Well, for one, I don't go around throwing out labels and making armchair analysis of mental stability at strangers on an internet chat forum. Second, I try to engage a person I am speaking to based on the points they are discussing, rather than just hand-waving anything they say with condescending puerility. That way,…

So, semantics then? And who parses the definition of what is and isn't "prudent"? The individual? Or the lawmakers and attorneys that get paid for parsing definitions?

1) And who makes the law? Attorneys and politicians.

Do you also wear bullet-proof clothing in case slugs from a rifle tear through your house while you're on the toilet? Because they could. Do you live in a bomb shelter in case a nuke is dropped, because it could. These things exist and are available, so why aren't you using them?

Then why should he be "expected" to wear a seatbelt in the back of a limo if he's under no legal responsibility to do so? Why wasn't he wearing a body-cage protection unit, then? He's under no legal responsibility to do so there either. But wouldn't it be "prudent" to protect himself from Sigourney Weaver's ALIEN…

Why do I have to have a "basic understanding" of how a corrupted system works, when all I have to do is rely on a "basic understanding" of human empathy and morality? As far as cause-and-effect, see also: Basic Physics.

1) So because it's "common" means it's okay? Gotcha. Kind of like murder and rape.

As well he or anyone else should. That's what humans with a conscience do. If you cause the action, then you are the cause. And thanks for trying to belittle my point with the opening personal shot. Your powers of assumption when faced with a contradicting point will get you far…

So some have said. And while I can respect someone's personal enjoyment of a show, I haven't seen any evidence that either is any different than the other. Maybe that's just me, though.

Except is he legal responsible for wearing a seatbelt in the back of a limo bus in New York? If not, then there goes the whole argument. If so, then it's up to the attorneys to prove it would have had the effect they claim. Otherwise, it's an accurate analogy.

And yet, "the world is a bad place" neither justifies their lack of human ethics and compassion for something that is entirely their fault, or excuses legal trickery in pursuit of inherent greed. Qualifying it under "shit happens" is just another notch in moral complacency. That's how the world's shit-depth got here…

Tina Fey summed it up in an interview one time: "If people don't realize that his [Tracy Morgan's] entire persona, stand-up, delivery, and comedy is choice…an act that he consciously creates….then his talent should literally be speaking for itself. You don't realize there's a intelligent comedian behind that curtain?…

I love how you can't actually address the fact what you offered is incorrect, paranoid, distracting nonsense, and simply repeated the constant "I hope you never get sued" line the ambulance chasers here are striving to scare-tactic people with in multiple comments. Good job. You'll be great in court.

Yes, because every act, inaction, accident, and premeditation is judged on the same playing field. Of course, because El Marinero is the same as Wal-Mart. Because corporations "are people" that have no responsibility to be "people" or to actual individual people. Right.

So Tracy Morgan has the power to take every single asset Wal-Mart has? Otherwise, that comparison is just hyperbole to justify a lack of actual human ethics.

Just as it is others who nitpick and parse every sentence and word in an attempt to excuse culpability. In other words, modern American law.

Yeah, don't you hate it when people are able to express their opinion in an opinionated comment section? Personally, my favorite is when random people strive to find offense in simple sentences designed to convey a specific POV. You're really good…

That's what happens when you have Focus Groups pandering to try and please everyone of every age group, while offending no one of any age group, in hopes of spinning off every possible marketing idea from toys to Disneyland rides to appearances at Comi-Con to bath salts. Corporate Machine 101.

Not when Ming-Na is there to fill her stereotype by doing very limited Patrick Swayze roundhouses into people cuz she's a "ninja"! Don't you watch 1980's television?!

Is Drew Barrymore producing?