NationStates Jolt Archive

Scenario: Jack pulls into school parking lot with rifle in gun rack.
1973 - Vice Principal comes over, takes a look at Jack's rifle,
goes to his car and gets his to show Jack.
2006 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to
jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in
for traumatized students and teachers.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.
1973 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins Johnny and Mark shake hands and end
up best friends Nobody goes to jail, nobody arrested, nobody expelled.
2006 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark, Charges them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.
1973 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by
Principal. Sits still in class.
2006 - Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie.
School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his father's car and his Dad
gives him a whipping.
1973 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to
college, and becomes a successful businessman.
2006 - Billy's Dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to
foster care and joins a gang. Billy's sister is told by state
psychologist that she remembers being abused herself and their Dad
goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some headache medicine to
school.
1973 - Mark shares headache medicine with Principal out on the
smoking dock.
2006 - Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug
violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Mary turns up pregnant.
1973 - 5 High School Boys leave town. Mary does her senior year at
a special school for expectant mothers.
2006 - Middle School Counselor calls Planned Parenthood, who
notifies the ACLU. Mary is driven to the next state over and gets
an abortion without her parent's consent or knowledge. Mary given
condoms and told to be more careful next time.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Pedro fails high school English.
1973: Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.
2006: Pedro's cause is taken up by state democratic party.
Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching
English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class
action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English
teacher. English banned from core curriculum. Pedro given diploma
anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he can't speak
English.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the 4th of
July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red
ant bed.
1973 - Ants die.
2006 - ATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with
domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from
home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch
list and is never allowed to fly again.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his
knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary, hugs him to
comfort him.
1973 - In a short time Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2006 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her
job. She faces 3 years in State Prison.

Life is so funny, ain't it?

Life is so funny, ain't it?

Yea, I wonder what the next 40 years will be like. ugh. I need beer now.

Ritalin's a fucking stimulant. How many goddamn times am I going to have to tell people this?

Also, that's 33 years, not 40. Come back when you can do basic math, kay?

Yea, I wonder what the next 40 years will be like. ugh. I need beer now.
It's probably better for your peace of mind not to fret about it and concentrate all your energies on the present state. At any rate, I'd go for one myself...

Also, that's 33 years, not 40. Come back when you can do basic math, kay?

33, 40 whatever.

Yea, I wonder what the next 40 years will be like. ugh. I need beer now.

The wussification of America will continue until we all live immobilized in a bubble.

Ritalin's a fucking stimulant. How many goddamn times am I going to have to tell people this?

Until they sit down and listen.

http://www.orlyowl.com/quiterly.jpgBut seriously, I agree. Present day humanity is so fucking lame about so many fucking things. We are such pussies. Scandinavia used to be vikings and are now near socialist vaginas. America used to be a tough nation of cowboys that beat Imperial Japan, now we cant even subdue a bunch of rock-throwers. England used to run a global empire, and now its afraid to critic any domestic policies for fear of offending people. Germans almost conquered Europe and now they are too afraid to even wave a flag.

Ugh, lets return to the 50's.

Ritalin's a fucking stimulant. How many goddamn times am I going to have to tell people this?

Trust me, it does make you a zombie, I was on it myself. Ugh I hated it.

Trust me, it does make you a zombie, I was on it myself. Ugh I hated it.

And I've been on it as well. In fact, I was probably on it for longer and on much higher doses than you were.

But seriously, I agree. Present day humanity is so fucking lame about so many fucking things. We are such pussies. Scandinavia used to be vikings and are now near socialist vaginas. America used to be a tough nation of cowboys that beat Imperial Japan, now we cant even subdue a bunch of rock-throwers. England used to run a global empire, and now its afraid to critic any domestic policies for fear of offending people. Germans almost conquered Europe and now they are too afraid to even wave a flag.

Ugh, lets return to the 50's.

Is it me, or was all the best things made in the 50's?

1973 America sounded like Canada in the early 1990s.
Well, at least where I grew up. :eek:

Of course, Wilgrove had to gloss over all the unpleasant things, such as people getting murdered for their sexuality or ethnicity, rampant sexual abuse, sky-high STD and teenage pregnancy rates, and many school shootings, but that shouldn't get in the way of a good post. Anyone claiming that the '50s, 60s, and 70s were better than today are looking through rose-tinted glasses.

Is it me, or was all the best things made in the 50's?
Well...no, I love technology, but I think the best time, culture wise, was the 50's. The perfect American family, and so on.

Is it me, or was all the best things made in the 50's?

no, i was made in the 80's :D

that list is pretty damn true. while i wasnt around back in the day, i did live in a place that might as well of been the 70's (small towns rock). the world has gotten too politcly correct and it is damn near a crime to come close to offending anyone.

Well...no, I love technology, but I think the best time, culture wise, was the 50's. The perfect American family, and so on.

"Perfect"... Ha! :eek:

Well...no, I love technology, but I think the best time, culture wise, was the 50's. The perfect American family, and so on.

Yeah, rampant spousal abuse is sooooooooo perfect.

Ritalin's a fucking stimulant. How many goddamn times am I going to have to tell people this?

To people who do not actually have ADHD.

Yeah, rampant spousal abuse is sooooooooo perfect.
Don't bug him...he believes in all sorts of fairy tales, and no amount of in-depth evidence that the 50s were anything but the golden age will dispell his need to believe a lie.

Yeah, rampant spousal abuse is sooooooooo perfect.
Ahhh, the good ol' days.:)
http://www.sergiocariello.com/caricatures/caricatures_gallery/sexist.jpg"Perfect"... Ha! :eek:
Well, I suppose nothing is perfect. But, in my opinion, our families are much more fucked up now a days.

I graduated from a rural school in 1970. All of the first examples are TRUE. I remember when every car in the parking lot had several guns hanging from a holder across the rear window. I remember when it was common to give a speech in speech class about guns and the student brought one in as an example.

The one thing that was missed is when you got in trouble at school you were in worse trouble at home---And the entire town knew about it before dark. Now the parents sue the school for lecturing their little boy or girl.

Yeah, rampant spousal abuse is sooooooooo perfect.

i think you need some ritalin yourself. the 50's a bad decade for you or what?

Well, I suppose nothing is perfect. But, in my opinion, our families are much more fucked up now a days.Yeah, it was way better when little Johny would rape his sister, and mom and dad would ignore it, and ship the sister off to a special place so she could have the child in secret and then be back for the next year of school with a story about mono...

Well...no, I love technology, but I think the best time, culture wise, was the 50's. The perfect American family, and so on.

Oh yeah. Cos like it was all like Happy Days and nothing bad ever happened then. Nope. Kids didn't die in gang fights then either...

Yeah, it was way better when little Johny would rape his sister, and mom and dad would ignore it, and ship the sister off to a special place so she could have the child in secret and then be back for the next year of school with a story about mono...

you will find bad exapmles in every decade. the only difference is society. with todays "acceptance" society we are told that we just have to accept everything that comes our way. it doesnt matter if it changes our culture/lifes we must just accept that.

Yeah, it was way better when little Johny would rape his sister, and mom and dad would ignore it, and ship the sister off to a special place so she could have the child in secret and then be back for the next year of school with a story about mono...
Eh...that could happen anytime from the dawn of man to about 5 minutes from now. Silence, lest ye be silenced.
Oh yeah. Cos like it was all like Happy Days and nothing bad ever happened then. Nope. Kids didn't die in gang fights then either...
Oh dont be stupid, :p. I am retarded for saying "perfect" but there was obviously never a time when everything was "happy days" and nothing bad ever happend. Bad things happend then, and they will continue to happen. I just tink the social contruct of the family was better then, and I think that was a boon to our soceity, our children and our culture.

