I heard on the radio last night......

A guy sued a fast food chain(can't remember what one, i THINK it was rally's) for 50 MILLION DOLLARS!!!! ..... because he found a piece of skin on his burger......

The owner admitted to remembering slicing his finger accidentally near the lettuce, but didnt throw out the lettuce.....

soooo in my opinion the guy should just get another burger, no charge, right?

NOOOOOOO he SUES for 50 MILLION DOLLARS!!!!

What the HELL is wrong with people today?????

What happens if next time he on accident bleeds in the food, but does not throw it out? They should be sued. Maybe not for that much, but they should still be sued for that mistake. It isn't just a "slice of human flesh" it's the fact that if they aren't sued, it could very well happen again.

Yes, but is it the companies fault for someone not following a common sense procedure and throwing the lettuce? If anyone should be sued, it's the guy who didn't do the right thing. This isn't a case of negligence on behalf of the company, it would be one thing if this company KNEW that human body parts were being mixed in with the food and not doing anything about, it's something else entirely if someone cuts themelves and doesn't throw out the contaminated food and nobody else knows about it.

But you can't sue the fast food worker, he doesn't have any money, so it's the company that gets shafted. This is wrong.

Dammit.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
But you can't sue the fast food worker, he doesn't have any money, so it's the company that gets shafted. This is wrong.


I'm pretty anti-lawsuit (odd for a lawyer, I know), but I disagree. Yeah, no one at Rally's HQ issued a memo saying that food shouldn't be thrown away if body parts drop into it, but someone's gotta be responsible for the behavior of their employees. You can approach it from many different angles - Rally's is at fault for hiring a complete moron, they're at fault for not supervising the guy better, they're at fault for not inspecting the area after he shaved off a layer of skin, etc. And as another practical matter, while sticking Rally's with the damages isn't totally fair, it's more fair than not compensating the guy who bit into human skin. Blech.

As far as damages go, $50 million is completely unreasonable. But then again, so is a free burger.

The failure to throw out the lettuce is an inexcusable violation of proper food handling procedure. The only way that $50 million would be reasonable is if the employee was HIV positive. That is something that I don't know, and the employee may well not know for certain. One purpose of the lawsuit may be to force the employee to take an AIDS test.

exactly. If the guy had gotten AIDS, i would say go nuts. But as this was just a case of negligance, i would say he should get a couple thousand. a pretty fair compromise im my opinion.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
someone's gotta be responsible for the behavior of their employees. You can approach it from many different angles - Rally's is at fault for hiring a complete moron, they're at fault for not supervising the guy better, they're at fault for not inspecting the area after he shaved off a layer of skin, etc. And as another practical matter, while sticking Rally's with the damages isn't totally fair, it's more fair than not compensating the guy who bit into human skin. Blech.

I agree with you. In fact there are many issues here :
- should the company be penalized ? Yes. It's its responsibility, as you say.
- should the employee be penalized ? Yes - by its company.
- should the customer get some money for that ? Maybe. It depends on the real prejudice - if he's developing some psychological trouble because of this. Anyway, 50 millions is totally out of proportion. The company should pay a few hundreds or thousand dollars, maybe cover the medical expenses or work incapacity f there are some.

IMO the company should be fined, enough to make it change its control rules, but most of the money should not necessarily go to the customer - it could be given to consumer organization or just to the authorities in charge of health control. That way would make the fine dissausive enough without incitating people to set up frauds to sue companies (I just read this morning that a woman pretending that she found a finger in a ketchup bottle, and who asked for a huge compensation, eventually admitted it was a fraud).

Anytime we choose to eat at a fast food place or anywhere strange we are opening up for some odd sh** to happen. A few years back 60 minutes had a show on about Mc D pizza hut burger King etc... The things that go on in the cooking area are pretty nasty. One girl dropped food on the floor picked it up and served it without even wipping it off. One guy killed a mouse in burger meat others were caught spitting into food not washing hands etc... If A person chooses to eat at a strange place where people are sterotyped as being dumb sh**s then quess what might just happen.

With that said this guy should get some sort of justice but not 50million that is just plain assinine. Now if the worker has aids or some other sort of disease then they should but his head on a stake.

A woman recently tried to sue Wendy's when she found a finger in her chili.

It was a fraud and now she is charged. I hope they level her. The on going investigation involves the "finger". Where the hell did she procure a finger?????????

