevant, the issues at hand is the negligence of the owner and callous disregard. Had the victim been a child, the owner would have been prosecuted for those two specific crimes, since he is not technically liable for manslaughter. For negligence and callous disregard, I think the fine was insufficient and likewise, I think he should have gotten jailtime.
TTFN
RE: Blame Culture
If you read the article, the guy served jail time, house arrest and an outrageous fine. Total and complete BS. IMHO
RE: Blame Culture
Yes, he suffered all those indignities, but sum total was far less then killing a human. The original dissent centered around the $45k fine, which most of us agree is excessive.
RE: Blame Culture
Regards,
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
When you used this phrase,
"...some of the most unsavory characters..."
by that, I assume you are referring to the lawyers?
RE: Blame Culture
One of the attorneys reminded me of the "Rumpole of the Bailey" charecter...yet another was a rather sad man, never saw him smile. He specialized in the Capital Murder cases. I understand he had something to do with the Charlie Starkweather trial in the late '50s. For nearly thirty years, Mr. Starkweather was the "Last Person to die" in Nebraska's electric chair. When you have so many clients serving life or sitting on death row, I guess you have the right to seem sad all of the time...Never met a Perry Mason type, but I had lunch with one of their investigators once...he reminded me of Archy from the Nero Wolfe novels. Nice guy. He picked up the tab for some first class grub at a Prime steak house. All I needed to do was explain a little RF theory to him. Never did find out why he needed it. Maybe he was working on his HAM license ;-D
I remain,
The Old Soldering Gunslinger
RE: Blame Culture
If the victim was a child, what would the total award have been if:
the child was from a poor (very poor) family?
the child was from a rich (very rich) family?
the same can be asked about the owner of the cat.
Maybe a little irrelevant, but one rule is to treat others as you want to be treated yourself. In my own life I've changed that rule to treat others as how they would liked to be treated.
Regards
Ralph
RE: Blame Culture
Techmaximus
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
Techmaximus
RE: Blame Culture
$45,000 nevertheless is outrageous and absurd and won't help anyone nor will it bring the cat back. That's no better than being awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars for spilling coffee in your lao in a drive-thru.
RE: Blame Culture
And the next time he shot his gun someone gets hurt or killed? Or he then winds up killing your child or your wife? And you didn't think it was worth your while to prosecute him for the first action so he continued unabated?
Would you still think it was just a damned cat?
TTFN
RE: Blame Culture
1) Yes, the dog needed to be restrained, however, I have experience with Bull terriers, Stafforsdhire Bull terriers and American Pit Bul Terriers and I can with certainty say that a properly trained dog of any breed can be dangerous, likewise, dog breeds with a "reputation" usually get that rep because of poor ownership.
2) Why is it that, in many municipalities, there are leash laws for Dogs, but not for cats? Why was this poor feline out unattended? In my part of the world, hawks and great horned owls take many "Beloved" pets, as do coyotes, foxes and javelina. Feral or semi domestic cats kill wildlife and often become infected with rabies (hydrophobia...I think it is still called that in some parts of the world). In many parts of the world, a house cat in the great outdoors is a meal waiting to happen for some local carnivor.
3) Yes, the owner of the dog should be fined, and $45-Grand may not be enough. The dog should be taken to animal control and put down in as humane a way as possible. the dogs owner needs some jail time as well and a court order needs to be placed against him prohibiting him from living in a household with any dog breed larger than an 18-inch standard Beagle.
There is blame on both sides of the cat vs dog altercation, however the largest portion of blame falls upon the canine's owner for failure to control a vicious dog.
I remain, a dog lover and dog owner (who's allergic to cats),
The Old Soldering Gunslinger
RE: Blame Culture
This is a perfect example of why the blame culture that was the original subject of the thread thrives as it does in this country. Some people have views that mean people need to be severely punished in a civil court rather than letting the law take care of the problem. It seems this dog owner needs to be lynched for not killing a human. I can only imagine the punishment these same people would have in store for a person brought in for DUI, a much more dangerous crime imho. Let's just do one better: all crimes are now punishable by death. That would stop everything right in its tracks. All fines are now a minimum of $100k. That will make those dangerous parking violations go away. I wouldn't want a car parked in front of a fire hydrant to block the hose and cause countless deaths and destruction of property. Those people should have their car seized. Rather than the fine, jail time, which he had also, and seizure of the dangerous animal that the law stipulates this idiot has to pay a fine that is more than many people make in a year, and to what end? It does nothing to solve the problem at hand except to bloat the courts and feed lawyers. As long as you have someone to blame and make an example of, however, it seems that many people will be much happier.
RE: Blame Culture
We have more policemen per capita than every before. The difference was that communities, rightly or wrongly, would self-police and punish wrongdoers with shunning, banishment, wearing of scarlet letters, etc.
