Who Responsible for Breaking The Plant Pot (Housemate Dispute)

My housemate put a plant pot maybe around 20cm in size on the kitchen indoor window sill. Because it is hot today and I turn on the AC and tried to close the window, the window frame hit the pot cause it to fall from the windowsill and break.

She wants me to reimburse the pot. How is it my fault that all I did was close the window?


  • +132

    Member Since
    12 min ago

    • +53

      Member Until
      I give it around 48 hours

      • +2

        Probably a very stupid question - but what is the point behind trolling?

        I just don't really see the dominant reason that motivates people to do it. What do they get out of it?

  • +195

    You decided to close the window, the consequence is a smashed pot, you caused the pot to smash therefore, you are responsible.

    • +76

      JFC, I can't believe something this basic needs to be explained to someone I assume is an adult and is allowed to drink, drive and vote

      • +20

        Today on OzIrresponsibility…

      • +4

        Pls don't do all three at the same time.

      • +11

        OP is the kind of idiot that would update their Facebook while doing their groceries with #adulting.

      • -1

        Right so as long as I set something up precariously even if I should know better it's still the other person's fault

        • Yes - unless a reasonable person would have been expected to not notice - i.e. leaning something against the outside of a door that opens outwards

          • @sakurashu: Alright - I reasonably wouldn't expect someone to annoyingly put a pot in the way of an opening window precariously

            • @tablewhale: I purposely do just that just for the shits and giggles.

    • +22

      I don't think that you can come to that conclusion without a MS Paint drawing on what happened

    • But really. Who cares!

  • What is the value of the pot?

    • +1

      like $20?

      • +58

        You did it - you pay for it.

      • +8

        Go to Facebook market place and find one for less than $5

        • +1

          That or gumtree - problem solved.

          • +27

            @bullettime: A gumtree might be a bit big for a window sill.

  • +57

    Climate change is responsible for it.

    • +19

      No silly. It's the government. It's always the government's fault.

      • +7

        Thanks Obama.

      • -25

        Yeah, although Australia is not even in the top 10 polluting countries and that climate is a global thing, it is the Australian government's fault for climate change.

        • +3

          climate change is not political, its a must and our economy is in the dumps anyway. do nothing government except raid the coffers

          • -21

            @abuch47: So you recommend bringing back carbon tax and make the economy go down further into the dumps even when Australia is not in the top 10 or even top 15 highest CO2 producing countries?

            • +15

              @trex: economy would have evolved easily starting with the pissy CPRS we had. then we could be at the forefront of new tech, instead of dead last in CO2 per person

              • -13

                @abuch47: I am curious to see what's your source on Australia being dead last in CO2 per person.

                Anyway to look at it at per person basis is meaningless, it's just portraying facts to fit the picture. Climate change is about total CO2 emission and should not about per person. Palau has 64.9t CO2 per capita, imagine going after Palau instead of USA, Russia etc.

                CPRS would not have reduced CO2 emission, producers basically would just have to pay more and believe me they would happily pay. It is like income tax, no body likes paying it but it is accepted simply as a cost of business. CPRS would have a cost impact on the economy as ultimately these producers will pass the cost down to consumers. It would have killed the economy and would have been a futile effort to make a dent in global CO2 emission since Australia is not even in the top 15 CO2 producers in the world.

            • +8

              @trex: Of the 195 countries, Australia is the 16th highest contributor, even though we're the 55th largest country by population.

              Your suggestion is that 179 countries just do nothing at all? Because they're not in the top 15 contributors?

              Why is a carbon tax the only possible thing we could do? Renewable energy is something Australia should already be using a lot more of. A very simple thing we could do is not even consider new coal mines because renewables are cheaper, without even taking into account the health costs. So we could have cleaner energy and save money.

              If people cared about the economy at all they would stop voting in a useless government that has no idea how to manage money. The economy just keeps tanking under the Liberals, after we made it through the GFC doing quite well. A carbon tax under a mildly competent government would still see the economy doing considerably better.

              • @Miss B: I'm not saying do nothing. In management, there's an approach called bottleneck analysis. Look for areas to improve which would give the highest benefit. ie tackle countries that are highest producers rather than a shotgun approach. As an example, let's look at India. It is one of the highest CO2 producing country. Developed countries could pool their money and give the Indian govt a grant to build more efficient electricity production facilities or better public transport. Such measure would have an immediate and real reduction to India's CO2.