*By the way, I'm not calling you stupid or anything, and I suppose its my fault for saying "perfect":p

You fail math. It's 33 years.

People are "teh 5Uck!"

It's pretty true. Your only hope, no matter what time you live in, is to suck it up and be five times more awesome than anyone else around you. Otherwise, you fail just as much as the rest of loser humanity.

Oh yeah. Cos like it was all like Happy Days and nothing bad ever happened then. Nope. Kids didn't die in gang fights then either...

We all love the Fonz. Nothin' bad could ever happen to the Fonz, eyy?

Oh yeah. Cos like it was all like Happy Days and nothing bad ever happened then. Nope. Kids didn't die in gang fights then either...

*is reminded of West Side Story*

Is it me, or was all the best things made in the 50's?

Shitty music, cloned houses, sexual opression, white flight, and other symptoms of a supressed, conservative era.

All the worst things, certainly.

Shitty music, cloned houses, sexual opression, white flight, and other symptoms of a supressed, conservative era.

All the worst things, certainly.

Yea, and things are sooo much better now. :rolleyes:

But seriously, I agree. Present day humanity is so fucking lame about so many fucking things. We are such pussies. Scandinavia used to be vikings and are now near socialist vaginas. America used to be a tough nation of cowboys that beat Imperial Japan, now we cant even subdue a bunch of rock-throwers. England used to run a global empire, and now its afraid to critic any domestic policies for fear of offending people. Germans almost conquered Europe and now they are too afraid to even wave a flag.

Ugh, lets return to the 50's.

'Humanity is so fucking lame about so many fucking things.' That just bears a repetition. For the record.

If it helps though you've thoroughly convinced me that you have a huge penis. Not only are you obviously a real man for hating a world free of Viking invasions, but as I understand it a huge shlong is the only way your brain could be starving like that - the thought-giving blood is otherwise occupied.

WtF???
Scenario: Jack pulls into school parking lot with rifle in gun rack.
1973 - Vice Principal comes over, takes a look at Jack's rifle,
goes to his car and gets his to show Jack.
2006 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to
jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in
for traumatized students and teachers.

lets not forget the inbetween years... (assuming Jack is a student)
1990's - Jack takes his rifle, and the other guns stashed in his car, and starts shooting students and teachers.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.
1973 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins Johnny and Mark shake hands and end
up best friends Nobody goes to jail, nobody arrested, nobody expelled.
2006 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark, Charges them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Funny, I don't remember seeing those types of fist fights in the 70's usually the teacher or faculty member is called in, both kids are hauled into the principals office where their families are called and the principal determines the punnishment (from picking up trash, to detention or suspension.) is metted out.

1990's - Mark and Johnny get into a fight. parents are called and neither one really cares enough to seriously punnish them. so the next fight, someone is seriously hurt and the school is sued by both parents for not adequatly policing their children (who are Good Boys at heart.)
+++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.
1973 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by
Principal. Sits still in class.
2006 - Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie.
School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

1990's - After the paddling, Jeffery goes home, tells his mommy and daddy what happened, the school is sued and the principal fired for child abuse.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his father's car and his Dad gives him a whipping.
1973 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to
college, and becomes a successful businessman.
2006 - Billy's Dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to
foster care and joins a gang. Billy's sister is told by state
psychologist that she remembers being abused herself and their Dad
goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.

1990 - Billy is emotionally scarred and grows up , abuses his kids and wife and "blames" daddy. Billy then sues daddy in court.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some headache medicine to school.
1973 - Mark shares headache medicine with Principal out on the
smoking dock.
2006 - Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug
violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.

1990's - John and his gang of pushers bring Uppers in tylenol containers and spreads the goods around. he later starts charging the students for more hits. Police, acting on tips, raid the school and confiscate the drugs from John's locker. Evidence is thrown out because police conducted an illegal search without their parent's present and without their permission. Pushers go free.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Mary turns up pregnant.
1973 - 5 High School Boys leave town. Mary does her senior year at
a special school for expectant mothers.
2006 - Middle School Counselor calls Planned Parenthood, who
notifies the ACLU. Mary is driven to the next state over and gets
an abortion without her parent's consent or knowledge. Mary given
condoms and told to be more careful next time.
err... wrong, 5 boys won't leave town, they brag about their sexual prowess among their friends... after all, it isn't their fault that mary got preggers. (remember, 1973!)

1999 - a) Mary drops out of school, leaves home and tries to raise her child alone.
...........b) Mary gets an Illegal abortion without her parents knowledge... she dies due to unsteralized equiptment being used.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Pedro fails high school English.
1973: Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.
2006: Pedro's cause is taken up by state democratic party.
Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching
English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class
action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English
teacher. English banned from core curriculum. Pedro given diploma
anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he can't speak
English.

1990 - Pedro takes ESL or Special Ed, cruzes through class and passes with above average grades. (my friend teaches ESL, and he knew some of his studets don't belong in the class but the parents insisted they stay.)

+++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the 4th of
July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red
ant bed.
1973 - Ants die.
2006 - ATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with
domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from
home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch
list and is never allowed to fly again.

1990 - Johnny takes leftover firecrackers. lites them, thows them into a rubbish pile while storing the rest in his back pocket. the firecrackers start a major fire that burns down 4 houses and causes some deaths... in the meantime, the firecrackers in his back pocket explode. Johnny and parents sue the makers of the firecrackers for not having appropriate warnings and saftey measures, they also sue the owners of the firecracker for negligence for leaving them out where Johnny can get his hands on them, and he spends time in Juvie, where his record for arson and manslaughter (for the people who died in the fire) get removed when he turns 18.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his
knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary, hugs him to
comfort him.
1973 - In a short time Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2006 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her
job. She faces 3 years in State Prison.

1990 - Johnny is seduced by his teacher, they have sex, she gets preggers...


sometimes, the real story is located in the area between points one and two.

The shittiness of today, the sexual arrest of tommorrow

Yea, and things are sooo much better now. :rolleyes:

In that regard, except for the music, yes.

Women now outnumber men in universities, the suburban housing boom is finally shrinking. Technology is now available that lets common people design their own homes. People are moving into new-fangled suburban walking villages (mini-cities, essentially), the suburbs are becoming more diverse, and the conformity of the 50's is slowly being subsumed (about DAMN time, too).

Oh yeah. Cos like it was all like Happy Days and nothing bad ever happened then. Nope. Kids didn't die in gang fights then either...
well, they were rarely shot in a gang fight in the 50's. Knifed? beaten with a bat? hell yeah, but shot?

We all love the Fonz. Nothin' bad could ever happen to the Fonz, eyy?
That's one shark even I won't jump.

Every era had its problems. People had been dying since...well, since there were people. Some got old, some got sick, some got jealous and killed the Joneses when they couldn't keep up. Death happens. Death is also my one weakness. I can turn people into salamanders to do my bidding. I mean if I had a super power that's what it'd be.

But even with all the problems of then you have to admit that people were a lot less jumpy than today. We have too many lawyers right now and everyone in this modern sue-happy society wants to make a quick buck with working for it. No one understands anymore that you can't get something for nothing and part of that blame rests on the parents of today. Not enough teach their children about the Little Red Hen or other childhood fables that emphasize earning what you want. This has led many to believe that they are entitled to things they aren't and that it's okay to sue over the drive-thru coffee not being served as a hot liquid instead of as semi-frozen slush.

And even with the problems of today I have to say I'd not want to go back to what we had then. There are lessons we can learn from the past but you can never hope to move forward by escaping back to the future. I mean the past. But really it's the present and it'll always be the present because even if you went into the past it'd be present then.

But, in my opinion, our families are much more fucked up now a days.

