Go to Jail or Go to Church

bravo said:
What you characterize as snide and low is irrelevant...its the dude on the receiving end of the insults that weighs them....
what you might take in stride might mean something else to someone else....

I'm quite tired of the double standard applied all around........so I'll temper my reply's to mirror the civility I receive....
Click to expand...

Right, so as long as others call you names you think anything is fair game? Pick on retarded kids, laugh at people's addictions, and why not throw in teasing someone about a suicide in the family.

I never said my opinion was relevant. I just voiced my opinion.
 
WinterBorn said:
Right, so as long as others call you names you think anything is fair game? Pick on retarded kids, laugh at people's addictions, and why not throw in teasing someone about a suicide in the family.

I never said my opinion was relevant. I just voiced my opinion.
Click to expand...

ha....we'll see....I haven't had a problem with insults from "mentally challenged kids" (I don't say retarded) or addicts or grieving survivors calling me names or insulting me....

But posters on the internet are a completely different matter....they will reap what they sow.
 
bravo said:
ha....we'll see....I haven't had a problem with insults from "mentally challenged kids" (I don't say retarded) or addicts or grieving survivors calling me names or insulting me....

But posters on the internet are a completely different matter....they will reap what they sow.
Click to expand...

LMAO!! Oh so you don't even SAY "retarded", but you will ridicule a recovering alcoholic by calling his views "alcohol induced dementia"? My what high standards you have.

Yeah, the ol "they insulted me first!" defense. Lotta that going around.
 
WinterBorn said:
I don't pay attention to a lot of the bullshit. But there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. You owe him? lol What a noble quest you have.

But regardless of how many times ya'll have insulted each other, the snide comment was some low shit.
Click to expand...

Expected from a wet brain sot though.
 
WinterBorn said:
Right, so as long as others call you names you think anything is fair game? Pick on retarded kids, laugh at people's addictions, and why not throw in teasing someone about a suicide in the family.

I never said my opinion was relevant. I just voiced my opinion.
Click to expand...

At least you know you are not relevant. I had no idea you were so self-aware.
 
WinterBorn said:
That I am irrelevant to you is no insult.
Click to expand...

Seriously, that was not intended for you.

I don't know why I thought that was Bravo's post, but I did.

I have only been impressed by most everything you have written here and I offer my most sincere apology.
 
bravo said:
Maybe they can go to the Church when services are over for 2 minutes.

How about if he said you had to go to counseling for year ?

and Dunce actually has a point.....they have a choice.
Click to expand...

so you would be ok if a muslim judge said jail or mosque?

this is unconstitutional. there is no real choice. it is like a contract of adhesion. choice is illusory.
 
Yurt said:
so you would be ok if a muslim judge said jail or mosque? Did I condone that somewhere ?
Was the judge demanding you go to some particular church..??? Maybe Ali would pick a Mosque....

this is unconstitutional. there is no real choice. it is like a contract of adhesion. choice is illusory.
Click to expand...

I take it that Utah's giving the person to be executed a choice of firing squad or lethal injection is not to your liking....
Some choices are tough....Sophies choice.....
You're the lawyer right ?
 
Yurt said:
so you would be ok if a muslim judge said jail or mosque?

this is unconstitutional. there is no real choice. it is like a contract of adhesion. choice is illusory.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. They clearly can choose jail if they decide to.
 
bravo said:
I take it that Utah's giving the person to be executed a choice of firing squad or lethal injection is not to your liking....
Some choices are tough....Sophies choice.....
You're the lawyer right ?
Click to expand...

that is why i ASKED you a question. apples/oranges on the choice. that choice ends in the SAME result. this choice does not. choice is illusory. look it up. and i'm a meter maid, i belong to a huge liberal union and make $200/hr for giving tickets on expired meters, it rocks!
 
Sorry, nothing in the following convinces me that given the choice between church or jail, I would freely choose church, yet others may indeed choose jail, given the 3 squares a day and roof overhead.

Contracts of adhesionThe concept of the contract of adhesion originated in French civil law, but did not enter American jurisprudence until the Harvard Law Review published an influential article by Edwin W. Patterson in 1919. It was subsequently adopted by the majority of American courts, especially after the Supreme Court of California endorsed adhesion analysis in 1962. See Steven v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 58 Cal. 2d 862, 882 n.10 (1962) (explaining history of concept).[SUP][1][/SUP]
For a contract to be treated as a contract of adhesion, it must be presented on a standard form on a "take it or leave it" basis, and give one party no ability to negotiate because of their unequal bargaining position. The special scrutiny given to contracts of adhesion can be performed in a number of ways:
  • If the term was outside of the reasonable expectations of the person who did not write the contract, and if the parties were contracting on an unequal basis, then it will not be enforceable. The reasonable expectation is assessed objectively, looking at the prominence of the term, the purpose of the term and the circumstances surrounding acceptance of the contract.
  • Section 211 of the American Law Institute's Restatement (Second) of Contracts, which has persuasive though non-binding force in courts, provides:
Where the other party has reason to believe that the party manifesting such assent would not do so if he knew that the writing contained a particular term, the term is not part of the agreement.This is a subjective test focusing on the mind of the seller and has been adopted by only a few state courts.
  • The doctrine of unconscionability is a fact-specific doctrine arising from equitable principles. Unconscionability in standard form contracts usually arises where there is an "absence of meaningful choice on the part of one party due to one-sided contract provisions, together with terms which are so oppressive that no reasonable person would make them and no fair and honest person would accept them." (Fanning v. Fritz's Pontiac-Cadillac-Buick Inc.)
 
For a contract to be treated as a contract of adhesion, it must be presented on a standard form on a "take it or leave it" basis, and give one party no ability to negotiate because of their unequal bargaining position.
Click to expand...

dune is too retarded to realize he just proved my point.

:lmao:
 
Damocles said:
The Judge is right, church is punishment, it sucks, nobody wants to go...

I'd pay the fine, serve the time, and go away. Church for a year for this Buddhist? Hayul no! :D
Click to expand...

So you're a Buddhist. I knew there was something not quite right about you. That explains a lot.
 
Yurt said:
that is why i ASKED you a question. apples/oranges on the choice. that choice ends in the SAME result. this choice does not. choice is illusory. look it up. and i'm a meter maid, i belong to a huge liberal union and make $200/hr for giving tickets on expired meters, it rocks!
Click to expand...

And that is why I answered your question.....your question that implied that I condoned some outcome...and I want to know why you implied that ....
 
Last edited:
Return of Dune said:
No, you implied that because it resembled a contract of adhesion, there was no choice, yet clearly there is a choice.
Click to expand...

you are truly simple....you actually proved my point by posting the definition.

For a contract to be treated as a contract of adhesion, it must be presented on a standard form on a "take it or leave it" basis, and give one party no ability to negotiate because of their unequal bargaining position.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top