Titanic submersible es morte

Previous Next
guidomerkinsrules said:
I’ve seen the movie and read it both in English and German
I have no idea how it’s connected to any of this
Click to expand...



Yes, I am suggesting you are unwilling to consider different ideas or opinions other than your own.
 
Saintman2884 said:
I didn’t start it, guido. I was initially responding to terps reply earlier in this thread that suggested or inferred that whenever rich people lose their fortunes, it’s always somehow because their greedy, and they make the poor believe they should bail them out.

Sure, it’s true in some respects, but not as an absolute black-and-white generalization. I felt that his arguments were a bit too simplistic and didn’t taken into consideration other factors that have nothing to do with greed or rash, risky decisions like this Oceangate CEO’s cavalier attitude towards safety regulations.
Click to expand...
And you feel that Vonnegut/Billy Pilgrim/Marxism made your point?
 
Saintman2884 said:
Sure, it’s true in some respects, but not as an absolute black-and-white generalization. I felt that his arguments were a bit too simplistic and didn’t taken into consideration other factors that have nothing to do with greed or rash, risky decisions like this Oceangate CEO’s cavalier attitude towards safety regulations.
Click to expand...

What other factors? If you skimp on safety, there is only ONE REASON TO DO SO. Increase profit. Avoid costly regulatory bodies- profit. I mean this aint hard.

These trips were not free. Here it absolutely is BLACK n WHITE and if you take time to really understand motivations in Madoff or whatever other metaphor you wish to use, you will find it is quite literally about money.
 
bclemms said:
My understanding from past experiences in storm chasing is the release of liability doesn't cover negligence. So if they knew something was wrong with the vessel, ignored it and the negligent action resulted in the catastrophe then the negligent action would not be covered by a hold harmless agreement.

So if I took a group storm chasing and had them all sign a hold harmless and we got hit by a tornado then that risk was accepted as part of chasing tornadoes. If I were to drink a 1/5 of vodka and drive us head on into a semi then that risk was not assumed as part of chasing tornadoes therefore I would still be liable.

For a less obvious case, if I was chasing the tornado with a vehicle while I knowingly had a bad tire and did not get it replaced then it could open up some liability. For example, while chasing the tornado the tire blows, vehicle gets disabled and the tornado hits us, I would be liable because if the tire did not blow out then we wouldn't have been hit by the tornado. It was the neglect of the proper equipment on the vehicle that directly led to the incident that otherwise would have been avoided.

So yeah, if the company wasn't negligent then good luck signing a release of liability and then demanding liability for the terms specifically on that release.
Click to expand...

I’m sure it covers negligence, most do and I’m sure this one did - they had total contractual leverage so you release everything.

I think what you’re referring to is gross negligence (and intentional or unlawful acts). But ordinary negligence can be so easy to find, releases wouldn’t be very effective if they didn’t release negligence. I have written many of them, I always release negligence and everything else you think you can get released.
 
efil4stnias said:
Madoff suffered from same delusion- it was never enough. And in turn, ensnared a whole host of victims - keep in mind many of the "regular folk" didnt invest directly with Madoff as they didnt have the $$$ to do so, but in pools/thru other vehicles that were managed by others.

But it was the same lure- Madoff was the ONLY investment firm reporting PROFITS when every other firm was losing money. Red flag.

As a quasi-metaphor- i can sell you home insurance for HALF of what every other carrier offers right now. Without reading the policy, you buying?

of course not. Works the same in reverse. If someone is turning a profit when all others are losing, in a game that has been around for a century and every single angle to make sure-fire bets win has been tried ( within the law ) and nothing works, then that HAS to be a warning.

They didnt deserve to lose their money and more than the folks on this tin can ride deserved to lose their lives. Agreed.

And im probably best described as cynical- not misguided or illogical or bitter.
Click to expand...
You can also factor in to the equation that SEC investigators checking Madoff’s receipts or sheets didn’t do a very thorough, sufficient job looking through his back log of records when they showed up at his offices in 2005. And I’m sure the political clout and influence Madoff had on Wall Street and once running the FDIC helped him avoid detection until it was too late and the economy nearly collapsed.
 
efil4stnias said:
What other factors? If you skimp on safety, there is only ONE REASON TO DO SO. Increase profit. Avoid costly regulatory bodies- profit. I mean this aint hard.

These trips were not free. Here it absolutely is BLACK n WHITE and if you take time to really understand motivations in Madoff or whatever other metaphor you wish to use, you will find it is quite literally about money.
Click to expand...
Except he was making a much broader generalization that touched on issues that weren’t related to just this, though? Like Rich people in America begging for handouts whenever they fail due to bad business decisions, that aren’t always related to being greedy, selfish bastages and the amoral need for profit.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Previous Next

Share this page

 

Twitter

Back
Top Bottom