|
|
|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
|
"Poor Joe Schmo"
mluskey 1 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"
|
09-23-03, 11:04 PM (EST)
 
  |
|
"Poor Joe Schmo" |
Even though this is a reality show, think of it this way..How would you feel? There are honestly some people in this world that are truly genuine, is it really worth our entertainment to put someone through this? HOW WOULD YOU FEEL? I hope that there is some serious compersation for this poor "Schmo" He deserves every penny, if not more. (A apology wouldn't be to far fetched.)
|
|
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
 |
|
|
tanizaki 9 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"
|
09-24-03, 04:12 PM (EST)
|
|
6. "RE: Poor Joe Schmo" |
>Any lawyers out there who can
>talk about his ability to
>sue? I remember from a
>business law class long ago
>that sometimes you can circumvent
>contracts signed with employers or
>other entities when there is
>no bargaining power. Nope. Bargaining power is absolutely irrelevant to the validity of a contract. This is a common misconception which I suspect is based on the fact that factors such as lack of capactity, duress, coercion, or undue influence can render a contract unenforceable. A classic example of this would be Vito Corleone's contract with a certain band leader. >I think
>they're call 'contracts of adhesion',
>where they can prove Matt
>had no ability to make
>changes to the huge contract
>I'm sure he signed. Yes, it would surely be a contract of adhesion aka unilateral contract, which is a "take it or leave it" contract drafted by one party. They are perfectly enforceable. For example, you enter such a contract when you send a letter by Federal Express or purchase an insurance policy. Another example would be a sign saying "Find my lost puppy - $50 reward". In the contract at hand, the show promises X to Matt if Matt does Y. Matt has no obligation to perform. However, once Matt completes performance of Y, the show has to deliver X. >His being involved with law school
>in any capacity however would
>probably make it a hard
>sell in court! No, it would be a hard sell in court because unilateral are enforceable. Was Matt coerced in agreeing to be bound by the contract? No.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
lovethisreality 68 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Hollywood Squares Square"
|
09-24-03, 04:50 PM (EST)
|
|
7. "RE: Poor Joe Schmo" |
I agree with your analysis. furthermore I would be surprised if the producers of this show didn't protect themselves against lawsuits arising from this show. Not to mention in order to collect money you must have an economic loss. Emotional distress alone is not compensable under law. You must have an actual out-of-pocket or otherwise monetary or some other type of loss. If he doesn't get the cash maybe...then????
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
Lisapooh 12664 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
09-24-03, 04:55 PM (EST)
|
|
8. "RE: Poor Joe Schmo" |
I think when Matt initially found out, he probably felt horrible and betrayed and embarrassed. It would be humiliating. But hopefully, as he watches the show, Matt must realize that the people that were duping him have genuine affection and respect for him. Is that worth what he went through? Only he can answer that. But I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see him come out of it with something. None of us know what he was or wasn't promised as a participant. He certainly wasn't guaranteed a win, but how did they present this contractually to Matt as a game show when in fact it isn't. It'd actually be kinda interesting to know how all that was handled. He's being portrayed as gullible and trusting - and I don't think those are necessarily bad things to be. As awful as I feel for him at points when watching this show, Matt always had the power to walk away. No one ever forced him to do anything. He could quit, refuse to do some of the ridiculous games, whatever. He didn't. 
