• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

Caterpillar, Inc. and Isreal vs. Palestine?

boiker

Cyburbian
Messages
3,889
Points
26
About a thousand protestors have been in downtown Peoria today protesting Caterpillar's sale of earth moving equipment to Israel. This is steam-headed by the parents of the woman who was run over by a Israeli driven bulldozer in Gaza. They are protesting to demand Caterpillar to stop selling their vehicles to Israel because they are being used as "tools of Israeli terrorism" on the Palestinians.

I feel that Caterpillar holds no responsibility on how the users use their product, just as auto manufacturers are not responsible for drunk driving deaths, and rifle/gun manufacturers are not responsible if they are used in crime.

What are cyburbia's thoughts?
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,549
Points
25
I echo your sentiments. Unless a company knowingly ignored some type of safety concern, they should not be held liable for inappropriate use of their products. If Caterpillar knew of faulty brakes in their machenery and that is why the person was run over then I could see reason for protest, but that is not the case here.

Should Boeing or whoever built the planes used on Sept 11 be held accountable becuase their planes were being used?
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
24
he he,

Weapons of mass destruction. First were going to take down that massive hovel, then the other massive hovel across the street next to the fallafal stand. When we are done, we will have us a mass(ive) parking lot with a fallafel drive through! :-D
 

Gedunker

Moderating
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,438
Points
39
boiker said:
I feel that Caterpillar holds no responsibility on how the users use their product, just as auto manufacturers are not responsible for drunk driving deaths, and rifle/gun manufacturers are not responsible if they are used in crime.
By your line of thinking tobacco companies are not responsible for deaths by smoking/dipping. Where does corporate reponsibility come into the picture? Or is it simply a matter of Caterpillar saying "well, if not us, they'll buy them from Case or Ford or some Euro-dealer, so we might as well profit"?

"Don't underestimate the power of a small group of people to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that has."
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,549
Points
25
Gedunker said:
By your line of thinking tobacco companies are not responsible for deaths by smoking/dipping. Where does corporate reponsibility come into the picture? Or is it simply a matter of Caterpillar saying "well, if not us, they'll buy them from Case or Ford or some Euro-dealer, so we might as well profit"?

"Don't underestimate the power of a small group of people to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that has."

I think that tobacco companies have little or no responsibility for smoking deaths anymore. In the past when they hid the dangers of smoking and dipping they were responsible because the public didn't know that it caused cancer and other ailments. Now that people know the truth about the dangers of tobacco use, if they choose to smoke and they get cancer and die they have nobody to blame but themselves. Nobody is forcing you to smoke.
 

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
cats

A couple differences. Cigarette makers knew that their product was harmful and hid the fact. Of course a bulldozer can be harmful to your health if you get in its way, but that is hard to hide. Maybe a disclaimer on the track warning people not to get into the way is appropriate. Guns are made to kill, or at least intimidate. Alternate uses such as target practice and collecting are minor and secondary to their main reason for being. The same can be said of bow and arrows, clubs etc. Guns are just a lot better at what they are designed for.
 

boiker

Cyburbian
Messages
3,889
Points
26
Repo Man said:
I think that tobacco companies have little or no responsibility for smoking deaths anymore. In the past when they hid the dangers of smoking and dipping they were responsible because the public didn't know that it caused cancer and other ailments. Now that people know the truth about the dangers of tobacco use, if they choose to smoke and they get cancer and die they have nobody to blame but themselves. Nobody is forcing you to smoke.
I'll agree with Repo on this. Cat clearly states operting warnings all over their equipment. Common sense tells you that standing in the way of a 60 ton vehicle is not a good idea, just as common sense tells you that smoking is bad. If you or someone near you misuses the product, your beef is with the operator and not the producer.
 

Gedunker

Moderating
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,438
Points
39
Okay then. Warning labels on all products that might conceivably be dangerous? McDonalds=clogged arteries and obesity.This keyboard I'm typing on right now? Carpal Tunnel risks -- Beware! (But hp is NOT responsible because they labeled it, right?) Hey, those scissors are sharp! Label 'em! Ad infinitum. Ad nauseum.

And in the end who wins? Personal injury lawyers, I'd guess. |-)
 

Wulf9

Member
Messages
923
Points
22
boiker said:
I feel that ....., rifle/gun manufacturers are not responsible if they are used in crime.
Moving far off the original topic. Gun manufacturers are given a special exemption from product liability laws. Guns would be a lot safer (much better safety devices) and there would be fewer accidental gun deaths if manufacturers had to provide reasonable levels of safety. If, in the hypothetical crime, the gun were to accidentally discharge (an unsafe weapon), the gun manufacturer should be responsible.

Second move off topic. Gun owners should be fully responsible for the use of their guns. A manufacturer is the "owner" of the gun until it is legitimately sold. If a manufacturer allows guns to flow into the community without sale to a legitimate buyer (not going to argue about what that means), the manufacturer isstill the "owner" and should be liable for the use of the weapon.
 

Achernar

Cyburbian
Messages
80
Points
4
I can see how they're easily confused, but this is really a separate issue from liability over misuse of a potentially dangerous product.
boiker said:
I feel that Caterpillar holds no responsibility on how the users use their product, just as auto manufacturers are not responsible for drunk driving deaths, and rifle/gun manufacturers are not responsible if they are used in crime.
No legal responsibility, sure. But as far as I can tell, the majority of protestors are not calling for legal action; they're calling for boycott.
 

giff57

Corn Burning Fool
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
5,439
Points
34
Achernar said:
But as far as I can tell, the majority of protestors are not calling for legal action; they're calling for boycott.

Ok, I promise not to by a CAT
 

freewaytincan

Cyburbian
Messages
125
Points
6
Just a tip for everyone out there who just isn't that bright...
DON'T STAND IN FRONT OF A FREAKIN' MOVING BULLDOZER!!!
 
Top