I guess they checked out her house pretty thoroughly looking for the rest of the body...

Ba...hahaha.... where the hell would you get a finger from...

Anyone have any extra digits available....:D

50 million is ridiculous...but a HUGE fine is warranted. The person should receive something but I don't know what would be fair. Maybe 100,000.00?

Anyone have a problem with that sum?

Originally posted by ~Sal~
50 million is ridiculous...but a HUGE fine is warranted. The person should receive something but I don't know what would be fair. Maybe 100,000.00?

Anyone have a problem with that sum?

Yes. I guess the right sum is the one taht makes people feel they would not like this to happen to them anyway.

So, that leads us to another (funny) question :
How much money would be necessary to make you eat voluntarily a small piece of human skin in a burger ?

I would accept for $1000.

And you ?

Originally posted by astrapol2
So, that leads us to another (funny) question :
How much money would be necessary to make you eat voluntarily a small piece of human skin in a burger ?

I would accept for $1000.

And you ?

No amount of money would do it for me. There are many awfull diseases one can get through eating human flesh. I don't need the money that bad.

Isn't canabalism against god's laws.

Originally posted by astrapol2
Yes. I guess the right sum is the one taht makes people feel they would not like this to happen to them anyway.

So, that leads us to another (funny) question :
How much money would be necessary to make you eat voluntarily a small piece of human skin in a burger ?

I would accept for $1000.

And you ? eeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww..."small" is relative :D but yeah I could do it for a fast thou'

Blood on lettuce is a tad gross, probably harmless regardless of what was in it and likely nothing compared to someone spitting or horking in it, like in the other thread.

I found a broken button once in a bar of Cadbury's Dairy milk. Never thought a thing about it. Likely should have written the company for a free bar...:@@:

Blood in lettuce may or may not be harmless. Consider that the person who bled into the lettuce may be HIV positive. If the person eating the lettuce has any open wounds in the mouth, including gaps around the teeth from gingivitis, they could get AIDS through this route. There are many other diseases that could also be transmitted this way, including hepatitis, BSE, flu, etc.

Originally posted by Echo2
No amount of money would do it for me. There are many awfull diseases one can get through eating human flesh. I don't need the money that bad.

Isn't canabalism against god's laws.

There are many awful diseases one can get through eating in fast food restaurants anyway.

Let's say you know the skin is not infected. It's only the size of a 10c coin. It's hardy worse than swallowing your lover's saliva when kissing him/her.
Come on, echo - what is your bid ?

$ 5000 ?
$ 100 000 ?
$ 5 000 000 ?

:D

If I knew for sure it would not effect me physically in any way it would still be a big EWWWW. But for 900 trillion dollars tax free I could gag it down.

I would then stick my finger down my throat and throw it up, buy myself a very old bottle of Rebel Yell and get plastered.

Then a new problem arises. What does one do with all that money? I'd donate most of it to the ASPCA and Humane Society's. Buy my oldest brother a house, retire and travel.

nah.... its completely stupid....

This isn't a "peice of flesh".... this is a small little peice of skin.....

ANY place working with knives has this possiblity....

and it was said that the guy DIDNT KNOW the skin was in the lettuce, you guys are suggesting that he knew and just didnt do anything about it......

The event was so minute he had to remember hard and it finally came to him that yea, he did accidentally slice himself BARELY.... enough to get a super thin piece of skin.....

and this idiot wants 50 MILLION DOLLARS!!!

it's stupid.... give the person a few free meals.... thats all they deserve.....




And echo... your little "isn't that against God's laws" quote is asshole-ish in my opinion.....

But i won't call YOU an asshole.... i just want to let you know that the context of the statement was disrespectful.... but who am i expecting ANY kind of respect for christianity....

you hate them.... you claim they are all "hate-mongers".... but you hate the hate mongers.... doesnt that make YOU a hate-monger?

Originally posted by Decka
this is a small little peice of skin.....


It was big enough for the customer to notice!

{QUOTE]And echo... your little "isn't that against God's laws" quote is asshole-ish in my opinion.....[QUOTE]

It is a reasonable question. Does anyone know the answer?

Decks - you are way too sensitive. My question had nothing to do with christian bashing. You should know by now that I don't hide my oppinion of christians by twisting words and posting inuendo's. I come right out and say they are evil.

Originally posted by astrapol2
Let's say you know the skin is not infected. It's only the size of a 10c coin.