                Where did you get the impression that renewables are cheaper? Market is driven by demand, if renewables are cheaper, consumers will demand more of it and turn away from coal/fossil fuel.

                If you look at residential houses in Australia, at least in my suburb, 4-5 out of 10 houses have solar panels. Can't say the same for other countries. Aren't Australians already being proactive in investing in renewables like this and already doing our part?

                Believe me, whether it is a Liberal or Labor government, a move to introduce anything like carbon tax will be highly unpopular as someone has to bear the cost of the tax ultimately. Since politics is a game of popularity, It will be the downfall of whichever govt that introduces it.

                • +2

                  @trex: Yep, I agree that there are multiple things we can do and contributing to lowering emissions in less developed countries that need the opportunity to develop the way we have is a great idea, one that will never get anywhere in Australia though. India already have great plans for moving to renewables because it's cheaper. Just not having the Carmichael mine would have been a great start in terms of helping and it would be cheaper for India to just use renewables. Instead Australians supported Adani in contributing to worsening the situation in India for selfish reasons that in the long run are not going to benefit Australia or anyone else, probably even Adani.

                  Consumers don't seem to understand that renewables are cheaper than new coal and they're resisting them, a quick Google search and every single source tells me that they are cheaper. I'm not saying existing coal, although even that is getting borderline, just new coal. Try Googling "coal cheaper than renewables" and it's pretty clear.

                  No, Australia is not doing their part when we are still contributing so much to carbon emissions with so few people, still building new coal mines like idiots. We rely far too heavily on coal. It's not about some individuals doing a little bit, it's about making a real difference as a country and we're really not and we're not trying to. It's great if half of the houses in your area have solar, but it's definitely not half of Australian houses. Having solar panels to support its electricity usage whenever a new house is built would be a great idea and should be encouraged, it would save people money in the long run and would entice renters, but it doesn't seem that popular.

                  For some reason it's one of the areas in which people will happily shoot themselves in the foot, to fight against anything that has anything to do with reducing climate change, even if it won't affect them negatively and will even benefit them. Anyway, I really shouldn't care, I'm not going to be greatly affected and if people who are, or whose children or grandchildren etc are, don't give a shit I really shouldn't either.

                  • @Miss B: We have something in common. The last part of your comment is exactly how I feel when looking at the largest CO2 producing countries.

                    As a consumer, to me renewables are more expensive. Especially after taking into account batteries needed for electricity storage and it’s replacement after it wears out. Also take a look at this https://amp.smh.com.au/politics/federal/waste-crisis-looms-a...

                  • +2

                    @Miss B: The basis around renewable cheaper than coal is one dimensional - yes solar/renewable is on par or could get cheaper than coal fired plant in terms on investment in era of cheap money and during operation on kwh basis. On pure cost basis I would think you should be rooting for nuclear power.

                    Lets take a look at cost together with Reliability + product life cycle pollution

                    If you consider together with reliability - renewable reliability depends on battery capacity. Look at what happened in South Australia in 2016. If we adopt the increase in renewable power together with trend in EV we would need to significantly ramp up battery production. What we need to consider is then we need to dispose battery and solar panel as they have limited life span - this is a different massive environmental issue on disposal - that for our children to solve?

                    In addition, an open electricity market like Australia as renewable swings in and out off grid it affects power supply and pricing (i.e would push up power prices as renewable supply is less predictable )

                    I would argue what consumers fails to appreciate is the coal fired technology has been around for more 100 years and new coal power plants are balance of cheapest, most reliable, most developed & safest among all technology. You can tax the least efficient and carbon emitter but continue to put money into developing battery technology

                    Perhaps a different perspective:



                • @trex:

                  If you look at residential houses in Australia, at least in my suburb, 4-5 out of 10 houses have solar panels. Can't say the same for other countries. Aren't Australians already being proactive in investing in renewables like this and already doing our part?

                  In management, there's an approach called bottleneck analysis. Look for areas to improve which would give the highest benefit. ie tackle communal energy production at the source and move away from coal towards renewables, rather than expect homeowners to be proactive on a miniscule, ad-hoc basis.

                  But the better thing is to obviously do both. Climate change due to environmental damage is a tragedy of the commons, which means that as a nation, and as individuals, we shouldn't be waiting for the bigger polluters to change their act because then everyone just sits on their hands and nothing happens at all.