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neffer 109 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
09-25-03, 06:58 PM (EST)
|
|
19. "RE: and another thing...." |
I kinda see it like that Star Wars kid that taped himself doing Jedi moves.Wow. I'd forgotten about that. How many people have spend how many hours playing around with that tape? Astounding! And the great thing about that kid (and Matt) is that when we watch it, we know we have done the same stupid stuff or would probably react in the same stupid way. Guilty as charged. Matt is such a typical, real, down-to-earth schmo - you gotta love him just a little bit. Or at least feel slightly less indifferent.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
Guppin1234 909 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Fitness Correspondent"
|
09-26-03, 00:53 AM (EST)
|
|
22. "RE: JediMaster.net (off topic)" |
He's cute. I'll bet George Lucas can see a side of himself in the boy in the video. He and his family battle diabetes, so weight issues run in his family.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
Jpod5 147 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
09-24-03, 05:06 PM (EST)
|
|
11. "RE: Poor Joe Schmo" |
After speaking with an attorney friend, I guess a lot of it boils down to how it was presented to him. If there were 'material' lies told to him about the show, and he can prove he was a victim of fraud, then he may have a case. Contracts of adhesion are 'usually' enforced, but can be overturned if the facts play out right. The fact that he was 'recruited' might play into it as well. Someone in another thread had a good point that the makers would have been wise to put a line in about other participants potentially being actors. On simply ethical grounds, I think it's sad our 'system' is only concerned with provable and not provable. To think he was told 'you could win $100k' (when it's rigged), or that by signing a piece of paper they can do just about anything to him on the screen short of personal injury is pitiful. I take that back, even personal injury is likely covered. Once your butt is protected from a legal perspective, that makes unethical things permissible. It can never make them 'right' though.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
tanizaki 9 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"
|
09-24-03, 05:31 PM (EST)
|
|
12. "RE: Poor Joe Schmo" |
>After speaking with an attorney friend,
>I guess a lot of
>it boils down to how
>it was presented to him.
>If there were 'material' lies
>told to him about the
>show, and he can prove
>he was a victim of
>fraud, then he may have
>a case. Yes, if there were fraud then one would have a case, unilateral contract or not. >Contracts of adhesion
>are 'usually' enforced, but can
>be overturned if the facts
>play out right. This sentence could just as easily say, "Contracts are 'usually' enforced, but can be overturned if the facts play out right." The fact that it is a unilateral contract does not matter. You haven't really told us anything. >The fact
>that he was 'recruited' might
>play into it as well. Not particularly. >On simply ethical grounds, I think
>it's sad our 'system' is
>only concerned with provable and
>not provable. What do you suggest it be concerned with? What do you think a lawyer should arm himself with when he walks into a courtroom other than what he can prove? What he can divine with tortoise shells and tea leaves? >To think he
>was told 'you could win
>$100k' (when it's rigged), or
>that by signing a piece
>of paper they can do
>just about anything to him
>on the screen short of
>personal injury is pitiful. What's pitiful about it? I don't suppose a gun was held to his head. >I
>take that back, even personal
>injury is likely covered. Have you ever seen the contract that the contestants on "Survivor" sign? It's as thick as a Tom Clancy novel. >Once your butt is protected from
>a legal perspective, that makes
>unethical things permissible. It can
>never make them 'right' though. Perhaps, but this is not particularly relevant to the issue of contract enforcement in this case.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
tanizaki 9 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"
|
09-24-03, 05:57 PM (EST)
|
|
14. "RE: Poor Joe Schmo" |
>Sorry, I guess I started ranting
>on more philosophical grounds. I
>know we can't legislate morals. Sure we can. This is why the state can prohibit a bigamous marriage or child pornography. Every law has morality at its base at some point. At the very least, every law assumes that it is morally acceptable for the state to use its police power to compel us to do (e.g. pay your taxes) or not to do (e.g. don't rape) upon threat of depriving us of our life, liberty, or property. >The fact that it almost
>caters to the lack thereof
>is what I find depressing. I may agree with this statement, but without specific examples I can't comment either way. Can you give an example of catering to lack of morals? To give an example, I believe in a retributive theory of punishment. In other words, deterrance or other social matters do not matter. If a person has done wrong, he should and must be punished. For this reason, in theory I am against plea bargins. A person who commits a rape should not be able to plead down to sexual assault or some lesser offense. However, I think that plea bargains are an acceptable bending of the rules. We don't want to take the chance of the suspect being acquitted, and it reduces the strain on the courts. Is this catering to a lack of morals? I don't think so. I do think it is a compromise of morals and law that is acceptable. As far as contract goes, I am a free marketer. I think you should be able to contract for anything you want so long as you don't violate another person's liberty or infringe on their right to life, liberty, or property. Our way of life is based to a very large degeee on freedom of contract. This means I think the minimum wage is horrible. Indeed, I think it is functionally racist. >John Adams "We have no
>government armed in power capable
>of contending with human passions
>unbridled by morality and religion.