This depends on how well the chunk of meat{skin} is served. What type of seasonings, medium well or rare what is the side dish. If a person has no problem with eating pig{that lay and play in their own sh**} then how can a human be any worse? Meat is meat no matter what it is, it will just vary in taste based on how the creature lives and what it eats.

Originally posted by mad dog
Meat is meat no matter what it is, it will just vary in taste based on how the creature lives and what it eats.

Not quite.
Psychological and cultural factors matter when you decide if something is eatable or not.
Cannibalism is a major taboo in most societies.
The same for eating pork in some religions ; and this is not only a "legal" prohibition : asked to eat pork many people from muslim culture (and even non believers) will refuse because it would make them sick.
It's like eating dog or rat for many westerners.

Astrapol2

I agree with what you are saying, oh and I forgot to put a smile on my post I was being somewhat funny.

Now I do agree what we eat can have alot to do with how we are raised but lets be real meat is still meat. When a grown person chooses not to eat a piece of meat because of a belief this does not make the meat bad. I doubt any of us on the forum eat humans on a regular bases :) but we could if needed with no ill effects. Most people wont eat worms but, don't knock it until you've tried it. The problem is not in the food but in the mind of who ever is eating the food. I also find it interesting how religion sets eating standards like you mentioned, Muslim no piggy, Catholics fish on friday etc... I quess God gets pissed if you eat certain things :D :D.

God doesnt get pissed at anything lol.....

it's just a tradition to honor... and if you are serious about your commitment to God.... eating fish on friday really isn't too big of a deal. I'm not catholic, and i have never followed the tradition.

Now back to echo.....

Your statement about cannibalism is off base to begin with.... because eating a stray slice of skin is no way cannibalism. Hell, i chew my nails, am I a cannibal? I'm sure a few peices of skin are accidentally swallowed..... We aren't talking about chunks of flesh here... get with the program.

Decks - you are way too sensitive. My question had nothing to do with christian bashing. You should know by now that I don't hide my oppinion of christians by twisting words and posting inuendo's.


Sorry if i misunderstood your tone, it seemed like you were saying it sarcastically, as to ridicule the christian religion, which you are not above.

I come right out and say they're evil

So that means you hate them right? Because anytime anyone else doesn't like something about someone..... you label them a "hate monger".... well by your own definition YOU are also a hate monger, congrats:)

How about the reality show where people eat all sorts of sick things just for the CHANCE to win 50,000 dollars.
I could enjoy that show if they took that part off. Instead I do not watch it.

You are correct Dan, I wonder if catholics would eat a burger on friday for 50,000?

Decka if God doesn't get pissed then why is there a hell? Why would he/she/it be a jealous God? Why are there sins? Why do we use the term Gods wrath?

Originally posted by mad dog
Catholics fish on friday etc... I quess God gets pissed if you eat certain things :D :D.

Catholics haven't been required to eat fish on Fridays since vatican two...

Yup...just another generalization and misconception

So yeah anti up with the money because anyone of them will eat some meat on a Friday ...

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
How about the reality show where people eat all sorts of sick things just for the CHANCE to win 50,000 dollars.
I could enjoy that show if they took that part off. Instead I do not watch it.

Yes, I think asking people to ingest bizarre things is repulsive and not in the least bit entertaining. To me it is a health issue...

Originally posted by mad dog
Decka if God doesn't get pissed then why is there a hell?

Because they have chosen not to put their life toward God.... he doesn't hate the people in hell, he loves them.
Originally posted by mad dog

Why would he/she/it be a jealous God?

It depends on what testament you are speaking of.... the old testament portrays more of a God you should fear.... the new testament portrays a more compassionate God.
Originally posted by mad dog

Why are there sins?

Because by choice God does not 100% control our lives, he gives us choice, and we are sinful.... so thus sins happen, and quite often.
Originally posted by mad dog

Why do we use the term Gods wrath?


Who is we? and when do we use the term?

Originally posted by ~Sal~
Catholics haven't been required to eat fish on Fridays since vatican two...

Yup...just another generalization and misconception

So yeah anti up with the money because anyone of them will eat some meat on a Friday ...

Sorry Sal, but most of my family is Catholic and it would be easier to pull teeth out of a rapid tiger then to get them to eat meat on friday. I'm not saying they all follow this rule but some still do and believe in it very strongly. Maybe it depends on where a person comes from as to how they follow the rules?

