Maybe not all the time, but nothing in your defense precludes bigotry. Someone might ask, “why are Americans so boorish?” Would “I’ve never been to the US, I was just looking for clarity and enlightenment” be a defense against an accusation that that was a bigoted question? Not really.
I thought somewhere there was reference to someone having an email record of their warning to Google having been received.
Does anything in my question betray bigotry?
It was an earnest question, furthemore I explicitly stated the possible answer being non intersecting sets of people, and the answer to that is ‘It’s almost as if Americans are not monolithic’, as if I hadn’t even considered that.
Also I think ‘why are Americans so boorish?’ is not really very similar to the question I asked. Borderline strawman I think.
Read this again. You’re saying that Americans are hypocrites because we all want A while simultaneously all want B when it should be plainly obvious that the A group (if it actually exists) and the B group are largely two entirely different sets of people. Given that you annoyed or offended a bunch of Americans, maybe you should re-think how you presented your post.
It’s a question. Not an assertion.
And you’re fucking quote-mining me.
I was looking for this place, and used a mapping app which showed it as adjacent to a cafe. When I found it, the place was there, all right, but there was no cafe at all; the place next to it was actually a deli!
Yes, I think your question goes a smidge in the direction of bigotry, but that was not really my point. My point was - your defense of your statement did not logically refute the bigotry claim.
Your response was more along the lines of me telling you, “That shirt you are wearing doesn’t fit” and you responding, “That’s not true - I like the color.” Sure, you may like the color and that may explain why you are wearing an ill-fitting shirt. But your explanation doesn’t address the fact that the shirt is indeed too small.
Likewise, you have offered insight into why you are stereotyping Americans - you’ve never been to the US, you lack understanding of American culture and wish to learn more. That does not preclude your comment from engaging in offensive stereotypes. I personally wouldn’t go so far as to use the term “bigoted,” though I understand where @ASL_v2.0 is coming from.
I honestly have no idea what this means.
Ok, I looked up quote mining and I didn’t do anything of the sort. That’s just delusional. I quoted the relevant paragraph.
You distorted the meaning of what I said by omitting part of the quote that doesn’t fit with the way you framed the intent.
Again with my road:
There’s a sign at the end of my road. Placed there by the county. Reads “Unmaintained private road to County Rd XX”
We maintain it enough for us to use.
As stated before it is used by the public. The log haulers really mess it up sometimes. So we redo the damage as best we can. I could petition the county to fix it. Don’t need that problem. I assume it would be us signing something to give them license to do as they pleased. Yeah, not gonna do that.
Am I responsible if someone takes a notion to use my road? Am I liable if a tree is down(happens all the time) and they barrel into it? The creek that crosses it has flooded. What if they get stuck in it and, not drown but maybe snake bit?
There are so many things that could happen. I just don’t think I can contemplate what would start my responsibility and what the person who decides to take this road is responsible for.
I may be building a big gate soon. 
No I fucking didn’t. At least not intentionally and I don’t see how quoting the relevant part makes any difference to the point I (and a few others) were making. Again, you’re being delusional.
Moderating:
I have not followed this thread, but I don’t have to to know these personal attacks are getting out of hand. No more of this, both of you.
How do you reach that conclusion?
It doesn’t seem unreasonable to give her the benefit of the doubt for the moment, seeing as how she and her attorney know that they will have to eventually back up everything she says.
Another way to look at it is that Google could nip this whole thing in the bud by saying “We looked through our Maps search data and no one searched for those specific directions, in that specific location, at that specific time. We’re sorry for your loss, but he didn’t use Google Maps.” There could be a reason they haven’t said that.
Yes and no. The standard is “more likely than not” (preponderance) Not a high bar, but I expect the jury will want to see some stronger proof.
I mean, yes. Aren’t they by defintion? OK ,it’s not as neat as that, but, yes, I would think the two would generally be apart from each other.
Not really.
Based upon this.
Rather hard to do, unless they are gonna use his computer history, which a lot of people erase.
Generally when the Defendant is a large corp, the lawyers tell them not to comment on an ongoing case.
Nope. Just subpoena / discover through Google’s records of his phone and map app use. Which will either exist and be turned over, or never existed because he wasn’t using his phone to navigate. Or at least not on Google.
How does her saying she searched the phone after the accident and found he looked up the directions lead you to believe he wasn’t following it while driving? I mean, I’m not saying it’s rock-solid evidence, but are you saying what she said is proof or evidence in itself that he didn’t follow it, or what? I don’t see how you’re connecting the 2. Is it your default position that she’s necessarily lying?
Are you talking about his search history on his phone? If so, it’s pretty highly unlikely he deleted his search history in the time he entered the search and the time he died. (But hey, that would be a fantastic defense for Google - the guy died because he was distracted by deleting a map search that was giving him directions that would just kill him anyway.). Even if he did delete the search history, the phone was - ostensibly- still actively tracking him via location. For which there would be data available on Google’s servers, not just his phone.
Maybe, but large corporations also generally don’t want to let PR shitshows like this one linger and fester, and if they already had exculpatory evidence, they wouldn’t wait 2 years for a trial date before releasing it to the media.
You were Just Asking “for clarity and enlightenment” on whether people from a country of some 330-odd million thinking individuals might have different (yet internally consistent) opinions on things, or whether we’re all a bunch of rubes too stupid to see how we are, to a man, woman, &etc., holding contradictory beliefs, simultaneously favoring unchecked libertarian freedom on the one hand, while possessed of an overwhelming need/desire for government regulation and oversight on the other hand? That’s your defense? That you needed to ask us Americans whether any of us might have different opinions on these things?
I don’t know where you’re from, but I would never assume that, absent clarification, you and someone else from your country must hold identical (let alone internally inconsistent) beliefs on any particular topic or range of topics. Because, you know, that’s not how countries work. Borders don’t outline a hive mind, you know?