You'd be wrong. Families were just as screwed up back then. They just weren't allowed to talk about it. Miserable couples were usually forced to stay together and they took it out on each other and their kids. Instead of getting it out in the open, it was suppressed and allowed to fester. Our modern "sins" were all there back then. It's called human nature. It hasn't changed in over 5000 years or more. People behave the same throughout time. As the saying goes, "the more things change, the more they stay the same."

Now take off those damn silly rose colored glasses. They don't really suit you.

well, they were rarely shot in a gang fight in the 50's. Knifed? beaten with a bat? hell yeah, but shot?

Guns were considered cowardly, I think... Or they were against the rules... I dunno, all I know is from "The Outsiders" and West Side Story...

Guns were considered cowardly, I think... Or they were against the rules... I dunno, all I know is from "The Outsiders" and West Side Story...
Yes, all the gangs in the 50's looked like the Fonz and solved their differences by dancing in the streets.

Guns were considered cowardly, I think... Or they were against the rules... I dunno, all I know is from "The Outsiders" and West Side Story...

Guns were harder to get back then. People back then took responsibility for their firearms.

besides, Gunshots brought in the cops, and Cops took shit from no one back then.

Back to the '50s? We'd rather pass
Richard Walter
December 24, 2004

We romanticize and idealize the 1950s. How else to treat that deplorable decade?

The era of "Father Knows Best" and "Ozzie and Harriet" was also that of McCarthyism, of Jim Crow, of unspeakable kitsch in food, fashion, architecture and design. Music, too, was Guy Lombardo and Lawrence Welk until sweetly corrupting rock 'n' roll finally liberated mainstream audiences.

How many of us would want "The Simpsons" canceled in favor of a resurrected "Leave It to Beaver"?

For women in the '50s, careers didn't have glass ceilings; they had ceilings of high-tensile steel. As late as 1967, a woman runner was plucked from the still men-only Boston Marathon she had tried to join.

Yet the notion persists that those days were solely sweet, serene and secure. Public discourse was civilized. God -- a wise and kindly old white man with a long white beard -- was not only in heaven but at long last in the Pledge of Allegiance. Kids reciting that pledge, however, upon the command "Take cover!" dove under their desks, trembling in terror over nuclear annihilation. Did we believe our state-issue pressed-board tables would protect us from a hydrogen bomb?

Comedian Lenny Bruce was arrested, handcuffed and hauled off to jail for using language in a private grown-ups' club that Tony Soprano now speaks routinely to millions of TV viewers on a Sunday night. Does this demonstrate the coarsening of the culture?

In a word: no. In those days, as now and always, the older generation saw the culture as already debauched. They saw its destruction in the availability of over-the-counter literature such as "Lolita." They heard it in the "jungle rhythms" of black artists such as Little Richard importuning white teenagers, "Let's ball tonight!" If video games and violent films threaten to destroy moral character today, 50 years ago it was comic books. Fantasy and horror comics were viewed as part and parcel of the Communist conspiracy. Even early editions of Mad magazine were pulled from news racks across the land.

Today's movies are viewed as uniquely violent, but are they truly so? Conflict has resided at the center of dramatic expression since its earliest days. Oedipus kills his father, and you know what he does to his mother. Medea butchers her children and feeds them for dinner to their faithless, philandering father. By the end of "Hamlet" there are nine corpses onstage, some poisoned, some run through on swords. Richard III slays his nephews, boys 9 and 11.

Ugly, bloody dramatic confrontation was not invented a week ago last Thursday by a coven of Hollywood evildoers in a dark chamber at Paramount Pictures. Audiences continue to crave conflict. The movie theater is a gymnasium for the senses, a safe place to experience that violent aspect of the human condition so that it can harmlessly be purged. Rational discourse, consensus and intelligent agreement have their rightful place in our lives to be sure, but art ain't it.

Nobody wants to see "The Village of the Happy, Nice People."

Children are properly set aside in the Constitution as a special class. They need to be protected from exposure to inappropriate material. That protection must flow, however, not from a faceless bureau but from parents who spend time with their kids and care about what they see and hear. In my house, we have one of those TVs that has a switch that lets you change channels. There's also a switch that lets you turn it off.

Americans who occasionally overhear a brutal, violent rap lyric, who inadvertently stumble across some unsolicited pornographic image, ought to rejoice because it tells them they live in a free society. They will never encounter such fare in Saudi Arabia or North Korea.

The First Amendment asserts that expression spoken, written or printed does not have to be rational, reasonable, evenhanded or polite. It merely has to be tolerated. Nobody has to protect your right to say "Have a nice day" or "The government is doing a great job." It's the stupid stuff, the jerky stuff, the provocative, the outrageous and the ugly stuff that requires protection.

Lighten up, America. Take a deep breath. Must the nation go crazy because a pop star mutters a curse word during the Grammys? Does the exposure of a woman's nipple, for a fraction of a second, from 1,000 yards away, warrant paroxysms of rage and government sanction? Why is it OK to expose a man's nipple? It hasn't always been so. Didn't men's bathing suits, early in the last century, also have tops? Did the acceptance of public exposure of men's nipples represent a coarsening of contemporary culture?

Do we wish to return to the prudery of the Victorian age? Does an attorney general's draping of the Goddess of Justice reassure or embarrass us?

Chill, my fellow citizens. Will somebody tell me what is the big deal?

But, in my opinion, our families are much more fucked up now a days.

Oh, and don't forget it was this wonderful family structure of the 50s that raised the hippies and radicals of the 60s. :D

with todays "acceptance" society we are told that we just have to accept everything that comes our way. it doesnt matter if it changes our culture/lifes we must just accept that.

What else do you want? Just deny that any of this crap ever happens? We tried that already. It was called the 50's.

We have to accept everything that comes our way, because that's the only way to really deal with it. We need to accept that child abuse happens all the freakin' time, so that we can take steps to change that. We need to accept that half our society is on some kind of drug, legal or illegal, and that maybe it's not such a good idea. We need to accept that we elected those idiots in the first place and that maybe neither party has our best interests in mind. Lastly, we need to accept that change is inevitable, and that the only control we have is over ourselves. You can choose to accept reality or not. You can be mad at it, or get depressed. Reality doesn't mind. It's only you that gets hurt by not accepting it.

If a teacher/principal tried to 'give me a paddling' (ie: assault me) I'd bust them in the nose so fast they'd think I was still sitting down politely and the hand of God had laid a rightous bitch slap upside their dome.

...and then he came to finish me, with a knife in his hand and murder in his eyes.

Yeah I think what other were trying to say is that the pendullum has swung too far the other way now.

Especially the rush to medicate the slightest little thing

Minor disagreements now turn into Police matters

Touching for any reason is strictly forbidden

People need to take responsibilty for their own action and stop blaming society.

Touching for any reason is strictly forbidden

People need to take responsibilty for their own action and stop blaming society.

I find it greatly amusing that with the same breath you suggest that one should be allowed to commit battery against another without concequence, then suggest we should be held responsible for our actions.

Let's start with that. If you touch me without my consent you have committed battery against me, and should be held responsible for your own actions.

Sound good?

Wow, exaggerate much?
Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his father's car and his Dad
gives him a whipping.
1973 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to
college, and becomes a successful businessman.
:rolleyes:

+++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the 4th of
July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red
ant bed.
1973 - Ants die.
2006 - ATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with
domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from
home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch
list and is never allowed to fly again.
That only happens if 'Johnny' is an evil Muslim. :p

Everytime I hear someone whining about how some completely tiny event in their distant past 'made them do it' I want to puke. Start taking responsibility for your actions!

And if you eat McDonalds three times every day, yes, you will get fat. You should not need a warning label.

If you spill hot coffee on yourself, you should not have to be told that, yes, it is hot.

If you continue to smoke after all the evidence you have been given about the bad effects of cigarrettes, then you should not be entitled to any monetary retribution.

god, Where did all the common sense go?
Are humans getting dumber? Do you have to have someone holding your hand every single step of the way?