Originally posted by Decka
Because they have chosen not to put their life toward God.... he doesn't hate the people in hell, he loves them.

This is what does not make any sense. If I did something wrong and my father decided to hold my hand in a fire, for any length of time, we would call him nutz or bad, but if God does it he loves us :confused: How can a loving creator torture its loved creation? IMPOSSIBLE

It depends on what testament you are speaking of.... the old testament portrays more of a God you should fear.... the new testament portrays a more compassionate God.

I disagree God has all the power but he can still sentence a person to an eternity of hell. I don't know about you but the most we have to fear here on earth is death but once we pass that gate{according to Christians} we could end up spending an eternity in pain and suffering. This Christian God at times seems to spread more fear then love. His basic message is worship me{with no proof} or I will make death{eternity} your personal hell.

Because by choice God does not 100% control our lives, he gives us choice, and we are sinful.... so thus sins happen, and quite often.

So basically God would have been a bumbling idiot with nothing but cruel intentions on his list. God "Worship me I am a jealous God, I will not show any proof but I will send you to hell HA HA HA"!!! We have sins because we are human and if God is loving he/she/it would easily understand this. If God is loving then there would be NO need for hell


Who is we? and when do we use the term?

I'm not sure how old you are but I find it hard to believe that you've never heard of the term Gods warth? Lets put it this way, I don't find any reason to except Christianity, so I quess God will show his wrath by sending me to hell. He is not a very nice guy is he :)

I believe in a higher power/god but I also believe it is indifferent to us. I believe this higher power would be just another step on the ladder of living. There is no need for a hell or for that matter a heaven, just the next step. Why do people feel the need to be baby sat, even as adults? Life is life death is the unknown why pretend to know something that we truely know nothing about.

What makes it worse is when we push those thoughts onto others by making up good and bad places{heaven-hell}. It may seem like I'm off topic which I could be somewhat but when we say our God is right that means others are wrong. We are talking about eating humans, in some cultures it was considered the right thing to do with the dead{still is just on a smaller scale}. Certain "hollier then thoughs" came along and said that is wrong and sick, why? Just because we don't understand anothers way of life does not make it wrong or sick. These people believed very strongly in eating their dead loved ones. What is worse using meat for food or throwing it into a hole and letting it rot? I'm not saying I want to go out and buy a 1/4lb human ass, but if it is someone elses belief of how they treat their dead I should not interfere.

Originally posted by mad dog
Sorry Sal, but most of my family is Catholic and it would be easier to pull teeth out of a rapid tiger then to get them to eat meat on friday. I'm not saying they all follow this rule but some still do and believe in it very strongly. Maybe it depends on where a person comes from as to how they follow the rules?

I agree with Sal. Eating fish on Fridays was only meant from Carnaval to Easter (I don't remember the English name for those 40 days), but after the Vatican II they decided to just leave it open and advice to make "sacrifices". So when I was a child at the Catholic school they adviced us to give up sweets or to give our pocket money to charity. The purpose was to relate with Jesus' pain and tribulations.

The fish thing is only a tradition or custom, in The Netherlands they eat fish on Fridays even in the protestant part. It's just a custom.
About eating human flesh, it's a sin if you kill a human for the purpose of eating him/her (as it was done by many tribes in the old, old times). And it's forbidden too to eat human flesh of corpses because of health issues. But in times of need, it's allowed. I remember the case of the Southamerican rugby team who were trapped in the Andes for a couple of months and they ate human flesh, after they admitted it the Catholic church said it was necessary for them in order to survive, so no problem.

Originally posted by mad dog
Sorry Sal, but most of my family is Catholic and it would be easier to pull teeth out of a rapid tiger then to get them to eat meat on friday. I'm not saying they all follow this rule but some still do and believe in it very strongly. Maybe it depends on where a person comes from as to how they follow the rules?

Culture is important when speaking of certain practices. I was raised as a Catholic and in someways will be a Catholic till I die. I guess I have a fairly relaxed attitude about many church practices since that is the way I was raised.

Catholics I know have not followed that rule for decades and most pre-Vatican II rules have been disgarded. Your point is well taken that this has not been done by all. None the less it is not a "Catholic" requirement so to generalize about Catholism based on your family when there are a billion others not of that mind set is quite inaccurate.

Originally posted by Teddy
About eating human flesh, it's a sin if you kill a human for the purpose of eating him/her (as it was done by many tribes in the old, old times).

