What I wanted happened, so we can see what historically happened. We don't have to speculate. Thus, in hindsight, what consequences occurred? What was the bad result you mentioned?I find the principles you presented in this thread to be very naive and short sighted. You only see the situation directly in front of you. You totally failed to consider the potential consequences of your principles if they were applied in future scenarios.
Torts out of control?
People purposefully burning themselves with third degree burns?
McDonald's taking coffee out of their restaurants?
McDonald's going bankrupt?
What was the bad thing that really happened?
My naive opinion is what the jury and judges (plural) agreed with. They got something I'd be satisfied with. Heck, I'd just be satisfied with medical care, which is all I believe they wanted to begin with. Maybe I'm just a fool for trying to be fair, but I'd be satisfied with medical care.
So they got what I feel was a good result.
So what doomsday scenario of yours actually occurred in fact? Don't just say I'm stupid. Don't just patronize me and say I'm naive. Come up with some facts of what happened after the satisfying result. Prove how that satisfaction of my naive point of view led to the tragic consequences you believe. Prove it. Don't just attack my character or position with empty statements. Put some meat on your argument.
Sure, I know. They did EXACTLY what I would do. I'd measure relative coffee temperatures. I'd talk about the cup and how shitty it was and all kinds of stuff. I read the Grsham novels. I watched "My cousin Vinny". I believe in actual court, you'd be toast. I'd bring in expert testimony like the engineering guy.Just read up on what is required to prevail in court. Hint: gut feel doesn't cut it.
You just keep repeating "fault has not been proven" or some shit, and you'd be blown completely away by my enormous evidence.
Of course, I'm not likely to be an attorney Nor would I want to be one, so the issue is sort of moot.
Incorrect. Fairness is fundamental to a functioning society.
The system I briefly described was fair. Explain to me why it is not. In the system I mentioned, the whole idea of torts is a completely irrelevant idea. There's no need to sue because medicine is already covered. Of course, I'm an idealist, and the world is full of evil, greedy bastards so it's not likely to work.
The thing I describe is what is fair. Life isn't fair. What's fair in a unfair system doesn't mean it's really fair. It just means that according to the unfair system, things are flowing unfairly like they are supposed to flow.
Unfortunately for your opinion, things flowed more to my concept of fair than yours. Why is that? Is it because I'm naive and stupid? Was it because McDonald's corporation was stupid? Was it because the judge and jury were naive?
Can you come up with better arguments than "fault has not been proven" or "I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't say such a stupid thing"? Just because you say an a point of view is stupid doesn't make it so. I'm not intimidated by your opinion of me or my arguments. As far as I'm concerned, you didn't even make an argument by comparison.
True that. That's why no person should have more resources than they possibly can consume. That would be more fair, if you want to get REALLY fair.Imagining it is not the same as successfully implementing it. Resources are not unlimited.