|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 08 2017 05:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. That's the argument for 1 and 3. You might as well say "pepperoni is really tasty" as your argument for the benefits of a mandatory pepperoni clause.
Quit being so dense. You asked me what the benefit to the consumer was. I told you what it was. Whether the consumer is smart enough to want it is irrelevant.
|
On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved.
You want to protect people from making bad choices in this case?
But are against every other case of protecting people from making bad choices, because that's often the argument used by Democrats for government intervention.
You are literally making the argument for Big Government, except you don't like the government so only businesses get to go Big Business and impose their will upon the people to protect them from themselves.
The hilarious part is that everyone but you sees your doing this, that's why we're so amazed at what your saying.
On August 08 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 05:10 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. That's the argument for 1 and 3. You might as well say "pepperoni is really tasty" as your argument for the benefits of a mandatory pepperoni clause. Quit being so dense. You asked me what the benefit to the consumer was. I told you what it was. Whether the consumer is smart enough to want it is irrelevant.
Word for word the argument for big government regulating peoples lives...
|
United States41989 Posts
Assuming a zero sum game in which the legal advantages of one party can be seen as the legal detriments of another party, why exactly do you think that the corporations are so eager to enforce what you are insisting is a legal advantage upon their consumers? Are they stupid? If so, how has another smarter business not taken their place?
|
On August 08 2017 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. You want to protect people from making bad choices in this case? But are against every other case of protecting people from making bad choices, because that's often the argument used by Democrats for government intervention. You are literally making the argument for Big Government, except you don't like the government so only businesses get to go Big Business and impose their will upon the people to protect them from themselves. The hilarious part is that everyone but you sees your doing this, that's why we're so amazed at what your saying. Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:10 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. That's the argument for 1 and 3. You might as well say "pepperoni is really tasty" as your argument for the benefits of a mandatory pepperoni clause. Quit being so dense. You asked me what the benefit to the consumer was. I told you what it was. Whether the consumer is smart enough to want it is irrelevant. Word for word the argument for big government regulating peoples lives...
No, I'm not arguing for protecting people from making bad choices. I'm not arguing to compel anyone to do anything. The mere fact that you think I am shows that you are clueless as to what arbitration is and how it works.
|
On August 08 2017 05:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. You want to protect people from making bad choices in this case? But are against every other case of protecting people from making bad choices, because that's often the argument used by Democrats for government intervention. You are literally making the argument for Big Government, except you don't like the government so only businesses get to go Big Business and impose their will upon the people to protect them from themselves. The hilarious part is that everyone but you sees your doing this, that's why we're so amazed at what your saying. On August 08 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:10 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. That's the argument for 1 and 3. You might as well say "pepperoni is really tasty" as your argument for the benefits of a mandatory pepperoni clause. Quit being so dense. You asked me what the benefit to the consumer was. I told you what it was. Whether the consumer is smart enough to want it is irrelevant. Word for word the argument for big government regulating peoples lives... No, I'm not arguing for protecting people from making bad choices. I'm not arguing to compel anyone to do anything. The mere fact that you think I am shows that you are clueless as to what arbitration is and how it works.
Are you saying there has never been a case in history where going to arbitration was not the correct move?
EDIT: I am also confused, isn't it the conservative policy to allow people to make their own choices even if it might not be the best one? When did republicans start going the government should force you into the right call?
|
On August 08 2017 05:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. You want to protect people from making bad choices in this case? But are against every other case of protecting people from making bad choices, because that's often the argument used by Democrats for government intervention. You are literally making the argument for Big Government, except you don't like the government so only businesses get to go Big Business and impose their will upon the people to protect them from themselves. The hilarious part is that everyone but you sees your doing this, that's why we're so amazed at what your saying. On August 08 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:10 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. That's the argument for 1 and 3. You might as well say "pepperoni is really tasty" as your argument for the benefits of a mandatory pepperoni clause. Quit being so dense. You asked me what the benefit to the consumer was. I told you what it was. Whether the consumer is smart enough to want it is irrelevant. Word for word the argument for big government regulating peoples lives... No, I'm not arguing for protecting people from making bad choices. I'm not arguing to compel anyone to do anything. The mere fact that you think I am shows that you are clueless as to what arbitration is and how it works.