I'm just curious is there an actual line that says "thou shall not eat other humans"? I've been away from the Catholic religion for some time and don't remember much about topics like this.

And it's forbidden too to eat human flesh of corpses because of health issues.

Health issues? what type, I'm not saying go out and eat a diseased corps. Many tribes ate their loved ones when they died of age etc... without any problems. When they ran into problems it was because they ate things like the brain and spine. I would bet most hunters would not eat the brain or spine of animals they kill for the same reason.

But in times of need, it's allowed. I remember the case of the Southamerican rugby team who were trapped in the Andes for a couple of months and they ate human flesh, after they admitted it the Catholic church said it was necessary for them in order to survive, so no problem.

So it is OK to commit a sin as long as it fits a personal need? A sin is a sin no matter what, just because a person wants to live that does not change the act of what they did. Now with saying that, what those folks went through on that plane was horrible and I see nothing wrong with what they did. BUT then again I don't buy into mans made religion. There is also the story of the folks that were traveling cross country that got trapped by snow they also had to eat people they were traveling with {I believe it was the Donner{sp} party or something like that}

Originally posted by ~Sal~
Catholics I know have not followed that rule for decades and most pre-Vatican II rules have been disgarded. Your point is well taken that this has not been done by all. None the less it is not a "Catholic" requirement so to generalize about Catholism based on your family when there are a billion others not of that mind set is quite inaccurate.

I was not trying to be nasty about the issue just showing that it did/does exist. I was thinking about this thread over the weekend, I went back to the town I was raised in visiting {mostly Catholics}. Funny thing is most of the town and the folks that live in the area still follow this as a rule. I have asked before{years ago 10 or so} as to wether the folks ate fish just because or if it was that is what God wants? The majority said because that is Gods rule. Like I said I asked this awhile back and things change I will have to ask around again. You are correct that it may not be followed by most Catholics as a rule, but some still do.

Originally posted by mad dog
I'm just curious is there an actual line that says "thou shall not eat other humans"? I've been away from the Catholic religion for some time and don't remember much about topics like this.

Maybe in the Old Testimony but not in the New one, neither in the rules or recommendations from the Catholic Church (they didn't encounter in Europe a human flesh eating tribe, and their rules are mostly based on their expansion through Europe)


Originally posted by mad dog
Health issues? what type, I'm not saying go out and eat a diseased corps. Many tribes ate their loved ones when they died of age etc... without any problems. When they ran into problems it was because they ate things like the brain and spine. I would bet most hunters would not eat the brain or spine of animals they kill for the same reason.
Depends on how and when you eat the corpse, but in most places without refrigeration and having to wait a couple of days (to be sure your loved ones where really dead) well, I don't think they used the same conservation techniques than to pork or beef. So I would say, those tribes had health issues due to eat meat.



Originally posted by mad dog
So it is OK to commit a sin as long as it fits a personal need? A sin is a sin no matter what, just because a person wants to live that does not change the act of what they did. Now with saying that, what those folks went through on that plane was horrible and I see nothing wrong with what they did. BUT then again I don't buy into mans made religion. There is also the story of the folks that were traveling cross country that got trapped by snow they also had to eat people they were traveling with {I believe it was the Donner{sp} party or something like that}
It is not ok. It would be a sin to kill someone in order to eat him/her. The sin is to kill the person not to eat him/her. To eat human flesh is a morality issue and it has been accepted only in extreme cases. It would be a sin when you have other means to survive. But for Christians, the soul is gone after someone dies, so what is left it's only flesh...Our culture (western culture) disapproves to eat human flesh and that's the reason we don't think is civilized.

Oh hell now I am curious...

I have a two part question:

If you had been on the plane in the Andes would you approve of consumming your passenger-mates bodies in order to survive?

If you were dead would you condone the consumption of your own body?

Now personally, if I was dead I would HOPE they would consume my flesh in order to save themselves.

As for eating another body, I sure as hell HOPE I could choke it down. I think I likely could. But I am uncertain. I think for me it would be trying to keep it down after. If it won't stay down, you may as well give your portion to another.

Originally posted by mad dog
I was not trying to be nasty about the issue just showing that it did/does exist. I was thinking about this thread over the weekend, I went back to the town I was raised in visiting {mostly Catholics}. Funny thing is most of the town and the folks that live in the area still follow this as a rule. I have asked before{years ago 10 or so} as to wether the folks ate fish just because or if it was that is what God wants? The majority said because that is Gods rule. Like I said I asked this awhile back and things change I will have to ask around again. You are correct that it may not be followed by most Catholics as a rule, but some still do.

