this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
1547 points (98.2% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9781 readers
88 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
givesomefucks@lemmy.world
1547
Chat is this real (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 3 months ago by SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
192 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's not the same. You still don't have any legal claims against the hospital or the doctor. You can't sue your surgeon, because you missed, say another week of work because of some unexpected bleeding.

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Uhm what are you talking about? Why would I want to sue my surgeon?

EDIT: The reasons why I would not sue my surgeon are:

  1. It is not a private legal matter, but a matter of adequate services rendered.
  2. The question of liability can be better answered by a specialized team of doctors that review my case than a jury.
  3. Legal action is an obstacle made to disenfranchise those that cannot afford counsel, which is why the US loves it and we generally don't.
  4. We have laws that demand reasonable judgement. Hence I cannot make a claim for damages due to some unrelated reason and they cannot evade guilt by the same tactic.

If the surgeon did something illegal, this would be a different matter.

[–] red@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The whole point of the discussion was that arbitration clauses should be illegal, since they prevent you from suing.

Points were made, that it's still a good thing for tattoo artists and doctors. Your earlier comment seemed to dispute this at first, but then pivoted to funds for damages (that exist and you can get without legal action.

You were then told that's besides the point of the discussion, since it was exactly about suing.

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It is not besides the point because there exists an alternative to the whole ordeal of arbitration clauses and suing. That is what I pointed out.

We all joke about how americans sue for the most stupid shit, but (besides different mindsets following from the same reason) you do it because your system allows for it and provides no alternative course of action.

[–] red@sopuli.xyz 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well it wasn't demonstratably false in any case, as it's the only course of action in some places.

In a perfect world these arbitration clauses wouldn't exist, and luckily they aren't enforceable in many countries.

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago

The original comment says that these clauses should be made illegal, to which the comment I responded to objects. Objecting to change based on arguments that are only valid within the paradigm that exists before said change is nothing but a logical fallacy.

It is demonstrably false that the change has to entail the problems conjectured by the comment I responded to. Thus the counter argument is shown to be both reductionist and wrong.