Yeah, in that sense, the previous decades were better. People were more responsible, more sensible, less prone to blame others.

I am here to say IT IS YOUR FAULT.

Oh, and music completely sucks now comparatively.

Thank God we don't tolerate teenagers with guns, corporal punishment, teenagers beating up other teenagers, and the like any more.

If it somehow doesn't fit in with your notion of "real masculinity," count me unconcerned.

If you spill hot coffee on yourself, you should not have to be told that, yes, it is hot.

Unless the company in question deliberately heated the coffee to knowingly dangerous levels because their statistics indicated that it would increase their profits.

Thank God we don't tolerate teenagers with guns, corporal punishment, teenagers beating up other teenagers, and the like any more.

If it somehow doesn't fit in with your notion of "real masculinity," count me unconcerned.

I'm just saying that maybe we've gotten too soft, society is slowly being wrapped in foam.

Unless the company in question deliberately heated the coffee to knowingly dangerous levels because their statistics indicated that it would increase their profits.

Coffee is hot, otherwise it wouldn't be coffee, common sense tells us this.

I'm just saying that maybe we've gotten too soft

And what's wrong with that?

Coffee is hot, otherwise it wouldn't be coffee, common sense tells us this.

Agreed. Now, what does this have to do with what I said?

Unless the company in question deliberately heated the coffee to knowingly dangerous levels because their statistics indicated that it would increase their profits.

"Knowingly dangerous levels"? Anything that is near boling is dangerous to human flesh. Coffee is hot. That's a given. This is something you should know and be aware of. Furthermore, the company should not be responsible for your clumsiness. The coffee was only dangerous if spilled, and the company in no way aided in the spilling of the coffee.

Scenario: Mary turns up pregnant.
1973 - 5 High School Boys leave town. Mary does her senior year at
a special school for expectant mothers.
2006 - Middle School Counselor calls Planned Parenthood, who
notifies the ACLU. Mary is driven to the next state over and gets
an abortion without her parent's consent or knowledge. Mary given
condoms and told to be more careful next time.

...Err, I'm not seeing the same problems I saw with the others here.

And what's wrong with that?

Because sometimes you have to break a few eggs to learn things, to gain experience. You can't baby people from cradle to grave, it's just not natural. If we baby people from cradle to grave, we're going to have a country full of wimps.

...Err, I'm not seeing the same problems I saw with the others here.

If Mary is 16 years old, then the ACLU and Planned Parenthood has committed a felony by kidnapping a child and transporting her across state line, also parents should have a right to be notified of what is going on with their child.

"Knowingly dangerous levels"? Anything that is near boling is dangerous to human flesh. Coffee is hot. That's a given. This is something you should know and be aware of.

Certainly. But the coffee should also not be unreasonably hot. Sometimes it will be spilled. That too is "a given."

Furthermore, the company should not be responsible for your clumsiness.

Not ordinarily, no. But if the company knew that their coffee temperature was excessively dangerous and had received numerous complaints about it beforehand, yet consciously continued to keep it at that temperature, then it should indeed be held partially responsible.

WtF???


lets not forget the inbetween years... (assuming Jack is a student)
1990's - Jack takes his rifle, and the other guns stashed in his car, and starts shooting students and teachers.
+++++++++++++++++++++


Funny, I don't remember seeing those types of fist fights in the 70's usually the teacher or faculty member is called in, both kids are hauled into the principals office where their families are called and the principal determines the punnishment (from picking up trash, to detention or suspension.) is metted out.

1990's - Mark and Johnny get into a fight. parents are called and neither one really cares enough to seriously punnish them. so the next fight, someone is seriously hurt and the school is sued by both parents for not adequatly policing their children (who are Good Boys at heart.)
+++++++++++++++++++++


1990's - After the paddling, Jeffery goes home, tells his mommy and daddy what happened, the school is sued and the principal fired for child abuse.
+++++++++++++++++++++


1990 - Billy is emotionally scarred and grows up , abuses his kids and wife and "blames" daddy. Billy then sues daddy in court.
+++++++++++++++++++++


1990's - John and his gang of pushers bring Uppers in tylenol containers and spreads the goods around. he later starts charging the students for more hits. Police, acting on tips, raid the school and confiscate the drugs from John's locker. Evidence is thrown out because police conducted an illegal search without their parent's present and without their permission. Pushers go free.
+++++++++++++++++++++

err... wrong, 5 boys won't leave town, they brag about their sexual prowess among their friends... after all, it isn't their fault that mary got preggers. (remember, 1973!)

1999 - a) Mary drops out of school, leaves home and tries to raise her child alone.
...........b) Mary gets an Illegal abortion without her parents knowledge... she dies due to unsteralized equiptment being used.
+++++++++++++++++++++


1990 - Pedro takes ESL or Special Ed, cruzes through class and passes with above average grades. (my friend teaches ESL, and he knew some of his studets don't belong in the class but the parents insisted they stay.)

+++++++++++++++++++++


1990 - Johnny takes leftover firecrackers. lites them, thows them into a rubbish pile while storing the rest in his back pocket. the firecrackers start a major fire that burns down 4 houses and causes some deaths... in the meantime, the firecrackers in his back pocket explode. Johnny and parents sue the makers of the firecrackers for not having appropriate warnings and saftey measures, they also sue the owners of the firecracker for negligence for leaving them out where Johnny can get his hands on them, and he spends time in Juvie, where his record for arson and manslaughter (for the people who died in the fire) get removed when he turns 18.
+++++++++++++++++++++


1990 - Johnny is seduced by his teacher, they have sex, she gets preggers...


sometimes, the real story is located in the area between points one and two.

I'm almost certain his point was that things got worse since 1973. You are trying to agree with him, right? Cuz that's what you're doing.

Because sometimes you have to break a few eggs to learn things, to gain experience. You can't baby people from cradle to grave, it's just not natural.

There is a difference between not babying people and turning a blind eye while they're attacked and abused.

If we baby people from cradle to grave, we're going to have a country full of wimps.

Excellent.

Certainly. But the coffee should also not be unreasonably hot. Sometimes it will be spilled. That too is "a given."

Not ordinarily, no. But if the company knew that their coffee temperature was excessively dangerous and had received numerous complaints about it beforehand, yet consciously continued to keep it at that temperature, then it should indeed be held partially responsible.

Boiling water is by definition dangerously hot.

There is a difference between not babying people and turning a blind eye while they're attacked and abused.

I don't think anyone is turning a blind eye, but the way we handle hyperactive kids today by drugging them up, the way we have to involve the police and Bomb Squad with every little fight on school grounds, the way that parents can sue the school, other parents, church etc. is just wrong and stupid.

Drop the wimp part. That's the least of our worries.

We have a generation coming into its own right now. This generation has fed upon the ideas that nothing is your fault and that you are not responsible for anything negative that happens in your life. What impact is this going to have when this generation becomes leaders in politics and coorporations?

Everyone's passing the buck, and nothing gets fixed nor finished.

Drop the wimp part. That's the least of our worries.

We have a generation coming into its own right now. This generation has fed upon the ideas that nothing is your fault and that you are not responsible for anything negative that happens in your life.

Furthermore, competition has been stripped of its positive values, while laziness is rewarded. Why try?

I know, it used to be that competition was a good thing, and that competition usually brings out the best in people. But nooo, we can't hurt Johnny's self esteem. So we have to get rid of competition, and give everyone a worthless trophy, just so Johnny would feel better. Bah I hate the fact that we value self esteem over a good's day work.

Of course you're responsible for some of the bad things that happened in your life. If you drop out of high school, and get a job at Burger King, and you wonder why you can't get a good job, well DUH! You drop out of school genius!