I honestly didn't think you were being nasty.

Funny enough that is likely one of the practices the Catholic church decreed that they should have kept for health reasons. I hate fish but I do try to choke it down once a week. I would far rather have prime rib...

Originally posted by Teddy
Depends on how and when you eat the corpse, but in most places without refrigeration and having to wait a couple of days (to be sure your loved ones where really dead) well, I don't think they used the same conservation techniques than to pork or beef. So I would say, those tribes had health issues due to eat meat.

I'm sure if the meat was not treated properly then there would be some tummy problems by those dinning. There was a show about this not long ago that interviewed people who did this, very few folks got sick. Of course this was only a small % of people so there probably is more to the story in other parts of the world.




It is not ok. It would be a sin to kill someone in order to eat him/her. The sin is to kill the person not to eat him/her.

Sorry about that I miss understood your post, I thought you were saying that the sin was the actual eating.

To eat human flesh is a morality issue and it has been accepted only in extreme cases.

If we are talking about our culture I agree but others are different.

It would be a sin when you have other means to survive.

I'm confused again now you are saying eating is a sin again, but it is not written? Is it a sin to eat the dead no matter what means are there? I understand that most of us would eat donuts instead of aunt Beth, but if it was aunt Beth's wish to be ate would it be a sin to do this?

But for Christians, the soul is gone after someone dies, so what is left it's only flesh...Our culture (western culture) disapproves to eat human flesh and that's the reason we don't think is civilized.

Exactly, it is not a civilized thing to do, but does that make it a bad thing? We also have had other "civilized" things that were not alowed but now we know we were wrong. Women voting, indians blacks and others being equal, issue about homosexuals, these are just a few examples of being civilized. Just because you and I disagree with eating the dead does it make it bad?

Originally posted by ~Sal~
Oh hell now I am curious...

This has turned out to be quite the topic :eek:

If you had been on the plane in the Andes would you approve of consumming your passenger-mates bodies in order to survive?

YES, I would aprove of the act, but the question would be could I do it. I hope to never find out.

If you were dead would you condone the consumption of your own body?

YES, I have allways liked to help others in need and if I could help even in death then why not. Besides what would I care I'ld be dead.

As for eating another body, I sure as hell HOPE I could choke it down. I think I likely could. But I am uncertain. I think for me it would be trying to keep it down after. If it won't stay down, you may as well give your portion to another.

I also feel this way, I have eat some strange things in my life so how bad could the human body be? The problem is not the actual meat but the idea of what is happening.


Sal;

You also got me thinking about another story that happened in the past. If you were on a boat with other folks would you sacrifice your life so they could eat? The true Moby Dick story involved some guys on a boat that drew straws to see who would die and be dinner. Wierd things can happen when faced with life or death how willing would folks be to live or die for others?

Originally posted by mad dog
Sal;

You also got me thinking about another story that happened in the past. If you were on a boat with other folks would you sacrifice your life so they could eat? The true Moby Dick story involved some guys on a boat that drew straws to see who would die and be dinner. Wierd things can happen when faced with life or death how willing would folks be to live or die for others?



eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee mad dog

I honestly don't know. I really like my life and if put to the test, I think I would fight tooth and nail to gain even a few extra hours. Now having said that, I am not into suffering so if we were dying of thirst also I might be a bit more "put me out of my misery" frame of mind.

For my life partner, or a close friend....hmmmm.... I hope so.

For a stranger, I think it would depend upon how they presented at the time which would then involve personal judgment which could be absolutely wrong...but that's likely the direction I would go in.

If they came across as selfish and with a "me first attitude" I think my natural survival mechanism would kick in and my brain would say;"screw you too, me first".

If it were a child I think I would be more inclined to sacrifice myself, but not happily.

What about you???

Also have you read the short by Stephen King about "self ingestion"? :D He and his neighbour who is an MD were drinking on the porch one evening and were discussing the following. If left upon a deserted island, how much of your own body could you physically consume in order to feed yourself and how long would it keep you alive. What tool would you need to do so? And what would it do to you mentally?

The short is fascinating. :) Can't remember the name of it though. Will look it up.

I've been reading this thread and watching it evolve. Two words come to mind.....