You are saying protecting people from bad choices is a good thing corporations should do. I find that especially funny because purchasing most consumer goods is a bad choice companies spend billions on encouraging/manipulating people to do.
|
On August 08 2017 05:19 KwarK wrote:
Assuming a zero sum game in which the legal advantages of one party can be seen as the legal detriments of another party, why exactly do you think that the corporations are so eager to enforce what you are insisting is a legal advantage upon their consumers? Are they stupid? If so, how has another smarter business not taken their place?
It's not really a zero sum game. The advantages and disadvantages that come with arbitration agreements aren't strictly binary or even symmetric in application. Different parties have different considerations. Hell, different types of claims have different considerations. The one big exception is the class action protection, and that's the primary reason why corporations include arbitration clauses into their consumer contracts.
|
On August 08 2017 05:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. You want to protect people from making bad choices in this case? But are against every other case of protecting people from making bad choices, because that's often the argument used by Democrats for government intervention. You are literally making the argument for Big Government, except you don't like the government so only businesses get to go Big Business and impose their will upon the people to protect them from themselves. The hilarious part is that everyone but you sees your doing this, that's why we're so amazed at what your saying. On August 08 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:10 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. That's the argument for 1 and 3. You might as well say "pepperoni is really tasty" as your argument for the benefits of a mandatory pepperoni clause. Quit being so dense. You asked me what the benefit to the consumer was. I told you what it was. Whether the consumer is smart enough to want it is irrelevant. Word for word the argument for big government regulating peoples lives... No, I'm not arguing for protecting people from making bad choices. I'm not arguing to compel anyone to do anything. The mere fact that you think I am shows that you are clueless as to what arbitration is and how it works.
And here we go with the xDaunt argument style. "I was totally not talking about the thing I was talking about, I was talking about this other thing".
This entire argument is about forced arbitration, which is about people being compelled to do a thing.
On August 08 2017 03:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 02:53 TheYango wrote:
My understanding of xDaunt's point thus far is that "arbitration as an option" leads to arbitration being underutilized in practice due to the inherent conflict of interest for a plaintiff's trial lawyers (since they make more $$$ if the case goes to trial). Forced arbitration is therefore a net gain via removing the option for bad faith-decisions made by trial lawyers for their own personal gain.
I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject in question to assess the truthfulness of the claims made, but from an outside perspective, forced arbitration doesn't seem like solution to this problem. But it is *a* solution. My argument is that forced arbitration is not necessarily a bad thing, and for most claimants, it is likely a better way of resolving their claims. Thus, most criticisms of these types of clauses are misplaced.And just to clarify a tangential point: Plaintiffs trial attorneys actually make more money (on a recovery versus time spent basis) when they settle their claims without resorting to litigation. And if they do file suit, they generally make more money settling before trial. This is a function of the cost curve of litigation and the fact that plaintiff's attorney almost always work on a contingency fee (they're paid a percentage of a recovery as opposed to an hourly rate).
|
On August 08 2017 05:21 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 05:19 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. You want to protect people from making bad choices in this case? But are against every other case of protecting people from making bad choices, because that's often the argument used by Democrats for government intervention. You are literally making the argument for Big Government, except you don't like the government so only businesses get to go Big Business and impose their will upon the people to protect them from themselves. The hilarious part is that everyone but you sees your doing this, that's why we're so amazed at what your saying. On August 08 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:10 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. That's the argument for 1 and 3. You might as well say "pepperoni is really tasty" as your argument for the benefits of a mandatory pepperoni clause. Quit being so dense. You asked me what the benefit to the consumer was. I told you what it was. Whether the consumer is smart enough to want it is irrelevant. Word for word the argument for big government regulating peoples lives... No, I'm not arguing for protecting people from making bad choices. I'm not arguing to compel anyone to do anything. The mere fact that you think I am shows that you are clueless as to what arbitration is and how it works. Are you saying there has never been a case in history where going to arbitration was not the correct move? EDIT: I am also confused, isn't it the conservative policy to allow people to make their own choices even if it might not be the best one? When did republicans start going the government should force you into the right call?
