M here:
I must confess a pet peeve. I hate it when people insist on being an expert (guilty party, right here) when they are CLEARLY wrong. (did I mention I'm guilty?)
I've been involved in arguments about many things and end up being correct on rare occasions. Tonight an old argument came to mind and I actually got off my duff and investigated the truth.
I blame a Seinfeld episode for the overwhelming misunderstanding in the meaning of the "Good Samaritan Law" but D insists Seinfeld's not to blame. (I'll let that one go) In this argument once upon a time, I insisted that the law is meant to protect (from lawsuits) bystanders providing aid to someone and my tenacious opponent insisted that the law required bystanders to provide aid after an accident/injury. As the expert of the entire world, I knew I was correct, but gave up in the face of a stubborn adversary, which I need to stop doing if I'm going to go into government soon! Anyway, here's the explanation for anyone interested in my hangups! (and I even learned more about it while proving my point)
I was actually correct in my interpretation of the law (in our country, anyway). Holy shit! I just had to share a teeny victory with anyone who's read this far into my whining.
So the next time you're arguing some obscure law with someone, stand your ground. You might just be right!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I always thought it meant a bystander had to help, because of that one scene in Eye of the Beholder...something about it being against the law to witness an accident and leave the scene.
Although, I might be right, because they might have been in another country at that point. But I could have sworn they were in, like, Chicago.
Blast. Now I'm gonna have to watch it again.
See, that's just from being part of the Texas education system and being able to get the laws in line with the Bible.....
Post a Comment