🚀 go-pugleaf

"John Smith" <fatjohnny72@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6Z5r6.217$q46.14964784@news1.tor.primus.ca...
>
> AlexF@cc1.bhc5.org wrote in message ...
> >>Let's see if I understand the state of personal responsibility
> >>in society in the last 20 years.
> >
> >     The problem with the example that follow is that
> >you were only exposed to a one sided version of the
> >facts.   You should always keep in mind that what
> >you see in the media reports is not the whole truth.
> >
> >
> >
> >>If you suck three packs of cigarette smoke into your lungs
> >>each day for 40 years and die of lung cancer, the tobacco
> >>company is to blame.
> >
> >    A smoker who starts smoking today is responsible
> >for his own actions,  But one who started smoking
> >40 years ago, when only the tobacco companies knew
> >their products were toxic **and lied about it to everyone**
> >and knew their products were addictive **and lied about
> >it to everyone**  deserves some compensation.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>If your neighbor crashes into a tree while driving home
> >>drunk, the bartender is to blame.
> >
> >    If the customer had one too many, no.  But if the
> >bartender saw that the customer was clearly drunk out
> >of his mind, and yet served him another drink anyway,
> >just because he wanted to make an extra buck, then
> >yes, if I get hit by that drunk driver you can bet
> >I'm suing both the drunk and the bar.

By this logic, if you've had one to many all you need to do is convice the
bartender to give you more than one to many and bingo! you have displaced
the blame for the fact that you shouldn't be driving.

Sure.

Nice logic.

>
> How absurd.  Bartenders shouldn't be under any obligation to define and
> enforce consumption limits on their customers.  They sell a fully legal
> product to people who request it and can stop requesting it at any time.
> The consequences of this exchange rest with the buyer.  End of story.
>
>
>
>
>