When it protects big business from people suing them.
|
On August 08 2017 05:21 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 05:19 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. You want to protect people from making bad choices in this case? But are against every other case of protecting people from making bad choices, because that's often the argument used by Democrats for government intervention. You are literally making the argument for Big Government, except you don't like the government so only businesses get to go Big Business and impose their will upon the people to protect them from themselves. The hilarious part is that everyone but you sees your doing this, that's why we're so amazed at what your saying. On August 08 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:10 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. That's the argument for 1 and 3. You might as well say "pepperoni is really tasty" as your argument for the benefits of a mandatory pepperoni clause. Quit being so dense. You asked me what the benefit to the consumer was. I told you what it was. Whether the consumer is smart enough to want it is irrelevant. Word for word the argument for big government regulating peoples lives... No, I'm not arguing for protecting people from making bad choices. I'm not arguing to compel anyone to do anything. The mere fact that you think I am shows that you are clueless as to what arbitration is and how it works. Are you saying there has never been a case in history where going to arbitration was not the correct move? EDIT: I am also confused, isn't it the conservative policy to allow people to make their own choices even if it might not be the best one? When did republicans start going the government should force you into the right call?
I'm not arguing for the government to force anything. The mere fact that you're asking the bolded question above should be your big clue.
|
On August 08 2017 05:21 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 05:19 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. You want to protect people from making bad choices in this case? But are against every other case of protecting people from making bad choices, because that's often the argument used by Democrats for government intervention. You are literally making the argument for Big Government, except you don't like the government so only businesses get to go Big Business and impose their will upon the people to protect them from themselves. The hilarious part is that everyone but you sees your doing this, that's why we're so amazed at what your saying. On August 08 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:10 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. That's the argument for 1 and 3. You might as well say "pepperoni is really tasty" as your argument for the benefits of a mandatory pepperoni clause. Quit being so dense. You asked me what the benefit to the consumer was. I told you what it was. Whether the consumer is smart enough to want it is irrelevant. Word for word the argument for big government regulating peoples lives... No, I'm not arguing for protecting people from making bad choices. I'm not arguing to compel anyone to do anything. The mere fact that you think I am shows that you are clueless as to what arbitration is and how it works. Are you saying there has never been a case in history where going to arbitration was not the correct move? EDIT: I am also confused, isn't it the conservative policy to allow people to make their own choices even if it might not be the best one? When did republicans start going the government should force you into the right call?
Keep in mind that the consumer has the ability to walk away from/boycott any nursing homes that would actually employ the use of the mandatory arbitration clause should they deem it necessary. Like xDaunt said earlier the governemnt isn't forcing anyone to do anything. they are removing a limitation/regulation on a particular business, which whether you like it or not is totally a conservative thing to do.
|
On August 08 2017 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 05:19 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. You want to protect people from making bad choices in this case? But are against every other case of protecting people from making bad choices, because that's often the argument used by Democrats for government intervention. You are literally making the argument for Big Government, except you don't like the government so only businesses get to go Big Business and impose their will upon the people to protect them from themselves. The hilarious part is that everyone but you sees your doing this, that's why we're so amazed at what your saying. On August 08 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:10 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. That's the argument for 1 and 3. You might as well say "pepperoni is really tasty" as your argument for the benefits of a mandatory pepperoni clause. Quit being so dense. You asked me what the benefit to the consumer was. I told you what it was. Whether the consumer is smart enough to want it is irrelevant. Word for word the argument for big government regulating peoples lives... No, I'm not arguing for protecting people from making bad choices. I'm not arguing to compel anyone to do anything. The mere fact that you think I am shows that you are clueless as to what arbitration is and how it works. And here we go with the xDaunt argument style. "I was totally not talking about the thing I was talking about, I was talking about this other thing". This entire argument is about forced arbitration, which is about people being compelled to do a thing. Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 02:53 TheYango wrote:
My understanding of xDaunt's point thus far is that "arbitration as an option" leads to arbitration being underutilized in practice due to the inherent conflict of interest for a plaintiff's trial lawyers (since they make more $$$ if the case goes to trial). Forced arbitration is therefore a net gain via removing the option for bad faith-decisions made by trial lawyers for their own personal gain.
