| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 82439 | 2007-08-27 12:26:00 | Burglars apparently have rights, too | qazwsxokmijn (102) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 585166 | 2007-08-29 02:07:00 | If your ever attacked by a person with a knife your not legally allowed to defend your self (hit them) until the knife is approx 2 cm from your face. Go figure.:rolleyes: And Macs are useful, pigs fly for hours, and - - - |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 585167 | 2007-08-29 02:13:00 | That's your opinion. What is your reasoning? Their reasoning aside, do you disagree? |
allblack (6574) | ||
| 585168 | 2007-08-29 09:31:00 | Their reasoning aside, do you disagree? Yes, I disagree. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 585169 | 2007-08-29 09:49:00 | That's your opinion. What is your reasoning? I feel that criminals should not profit from their crimes which the two case I mentioned above did. Years ago I ended up with a month and a half off work and had to prove loss of income but as we were putting almost everything back into the business I got virtually nothing out of it. The two crims mentioned above had no income and were already being fully provided for by the tax payer. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 585170 | 2007-08-29 12:11:00 | Criminals who receive coverage from ACC for injuries sustained in the commission of a crime are not profiting from their crimes. An entitlement to a legally constituted no-fault insurance scheme is not a reward - it is an entitlement. If the ACC scheme allowed ACC to deny coverage to claimants who are at fault when they gat their injuries - well, a hell of a lot of people wouldn't get coverage. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 585171 | 2007-08-29 12:12:00 | Which is not to say that ACC coverage for self-employed people doesn't suck. It does. | Deane F (8204) | ||
| 585172 | 2007-08-29 18:41:00 | Criminals who receive coverage from ACC for injuries sustained in the commission of a crime are not profiting from their crimes. An entitlement to a legally constituted no-fault insurance scheme is not a reward - it is an entitlement. If the ACC scheme allowed ACC to deny coverage to claimants who are at fault when they gat their injuries - well, a hell of a lot of people wouldn't get coverage. There is a difference between being "at fault" when injured. For example: >>the builder who fell of his ladder coz he erected it at a dangerous angle - his fault. >>the home invader who damaged his spine and is wheelchair-bound coz he injured himself leaving the house after smacking the men around and raping the women. Maybe this is similar to the point Mikebartnz was alluding too... |
allblack (6574) | ||
| 585173 | 2007-08-29 19:50:00 | There is a difference between being "at fault" when injured. For example: >>the builder who fell of his ladder coz he erected it at a dangerous angle - his fault. >>the home invader who damaged his spine and is wheelchair-bound coz he injured himself leaving the house after smacking the men around and raping the women. Maybe this is similar to the point Mikebartnz was alluding too... allblack You make an assertion, follow it up with two examples, but then fail to point out the differences. What exactly is the difference between two examples? |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 585174 | 2007-08-29 19:55:00 | The difference is the activity. Anyways, good job to the theif in the story. |
rob_on_guitar (4196) | ||
| 585175 | 2007-08-29 20:00:00 | The unfortunate householder, if convicted, could well wind up being transported to Australia . "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional illogical liberal minority & rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous liberal press which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end . " |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||