        • Yeah, although Australia is not even in the top 10 polluting countries and that climate is a global thing, it is the Australian government's fault for climate change.

          you might want to look at pollution per capita.

          China gets the most blame but their population is almost double the US + EU combined, so if they were polluting the same amount, they would pollute that much. Except they rank 55th in per capita pollution despite being the world's factory and recycling plant, and producer of rare earth metals. Each person hardly pollutes at all.

          It's the western already developed countries that are polluting the most. And we're part of them.

          • @lostn: So Palau at 64.9 t CO2 per capita is the bad boy on the block?

    • +6

      your avatar suits your views.

      • -7

        Thanks but it is a fact, not my view that Australia is not even in the top 15 CO2 producing countries. Google it up.

        • +9

          That's great? Doesn't mean we shouldn't do our part and become a carbon neutral economy as soon as possible.

          • @seanj: Would you still insist to become a carbon neural economy if it killed the economy? Australia's main exports are Iron Ore ($48.2B), Coal Briquettes ($47B), Gold ($29.1B), Petroleum Gas ($20.3B) and Wheat ($4.88B) where the top 4 don't really fit in under a carbon neutral economy.

            Fun fact, what is the main greenhouse gas? Listed according to their contribution to greenhouse effect:-

            No 1 Water vapor and clouds H2O 10–50,000ppm contributes 36–72%
            No 2 Carbon dioxide CO2 ~400ppm contributes 9–26%
            No 3 Methane CH4 ~1.8ppm contributes 4–9%
            No 4 Ozone O3 2–8ppm contributes 3–7%

            Source here

            • @trex: About 10 years ago there was a real optimism about the possibility that we might be at the forefront of renewables development, we were attracting investment and it would have put us in a position to export the new technology that we would have built.

              By killing off investment in a new and growing industry, Abbott took away the possibility of more economic diversity, made us even more dependent on the old industries which will inevitably slow down, and when we eventually play catch up we will end up buying the tech from other countries instead of the other way around.

              He also got people like you thinking that renewables are pure cost, and nothing more than an expensive, unfeasible alternative to coal energy that would damage our coal industry, rather than an industry of it's own, with all the potential economic benefit that a new industry could offer, entirely alongside existing industries.

              • @crentist: Optimism alone won’t help if it is technically and commercially not feasible. Solar and battery technology 10 years ago is nothing like what we have now. Technological advancement is the main reason for the growth that we are seeing in renewables and EV. Even though solar panel technology has improved but the best panels around is just 22.8% with majority of panels in the market only around 15-17%. One might say without initial demand there won’t be any product developments but that’s not the Ozbargain way :D

                I’m not a fan but Abbott was probably wise to understand what voters wanted and that the timing is just not yet right. Gillard is a casualty of unpopular govt policy that voters are not yet prepared to pay for.

                Consumers these days are more knowledgeable. I would think that there’s wisdom in numbers and if it starts making sense, more consumers would jump onto the band wagon.

        • +3

          Because we've outsourced all our manufacturing to those countries.

          • @Autonomic: But the world outsourced the production of wheat, mining of iron ore/gold/coal, exploration and production of oil and gas to us.

        • +2

          So because we only make up a smaller percentage emissions we shouldn’t bother doing anything? If you applied that logic to the rest of your life decisions, then in an election your one vote only makes a tiny percentage, so why don’t you just not vote

          • -1

            @Milkywayss: You're missing the point. Say if the crime rate in Australia is very high, in order to reduce the crime rate, shouldn't we pay more attention to high crime areas? Remember, it is an emergency. We seem to use this logic every where else.

            • @trex: So your suggestion is to let everyone else on the planet do all the heavy lifting? A true egalitarian.

              • @shtgnjns: Nope, my suggestion is that everyone look at the highest CO2 producers and jointly help to reduce it. Read my example on India in my reply to Miss B above.

            • @trex: I assume then if someone stole all your belongings, you won’t bother reporting it to police, as it comparably doesn’t account to much of the crime rate, so you shouldn’t waste their resources on such a small crime?

              • -1

                @Milkywayss: All my belongings (100%) and consider it a small crime? Lol, it doesn’t compute. If someone stole my thongs (0.001%), yeah I wouldn’t report it. Would you?