I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject in question to assess the truthfulness of the claims made, but from an outside perspective, forced arbitration doesn't seem like solution to this problem. But it is *a* solution. My argument is that forced arbitration is not necessarily a bad thing, and for most claimants, it is likely a better way of resolving their claims. Thus, most criticisms of these types of clauses are misplaced.And just to clarify a tangential point: Plaintiffs trial attorneys actually make more money (on a recovery versus time spent basis) when they settle their claims without resorting to litigation. And if they do file suit, they generally make more money settling before trial. This is a function of the cost curve of litigation and the fact that plaintiff's attorney almost always work on a contingency fee (they're paid a percentage of a recovery as opposed to an hourly rate).
Jesus fucking Christ. Good look up what arbitration is and how it works. Here's a big hint: the government has nothing to do with it.
|
On August 08 2017 05:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 05:21 IyMoon wrote:On August 08 2017 05:19 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. You want to protect people from making bad choices in this case? But are against every other case of protecting people from making bad choices, because that's often the argument used by Democrats for government intervention. You are literally making the argument for Big Government, except you don't like the government so only businesses get to go Big Business and impose their will upon the people to protect them from themselves. The hilarious part is that everyone but you sees your doing this, that's why we're so amazed at what your saying. On August 08 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:10 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. That's the argument for 1 and 3. You might as well say "pepperoni is really tasty" as your argument for the benefits of a mandatory pepperoni clause. Quit being so dense. You asked me what the benefit to the consumer was. I told you what it was. Whether the consumer is smart enough to want it is irrelevant. Word for word the argument for big government regulating peoples lives... No, I'm not arguing for protecting people from making bad choices. I'm not arguing to compel anyone to do anything. The mere fact that you think I am shows that you are clueless as to what arbitration is and how it works. Are you saying there has never been a case in history where going to arbitration was not the correct move? EDIT: I am also confused, isn't it the conservative policy to allow people to make their own choices even if it might not be the best one? When did republicans start going the government should force you into the right call? I'm not arguing for the government to force anything. The mere fact that you're asking the bolded question above should be your big clue.
Could you answer the first part as well?
If its a law that means you can force arbitration then the government is forcing you. You can try to say its just one of the two parties but we know that is not how real life works.
|
On August 08 2017 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 05:19 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. You want to protect people from making bad choices in this case? But are against every other case of protecting people from making bad choices, because that's often the argument used by Democrats for government intervention. You are literally making the argument for Big Government, except you don't like the government so only businesses get to go Big Business and impose their will upon the people to protect them from themselves. The hilarious part is that everyone but you sees your doing this, that's why we're so amazed at what your saying. On August 08 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:10 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. That's the argument for 1 and 3. You might as well say "pepperoni is really tasty" as your argument for the benefits of a mandatory pepperoni clause. Quit being so dense. You asked me what the benefit to the consumer was. I told you what it was. Whether the consumer is smart enough to want it is irrelevant. Word for word the argument for big government regulating peoples lives... No, I'm not arguing for protecting people from making bad choices. I'm not arguing to compel anyone to do anything. The mere fact that you think I am shows that you are clueless as to what arbitration is and how it works. You are saying protecting people from bad choices is a good thing corporations should do. I find that especially funny because purchasing most consumer goods is a bad choice companies spend billions on encouraging/manipulating people to do.
No, I'm not arguing that, either.
|
On August 08 2017 05:28 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 05:26 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:21 IyMoon wrote:On August 08 2017 05:19 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. You want to protect people from making bad choices in this case? But are against every other case of protecting people from making bad choices, because that's often the argument used by Democrats for government intervention. You are literally making the argument for Big Government, except you don't like the government so only businesses get to go Big Business and impose their will upon the people to protect them from themselves. The hilarious part is that everyone but you sees your doing this, that's why we're so amazed at what your saying. On August 08 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:10 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. That's the argument for 1 and 3. You might as well say "pepperoni is really tasty" as your argument for the benefits of a mandatory pepperoni clause. Quit being so dense. You asked me what the benefit to the consumer was. I told you what it was. Whether the consumer is smart enough to want it is irrelevant. Word for word the argument for big government regulating peoples lives... No, I'm not arguing for protecting people from making bad choices. I'm not arguing to compel anyone to do anything. The mere fact that you think I am shows that you are clueless as to what arbitration is and how it works. Are you saying there has never been a case in history where going to arbitration was not the correct move? EDIT: I am also confused, isn't it the conservative policy to allow people to make their own choices even if it might not be the best one? When did republicans start going the government should force you into the right call? I'm not arguing for the government to force anything. The mere fact that you're asking the bolded question above should be your big clue. Could you answer the first part as well?
