DescentBB

We are all familiar by now of the little boy being grabbed by a gator at the Disney resort. What gets me was the only sign that Disney put up was a "Don not swim" sign. Did they not want to put a sign up saying "Danger, Alligators" for fear of tarnishing their safe fantasy land image? Not like this was the first incidence of gators being on their property or that they did not know. So in the end a little boy is dead and the parents are grief stricken. Why? All because Disney tried to be PG and not inform their customers of the very real dangers lurking in the water. Too bad there were no safe rooms for the kid to duck into.

I, for one, am shocked that there wasn't more signage. I don't think it was some sort of PC coverup, so that assertion seems pretty odd. Still, telling folks not to swim, without pointing out the presence of live alligators was legal suicide.

woodchip wrote:All because Disney tried to be PG and not inform their customers of the very real dangers lurking in the water. Too bad there were no safe rooms for the kid to duck into.

WHAT IN GOD'S NAME ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Haha. PC? I can see it. Disney wanted to avoid offending alligators by stereotyping them as dangerous.

I think you're grasping a bit, trying to turn this into some front in the culture war. How about it just being a negligent corporation failing to provide warning of a very real danger existing in their product.

I think it was more than simple negligence, I think it was a deliberate act so customers would think there was no danger in their park.

Naw, I bet it was just plain stupidity and laziness on Disney's part. No one took responsibly when another parent a few years prior to this incident warned park authorities about seeing a gator in that lake, so they had to be a bunch of "It's not my job" idiots. Why would a company as large as Disney open themselves up to unlawful death lawsuits on purpose by allowing a child to be killed by a gator?

Speaking of stupid acts, you've heard about the Star Trek actor Anton Yelchin getting run over and killed by his own vehicle in his own driveway? My question is, even though Chrysler has recalled these Jeep vehicles because of their confusing transmission shifter, called an electronic monostable gear selector, why wasn't some of the blame put on Yelchin for not setting his physical parking brake when he got out of his Jeep? No one in the press has mentioned the lack of use of the parking brake in all their blame casting about Chrysler. How about blaming driver error, confusing shifter or not? Have most drivers now totally forgotten what a stupid parking brake is supposed to be used for, like keeping the car from rolling if it comes out of gear or is not properly put in park? I've seen more people shove a car into park and forget the parking brake, like it's optional or something. I returned a car to a car rental company one time and set the parking brake, which was an electric button for that particular newer car. When the sales person got back into the car to take me home, she sat there confused as to why the car wouldn't move when she put it into reverse. When I pointed out the parking brake, she looked absolutely dumbfounded, like; "Hey, what's that thing for"? Birdbrain. If anyone ever saw how small that little metal park tang is inside an automatic transmission, they'd wonder how it could hold a car on a hill at all.

http://www.ibtimes.com/jeep-grand-chero ... in-2386617

Didn't say simple. I'm not a lawyer, but willful/gross negligence seems like it would be the perfect definition. They knew or should've known there was a danger, but failed to provide warning.

Still not seeing how this is the result of political correctness.

I still think it's the "That's not my job" syndrome.

woodchip wrote:I think it was more than simple negligence, I think it was a deliberate act so customers would think there was no danger in their park.

which would make it not a matter of being PC, or anything close, but an example of why we cannot EVER accept unregulated capitalism.

I see this as more of a general safety issue than a capitalist thing, which would have more to do with economics than safety.

