Originally Posted by jbarnow
I think that there is a vast difference between a kid running into someone on the slope and a kid driving a car. Kids are allowed to ski not drive.
So you are effectually saying that you are no different than the money grubbing tool?
Apparently in your eyes you can see no difference. Way to stick to your own point of view without any ability to consider another. I'll give it one more try though, with an example that should require zero imagination on your part (I'll do that for you).
1. Kid is cruising down a blue groomer.
2. Old man is stopped at the top of a riser, looking downhill.
3. Kid runs into old man.
4. Old man gets knocked down and breaks his hip
Are you saying that the parents of the kid should not pay? Or do you think since the old man is larger and has more life experience, he should have been able to avoid that?