What's there to answer about the first part? Bad things happen in arbitration just like bad things happen at jury trials. I've seen both go awry. There are risks with both processes. The one meaningful difference is that arbitration is more final than a jury trial in that you generally don't have appellate rights.
If its a law that means you can force arbitration then the government is forcing you. You can try to say its just one of the two parties but we know that is not how real life works.
Judicial enforcement of contracts is part of the foundation of modern society. You're barking up the wrong tree here.
|
On August 08 2017 05:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 04:59 Adreme wrote:On August 08 2017 03:39 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 03:20 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2017 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 02:53 TheYango wrote:
My understanding of xDaunt's point thus far is that "arbitration as an option" leads to arbitration being underutilized in practice due to the inherent conflict of interest for a plaintiff's trial lawyers (since they make more $$$ if the case goes to trial). Forced arbitration is therefore a net gain via removing the option for bad faith-decisions made by trial lawyers for their own personal gain.
I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject in question to assess the truthfulness of the claims made, but from an outside perspective, forced arbitration doesn't seem like solution to this problem. But it is *a* solution. My argument is that forced arbitration is not necessarily a bad thing, and for most claimants, it is likely a better way of resolving their claims. Thus, most criticisms of these types of clauses are misplaced. I'm still just not getting it. I'm fine with the concept that arbitration is a better way of resolving claims. Where you lose me is why that means it should be forced upon people. Especially coming from a conservative who normally lean towards "I don't need the big government telling me how much lead paint to lick off the walls". Are you going with "most people aren't harmed by stripping away their legal right to a trial so it's not a big deal"? Because otherwise I just don't see the link between "arbitration is often a good choice" and "people shouldn't have the right to go to trial". First, this is not a situation where government is forcing arbitration upon people. This is a situation where the government is removing rules that would prevent nursing homes from inserting arbitration clauses into their resident agreements. The conservative answer (such as it is) to the claimant's concern about giving up the right to a jury trial is that the claimant is free to use a nursing home that does not insert arbitration clauses into their resident agreements. Second, and as I have discussed above, the effect of giving up the right to a jury trial is not really a big deal, and if anything, it is beneficial to most types of claimants. The thing is though is that if its better for the business to have a forced arbitration clause then why would any nursing home not have one and therefore you do not have a choice or if you do its one of the ones that is so expensive that a normal person could not reasonably afford it. My question would be simply when they made this change who was it designed to benefit. It MIGHT benefit people because arbitration is often the correct course for reasons you said but it will no doubt benefit the people running those homes and I am hardpressed to not believe that was the motivation behind the change. Like I already pointed out, many businesses want the arbitration clauses because they want class action protection. And for those few plaintiffs for whom a class action would be beneficial, that sucks. However, the economics of civil litigation are such that most claimants will be better off in arbitration -- particularly an arbitration that dispenses with many of the formalities of court.
Guys... please stop tilting at windmills just because its xDaunt....
He acknowledged that it sucks for particular circumstances, but generally would be a positive thing if only arbitration were allowed due to cost/benefit. Now whether that alone enough to agree with the proposed policy is going to be a personal question and likely one that rests on the details.
|
United States41989 Posts
On August 08 2017 05:27 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 05:21 IyMoon wrote:On August 08 2017 05:19 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. You want to protect people from making bad choices in this case? But are against every other case of protecting people from making bad choices, because that's often the argument used by Democrats for government intervention. You are literally making the argument for Big Government, except you don't like the government so only businesses get to go Big Business and impose their will upon the people to protect them from themselves. The hilarious part is that everyone but you sees your doing this, that's why we're so amazed at what your saying. On August 08 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:10 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. That's the argument for 1 and 3. You might as well say "pepperoni is really tasty" as your argument for the benefits of a mandatory pepperoni clause. Quit being so dense. You asked me what the benefit to the consumer was. I told you what it was. Whether the consumer is smart enough to want it is irrelevant. Word for word the argument for big government regulating peoples lives... No, I'm not arguing for protecting people from making bad choices. I'm not arguing to compel anyone to do anything. The mere fact that you think I am shows that you are clueless as to what arbitration is and how it works. Are you saying there has never been a case in history where going to arbitration was not the correct move? EDIT: I am also confused, isn't it the conservative policy to allow people to make their own choices even if it might not be the best one? When did republicans start going the government should force you into the right call? Keep in mind that the consumer has the ability to walk away from/boycott any nursing homes that would actually employ the use of the mandatory arbitration clause should they deem it necessary. Like xDaunt said earlier the governemnt isn't forcing anyone to do anything. they are removing a limitation/regulation on a particular business, which whether you like it or not is totally a conservative thing to do.
