[Kranar]

I interpreted WalterBright's comment as an ignorant way of saying that people today don't take responsibility for their own actions and instead try to find someone rich enough to pin the blame on, especially as a means of enriching themselves.

The statistics do not support that claim.

If you wish to make a more nuanced claim and discuss it, then by all means feel free to do so directly, without speculating about what WalterBright meant. It would be nice to do it on the basis of some kind of evidence though.

[majormajor]

" The US judiciary is far too friendly to personal injury lawsuits." from WalterBright is a quite different claim than simply "people don't take responsibility." It's about who the system pushes responsibility onto, plaintiffs or defendants.

My own position was in my second to last paragraph: the US system sucks regardless of if you think it favors plaintiffs or defendants.

[Kranar]

The original post is literally two sentences and you omit the sentence that is pertinent to my point. I think that alone says all it needs to about the manner by which you are evaluating this topic.

All the best to you.

[majormajor]

You keep saying you'd prefer to engage with a more specific claim about the legal system rather than argue about what WalterBright meant, yet you keep avoiding engaging with that part in favor of debating that meaning!

Rather, you're now narrowing the debate to whether or not their "The prevailing atmosphere" is refering to "The US judiciary" - the subject of the previous sentence - or society at large. Which I read differently than you, but also doesn't matter.

Sooooo if you want to engage with my actual position, do so! What are your thoughts on adversarial legalism? Or if you want to keep playing debate cop instead, have fun, but... why?