>Our Constitution was made only
>for a religious and moral
>people. It is wholly inadequate
>for the government of any
>other." Well said. >I simply fear we've become 'any
>other'. Oh, you should hear my con law prof. This guy is so left wing that it drives me up the wall. Last week he informed the class that Richard Nixon is in Hell. I wanted to say, "No, Richard Nixon isn't in Hell, but Alger Hiss is". However, this would have been pointless as I am sure the same class that laughed at the Nixon-Hell remark has absolutely no idea who Alger Hiss is, thanks to our leftist educational institutions. >jlm
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
Jpod5 147 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
09-24-03, 06:58 PM (EST)
|
|
15. "RE: Poor Joe Schmo" |
>>I know we can't legislate morals.
>
>Sure we can. This is why
>the state can prohibit a
>bigamous marriage or child pornography.
>
All legislation must have a personal protection at its core. It's all about who's rights are most protectable, or worth limiting. Courts may deem that children are damaged by exposure to pornography, and therefore legislate against it. A personal injury is at stake there. There is no law that is a law simply because of right and wrong. The classic modern-day issue (sorry to get so political in this forum) is abortion. The majority of Americans will say they believe it 'wrong', but that it should be an individual's choice. This is a scenario where morality and legality are not necessarily in sync. It has been legally determined that the rights of a mother outweigh the rights of the fetus...the issue of morality plays no part. >Every law has morality at its
>base at some point.
>
I'd agree that may have been the original intent. I don't know that ANY laws have morality at their base nowadays. It would actually go against the Constitution, for 'whose' morality do we use for the basis of law? The framers believed moral people would enact moral laws, which is why our Constitution without ethical people is a dangerous thing. They purposefully, and wisely, set it up so that morality could not be legislated, lest any specific 'brand' of morality gets in the way of freedom. >>The fact that it almost caters to the lack thereof is what I find depressing.
>
>Can you give an example of catering to lack of morals?
>
>
Bankruptcy law is a good example. I can see the purpose it serves in a moral society, but what percentage of bankruptcy claims nowadays do you suppose are the result of hardship vs. irresponsibility? In a former life as a financial advisor, I knew people who looked to it as a 'get out of jail free' card. Not to mention how many individuals are hurt by corporate bankruptcy. To bring the real topic back in, the fact that Schmo producers consciously know that they are deceiving Matt, but that his signature on a contract protects them from legal recourse is exactly what I'm talking about. Granted it's Matt's choice to sign or not, but even with the contract he had no idea what he was getting into! From a legal standpoint, he was probably told in the contract to consult an attorney or third party. The Schmo Show is likely at no 'legal fault'. From an ethical standpoint he has been intentionally deceived for the purpose of profiting from his ignorance.
>>I simply fear we've become 'any other'.
>
>Oh, you should hear my con
>law prof. This guy is
>so left wing that it
>drives me up the wall...I am
>sure the same class that
>laughed at the Nixon-Hell remark
>has absolutely no idea who
>Alger Hiss is, thanks to
>our leftist educational institutions. I must admit I feel like a 'schmo' for not knowing who that is, however, your commentary is sound-minded enough to make me look him up... jlm
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
tanizaki 9 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"
|
09-24-03, 07:26 PM (EST)
|
|
16. "RE: Poor Joe Schmo" |
>>>I know we can't legislate morals.
>>
>>Sure we can. This is why
>>the state can prohibit a
>>bigamous marriage or child pornography.
>>
>All legislation must have a personal
>protection at its core. It's
>all about who's rights are
>most protectable, or worth limiting.
>Courts may deem that children
>are damaged by exposure to
>pornography, and therefore legislate against
>it. Courts do not legislate. I am surprised that a person of your legal expertise would say such a thing. >A personal injury is
>at stake there. There is
>no law that is a
>law simply because of right
>and wrong. Sure there are. What personal injury is prevented by outlawing polygamy? Consentual incest between adults who are infertile? >It
>has been legally determined that
>the rights of a mother
>outweigh the rights of the
>fetus...the issue of morality plays
>no part. Actually, that is not what the law says. Please read Planned Parenthood v. Casey. >>Every law has morality at its
>>base at some point.