It's not a regulation being removed. You can put all sorts of crazy things in contracts, the problem is when you try and get the government to enforce your contracts and they say they don't care to enforce certain clauses. The issue here is whether the government should allow enforcement of mandatory arbitration clauses. Specifically, when a plaintiff brings a suit against a corporation should the court enforce the mandatory arbitration clause and dismiss the suit out of hand. That has nothing to do with regulation.
And I challenge you to find a national cell phone service without a mandatory arbitration clause. At a certain point you have to stop saying "the consumer can feel free to walk away". That's just not the world we live in. And the silly thing is this battle has already been fought a dozen times and mandatory arbitration clauses have already been dismissed as unenforceable. The banks tried to dismiss class action cases against their abuses during the Great Recession using them, and the government rightfully slapped them down.
|
On August 08 2017 05:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 08 2017 05:19 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. You want to protect people from making bad choices in this case? But are against every other case of protecting people from making bad choices, because that's often the argument used by Democrats for government intervention. You are literally making the argument for Big Government, except you don't like the government so only businesses get to go Big Business and impose their will upon the people to protect them from themselves. The hilarious part is that everyone but you sees your doing this, that's why we're so amazed at what your saying. On August 08 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:10 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. That's the argument for 1 and 3. You might as well say "pepperoni is really tasty" as your argument for the benefits of a mandatory pepperoni clause. Quit being so dense. You asked me what the benefit to the consumer was. I told you what it was. Whether the consumer is smart enough to want it is irrelevant. Word for word the argument for big government regulating peoples lives... No, I'm not arguing for protecting people from making bad choices. I'm not arguing to compel anyone to do anything. The mere fact that you think I am shows that you are clueless as to what arbitration is and how it works. You are saying protecting people from bad choices is a good thing corporations should do. I find that especially funny because purchasing most consumer goods is a bad choice companies spend billions on encouraging/manipulating people to do. No, I'm not arguing that, either.
You most definitely are.
I suppose you may be trying to suggest that you personally are neutral and are simply pointing out it's a net benefit (but you are neutral on whether that benefit is good) for a corporation to protect it's customers from bad decisions, even if that means taking away the customers right to go to court rather than arbitration.
Of course that doesn't make any sense, so I'm confident that you are actually saying that a corporation protecting a customer from making bad decisions is a good thing they should do (as opposed to not doing this thing you think is a net benefit for their customers).
|
On August 08 2017 05:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 05:28 IyMoon wrote:On August 08 2017 05:26 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:21 IyMoon wrote:On August 08 2017 05:19 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. You want to protect people from making bad choices in this case? But are against every other case of protecting people from making bad choices, because that's often the argument used by Democrats for government intervention. You are literally making the argument for Big Government, except you don't like the government so only businesses get to go Big Business and impose their will upon the people to protect them from themselves. The hilarious part is that everyone but you sees your doing this, that's why we're so amazed at what your saying. On August 08 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:10 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. That's the argument for 1 and 3. You might as well say "pepperoni is really tasty" as your argument for the benefits of a mandatory pepperoni clause. Quit being so dense. You asked me what the benefit to the consumer was. I told you what it was. Whether the consumer is smart enough to want it is irrelevant. Word for word the argument for big government regulating peoples lives... No, I'm not arguing for protecting people from making bad choices. I'm not arguing to compel anyone to do anything. The mere fact that you think I am shows that you are clueless as to what arbitration is and how it works. Are you saying there has never been a case in history where going to arbitration was not the correct move? EDIT: I am also confused, isn't it the conservative policy to allow people to make their own choices even if it might not be the best one? When did republicans start going the government should force you into the right call? I'm not arguing for the government to force anything. The mere fact that you're asking the bolded question above should be your big clue. Could you answer the first part as well? What's there to answer about the first part? Bad things happen in arbitration just like bad things happen at jury trials. I've seen both go awry. There are risks with both processes. The one meaningful difference is that arbitration is more final than a jury trial in that you generally don't have appellate rights. Show nested quote +If its a law that means you can force arbitration then the government is forcing you. You can try to say its just one of the two parties but we know that is not how real life works. Judicial enforcement of contracts is part of the foundation of modern society. You're barking up the wrong tree here.
