10 cell phones 5 laptops 6 tabletsipads 3 desktops 1 XBone 11 PS 4 and fucking partridge and a peartree Go fuck yourselfs , COMCAST ! <| sep |> Wanting to fix negligence or ensure fairness in the law for injured parties isn ' t much of a political issue . There is no reasonable disagreement 2081 contextfsspapers regarding strict products liability , or in how Justice Traynor wanted the California Supreme Court to bypass the legislature and declare its existence as a matter of law ? My mind isn ' t made up on strict products liability . I can see the justification for it , but the benefit to injured consumers doesn ' t come without costs hidden costs , because we can ' t see the effects of reduced competition that result from a higher cost of doing business one of these effects could be reduced innovation and the preventiondelay of a safer alternative product coming to market . I don ' t fault you for preferring strict liability . What really concerns me is this increasingly prevalent attitude that different viewpointsopinionsbeliefs are illegitimate . What you implicitly wrote was this But it ' s also to a degree the nature of the agenda . Wanting to fix negligence or ensure fairness in the law for injured parties ~~ isn ' t much of a political issue ~~ doesn ' t have legitimate opposition . It ' s exactly the sort of thing courts should ~~ have an agenda about conceptually ~~, in my opinion , value over competing concerns . We can ' t just dismiss different viewpoints that weigh various values differently as belonging to the bad guys . It ' s a very hubristic and dismissive way of evaluating ideas . Being dismissive of viewpoints that disagree with how we believe things should be is antiintellectual . We have to thoughtfully consider those competing viewpoints before resting assured that our opinions are adequately informed .