While I'm not necessarily advocating returning to the Victorian or Puritan Ages, misbehavior was simply not tolerated back then. I believe that the lack of social controls allow for the situation I personally witnessed on the road yesterday with two cars behind me duking it with finger flips and feints with 3000 lb vehicles over real or perceived torts. These people and the dog owner are never going to get the message that THEIR behavior is completely unacceptable. Getting rid of the dog will simply mean that the that owner will get a new one, identical to the old dog in every respect. Where's the deterrence? With a $45,000 fine, which will most likely be appealed and lowered anyway, the owner a) can't afford a new dog, and b) will certainly think harded about getting another one of the same ilk.
TTFN
RE: Blame Culture
The deterrence needs to be in the law itself and imo should not be in frivolous law suits. If we cut off the hands of thieves would that prevent theft? What if the fine for everything was increased by two orders of magnitude? You sure as hell won't run a red light or flick people off if it costs you your house . If we charge a dog owner $45k for an attack on a non-human that happened while he was out of town, what does that really do? It doesn't make every chow owner say "Hey I better get rid of this danger to soicety." Hey kid, you can't go to college because your daddy owned a chow that killed a cat. While that may deter misbehavior, I for one am not willing to give up my freedom of choice to live in such a locked down cage of a country. At any rate we don't agreee about the extremity of the fine for the dog owner but that's ok. It takes all kinds to make up the world.
Looking at something more important than the death of a poor defenseless kitty kat, if the family of the rape victim could rape the rapist, I think that would be much more of a deterrent than just a couple years of jail time. Just imagine what child molesters would get...
RE: Blame Culture
"The deterrence needs to be in the law itself and imo should not be in frivolous law suits"
But yet the rest of your post suggests that you don't want the laws either--freedom of choice and all that.
Either we have laws to tell people what to do, or else we allow them to choose freely but then have a judicial system in which consequences can be imposed when they make the wrong choice. Gotta have one or the other; relying on the essential goodness of humanity doesn't get one very far.
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: FAQ731-376
RE: Blame Culture
Security comes with a price tag: freedom. We obviously must have security, through laws and such, but where does it stop? Security being safety from bad people and foreign invaders and such. With too much freedom you have anarchy: bad. With too much security you have animals in a cage: bad. With my phrase about freedom of choice I was referring to the fact that I for one am not willing to give up more freedom in order to make someone else feel more secure. That decision is not really up to me however because I am an engineer not a politician.
I am saying the punishment should match the crime. You can't put every lawbreaker to death for instance. With IR's logic why not make every fine for anything a minimum $10^6? Why not minimum jail time of ten years to go along with that fine? That would deter a lot more people than whatever is on the books currently. We can't be the first ones to think of that so why is it not already in place?
I am also saying that the law should punish law breakers, not frivolous law suits. You should pay your fine, do your time and move on. That's the deterrent right there. Who the hell wants to go to jail or have that stuff on yoru record? If that isn't enough for you to learn your lesson then something should be done about that with the law. We have both laws to tell people what to do and a judicial system to punish people is exactly what we have. They also allows people to cry and get an exorbitant amount of money. In my opinion that only buys into the "blame culture" and bloats the judicial system. That's bad.
RE: Blame Culture
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Maui
RE: Blame Culture
Most jaywalkers would be deterred by a $100 fine, just as most commuters are reasonably deterred by $271 fines for going solo in the carpool lane. A $5,000 fine plus death for the dog might be enough to deter most dog owners such as he; which is probably the upper limit result of what the appeal might bring.
And no one has yet successfully argued that fines of that nature are excessive, cruel or unusual.
TTFN
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
"Having murder punishable by death has not prevented murders from happening"
Dead murderers don't reoffend.
----------------------------------
If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!
RE: Blame Culture
It does not appear to deter many of these people from driving drunk after they have been caught.
I believe that a fine of $10,000 for the case of the dog owner would not be excessive. I believe that a fine of $45,000 is. But that is my perspective, and other may disagree.
Maui
RE: Blame Culture
RE: Blame Culture
The fact that there are people who still drive below the speed limit shows that deterrence and/or moral values still hold sway. Most people stay below the threshold for getting tickets because the alternative is sufficiently annoying and inconvenient.
There are ALWAYS those who are sufficiently psychotic or otherwise unbalanced to think that they are either above the law or that they will always get away with it. Deterrence never works for them. BUT, the majority of the people are law-abiding, for the most part; so it can be argued that deterrence does work. Otherwise, this type of discussion would be quickly settled outside.
TTFN
RE: Blame Culture
"Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder."
It seems Mr. Bastiat developed a theory that claims to explain the fundamentals of deterrence.
I hope you all find it interesting; I did.
RE: Blame Culture