I'm glad I'm being raised the old fashion way, where lazy is frowned upon, and you work hard and do the best you can. When you do something stupid, you take responsibility for it.

Certainly. But the coffee should also not be unreasonably hot. Sometimes it will be spilled. That too is "a given."

Not ordinarily, no. But if the company knew that their coffee temperature was excessively dangerous and had received numerous complaints about it beforehand, yet consciously continued to keep it at that temperature, then it should indeed be held partially responsible.

Whether coffee is at normal coffee temperatures or a bit above (I mean, seriously, how above normal was this coffee?) it will still burn you when you spill it.

If you spilled coffee on yourself that you made at home, should you be able to sue the coffee bean company because it knowlingly produced a product that had to be hot in order to make it?

I know, it used to be that competition was a good thing, and that competition usually brings out the best in people. But nooo, we can't hurt Johnny's self esteem. So we have to get rid of competition, and give everyone a worthless trophy, just so Johnny would feel better. Bah I hate the fact that we value self esteem over a good's day work.

::grin:: My mind is feeling fuzzy. Thanks for finishing my thought. That's exactly what I was thinking!

I'm almost certain his point was that things got worse since 1973. You are trying to agree with him, right? Cuz that's what you're doing.

agreeing. but also showing how it came to pass. As I said, the story is in the journey.


My mother retired from teaching just as her school enabled a new law. should the child think it justified, the child can leave the classroom (without permission) go to the office and make whatever accusations needs/wants to be made, then the principal will call the police, then the police, child and principal will go to the class room and talk with the teacher. (I read that ruling. and this was in the late 1980's)

EDIT: Oh and to also show the trend before 9/11 before people start screaming "Patriot Act"

I don't think anyone is turning a blind eye, but the way we handle hyperactive kids today by drugging them up,

Oh, we should beat them instead? Nice to know you're so enlightened.

the way we have to involve the police and Bomb Squad with every little fight on school grounds,

Do you or do you not want students to be protected from the aggression of other students?

the way that parents can sue the school, other parents, church etc. is just wrong and stupid.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to sue? Should other people be allowed to do whatever they want to me, lest I become soft?

This generation has fed upon the ideas that nothing is your fault and that you are not responsible for anything negative that happens in your life.

Strange; this has been said about every generation for centuries. Surely society should have fallen apart by now.

I know, it used to be that competition was a good thing, and that competition usually brings out the best in people. But nooo, we can't hurt Johnny's self esteem. So we have to get rid of competition, and give everyone a worthless trophy, just so Johnny would feel better.

Where are you getting this from?

Bah I hate the fact that we value self esteem over a good's day work.

Good for us!

Of course you're responsible for some of the bad things that happened in your life. If you drop out of high school, and get a job at Burger King, and you wonder why you can't get a good job, well DUH! You drop out of school genius!

Depends on the circumstances. Why did you drop out of high school and get a job? Is it because your family needed the money?

I'm glad I'm being raised the old fashion way, where lazy is frowned upon, and you work hard and do the best you can.

Why?

When you do something stupid, you take responsibility for it.

And when something isn't your fault, you don't.

I know, it used to be that competition was a good thing, and that competition usually brings out the best in people. But nooo, we can't hurt Johnny's self esteem. So we have to get rid of competition, and give everyone a worthless trophy, just so Johnny would feel better. Bah I hate the fact that we value self esteem over a good's day work.

No, we give Johnny a trophy so that he tries again the next time and doesn't just give up because, "well I'm never going to get anywhere anyway so why bother trying?"

Of course you're responsible for some of the bad things that happened in your life. If you drop out of high school, and get a job at Burger King, and you wonder why you can't get a good job, well DUH! You drop out of school genius!

I had friends whose parents forced them to drop out of school because in my country, they made more money on unemployment benefits than on AUSTUDY. Are they responsible for their lives?

I'm glad I'm being raised the old fashion way, where lazy is frowned upon, and you work hard and do the best you can. When you do something stupid, you take responsibility for it.

Well, bully for you. I'll bet you also haven't spent the last however many years of your life being told how worthless and useless you are, and how you'll never amount to anything anyway. I'll bet you haven't been told your whole life that you're headed straight for jail, by your parents, by your teachers, by your family.

Let me tell you a story about a friend of mine. When he was growing up and he took a book home for his reading homework, his father tore it up because reading was for sissies. When he got an A on an assignment, his father tore up his report card, because only pansies were smart in school. He also scored a belting for answering his father back. When he got jumped by a gang of kids, his father belted him for losing the fight. When he belted them, he was taken to the principal's office where he relayed the story. The principal told him, "Well, your father is an idiot." His father went up to the school and put the principal in hospital. Consequently, he is now a no-hoper with few if any choices in life. Now, I recognise that he could have made a lot of different choices in his life. But you tell me, how easy do you think it is for him to make the same choices as you or I?

Oh, we should beat them instead? Nice to know you're so enlightened.

Of course not. But there are always alternatives to medication. That only addresses the symptoms and not the source. Why are kids considered so hyperactive now? I mean, when I was a kid, energy was a good thing. We had recess to burn some of it, and when I came home, instead of watching tv, I went outside and did kid stuff. During class, basic rules are in place. Obey the rules or some sort of punishment. Rather than giving kids the tools to survive in school and work, we are giving them a pill. Again, it's a shift in responsibility-- we are telling them that you are not responsible for your actions, nor are you able to do it on your own.


Do you or do you not want students to be protected from the aggression of other students?

Why is an either/ or? Either we have police sent to fix every aspect, or our kids will be beaten. That's a rather false dichotomy.



Why shouldn't they be allowed to sue? Should other people be allowed to do whatever they want to me, lest I become soft?
Of course not. But parents should not be able to sue a school because the teacher failed Tom for plagiarizing. Furthermore, suing has become more about greed than protecting your rights. Since when can a million bucks fix emotional damage?


Strange; this has been said about every generation for centuries. Surely society should have fallen apart by now.
Yeah, and you know since you've been around for centuries. I am talking about this century, and the changes I've seen, and the message that these changes are sending to people. And the message is that you are not responsible for anything.


Where are you getting this from?
The whole competition thing is quite rampant and I'm surprised you haven't noticed. In many schools they no longer have a valedictorian since that could be harmful to the self esteem of other students. Many competetive sports have also been cleared from the docket. etc.


Good for us!
No amount of self-esteem will build a better mousetrap.
Furthermore, if I am doing something wrong, I want to know that I am doing it wrong so that I can do it correctly in the future. I don't want my feelings spared, so that my self-esteem can be left intact. Sure, I'll feel good about myself, until I realize that my employer doesn't grade on effort, but on results.


And when something isn't your fault, you don't.

That is obviously not an issue with today's day and age. The problem is accepting the fact that you burned yourself because you spilled the coffee.

1973 - Ants die.


Ants die, then cats, then people. This kid is a Psycho killer. Hurting animals is the #1 sign of Psycho Onion Killers!!!!!1 I read it in the newspaper.

I'm just saying that maybe we've gotten too soft, society is slowly being wrapped in foam.

And it should be bubble wrap. Everybody's happy with bubble wrap:)

And it should be bubble wrap. Everybody's happy with bubble wrap:)

How about a mashmellow?

And it should be bubble wrap. Everybody's happy with bubble wrap:)

"Pop Pop, Hope no one sees me, Getting Freaky"

Of course not. But there are always alternatives to medication. That only addresses the symptoms and not the source.

I agree. I think we should abolish the present society precisely because it necessarily conflicts with our natures, and this is one example.

Why are kids considered so hyperactive now?

Because "education" the way we handle it is stifling.

During class, basic rules are in place. Obey the rules or some sort of punishment.