>>
>I'd agree that may have been
>the original intent. I don't
>know that ANY laws have
>morality at their base nowadays. I have already named some. >It would actually go against
>the Constitution, No, it wouldn't. >for 'whose' morality
>do we use for the
>basis of law? Morality is absolute, of course. >The framers
>believed moral people would enact
>moral laws, which is why
>our Constitution without ethical people
>is a dangerous thing. I don't put a lot of stock in arguments that make appeals to what the Framers wanted or intended. This is because there was more than one Framer and they were always bickering. The history of the Bill of Rights is quite interesting in this respect, as it the reason why only a natural-born citizen can be president. >They
>purposefully, and wisely, set it
>up so that morality could
>not be legislated, lest any
>specific 'brand' of morality gets
>in the way of freedom. I'm sorry, but I see nothing that you describe in the text of the document. Indeed, what you right here seems to contradict what you say above. >>>The fact that it almost caters to the lack thereof is what I find depressing.
>>
>>Can you give an example of catering to lack of morals?
>>
>>
>Bankruptcy law is a good example.
>I can see the purpose
>it serves in a moral
>society, but what percentage of
>bankruptcy claims nowadays do you
>suppose are the result of
>hardship vs. irresponsibility? In a
>former life as a financial
>advisor, I knew people who
>looked to it as a
>'get out of jail free'
>card. Not to mention how
>many individuals are hurt by
>corporate bankruptcy. I'm afraid you haven't given me an example. Surely you aren't saying that the entire field of bankruptcy law caters to a lack of morality? That would be absurd. >To bring the real topic back
>in, the fact that Schmo
>producers consciously know that they
>are deceiving Matt, but that
>his signature on a contract
>protects them from legal recourse
>is exactly what I'm talking
>about. What fact? We have no idea what the substance of the contract is. Even if what you say is true, so what? Freedom of contract. >Granted it's Matt's choice
>to sign or not, but
>even with the contract he
>had no idea what he
>was getting into! Oh well. That's too bad for him. I don't think the solution to preventing the stupid from entering contracts is the intervention of a "wise" state. >From a
>legal standpoint, he was probably
>told in the contract to
>consult an attorney or third
>party. The Schmo Show is
>likely at no 'legal fault'.
>From an ethical standpoint he
>has been intentionally deceived for
>the purpose of profiting from
>his ignorance. So what? Ever hear of Allen Funt? >>>I simply fear we've become 'any other'.
>>
>>Oh, you should hear my con
>>law prof. This guy is
>>so left wing that it
>>drives me up the wall...I am
>>sure the same class that
>>laughed at the Nixon-Hell remark
>>has absolutely no idea who
>>Alger Hiss is, thanks to
>>our leftist educational institutions.
