The whole point of the discussion was that arbitration clauses should be illegal, since they prevent you from suing.
Points were made, that it’s still a good thing for tattoo artists and doctors. Your earlier comment seemed to dispute this at first, but then pivoted to funds for damages (that exist and you can get without legal action.
You were then told that’s besides the point of the discussion, since it was exactly about suing.
It is not besides the point because there exists an alternative to the whole ordeal of arbitration clauses and suing. That is what I pointed out.
We all joke about how americans sue for the most stupid shit, but (besides different mindsets following from the same reason) you do it because your system allows for it and provides no alternative course of action.
The original comment says that these clauses should be made illegal, to which the comment I responded to objects. Objecting to change based on arguments that are only valid within the paradigm that exists before said change is nothing but a logical fallacy.
It is demonstrably false that the change has to entail the problems conjectured by the comment I responded to. Thus the counter argument is shown to be both reductionist and wrong.
The whole point of the discussion was that arbitration clauses should be illegal, since they prevent you from suing.
Points were made, that it’s still a good thing for tattoo artists and doctors. Your earlier comment seemed to dispute this at first, but then pivoted to funds for damages (that exist and you can get without legal action.
You were then told that’s besides the point of the discussion, since it was exactly about suing.
It is not besides the point because there exists an alternative to the whole ordeal of arbitration clauses and suing. That is what I pointed out.
We all joke about how americans sue for the most stupid shit, but (besides different mindsets following from the same reason) you do it because your system allows for it and provides no alternative course of action.
Well it wasn’t demonstratably false in any case, as it’s the only course of action in some places.
In a perfect world these arbitration clauses wouldn’t exist, and luckily they aren’t enforceable in many countries.
The original comment says that these clauses should be made illegal, to which the comment I responded to objects. Objecting to change based on arguments that are only valid within the paradigm that exists before said change is nothing but a logical fallacy.
It is demonstrably false that the change has to entail the problems conjectured by the comment I responded to. Thus the counter argument is shown to be both reductionist and wrong.