SOILENT GREEN

Originally posted by Echo2
I've been reading this thread and watching it evolve. Two words come to mind.....


SOILENT GREEN

Someone told me about that movie.... icky boo!

Originally posted by ~Sal~
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee mad dog

I honestly don't know. I really like my life and if put to the test, I think I would fight tooth and nail to gain even a few extra hours. Now having said that, I am not into suffering so if we were dying of thirst also I might be a bit more "put me out of my misery" frame of mind.

For my life partner, or a close friend....hmmmm.... I hope so.

For a stranger, I think it would depend upon how they presented at the time which would then involve personal judgment which could be absolutely wrong...but that's likely the direction I would go in.

If they came across as selfish and with a "me first attitude" I think my natural survival mechanism would kick in and my brain would say;"screw you too, me first".

If it were a child I think I would be more inclined to sacrifice myself, but not happily.

What about you???

Well if I was part of a grew and things got bad enough I quess those you were with would be close friends possibly the last friends a person would have. Drawing straws would be a fair thing to do as long as everyone was honest. The questions that would come to mind would be how do you die{method}? could I eat someone I knew? and would they eat me or waste me once they thought about what was happening? I believe the real "moby dick" guys went crazy and weren't worth a whole lot after what happened. I agree with what you posted.

Also have you read the short by Stephen King about "self ingestion"? :D He and his neighbour who is an MD were drinking on the porch one evening and were discussing the following. If left upon a deserted island, how much of your own body could you physically consume in order to feed yourself and how long would it keep you alive. What tool would you need to do so? And what would it do to you mentally?

I don't think I would have a problem with eating myself, but I quess it would depend on how much hope I would have of being saved. IF a person were on an island with just fresh water and no type of food then what chances would their survival be? I think I would try fishing digging for worms and eating bugs 1st :) reminds me of an old joke. A guy is in the jungle and comes upon on a tribe that is eating humans, he ask what are you doing and the chief says "having a ball" :D

The short is fascinating. :) Can't remember the name of it though. Will look it up.

Makes a person wonder what is going through Stephen Kings head, his storys are interesting and for the most part very good.

What would happen if this was a small mom and pop restaurant? The person wouldn't get shit.

Who's fault was it anyways? The company can only do so much, if people are stupid enough they will find a way to act retarted. It's fairly common sense that you don't feed people your flesh in a restaurant. The employee is at fault in that scenario, but he doesn't have the 50,000,000 bucks.

Oh, and about the cannibalism;
you have to watch the movie 'Ravenous' - its a great movie about eating people to survive and how hard it is. It's one of my favorite freaky wierd movies

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I'm pretty anti-lawsuit (odd for a lawyer, I know), but I disagree. Yeah, no one at Rally's HQ issued a memo saying that food shouldn't be thrown away if body parts drop into it, but someone's gotta be responsible for the behavior of their employees.



Does'nt the doctrine of "respondeat superior," "let the master answer," apply here through the law of "Agency"? Vicarious liability is imputed to the employer for the actions of it's employees, unless it is an "Intentional Tort", then it is strict liablity.

50 Million was simply his prayer for damages. IF, that's IF a jury awards it, it will certainly be reduced by the Judge would'nt you think? Some states had tort reform laws to cap punitive damage awards.

Maybe his gravaman/cause of action (or one of them) against the company was "retention of a negligent employee".

Rick

Originally posted by Rick
Does'nt the doctrine of "respondeat superior," "let the master answer," apply here through the law of "Agency"? Vicarious liability is imputed to the employer for the actions of it's employees, unless it is an "Intentional Tort", then it is strict liablity.

50 Million was simply his prayer for damages. IF, that's IF a jury awards it, it will certainly be reduced by the Judge would'nt you think? Some states had tort reform laws to cap punitive damage awards.

Maybe his gravaman/cause of action (or one of them) against the company was "retention of a negligent employee".

Rick

Someone buy you a law dictionary Rick? :) Yes, respondeat superior clearly applies here. I doubt he could possibly get $50 million, but I still think the guy's lawyer is guilty of having dollar signs in his eyes. I can't conceive of any justification for such a sum.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Someone buy you a law dictionary Rick? :) Yes, respondeat superior clearly applies here. I doubt he could possibly get $50 million, but I still think the guy's lawyer is guilty of having dollar signs in his eyes. I can't conceive of any justification for such a sum.


I bought it myself. ;) I thumb through it now and then.