>
>I must admit I feel like
>a 'schmo' for not knowing
>who that is, however, your
>commentary is sound-minded enough to
>make me look him up... I'm surprised. You've demonstrated such historical and legal acumen so far. Alger Hiss is the reason liberals hate Nixon. When you look up Hiss, be sure to use "pumpkin" as one of your search terms. >jlm
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Jpod5 147 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
09-26-03, 12:31 PM (EST)
|
|
23. "RE: Poor Joe Schmo" |
>Courts do not legislate. I am surprised that a person of your legal expertise would say such a thing.My bad. By my lax use of ‘courts’, I was referring to the legal system in its entirety. As far as courts not legislating, I think it better said that they ‘shouldn’t’ legislate, eh? ; ) Secondly, I have absolutely zero legal expertise. My best friend is an attorney and very much a fan of our Constitution. Any knowledge I have comes from debates with him…most of which changed my opinions! >A personal injury is at stake there. There is no law that is a law simply because of right and wrong. >>Sure there are. What personal injury is prevented by outlawing polygamy? Consentual incest between adults who are infertile? People get confused by the fact that what society generally views as "moral" behavior is often in the state's best interest. So polygamy can be outlawed not simply because most people think it is "wrong," but because it protects women (and children) from exploitation. You show me a moral law, I'll find the state's interest in establishing it. >It has been legally determined that the rights of a mother outweigh the rights of the fetus. >>Actually, that is not what the law says. Please read Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Of course I was making a lay-person’s generality, which is always dangerous in the case at hand. That said, I do not feel a retraction is needed. Early in the reading of O’Connor’s opinion was the affirmation of “a recognition of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State, whose pre-viability interests are not strong enough to support an abortion prohibition or the imposition of substantial obstacles to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure.” Legalese aside, that sounds to me like the protectable rights of the fetus (pre-viability) are outweighed by the woman’s right to choose an abortion. >It would actually go against the Constitution. >>No, it wouldn't. Yes, it would. ; ) >for 'whose' morality do we use for the basis of law? >>Morality is absolute, of course. What???? How can you make that statement when we live in a culture so divided on morality? >The framers believed moral people would enact moral laws... >>I don't put a lot of stock in arguments that make appeals to what the Framers wanted or intended... I do tend to put some stock (not a lot) in what was intended with our Constitution. It helps point out where and why we are changing as a society...not that those changes are necessarily bad. Although not in the constitution with these exact words, the ‘separation of church and state’ was originally formed out of fear of the church running the government--as it was where they came from. Nowadays it gets wielded as something much different. Many people are convinced it has always meant what it now is purported to mean. To me, the intent matters in gaining a true understanding of our society today. >>>The fact that it almost caters to the lack thereof is what I find depressing.
>>
>>Can you give an example of catering to lack of morals?
>>
>>I'm afraid you haven't given me an example. Surely you aren't saying that the entire field of bankruptcy law caters to a lack of morality? That would be absurd. Yes, it would be absurd. I didn’t say all bankruptcies are immoral. If a business owner knows things aren’t going well, he/she has debt galore, doesn’t it matter if the person is ethical or not? I don’t know how much one can or cannot get away with under bankruptcy code, but I’ve known personal examples of people who themselves felt they ‘got away with something’, and purposefully abused the system. >>What fact? We have no idea what the substance of the contract is. Even if what you say is true, so what? Freedom of contract. Scenario. I set up a booth that looks like a commercial stage. I ask you if you want to be part of making a 30-second spot for Jimmy-Os cereal. You agree because you’d like to try them and maybe be on TV. You sign a contract that allows me full use of and profit from any footage taped. It also says you will not sue me for any personal or emotional injury while in the process of taping. Turns out I’m making a video series of practical jokes. I spike your cereal with the hottest substance you’ve ever put in your mouth. You’re now crying, bouncing around the stage in pain, and being made a fool of because of this little ‘prank.’ Well, sorry, you should have been ready for anything, freedom of contract and all. Forget the fact that I knew all along what was going to happen to you and only am ‘safe’ because you signed on the dotted line…to me that’s not freedom of contract, that’s unethical because the exact legal document supposed to establish the terms of the agreement specifically leaves out a large part of one side’s motives/intentions. I’m not saying the law can or should do anything about it, but you can’t tell me that the scenario above is ethical. >>Oh well. That's too bad for him. I don't think the solution to preventing the stupid from entering contracts is the intervention of a "wise" state. How would a smart person have known not to enter into the Lap of Luxury contract? I certainly wouldn’t have, and I aint no dummy. Don’t put the blame on him for being deceived, there’s a difference between that and being naïve...though he struggles with both it appears. jlm
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
tanizaki 9 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"
|
09-26-03, 01:04 PM (EST)
|
|
24. "RE: Poor Joe Schmo" |
>Secondly, I have absolutely zero legal
>expertise. Imagine that. >>A personal injury is at stake there. There is no law that is a law simply because of right and wrong.
>
>>>Sure there are. What personal injury is prevented by outlawing polygamy? Consentual incest between adults who are infertile?
