respect wrote:
This isn't even a remotely funny joke. It's disgusting, unnecessary and disrespectful. I don't know if you're being an ass, satirical, or just plain stupid. To me, it doesn't really matter. Grow up.
Lighten up, you big baby. You've never told a dirty joke? It's funny because it's inappropriate.
miser wrote:
Lighten up, you big baby. You've never told a dirty joke? It's funny because it's inappropriate.
I am with 'respect' on this one, it is not really that funny...
Indeed... it's just some moronic 14-year old kid who thinks it's funny and is stewing over this now as we write. Idiot. It's not even original.
enforcer wrote:
Make ipods illegal. A simple and effective solution to the problem.
I have a similar opinion. I'm of the mind that the law should have reduced punishments when victims put themselves in obvious danger.
For example, if someone drives/rides in a car without a seatbelt and is injured in an accident that is the other driver's fault, then the other driver should not have to pay the entire amount of medical, etc. costs.
Same for motorcycle riders who don't wear a helmet.
If the woman who was wearing an ipod was hit by a bike then the bicyclist shouldn't have to bear all the responsibility.
(If she was raped then the rapist shouldn't get a shortened term.)
No he's probably some 39 year old psycho.
respect wrote:
Guess Again wrote:Don't just rape her...rape the hell out of her!
This isn't even a remotely funny joke. It's disgusting, unnecessary and disrespectful. I don't know if you're being an ass, satirical, or just plain stupid. To me, it doesn't really matter. Grow up.
Hey girlie man, did you lose your balls to Title IX?
Really, how is this funny? I guess I have no sence of humor.. oh well, my loss.dmb wrote:
respect wrote:This isn't even a remotely funny joke. It's disgusting, unnecessary and disrespectful. I don't know if you're being an ass, satirical, or just plain stupid. To me, it doesn't really matter. Grow up.
Hey girlie man, did you lose your balls to Title IX?
track chick wrote:
The thing is, he can't warn her if she has music on. I don't really know what the answer is to that.
The answer is that she shouldn't intentionally impair her senses if she's fearful enough to carry mace. She takes away a huge amount of her potential advantage in using mace to successfully to ward off an attack by being unable to hear someone approaching her from out of her field of vision.
No, this would be a bad idea... Any lawyer with half a brain would use this for their defendant in any-and-all cases.
You could be buckled up, paying attention, driving safely and doing 100% of what could possibly do to keep safe, and the lawyer for the dead-drunk mack-truck driver that hits you would ALWAYS make-up something that you were doing wrong.
I understand your point, but it would ruin our court systems.
yeah -- wouldnt want to ruin our highly reputable court system where the rich get slaps on a wrist, the corporations can tie up any lawsuit for well oast your lifetime, and any dumbass can sue me for trying to kidnap my child.
I agree it would be irritating to almost get maced. I would put it in the one off category as someone who likely didn't mean any harm and will be more careful in the future. Good thing she didn't have a gun. The bad driver that almost pegs off a runner and doesn't think its their fault may be worse. My big problem is loose dogs and very ignorant dog owners which arises because this suck-ass city doesn't enforce dog leash by-laws. Ironically, almost all other by laws are enforced; garbage, parking etc.
THat's my rant!
We got a bIeeder!!!! wrote:
yeah -- wouldnt want to ruin our highly reputable court system where the rich get slaps on a wrist, the corporations can tie up any lawsuit for well oast your lifetime, and any dumbass can sue me for trying to kidnap my child.
Listen, I agree with you... I am just saying that this idea would further perpetuate the problems...
I see your point, but it just doesn't work that way. Think of it this way.
Say a motorcycle rider gets slammed by a car, and it was totally the cars fault. How on earth could you make a case saying that the motorcycle rider has to pay for some of his medical bills? yes, he wasn't wearing a helmet, but then again, not wearing the helmet isn't what caused the accident. Not wearing a seatbelt isn't what causes accidents. You can't take after effects of an accident to place fault on the involved parties.
should they wear a helmet and seatbelt, probably, but not wearing either of them causes drunk drivers to slam them, or people to run red lights and f*** them up... I'm glad the system is the way it is.
Yes not wearing a helmet isn't what caused the accident but is sure as hell is what caused the massive head injuries that require huge medical bills.
Giddy wrote:
I see your point, but it just doesn't work that way. Think of it this way.
To "Giddy" - we are on the same page here... You are agreeing with me, and I with you.
To "no quite" - The reasoning is a slippery slope. It would never hold up in court, it is too subjective.
You know a lot of "rape" cases occur because the girl changes her mind AFTER the fact. How fair is that?!
You should have raped her to teach her a lesson.
Try coughing or clearing your throat about 15-20 yards out to give them a heads up. We should have to but it beats getting maced.
Ole Miss Alumni wrote:
Try coughing or clearing your throat about 15-20 yards out to give them a heads up. We should have to but it beats getting maced.
If she's got an iPod on, she won't hear you coughing from 15-20 yards away. Or even 2 feet, maybe.
A little different twist on things: I ran up on 2 girls in a trail one time and accidentally scared the bejezus out of them. They kinda knew who I was and it's pretty much only a certain group of people who run back there, so they knew they weren't in any danger, but still got a good startle. Anyway, it became an inside joke and I'm now dating one of them.
Get litigious on that biz-itch.
Getting hit wit mace, mess up your pace.
Next time slap dat bitch in da face.