Oh, I see. You don't really want to address the cause at all. You merely prefer other enforcement mechanisms to deal with the symptom.

Me, I think we should do away with all of them.

Rather than giving kids the tools to survive in school and work, we are giving them a pill.

Is not the pill a tool "to survive in school and work"?

Again, it's a shift in responsibility-- we are telling them that you are not responsible for your actions, nor are you able to do it on your own.

So you think the hyperactivity of children should be forcibly suppressed, lest they become irresponsible?

Why is an either/ or? Either we have police sent to fix every aspect, or our kids will be beaten. That's a rather false dichotomy.

And it is also false to say that the police are brought in to "fix every aspect."

So when Wilgrove exaggerates, I pick out the kernel of truth from his hyperbole.

Of course not. But parents should not be able to sue a school because the teacher failed Tom for plagiarizing.

Why not?

Furthermore, suing has become more about greed than protecting your rights. Since when can a million bucks fix emotional damage?

It is not reparatory. It is compensatory.

Yeah, and you know since you've been around for centuries. I am talking about this century, and the changes I've seen, and the message that these changes are sending to people. And the message is that you are not responsible for anything.

Your opinion is hardly indicative of anything, however, because it has been shared concerning generation after generation for a long time.

The whole competition thing is quite rampant and I'm surprised you haven't noticed. In many schools they no longer have a valedictorian since that could be harmful to the self esteem of other students.

What of it?

Many competetive sports have also been cleared from the docket.

What are you talking about?

No amount of self-esteem will build a better mousetrap.

I am more concerned about human dignity and welfare than mousetraps.

Furthermore, if I am doing something wrong, I want to know that I am doing it wrong so that I can do it correctly in the future.

Sure. But that is not the same as degrading you because you are doing something wrong. You can be corrected without being treated as an idiot.

That is obviously not an issue with today's day and age. The problem is accepting the fact that you burned yourself because you spilled the coffee.

Thankfully, our society has basic accepted norms. I don't have to worry about my friends trying to kill me, because I know they wouldn't. I don't have to worry about my parents blackmailing me, because I know they wouldn't. Why should I have to worry about McDonalds heating their coffee to excessively dangerous temperatures?

Thankfully, our society has basic accepted norms. I don't have to worry about my friends trying to kill me, because I know they wouldn't. I don't have to worry about my parents blackmailing me, because I know they wouldn't. Why should I have to worry about McDonalds heating their coffee to excessively dangerous temperatures?

Because the water has to be boiled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling
http://projects.edtech.sandi.net/lvelem/waterproject/images/boiling1.JPG
Boiling water. Water that is boiling. As in, 212 Fahrenheit? 100 centigrade? Really fucking hot?

Because the water has to be boiled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling

Boiling water. Water that is boiling. As in, 212 Fahrenheit? 100 centigrade? Really fucking hot?

Do people normally drink their coffee when it is boiling? I'm not a big coffee drinker myself but that just seems like a bad idea

Because the water has to be boiled.

So?

The coffee still does not have to be served at excessively dangerous temperatures. This is a question of degree (no pun intended.) I am not denying that coffee is hot.

Do people normally drink their coffee when it is boiling? I'm not a big coffee drinker myself but that just seems like a bad idea

no, normal people boil the water, add cold milk, and drink, or leave it to sit to cool. Plus, water is not normally at boiling temp when coffee is made.

Do people normally drink their coffee when it is boiling? I'm not a big coffee drinker myself but that just seems like a bad idea

Hopefully not, but if it was recently prepared, it won't be far below it. The point is, McDonald's give you a really hot liquid because it's supposed to be a really hot liquid. You should take the according precautions, and not blame McDonald's for boiling water making water hot.

Hopefully not, but if it was recently prepared, it won't be far below it. The point is, McDonald's give you a really hot liquid because it's supposed to be a really hot liquid. You should take the according precautions, and not blame McDonald's for boiling water making water hot.

So basically it is meant to be cooled before drinking? So when you said it had to be boiling you were being misleading?

The point is, McDonald's give you a really hot liquid because it's supposed to be a really hot liquid.

No. McDonald's gives you an excessively hot liquid because they want it to increase sales. Even though as a consequence, the coffee is more dangerous than it needs to be.

So?

The coffee still does not have to be served at excessively dangerous temperatures. This is a question of degree (no pun intended.) I am not denying that coffee is hot.

Actually, many people prefer to get it still hot, helps things dissiolve I believe. What are you asking for anyways? That they make the coffee, then let it sit there for ten minutes before they give it to you? Because in making coffee, it has to, at some point, reach "excessively dangerous temperatures". To be honest, just take the cup, sit it on the table, and wait for it to cool.

So basically it is meant to be cooled before drinking? So when you said it had to be boiling you were being misleading?

Boiling for perparing You make the water really hot, and make the coffee. Thus, recently prepared coffee will be really hot. Then you add your cream and sugar or whatev, and you let it cool till it's safe. And you are careful, because it's dangerous, which is unavoidable.

Actually, many people prefer to get it still hot, helps things dissiolve I believe.

Then keep it hot. Again, this is not a question of "hot" versus "cold" - it is a question of the degree of heat.

What are you asking for anyways? That they make the coffee, then let it sit there for ten minutes before they give it to you?

That they serve the coffee at a relatively safe temperature. (Key word "relatively.")

Because in making coffee, it has to, at some point, reach "excessively dangerous temperatures".

So? The question is the temperature at which it is served.

To be honest, just take the cup, sit it on the table, and wait for it to cool.

I don't drink coffee, so I needn't worry. I just get tired of it when people repeat this anectode without having a clue as to what actually happened.

No. McDonald's gives you an excessively hot liquid because they want it to increase sales. Even though as a consequence, the coffee is more dangerous than it needs to be.

What are you on about excessively hot? Is your coffee superheated? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheating)

Boiling for perparing You make the water really hot, and make the coffee. Thus, recently prepared coffee will be really hot. Then you add your cream and sugar or whatev, and you let it cool till it's safe. And you are careful, because it's dangerous, which is unavoidable.

Does seem like you could have made your point clear before rather than using only half the truth as an argument

That they serve the coffee at a relatively safe temperature. (Key word "relatively.")

Considering how rarely, statistically speaking, something like this happens, I'd consider it safe, and a few folks are just clumsy and unlucky.


I don't drink coffee, so I needn't worry. I just get tired of it when people repeat this anectode without having a clue as to what actually happened.

So what did happen, beyond 'person spills hot liquid upon self'?

Could a thread go from a discussion regarding the degeneration of society to an argument about the necessary maximum temperature of coffee.

EDIT: BTW Wilgrove, I'm still waiting for a response to my post...

Does seem like you could have made your point clear before rather than using only half the truth as an argument

I said. "The water has to be boiled". It seems quite clear to me, and presumably others, even moreso in the context of posts before that. We needn't be obtuse about it.

Scenario: Jack pulls into school parking lot with rifle in gun rack.
Most of those scenarios are such obvious dystopian exaggerations. What's your obsession with glorifying corporal punishment, and violence in general?

So what did happen, beyond 'person spills hot liquid upon self'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Corp.

Most of those scenarios are such obvious dystopian exaggerations. What's your obsession with glorifying corporal punishment, and violence in general?

Excellent question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Corp.
*ahem*
Liebeck v. McDonald's Corp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Liebeck v. McDonald's Corp in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

* Start the Liebeck v. McDonald's Corp article or add a request for it.
* Search for "Liebeck v. McDonald's Corp" in existing articles.
* Look for "Liebeck v. McDonald's Corp" in Wiktionary, our sister dictionary project.
* Look for "Liebeck v. McDonald's Corp" in the Wikimedia Commons, our repository for free images, music, sound, and video.
* Look for pages within Wikipedia linking to this article.

