User Tag List

First 89101112 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 171

  1. #91
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Valid point. However, the risks are well known and people continue to buy. I am not accident prone and would not like to have my choices limited because other people are clumsy.
    You don't want to have your choices limited, but you will have to face reality regardless of any desires you may have. There are a lot of things that you cannot do. There are many laws, rules, and regulations in this cruel world of ours. There are also a lot of severe burns, and they generally suck. Many people would like to see the incidence rate of such burns go down. McDonald's is helping make this possible by lowering the temperature at which they serve coffee. Good for them. I support their decision.

  2. #92
    Senior Member BAJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    That is exactly why a litigious culture is bad. In order to protect themselves, businesses are forced to play nanny and restrict their customers' choices. Not just businesses, but individuals also. In China, people often do not stop to help others who had accidents, out of fear that they could be sued.
    Forced to play nanny? Restrict customer choice? China?

    Without litigation companies would put toxic waste in your drinking water. They'd spill oil in the gulf, and not care. They'd sell you quick lime as tooth paste. Etc.

    China needs law and litigation or they will not have any clean drinking water or food very soon. At best, their counterfeit products cost legitimate companies money, but in China the counterfeit products can kill you. They only care about money, and nothing else. They don't care about "choices", only taking your money. That's it.

    From my entire brilliant essay you quoted my joke as the serious thing to refute? Wow!

    I'd love you to elaborate on your general points here. You make broad generalizations without any meat on them. There is no real substance to what you are saying.

    In EVERY company there are accidents even if you do things the right way. I've seen broken bones and all types of work related injuries. Every time this happens, you fill out a form which says, "How can this be prevented?" This is not "playing nanny", this is process which is necessary in a rational society if anything is going to improve.

    Do you really want to live in a society where companies have no interest in safety? Do you really want to live in a world where a company down the street can pour carcinogens in your drinking water and not be penalized?

    If we are going to progress and improve, then some means of correcting behavior is imperative. How can we improve as a society? How do things get better?

    You seem to be operating on under the delusion that companies will regulate themselves and care about customer and employee safety of their own volition.

  3. #93
    Level 8 Propaganda Bot SpankyMcFly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    461 so/sx
    Posts
    2,396

    Default

    This is another source that discusses the case in detail as well as several others like it: No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America, by Ralph Nader & Wesley J. Smith. This book was a real eye opener for me and that type of media distortion is more common than one might think.

    1) No

    2) No

    3) Yes

    Spanky McFly
    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age. " - H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #94
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    You don't want to have your choices limited, but you will have to face reality regardless of any desires you may have. There are a lot of things that you cannot do. There are many laws, rules, and regulations in this cruel world of ours. There are also a lot of severe burns, and they generally suck. Many people would like to see the incidence rate of such burns go down. McDonald's is helping make this possible by lowering the temperature at which they serve coffee. Good for them. I support their decision.
    Why don't we severely lower speed limits them? Safety trumps all.

  5. #95
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BAJ View Post
    Without litigation companies would put toxic waste in your drinking water. They'd spill oil in the gulf, and not care. They'd sell you quick lime as tooth paste. Etc.
    That's a straw man. No one is arguing for no legal recourse. Just keep judgments reasonable. Europe is not nearly as litigious, yet people are not dying in the streets from poison toothpaste.

    China needs law and litigation or they will not have any clean drinking water or food very soon. At best, their counterfeit products cost legitimate companies money, but in China the counterfeit products can kill you. They only care about money, and nothing else. They don't care about "choices", only taking your money. That's it.
    Before you say there is no litigation in China, read up on this story:
    http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid...r-protect.aspx

    From my entire brilliant essay you quoted my joke as the serious thing to refute? Wow!
    Obviously, you were joking. But that's irrelevant. The problem exist.

    I'd love you to elaborate on your general points here. You make broad generalizations without any meat on them. There is no real substance to what you are saying.
    Incorrect.

    Do you really want to live in a society where companies have no interest in safety? Do you really want to live in a world where a company down the street can pour carcinogens in your drinking water and not be penalized?
    Strawman again. No one was advocating we do away with all regulations.