>
>People get confused by the fact
>that what society generally views
>as "moral" behavior is often
>in the state's best interest.
> So polygamy can be
>outlawed not simply because most
>people think it is "wrong,"
>but because it protects women
>(and children) from exploitation. How are children and women exploited by polygamy? > You
>show me a moral law,
>I'll find the state's interest
>in establishing it. I am still waiting for you to show the state interest in prohibiting polygamy. >>It has been legally determined that the rights of a mother outweigh the rights of the fetus.
>
>>>Actually, that is not what the law says. Please read Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
>
>Of course I was making a
>lay-person’s generality, which is always
>dangerous in the case at
>hand. Well, layman's opinion is not the law. That is why it is called the layman's opinion. > That said, I do
>not feel a retraction is
>needed. >Legalese aside, that sounds to
>me like the protectable rights
>of the fetus (pre-viability) are
>outweighed by the woman’s right
>to choose an abortion. Yes, that is more accurate. Your previous statement was plain wrong. If you read Casey, you will see that the state can assert an interest in the embryo/fetus from the moment of conception. That is why waiting periods and informed consent provisions are constitutional. >>It would actually go against the Constitution.
>
>>>No, it wouldn't.
>
>Yes, it would. ; ) Repeating yourself does not make it so. Remember when you said "I have absolutely zero legal expertise"? You were right. >>for 'whose' morality do we use for the basis of law?
>
>>>Morality is absolute, of course.
>
>What???? How can you make that
>statement when we live in
>a culture so divided on
>morality? Quite easily. Because it is true. You seem to think that disagreement about morality means that morality cannot be absolute. This is much like saying that mathematics are relative because mathematicians disagree. >>The framers believed moral people would enact moral laws...
>
>>>I don't put a lot of stock in arguments that make appeals to what the Framers wanted or intended...
>
>I do tend to put some
>stock (not a lot) in
>what was intended with our
>Constitution. I put zero. There is no point in talking about what law makers wanted or the spirit of the law. You talk about that before the law is enacted. After the law is enacted, you talk about the letter of the law. > It helps point out
>where and why we are
>changing as a society...not that
>those changes are necessarily bad. Societal changes are not relevant to the text. >Although not in the constitution
>with these exact words, the
>‘separation of church and state’
>was originally formed out of
>fear of the church running
>the government--as it was where
>they came from. No, no, no. Again, your statement of "I have absolutely zero legal expertise" was correct. >Nowadays it
>gets wielded as something much
>different. Many people are convinced
>it has always meant what
>it now is purported to
>mean. To me, the intent
>matters in gaining a true
>understanding of our society today. That's nice, but intent doesn't really matter. Furthermore, it begs the question of "Whose intent"? >>>I'm afraid you haven't given me an example. Surely you aren't saying that the entire field of bankruptcy law caters to a lack of morality? That would be absurd.
>
>Yes, it would be absurd. I
>didn’t say all bankruptcies are
>immoral. If a business owner
>knows things aren’t going well,
>he/she has debt galore, doesn’t
>it matter if the person
>is ethical or not? No. This is much like saying that whether or not a person is ethical has something to do with the protection they are due under the law. >I
>don’t know how much one
>can or cannot get away
>with under bankruptcy code, but
>I’ve known personal examples of
>people who themselves felt they
>‘got away with something’, and
>purposefully abused the system. If the system permits it, it is not abuse. >>>What fact? We have no idea what the substance of the contract is. Even if what you say is true, so what? Freedom of contract.
>
>Scenario. I set up a booth
>that looks like a commercial
>stage. I ask you if
>you want to be part
>of making a 30-second spot
>for Jimmy-Os cereal. You agree
>because you’d like to try
>them and maybe be on
>TV. You sign a contract
>that allows me full use
>of and profit from any
>footage taped. It also says
>you will not sue me
>for any personal or emotional
>injury while in the process
>of taping. Turns out I’m
>making a video series of
>practical jokes. I spike your
>cereal with the hottest substance
>you’ve ever put in your
>mouth. You’re now crying, bouncing
>around the stage in pain,
>and being made a fool
>of because of this little
>‘prank.’ Well, sorry, you should
>have been ready for anything,
>freedom of contract and all.