If you expected a page to be here, and it is not, the page may not yet be visible due to a delay in updating the database, or it may have been deleted. (See the criteria for speedy deletion for some possible reasons). Try the purge function, check the deletion log and/or the deletion discussion page, and wait a few minutes before attempting to recreate this page.

Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam.

We are such pussies. Scandinavia used to be vikings and are now near socialist vaginas.

Why was it better to be Vikings? You think the average Dane would like to live in 10th-century conditions?

America used to be a tough nation of cowboys that beat Imperial Japan, now we cant even subdue a bunch of rock-throwers.
If they used equally ruthless policies, I'm sure they could defeat them.

England used to run a global empire, and now its afraid to critic any domestic policies for fear of offending people.
Why bother running a global empire?

Germans almost conquered Europe and now they are too afraid to even wave a flag.
Wow... I can't believe I've found a Jew to glorify Nazism. There were no good virtues in Nazism.

Well...no, I love technology, but I think the best time, culture wise, was the 50's. The perfect American family, and so on.
How would you know? Don't you know anyone who lived in the 1950s? That's as realistic as saying the 13th century in England was a great time because you could be in Robin Hood's gang.

*ahem*

For some reason, it didn't include the period in the link. Add it, and it'll work.

For some reason, it didn't include the period in the link. Add it, and it'll work.

Yeah, she made a mistake and spilled hot coffee in her lap. Even 20 degrees lower, it says the coffee was held there 90 seconds, there would still have been severe burns.

Considering how rarely, statistically speaking, something like this happens, I'd consider it safe, and a few folks are just clumsy and unlucky.
During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.




So what did happen, beyond 'person spills hot liquid upon self'?[/QUOTE]

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As Liebeck removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

* McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste.
o Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures than at McDonald's.
o Coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.



McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.

The quality assurance manager further testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that while burns would occur, McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids at 180 degrees will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds.

Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.


http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx

Considering how rarely, statistically speaking, something like this happens, I'd consider it safe, and a few folks are just clumsy and unlucky.
During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.




So what did happen, beyond 'person spills hot liquid upon self'?

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As Liebeck removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

* McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste.
o Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures than at McDonald's.
o Coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.



McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.

The quality assurance manager further testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that while burns would occur, McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids at 180 degrees will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds.

Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.


http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx

How would you know? Don't you know anyone who lived in the 1950s?

I find it strange the way modern conservatives so often extol the 1950s. They must have forgotten about the creeping signs of progress.

Both the Civil Rights Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education) and the gay rights movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattachine_Society) started getting off the ground in the 1950s. Not to mention the generally left-of-center economic policies and the power of unions.

No, they would rather remember them as the days when women, Blacks, and gays were kept in their place, when their mythical John Wayne men dominated the day, when the government could persecute radicals without repercussions, when "family values" legitimized corporal punishment and hid problems from view, and so on.

Could a thread go from a discussion regarding the degeneration of society to an argument about the necessary maximum temperature of coffee.

EDIT: BTW Wilgrove, I'm still waiting for a response to my post...

I must've missed your post, sorry.

Most of those scenarios are such obvious dystopian exaggerations. What's your obsession with glorifying corporal punishment, and violence in general?

Because back then we talked about responsibility, we talked about doing a good's day work, we've actually had means to take care of problems that were better than what we have now.

Because back then we talked about responsibility, we talked about doing a good's day work, we've actually had means to take care of problems that were better than what we have now.

Nostalgia's a wonderful thing, isn't it? Not particularly true to reality, but wonderful nevertheless.

Nostalgia's a wonderful thing, isn't it? Not particularly true to reality, but wonderful nevertheless.

Yea, we really are better with drugging up our kids, getting police involved in every little disagreement the kids have in the halls, what with the parents suing the teachers because little Johnny got an F on his last homework, regardless of the fact that he did shitty work, and the fact that if you spank, touch, or even bathe your kids you can expect to get sued and labeled as an abuser or a pedophile.

Yea, we really are better with drugging up our kids

Things were better in the 60s and 70s, when they had the initiative to drug themselves up!

Things were better in the 60s and 70s, when they had the initiative to drug themselves up!

All Ritalin, Prozac, Anti-depressant, really do is cure the symptoms and not the problem itself. I've already made a promise that I will never drug up my kids.

Because back then we talked about responsibility, we talked about doing a good's day work, we've actually had means to take care of problems that were better than what we have now.
But violence is bad, especially violence against women and children, and let's face it, the cops are not going to haul you away for breathing.

But violence is bad, especially violence against women and children, and let's face it, the cops are not going to haul you away for breathing.

Yea, but you can get sued for breathing, trust me if people are stupid enough to sue Mc. Donald because their food made them fat, then they're stupid enough to do anything. I'm not saying that violence is good, but do we really need to involve the police, SWAT, the lawyers, courts, judge in every little scruff that Johnny and Mark have?

Also, what the hell is wrong with Johnny? (joke)

if people are stupid enough to sue Mc. Donald because their food made them fat, then they're stupid enough to do anything.

If people are stupid enough to manipulate the US legal system into awarding them money for eating cheap food till they get fat? That's not stupidity, that's cunning.

If people are stupid enough to manipulate the US legal system into awarding them money for eating cheap food till they get fat? That's not stupidity, that's cunning.

No it's stupid and a waste of the court's time, the lawyer's time, and the taxpayers money.

quite a sad story. we need to do something about it.

Thank God we don't tolerate teenagers with guns, corporal punishment, teenagers beating up other teenagers, and the like any more.

If it somehow doesn't fit in with your notion of "real masculinity," count me unconcerned.

QFT

http://www.orlyowl.com/quiterly.jpgBut seriously, I agree. Present day humanity is so fucking lame about so many fucking things. We are such pussies. Scandinavia used to be vikings and are now near socialist vaginas. America used to be a tough nation of cowboys that beat Imperial Japan, now we cant even subdue a bunch of rock-throwers. England used to run a global empire, and now its afraid to critic any domestic policies for fear of offending people. Germans almost conquered Europe and now they are too afraid to even wave a flag.

Ugh, lets return to the 50's.

If you want all that back, you'd have to go back at least to the 1800s.

No it's stupid and a waste of the court's time, the lawyer's time, and the taxpayers money.

I would think that the lawyer who got paid was quite happy with his time. Additinonally it is the job of the court to deal with these things, that's what the court's do, that is their function. To say it is a waste of their time is to say that they shouldn't be required to do their jobs.

I would think that the lawyer who got paid was quite happy with his time. Additinonally it is the job of the court to deal with these things, that's what the court's do, that is their function. To say it is a waste of their time is to say that they shouldn't be required to do their jobs.

They should've dismissed the case as frivolous.

snip

Which doesn't matter, because she spilled the fucking coffee on her fucking self!

Yea, we really are better with drugging up our kids, getting police involved in every little disagreement the kids have in the halls,

Please provide statistics for how many fights, on average, there are in schools and how many fights end with police involvement


what with the parents suing the teachers because little Johnny got an F on his last homework, regardless of the fact that he did shitty work,

Please provide a source for a lawsuit levied against a teacher for giving a legitimate bad grade to a student.

and the fact that if you spank, touch, or even bathe your kids you can expect to get sued and labeled as an abuser or a pedophile.

Please provide a source for a lawsuit or arrest of a parent for non sexually touching or bathing their young children.

See, you have made what we call "baseless accusations". You say things are true without providing evidence for them. So until you continue to talk about "the way things are" please provide evidence demonstrating that this is, in fact, the way things are.

Until you do, I will continue to believe that you are simply full of shit.

Wow... I can't believe I've found a Jew to glorify Nazism. There were no good virtues in Nazism.