  6. #96
    Senior Member BAJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    That's a straw man. No one is arguing for no legal recourse. Just keep judgments reasonable. Europe is not nearly as litigious, yet people are not dying in the streets from poison toothpaste.


    Before you say there is no litigation in China, read up on this story:
    http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid...r-protect.aspx

    In Europe they wouldn't wait for lawsuits. If people were dying from tooth paste, there would immediately be rioting in the streets. They would probably burn the tooth paste factory to the ground.

    Strawman! I never said there were no lawsuits in China. I have the documentary series "China Rises". This points out the realities of China's economic growth. The rule of law is a new concept in China, and lawyers going against economic interests are often harassed by the police. Sometimes they are jailed. If you want to see what a less successfully litigious society looks like, then these tapes would be a good place to start. People are dying from bad products in China. I never said Europe. (Cough, another strawman you made.)

    Another great tape would be Enron: the smartest guys in the room. This illustrates what a deregulated energy market would look like. The price of electricity went up 1000%.



    Obviously, you were joking. But that's irrelevant. The problem exist.


    Incorrect.


    Strawman again. No one was advocating we do away with all regulations.

    I thought the same as you. As I said, I've never thought of suing or had a problem, and I generally always felt I was at fault in some way. I thought, "Stupid people, spilling coffee and suing."

    Then I saw the burns. It is very obvious that McDonald's should pay for that. Nobody should expect to receive severe burns. I've spilled coffee on myself in car many times. It is a common thing. I'd never expect to get burned like that. It's VERY obvious and reasonable for McDonalds to pay. I feel it completely.

    I'm striving to come up with logic to explain something obvious to me. You clearly have a different sense of morality, and a different sense of what human beings are worth.

    I guess that's fine. These things go back and forth in courts. It's all making better society.

    ______


    On a side note, I routinely handle dangerous chemicals. Today I handled potassium permanganate. I get it on my skin frequently with no major problem and here is the warning label for that product. The point of showing this is that this product has never caused me more than a mild irritation. I got it on my skin today with no problem, but the warning label is huge.

    I also routinely handle diquat. Clicking on the link will give you the MSDS for that. Whenever this one gets on a sensitive area like my face, it cause painful scabs to form, which heal. Note it also has a warning label with is huge, called the MSDS.

    There are several more chemicals I handle routinely. Some have even worse hazards like immediate blindness or severe burns.

    I used to be the primary spray applicator for a public garden, and I received certified training in hazardous materials. I routinely handled chemicals that could kill you if inhaled.

    None of those products ever caused any reaction that had third degree burns requiring skin grafts, but they all had enormous MSDS labels. They should have them. This is not "companies playing nanny" for their employees or "limiting customer choice". If a product can hospitalize you, then you need to know what to do. You need to know what gear to wear to protect yourself, your PPE or "personal protective equipment." You need to know what to do if it gets past that protective gear and contacts your skin.

    Don't start with the idea that the customer should know that a product sold in flimsy cup by McDonalds can cause third degree burns! That is a ridiculous assumption. Nobody should expect to get burned so badly. If it was an ordinary occurrence to be severely burned, then it would probably be more heavily regulated and have MSDS. Instead, McDonald's paid a cheap price, and fixed it themselves without tying down congress in legislating the matter.

  7. #97
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Why don't we severely lower speed limits them? Safety trumps all.
    Travel is humanity's foil. Always has been. Migrations, interstates, train derailments, Trails of Tears, and crash victims piled from here to the moon. Yes, I believe lowering speed limits would decrease the number of fatalities.

  8. #98
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BAJ View Post
    I'm striving to come up with logic to explain something obvious to me. You clearly have a different sense of morality, and a different sense of what human beings are worth.
    You are repeating previous arguments. My previous comments stand. You are also debating several minor details unrelated to the point of contention. But I think the quoted statement is especially interesting. Your personal feelings provides guidance for your decisions, but it does not provide a relevant framework for consensus when others don't share those feelings. If agreement is desired, principles of fairness need to be considered.

  9. #99
    Senior Member BAJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    You are repeating previous arguments.