Do you feel that forcing you to honor a contract is the same as forcing you to play by the other sides wishes even if its against your own? When it is not something you agreed to to begin with?
The first part was not really a "as a result way" but more in a hypothetical way. Has there never been a case that on paper was better not to go to arbitration? Because if there has been than doesnt this law limit options?
|
United States41989 Posts
On August 08 2017 05:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2017 05:19 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. You want to protect people from making bad choices in this case? But are against every other case of protecting people from making bad choices, because that's often the argument used by Democrats for government intervention. You are literally making the argument for Big Government, except you don't like the government so only businesses get to go Big Business and impose their will upon the people to protect them from themselves. The hilarious part is that everyone but you sees your doing this, that's why we're so amazed at what your saying. On August 08 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:10 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2017 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:
Okay, I'll try and make this easier for you to understand. Four situations.
1) If someone wanted arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was no mandatory arbitration clause they'd not go to arbitration. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want arbitration and there was a mandatory arbitration clause they'd go to arbitration. That's less fine.
What I am trying to get from you is the benefit of the mandatory arbitration clause to the consumer. To do this you will need to show that 4 is better than 2. And whether arbitration is good doesn't matter. Watch, I'll do the same for pizza.
1) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
2) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was no mandatory pepperoni clause they'd not get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
3) If someone wanted pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's fine.
4) If someone didn't want pepperoni and there was a mandatory pepperoni clause they'd get a pepperoni pizza. That's less fine.
The merits of pepperoni pizza on pizza aren't really the point, as I'm sure you'll now see. I've already made the argument for 4 repeatedly: arbitration is a cheaper alternative to civil litigation that affords better expected results to claimants (ie the little guy) that range from faster and cheaper dispute resolution to access to a remedy at all due to the claim being otherwise uneconomic for lawyers to get involved. That's the argument for 1 and 3. You might as well say "pepperoni is really tasty" as your argument for the benefits of a mandatory pepperoni clause. Quit being so dense. You asked me what the benefit to the consumer was. I told you what it was. Whether the consumer is smart enough to want it is irrelevant. Word for word the argument for big government regulating peoples lives... No, I'm not arguing for protecting people from making bad choices. I'm not arguing to compel anyone to do anything. The mere fact that you think I am shows that you are clueless as to what arbitration is and how it works. And here we go with the xDaunt argument style. "I was totally not talking about the thing I was talking about, I was talking about this other thing". This entire argument is about forced arbitration, which is about people being compelled to do a thing. On August 08 2017 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On August 08 2017 02:53 TheYango wrote:
My understanding of xDaunt's point thus far is that "arbitration as an option" leads to arbitration being underutilized in practice due to the inherent conflict of interest for a plaintiff's trial lawyers (since they make more $$$ if the case goes to trial). Forced arbitration is therefore a net gain via removing the option for bad faith-decisions made by trial lawyers for their own personal gain.
I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject in question to assess the truthfulness of the claims made, but from an outside perspective, forced arbitration doesn't seem like solution to this problem. But it is *a* solution. My argument is that forced arbitration is not necessarily a bad thing, and for most claimants, it is likely a better way of resolving their claims. Thus, most criticisms of these types of clauses are misplaced.And just to clarify a tangential point: Plaintiffs trial attorneys actually make more money (on a recovery versus time spent basis) when they settle their claims without resorting to litigation. And if they do file suit, they generally make more money settling before trial. This is a function of the cost curve of litigation and the fact that plaintiff's attorney almost always work on a contingency fee (they're paid a percentage of a recovery as opposed to an hourly rate). Jesus fucking Christ. Good look up what arbitration is and how it works. Here's a big hint: the government has nothing to do with it.
Let's say you form a class action suit against a corporation. And the corporation moves to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiffs have waived their right to participation in a class action suit. Does the judge hearing that case have something to do with government?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