              • @Milkywayss: Hmmm perhaps I misunderstood your meaning. To put it into your context, yes, I would make a police report but I won't demand the police to do a blitz in the whole suburb and state to look for my belongings.

            • @trex: There are police in high crime areas and low crime areas. The number of police may be proportional to the amount of crime in each area, but the low crime areas don't stop trying to have no crime just because another place is worse.

              I think the point you want to make is that more police should be assigned to the high crime areas, but this is a bad analogy because it has more to do with centralised management determining the distribution of limited resources, which doesn't exist in global energy policy.

              A more accurate analogy would be if we looked at the higher crime rates of USA, South Africa, Brazil and others, and decided to disband all police in Australia.

              • @crentist:

                in order to reduce the crime rate shouldn't we pay more attention to high crime areas

                You probably missed the bolded part from my comment

                • @trex: I didn’t. It’s not much of a point though, which is why I thought you might have meant something else.

                  If that’s really the point you wanted to make though, fine. The rebuttal to that is: why would people in low crime areas pay attention to the high crime areas that they don’t live in?
                  That’s still a matter for some centralised police resourcing, not the people or police in low crime areas.

                  So my whole post pretty much stands as is. If we are in an analogous low crime area, we shouldn’t be happy to have some crime just because other places are worse. We should still want to reduce our own level of crime even further, without simply waiting for a worse place to reduce their own crime levels first.

                  • @crentist:

                    why would people in low crime areas pay attention to the high crime areas that they don’t live in?

                    because if the objective is to reduce the overall crime rate, they should. No point trying to keep your backyard clean when the neighbors are filled with rubbish where the stench and flies that blows into your backyard. Anyway let's end this discussion in this thread. Happy New Year! :)

    • No, its because OP is not vegan. If he would have eaten the plant, the pot would not have been there.

  • +55

    She wants me to reimburse the pot. How is it my fault that all I did was close the window?

    "I was trying to cook dinner, but I left the boiled egg too long and it burnt down the house. How is it my fault when I did was boil some eggz?"

    • +1

      Hit the nail on the head.

      • +4

        The nail demands compensation!

  • +44

    Absurd post - probably a troll.

    • I am amazed that you had doubt about her being a troll.

    • If you can't tell it's a troll from the content then it definitely isn't a troll…

      • First day on the internet then? Not heard of Poe's Law?

        • Yeah right… How is what OP posted an "extreme view"? How on earth can posting asking if you should replace a potplant on a simple premace "trolling"?

  • +8

    Has to be a troll. Another threads poster not taking responsibility for their actions. Gen I and Y. Its all about me. What that's not my fault. Walk away. FFS

            • +2

              @Melb69: K Karen.

            • +2

              @Melb69: I think it's all hilarious and a media plot to pit all these generations against each other because rage and judginess sells newspapers and clickthroughs. The Ok Karen thing gave me a laugh. I'm an Xennial so give no shits and there are people with good and shit work ethics across the spectrum. When you judge one group you're playing right into the MSM's hands.

              • @MissG: You do realise that this "generational" discourse has been going on for millennia.

                It's always the older gen going on about how the new generations music, language, ethics etc are rubbish…

                … And the younger generations going on about how the older folks are stuck in their ways, ignorant, don't understand them or new thinking/methods.

                Funnily the older gen seem to forget they were young once and had those same thoughts… And the younger gen, we hope can grow wise.

                In saying that, (gross over-generalisation) yes all generations are different, I find the newer gen to expect things without much effort and less hardworking than their predecessors. They'll say they're smarter… Who knows. Whatever the case we must all adapt (including the new gen now) as when we cease to understand the next gen, we become irrelevant.

                They are our future after all…

                • @khomeini: Yeah but the difference now is that the mainstream media is making $$$ off everyones responses to those thoughts because it's happening on a global scale. Think about that, profit from generational discourse, it's darkly funny.

                  • @MissG: Agreed. Media & their agenda (a whole new thread). Scary times we live in

    • -1

      @Dedbny - This comment has offended me, please apologise.

      • Apologies. Power to the Gen I and Ys I suppose.

      • @StonedWizard-This comment has offended me, please apologise.

  • +16

    How is Gen Y supposed to survive in a world with so many obstacles?

    • +4

      Bubblewrap everything?

      • +3

        suffocation or choking hazard?

    • +2

      By spending so much on avocado and housing that we can’t afford breakable objects.

Login or Join to leave a comment