Sliced a ball into an expensive window. Did I do the right thing?

[DeadMan]

I'm sorry, you're grading my morals?

:-$ No, sorry, I was grading your answer to my hypothetical.

[David in FL]

True. Just other examples of people who blame the victim, rather than the person actually responsible for the harm though. They scare me because I have no idea where they draw the line for personal accountability. Or if some of them even have a line.

[krupa]

No, sorry, I was grading your answer to my hypothetical.

What's the difference?  Or was it just the misunderstanding regarding the legal aspect?

[DeadMan]

What's the difference?  Or was it just the misunderstanding regarding the legal aspect?

Yeah, you tried to change the facts, so you get an F. It was all in good fun, don't worry.

[turtleback]

True. Just other examples of people who blame the victim, rather than the person actually responsible for the harm though. They scare me because I have no idea where they draw the line for personal accountability. Or if some of them even have a line.

I think you missed the gist.  It is the examples that are ridiculous.  And every attempt to try to draw a line is met with your moralizing.

[David in FL]

I think you missed the gist.  It is the examples that are ridiculous.  And every attempt to try to draw a line is met with your moralizing.

Moralizing? If it's moralizing to express my opinion that someone should accept responsibility for the harm that they cause others, whether intentional or not, than I guess so. Especially since that's the question posed by the OP. As to the line, I'd welcome anyone to explain how much harm, if any, they feel that they need to cause someone else before they'd accept responsibility for doing so. Where is that line?

[Lihu]

True. Just other examples of people who blame the victim, rather than the person actually responsible for the harm though. They scare me because I have no idea where they draw the line for personal accountability. Or if some of them even have a line.

There are some other countries and societies that do not respect individual freedoms as much. The fundamental issue is that most people do no respect each other, if there were mutual respect of all people's possessions (including their own persons) then we wouldn't need such a complicated legal system. I've told my kids numerous times that if people were naturally kind and courteous, we would not need this many laws. I always tell them that many issues stem from our basic "human nature", and that we need to keep ourselves in check regardless of whether we conform to any particular legal system. We also need to keep a constant vigil over our personal freedoms for people who would take them away (presumably ones who do not keep their "human nature" in check).

The people who are proponents of "houses being close to the golf course, so they understand the risks" are also correct, in the sense that if you live in a dangerous area known for certain crimes you should live appropriate to the situation. For instance, if the area is know as the car theft capital of North America, you should make sure you park in a decently protected space.

It seems like we all agree on the basic premise that we are responsible for our own actions. The only issue is if the people living near golf courses understand the risks and should act accordingly.

[atxpkrgolf]

Let's stop this stupid logic once and for all. The difference is the person who rapes/assualts the woman did it [b]intentionally[/b]. In this situation, the golfer didn't intend to hit the house. I think this line of reasoning is insulting, as well. Use something else before my head explodes.

+1. . In a time where stupid analogous remarks roam the internet, this one took the proverbial cake :~(

[Golfingdad]

Huh?

No one from the "accept personal responsibility" side of the argument has agreed, or even discussed whether the homeowner should demand anything of the golfer.  Only a couple of you have gone down that particular path of misdirection.

What do you mean, "huh?"  You said "I don't think that there's a single instance in this entire thread where anyone has talked about what the homeowner should or should not " expect "."

"Anyone" and "expect" is what I see there.  Not anyone from the "accept personal responsibility side" and "demand."  When did those come into play??

Moralizing?

If it's moralizing to express my opinion that someone should accept responsibility for the harm that they cause others, whether intentional or not, than I guess so. Especially since that's the question posed by the OP.

As to the line, I'd welcome anyone to explain how much harm, if any, they feel that they need to cause someone else before they'd accept responsibility for doing so. Where is that line?

He's absolutely right.  I've said this to you already.  Your repeated "different set of personal values" type of comments come across - no matter how you think you're intending them - as very condescending and rude.  "My way is so high and mighty that anybody else and their 'different' ways is wrong and beneath me and I pray that we never meet each other."  Oh, please.

[David in FL]

There are some other countries and societies that do not respect individual freedoms as much. The fundamental issue is that most people do no respect each other, if there were mutual respect of all people's possessions (including their own persons) then we wouldn't need such a complicated legal system. I've told my kids numerous times that if people were naturally kind and courteous, we would not need this many laws. I always tell them that many issues stem from our basic "human nature", and that we need to keep ourselves in check regardless of whether we conform to any particular legal system. We also need to keep a constant vigil over our personal freedoms for people who would take them away (presumably ones who do not keep their "human nature" in check). The people who are proponents of "houses being close to the golf course, so they understand the risks" are also correct, in the sense that if you live in a dangerous area known for certain crimes you should live appropriate to the situation. For instance, if the area is know as the car theft capital of North America, you should make sure you park in a decently protected space. It seems like we all agree on the basic premise that we are responsible for our own actions. The only issue is if the people living near golf courses understand the risks and should act accordingly.

Not at all. We have several on here that are very clear in their belief that they are not responsible for the results of their actions. Even though the prudent car owner you reference might have been able to prevent the theft of his car by installing an alarm system, the fact that he didn't, does not mitigate the thief's responsibility for his crime in the least.