    Because those arguments are completely valid. I think you keep missing them, or not understanding very basic information.

    My previous comments stand.
    I don't recall you making any arguments. I just recall vague general statements without substance or experience or validation.


    You are also debating several minor details unrelated to the point of contention.

    Then you don't understand what the point of contention is. You think it's that McDonald's should not be blamed because the coffee is hot and customer is being stupid. This point of view has be completely obliterated. Nobody can serve such a harmful substance in a flimsy cup and expect it to not spill. Therefore, it was McDonald's mistake. Third degree burns are not a reasonable expectation. Spilling and pain, sure. But not hospitalization.


    But I think the quoted statement is especially interesting. Your personal feelings provides guidance for your decisions, but it does not provide a relevant framework for consensus when others don't share those feelings. If agreement is desired, principles of fairness need to be considered.

    Sure it's fair. I cannot understand why you think it is not fair. Just because they have deep pockets, people are sued illegitimately. That's bad. But this is a legitimate claim. It is a perfectly valid which is less than .0125% of McDonald's annual profits. I roughly rounded off the profits at 8 billion per year, and then figured out what percentage 1 million dollars would be.

    With that much money, they should take into account the idea of coffee spilling and burning someone, and if they did not, and it did burn someone severely, then they should pay for it.

    It's not the amount of wealth McDonald's has, however. It's the severity of the burning. If I saw the video and it had minor blistering or reddening like a first or second degree burn, I'd think, "You might expect that GTFO." Personally, I've never received even blistering. Maybe I got a little blistering from pizza if I ate it too fast, but I've not spilled coffee and got a blister.

    I think it would be fair for McDonald's to pay for her medical bills, at the very least.

    Of course, medical bills are less than 1/100th of 1% of their profit. I'm not sure that much is enough make them regulate their coffee temperature. I think they'd have to sit in a back room thinking about whether regulation of their coffee temperature was cost effective compared with litigation expenses.


    Edit:

    Consider this: ridiculous rhetorical questions, which are tangential and provide no evidence, are not a valid form of serious argument.

    Edit:

    Asking questions is valid. But just asking a little question and running away is weak. Very weak.

    Also, I paraphrase "I worked with tires, and I know lawyers." Prove it!

    I know lawyers too. I haven't consulted with them yet about this thread. One of my facebook friends works on the defendant side in lawsuits. One of my co-workers spent two years as a paralegal student, and studied torts. I've also known other lawyers.

    At previous job, I was the one who brought one of our truck drivers to see the lawyer after he killed another driver in an accident.

    As I said, I was sued a few times. So I have sympathy with the poor, persecuted corporation being sued. The suit against me was frivolous. She was not hurt. She did not need all that money, and it was settled out of court for less than half what she wanted. But even that amount was unreasonable.

    In personal financial matters against me, my average cost reduction is 90% of what is originally demanded...without even getting lawyers involved.

    I guess you never even (as far as I know) explained what you think the woman should get, or what you think she is entitled to. Here's your chance to negotiate with me

    Good luck...

  10. #100
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BAJ View Post
    Nobody can serve such a harmful substance in a flimsy cup and expect it to not spill. Therefore, it was McDonald's mistake. Third degree burns are not a reasonable expectation.
    Yes, obviously a certain percentage will spill. But out of tens of millions sold, only a few hundred people complained. Should vendors not supply a product customers want, simply because there is a miniscule chance that someone will suffer injury? If you say "yes", then where do you draw the line? So many products would be prohibited. There has to be a balance between safety and choice.

Similar Threads

  1. The Random Movie Quote Thread
    By asynartetic in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 220
    Last Post: 12-02-2017, 10:31 PM
  2. The Infamous INFP or INFJ Question.
    By Nørrsken in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 02-26-2016, 12:01 AM
  3. [JCF] The Infamous Ni-Ti Loop of INFJ
    By CuriousFeeling in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-24-2013, 11:50 AM
  4. The Infamous Short Post Thread
    By wolfy in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-27-2011, 06:58 PM
  5. The heavenly nectar that is coffee...
    By Xander in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 01-22-2008, 02:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO