On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:23:53 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
I grasp it just fine.

In that case, when are you going to accept responsibility for your actions?

I do, when they are truly mine.


... The difference is that you believe that personal
responsibility extends to cover things and situations that you have no
direct control over, or to events where you could not reasonably
predict an outcome.

You mean like, letting your dog roam other people's yards where it's not
wanted?

You mean like, making a huge wake in proximity to other boats & other
people's property, where there is a possibility of damage & injury, and
a certainty of hazard & aggravation?


..... I don't expect other people
to keep their pets off of my lawn

Good, I'll be over with a 150# rottweiler tomorrow.

The problem with your examples are that they are extreme. I would no
more deliberately bring my dog to another property than I would
deliberately pass by another boat at close range while pre-planing.


....If my boat gets rocked and I spill my drink, I'm not
going to chase after the "offender" and make him clean up the mess.

What if your boat gets slammed violently from side to side, all hands
have to take a handhold with both hands, and there is some breakage?
What if the warning was not sufficient and there is an injury? I guess
that's just the way it goes, tough luck, and the boater who made a huge
wake can buzz right along as he pleases.

Your problem is you are of an "all or nothing" opinion of another's
extended responsibility and negligence WRT liability. If you can make
a case which can illustrate a demonstration of gross negligence on the
part of the offender, then I would agree that they share the lion's
share of responsibility.

On the other hand, if a boater a half mile away throws a wake which
tips my hot coffee onto my lap, and I was not watching out for it,
then it's my problem.

What you fail to understand is that life itself is full of risks. It
is not the role of society to protect the other guy any more than what
would be considered reasonable. Otherwise anything that might happen
to you would be actionable in some way against some other entity. Do
you want that? That's called deflection of responsibility. A liberal
mantra. Serial killers are not really "bad", they're just "victims" of
a poor upbringing.

Like I said before, **** happens. Sometimes you just have to take your
lumps instead of looking to place the blame on some other guy.


That doesn't mean that I'm giving people a pass on negligent behavior.

That's exactly what you're doing, chiefly yourself... not taking
responsibility for your actions is called "being irresponsible."

Where do you draw the line Doug? At what point does your
"responsibility" to watch out for yourself exceed the other guys
"responsibility" to watch out for you?

Where do you differentiate between incidental and gross negligence?


Dave