Any kind of safety regulations regarding this kind of thing should have to apply to a public owned park as well as private. You know…just basic good sense general safety regulation

But let’s not stop blaming capitalism for every problem, and suggesting socialism as the cure for all that ails. You know…because…just because...

actually, I agree with your take, Spidey. I was just running with Woody's comment above, and his original assertion.

tunnelcat wrote:

Speaking of stupid acts, you've heard about the Star Trek actor Anton Yelchin getting run over and killed by his own vehicle in his own driveway? My question is, even though Chrysler has recalled these Jeep vehicles because of their confusing transmission shifter, called an electronic monostable gear selector, why wasn't some of the blame put on Yelchin for not setting his physical parking brake when he got out of his Jeep? No one in the press has mentioned the lack of use of the parking brake in all their blame casting about Chrysler. How about blaming driver error, confusing shifter or not? Have most drivers now totally forgotten what a stupid parking brake is supposed to be used for, like keeping the car from rolling if it comes out of gear or is not properly put in park? I've seen more people shove a car into park and forget the parking brake, like it's optional or something. I returned a car to a car rental company one time and set the parking brake, which was an electric button for that particular newer car. When the sales person got back into the car to take me home, she sat there confused as to why the car wouldn't move when she put it into reverse. When I pointed out the parking brake, she looked absolutely dumbfounded, like; "Hey, what's that thing for"? Birdbrain. If anyone ever saw how small that little metal park tang is inside an automatic transmission, they'd wonder how it could hold a car on a hill at all.

http://www.ibtimes.com/jeep-grand-chero ... in-2386617

Well my Dodge Ram PU is a 6 speed manual so if I want to keep it running when I get out I have to set the brake. Interesting note, somewhere I read that manual transmissions will soon be a thing of the past. Not sure how you could own a sports car and not want a manual tranny in it.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:I think it was more than simple negligence, I think it was a deliberate act so customers would think there was no danger in their park.

which would make it not a matter of being PC, or anything close, but an example of why we cannot EVER accept unregulated capitalism.

Well we have a president and head of DOJ that don't want to use the term "Islamic Terrorism". Like Disney, they are trying to hide the dangers facing us. College campii declare themselves "gun free" zones to make everyone feel safe yet we all know the fallacy of that. Like Disney, they too try to create a atmosphere of being a danger free place. Yes the Great God of PC will make you safe, just crawl under this bed, put your thumb in your mouth and be content.

oh geez, what a hilarious stretch......and complete crock of ★■◆●.

Vander wrote:Didn't say simple. I'm not a lawyer, but willful/gross negligence seems like it would be the perfect definition. They knew or should've known there was a danger, but failed to provide warning.

Still not seeing how this is the result of political correctness.

That's because it's a strawman.

Yup slick if you say so then a crock it must be.

And there goes woody again, attacking someone who shines a light on his McTurdburger.

Obama avoiding the words "Islamic Terrorism" is not hiding or denying reality. It's a tactic for dealing with it. It's a narrowing of the target of rhetoric. You may not agree with the logic, but that doesn't mean there isn't logic behind it. The tactic doesn't address all the myriad of problems in the disconnect between Islam and the west, it's not meant to. You don't eat a big steak in one bite. You cut it up into smaller portions. This bite is separating radical extremists from the Islamic population as a whole.

Please note that while I might see the logic in the tactic, I have doubts of it's effectiveness. I think the pushback from the right should've been expected, and the pushback in and of itself minimizes the effectiveness. We're getting sort of a Streisand effect. We aren't all pulling the rope in the same direction, but we rarely do, so why try a tactic that requires it. But worth a shot anyways, I guess.

While I see what you are saying, I think in Obama's case it is more a condition to keep from saying we had a terrorist attack on our soil. I think the wildly ludicrous presentation that the Benghazi attack was due to a video is a extreme example.

As much as I admire the attempt to disconnect terror and Islam, and support it as well…it does show a certain hypocrisy by some who would never show such consideration to other groups.

Personally I prefer "Islamist Terrorism" over Islamic Terrorism because it narrows it down a lot further, without having to be all kinds of PC.

On the issue of using "islamic terrorism" specifically....

It's as if they want that very specific phrase used, to put more weight on something that is no different than any other forms of terrorism. It matters not who is doing it, it's the act that is of importance.

Is "white male terrorism", "FLQ terrorism" or "Irish republican army terrorism" any less damming than "islamic terrorism", even though the motivations are almost identical?