>Forget the fact that I
>knew all along what was
>going to happen to you
>and only am ‘safe’ because
>you signed on the dotted
>line…to me that’s not freedom
>of contract, Sure it is. I was free to enter the contract or not to enter it. >that’s unethical because
>the exact legal document supposed
>to establish the terms of
>the agreement specifically leaves out
>a large part of one
>side’s motives/intentions. Not unethical at all. I don't understand how failure to disclose all of one's motives or intentions is unethical. You must not do much business. Do you play cards with them facing out to all the other players? >I’m not saying the law can
>or should do anything about
>it, but you can’t tell
>me that the scenario above
>is ethical. I fail to see what was unethical. Didn't you like Candid Camera? >>>Oh well. That's too bad for him. I don't think the solution to preventing the stupid from entering contracts is the intervention of a "wise" state.
>
>How would a smart person have
>known not to enter into
>the Lap of Luxury contract? I can't comment without having read it, but this question is irrelevant to my premise. >I certainly wouldn’t have, and
>I aint no dummy. But of course you aren't. >Don’t
>put the blame on him
>for being deceived, there’s a
>difference between that and being
>naïve...though he struggles with both
>it appears. I don't blame him for being deceived. I don't blame him for anything. All I have ever said is that he would have a very hard time suing the show. >jlm
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
Jpod5 147 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
09-26-03, 02:44 PM (EST)
|
|
25. "RE: Poor Joe Schmo" |
>>Yes, that is more accurate. Your previous statement was plain wrong. If you read Casey, you will see that the state can assert an interest in the embryo/fetus from the moment of conception. That is why waiting periods and informed consent provisions are constitutional.Well, in my opinion the first statement was a generalization of the second. That’s why I can say one thing with the ‘clarified’ explanation in mind and have it received as completely wrong because of how you interpret it. Just a limitation in human communication…nothing we can do about it. >What???? How can you make that statement when we live in a culture so divided on morality? >>Quite easily. Because it is true. You seem to think that disagreement about morality means that morality cannot be absolute. This is much like saying that mathematics are relative because mathematicians disagree. I agree there is absolute morality, just as some ‘truth’ must be absolute…but we’re speaking in terms of how we govern as a society. Disagreement about what morality is prevents that which is absolute from playing a role in legislation. >I don’t know how much one can or cannot get away with under bankruptcy code, but I’ve known personal examples of people who themselves felt they ‘got away with something’, and purposefully abused the system. >>If the system permits it, it is not abuse. So it isn’t abuse, but is it ethical? I defer back to one of my very first statements that the law can sometimes cater to a lack of ethics. To say someone is not abusing the law, because the system permits ‘x’, does not mean the abuse is ‘right’. I’ve only argued that our society sometimes seems more concerned with what is legal than what is ethical, which is sad. >>Not unethical at all. I don't understand how failure to disclose all of one's motives or intentions is unethical. You must not do much business. Do you play cards with them facing out to all the other players? I understand your point, just not the application of it. Cards isn’t a very good example. It would be more like entering a poker game for money, and then AFTER THE FACT telling everyone else that deuces and fours are wild. The whole premise of the interaction was skewed because not everyone knew one of the most important rules. It is unethical because of the intent to deceive. Is there any time when an intent to deceive for personal gain should be considered ethical? That seems to be what you’re arguing. Let me clarify the card example. If I play my cards in a certain way, or bet chips in a bluff, I’m trying to deceive in a way that everyone else is. It is a known variable to all…as opposed to a known deception to only one party. If your local grocer puts red dye on week-old meat to make it look fresh and sell it, should you be made aware of that? I’d say yes, you seem to argue no.
Other points I’ve left out because we’d start going in circles. I respect your effort and conviction in your posts, and imagine we’d legislate well together! Despite some opposing starting viewpoints, we’d likely come to agreement in principle and purpose. At least that’s been my experience with people arguing philosophies similar to yours.
jlm
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