[jlh1508]

I'd apologize for the inconvenience of them having to fix their window.  I just would not disingenuously offer to pay for it expecting them to say no thank you.

I find it hard to believe you guys don't see a difference between this situation and these ridiculously dissimilar situations you keep comparing them too.  If I hit someone's car in a parking lot and it causes any visible damage at all, I'm leaving a note.  I'd be pissed if someone else did it to me and didn't.  But, if my car is dinged or a window broken by a golf ball at my home course when I chose to park where I know there's a non-zero chance a ball could get duck hooked into my car?  I'm not expecting a note.  That's 100% my fault for not wanting to walk farther in order to park somewhere I know there's no chance of being hit by a golf ball.

Hope the view is nice from your high horse.  My idea of personal integrity and responsibility is expecting others to take the responsibility that I would were I in their situation.  If I were to buy a house next to a fairway, I would expect either some homeowners' assoc deal with the course/insurance company where they pay for damage, or it's 100% my responsibility to protect my house and pay for damage.  The golfers are just playing the course.  It's not their fault that a home was built really close to the hole.  That the golfers are responsible for my buying a home super close to the course just seems a laughable idea of responsibility or integrity to me.  In fact it seems exactly backwards.  The owner expecting an offer of financial restitution seems entitled and selfish.  And it also seems laughable to think this situation has any similarity at all to hitting someone/thing with your car or damaging your neighbor's property or the like.

So I am responsible for where my car goes and what it does, but not for where my golf ball goes and what it does?

If being close to a golf course makes me responsible for protecting my home with nets or something else, then why is it not my responsibility to protect my car in a parking lot?

Something here doesn't add up. Why in one case am I responsible and not in the other?  The reality is the golfer hit his/her golf ball, therefore they are responsible for where his/her golf ball goes.In the same as a driver I am responsible for my car, as a dog owner I am responsible for my dog, as a gun owner I am responsible for my gun

I asked it earlier in the thread but it went ignored

If I live by a dog park and someone breaks my window throwing a ball for the dog while playing fetch,  is it my fault for living by a dog park?

[jlh1508]

@Pretzel is not the OP.  And enough with the righteous indignation.  We get it.  Golfers need to be responsible regardless of their age or wealth, but homeowners don't need to be responsible regardless of their ago or wealth.  Cool.

I can build my house in the line of fire and put up no nets, or use no plexiglass on the windows, facing the tee and basically dare every person that comes through to break it and then expect them to pay for that.  How is that not irresponsible????

What does the homeowner have to be responsible for? They did not break the window.  The homeowner is not responsible for your golf ball and where it goes. You are playing a golf course which means you are to be on the course, if you can't keep your ball within the bounds of the course that is not a homeowners responsibility, it is yours and yours alone

[jlh1508]

And I'm glad you realize that it should be the homeowner's financial responsibility to either protect the windows of the house they bought in the rough or pay for replacing them on occasion.  I just disagree with what I see as a silly, ritualistic idea of courtesy where the "right" thing to do is disingenuously offer to pay for replacing the window when I believe that it is in fact the homeowner who's totally responsible in this case and I wouldn't in fact pay for it.  If the homeowner's there they would presumably come outside to see what happened, and I'd surely apologize.  But I wouldn't offer to pay to replace the window cause I don't think it's my responsibility in this case.

This seems an obvious special case to me.  If you buy a house RIGHT NEXT to a hole on a golf course, it is YOUR responsibility to protect the house.  Nets, screens, unbreakable windows, whatever.  It just seems obviously totally different to me than my kid breaking my neighbor's window.  Th

Why is it different? I bought a house next to your kids, just like someone else bought a house by a golf course. Why does the one at the golf course have to assume risk, but the one with a house by kids doesn't?  Is there not an assumed risk that a kid might act like a kid

[MSchott]

Why is it different? I bought a house next to your kids, just like someone else bought a house by a golf course. Why does the one at the golf course have to assume risk, but the one with a house by kids doesn't?  Is there not an assumed risk that a kid might act like a kid

Both houses are insured but the risk is far greater for the house on the golf course. That's why it's different.

[mvmac]

Let's keep the morality comparisons/ratings to a minimum please. The topic of the thread is basically what should the OP have done and I get that it can be tied to morals but I don't want this thread sliding into a morals debate, thanks.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

I think you missed the gist.  It is the examples that are ridiculous.  And every attempt to try to draw a line is met with your moralizing.

Moralizing?

If it's moralizing to express my opinion that someone should accept responsibility for the harm that they cause others, whether intentional or not, than I guess so. Especially since that's the question posed by the OP.

As to the line, I'd welcome anyone to explain how much harm, if any, they feel that they need to cause someone else before they'd accept responsibility for doing so. Where is that line?

When others put themselves in harm's way, they need to accept the responsibility for the consequences of such a decision.

[David in FL]

Remember that the next time someone hits into you on the golf course. It's your fault. You shouldn't have been there in the first place. Ok, I'm done with this thread. It simply saddens me too much. :-(

[Golfingdad]

Remember that the next time someone hits into you on the golf course. It's your fault. You shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Absolutely.  That's common sense.  You saying that if I get hit by a golf ball on a golf course I should sue the guy who hit it???  That sounds exactly like personal responsibility to me.