Nazism =/= Germany nearly conquering Europe. The military achievements of Germany and the atrocities of the Nazis are not inherently related.

And besides, Charles V HRE came fairly close to controlling Europe too, even if it was only through inheritance.

They should've dismissed the case as frivolous.

That is the job for the judge to decide, not you. Until you get elected/appointed to a bench, your opinion on what is, and is not a frivolous case is worth exactly 0.

Which doesn't matter, because she spilled the fucking coffee on her fucking self!

you really don't know much about product liability law, do you?

you really don't know much about product liability law, do you?

It's not that I don't know, it's that I don't care. If I buy a Desert Eagle or a Magnum and blow my arm off, do I get to sue the manufacturer? No! Because I blew my own fucking arm off!

Until you do, I will continue to believe that you are simply full of shit.

That's pretty much the same as covering your ears and going "la la la la la la...."

It's not that I don't know, it's that I don't care. If I buy a Desert Eagle or a Magnum and blow my arm off, do I get to sue the manufacturer? No! Because I blew my own fucking arm off!

because the gun is inherently a dangerous object, and if you aim it at your arm and shoot yourself with it, the gun did not behave wrongly or against how it was supposed to when it lodges a bullet in you.

Coffee, on the other hand, considering it is sold to people in cars, with the intention that it be consumed and handled in cars, should not be served hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns when the inevitible happens.

Your analogy would be more proper if the first time you pointed that magnum at something, it blew up and took your hand with it.

Then I bet your ass you'd sue.

Coffee, on the other hand, considering it is sold to people in cars, with the intention that it be consumed and handled in cars, should not be served hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns when the inevitible happens.

Maybe it's just Americans, but who the hell actually consumes their takeout while in the car? I eat the chips, but the rest waits until I get home.

Then I bet your ass you'd sue.

You can't bet my ass. That's not how it works.

because the gun is inherently a dangerous object, and if you aim it at your arm and shoot yourself with it, the gun did not behave wrongly or against how it was supposed to when it lodges a bullet in you.

Coffee, on the other hand, considering it is sold to people in cars, with the intention that it be consumed and handled in cars, should not be served hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns when the inevitible happens.

Your analogy would be more proper if the first time you pointed that magnum at something, it blew up and took your hand with it.

Then I bet your ass you'd sue.

Well thanks to this stupid lawsuit, Mc. Donalds don't serve hot coffee anymore, the coffee is now lukewarm.

That's pretty much the same as covering your ears and going "la la la la la la...."

so in other words...you can't substantiate a single claim you've made? Sorry kid, you don't get to make claims then refuse to back them up and expect people to believe you.

See, unlike you, I work in a legal profession. Unlike you I deal with law all the time. Unlike you I know what's legal, what's permitted, what's permissable and what's not. Unlike you I know how to read legal documents for myself and see what they really mean, not what some email list thinks they mean. Unlike you, in general, I know what I'm talking about.

So if you wish to make claims to me about legal reality you better be prepared to substantiate them. Because right now you're failing to do that, and therefore I have no reason what so ever to believe you. You made the claim, the burden is on you to back it up. Otherwise, you're full of shit.

Real world don't work lthe way you want it to work I'm sorry to say.

Well thanks to this stupid lawsuit, Mc. Donalds don't serve hot coffee anymore, the coffee is now lukewarm.

well maybe they shouldn't have been serving coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafts in the first place then, huh?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.
1973 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by
Principal. Sits still in class.
2006 - Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie.
School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his father's car and his Dad
gives him a whipping.
1973 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to
college, and becomes a successful businessman.
2006 - Billy's Dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to
foster care and joins a gang. Billy's sister is told by state
psychologist that she remembers being abused herself and their Dad
goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Not a big fan of psychologists, are we?

Not only that, but I object to the idea of a fidgety child being corrected with a paddling. It might not work. He could legitimately have ADD or ADHD.

HOWEVER

I will say that drugs are WAY over-prescribed for children these days. It's a sign of a deeper illness: Americans afraid of, and too lazy to take care of, their children.

I will say that my field seems to get a nasty rap often, and I recognize that there are plenty of bad psychologists out there. That's why I want to try and help clean up our image.

Maybe it's just Americans, but who the hell actually consumes their takeout while in the car? I eat the chips, but the rest waits until I get home.

Actually she was in a stationary vehicle in the passenger's seat.



You can't bet my ass. That's not how it works.

You're just afraid to lose it.

so in other words...you can't substantiate a single claim you've made? Sorry kid, you don't get to make claims then refuse to back them up and expect people to believe you.

See, unlike you, I work in a legal profession. Unlike you I deal with law all the time. Unlike you I know what's legal, what's permitted, what's permissable and what's not. Unlike you I know how to read legal documents for myself and see what they really mean, not what some email list thinks they mean. Unlike you, in general, I know what I'm talking about.

So if you wish to make claims to me about legal reality you better be prepared to substantiate them. Because right now you're failing to do that, and therefore I have no reason what so ever to believe you. You made the claim, the burden is on you to back it up. Otherwise, you're full of shit.

Real world don't work lthe way you want it to work I'm sorry to say.

Then what right does a person have to sue a fast food cooperation, that is known for selling fatty food, for selling food that is known to make you fat, and to actually have the case be brought to court?

I might as well sue fireworks companies if I hold a firework in my hand for too long and it blows up burning my hand if it haven't blown it off.

Not a big fan of psychologists, are we?

Not only that, but I object to the idea of a fidgety child being corrected with a paddling. It might not work. He could legitimately have ADD or ADHD.

HOWEVER

I will say that drugs are WAY over-prescribed for children these days. It's a sign of a deeper illness: Americans afraid of, and too lazy to take care of, their children.

I will say that my field seems to get a nasty rap often, and I recognize that there are plenty of bad psychologists out there. That's why I want to try and help clean up our image.

But....but....psychologists don't perscribe medication.

Then what right does a person have to sue a fast food cooperation, that is known for selling fatty food, for selling food that is known to make you fat, and to actually have the case be brought to court?


Because McDonald's lied about the fat content of their food, either providing false information, or making that information totally unavailable?

See when a company says "our food is good for you", and either lies, or fails to provide you with the necessary information, that's what we call fraud.

well maybe they shouldn't have been serving coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafts in the first place then, huh?

Coffee is susspose to be hot! God no one wants lukewarm coffee, lukewarm coffee taste terrible. Now thanks to one woman who held the cup wrong, and really should've waited before adding the sugar/cream in, we can't expect good coffee from Mc. Donalds anymore.

Because McDonald's lied about the fat content of their food, either providing false information, or making that information totally unavailable?

See when a company says "our food is good for you", and either lies, or fails to provide you with the necessary information, that's what we call fraud.

When has Mc. Donald ever claim that? Ever since it started in the 50's people knew that it would make you fat. Eating 40 big macs in a week is going to make you fat, you don't need the information for that, all you would really need is common sense.

Coffee is susspose to be hot!

Not hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns.

But....but....psychologists don't perscribe medication.

True enough, though there's been legislation I believe to make it possible for us to do so.

Which is stupid.

Not hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns.

In what angle was the woman holding the cup in her lap?

When has Mc. Donald ever claim that? Ever since it started in the 50's people knew that it would make you fat. Eating 40 big macs in a week is going to make you fat, you don't need the information for that, all you would really need is common sense.

The teenagers, whose ages range between 13 and 19, say in court papers that McDonald's inaccurately posted nutritional information and deceptively advertised its products.

was the claim. And for what you're missing, that case was dismissed...so what's your point?

In what angle was the woman holding the cup in her lap?

the angle of the cup in no way determines the temperature of the liquid inside, so I say that this is absolutly irrelevant. But to pull a figure out of my ass....3 degrees from the perpindicular. What about it?

was the claim. And for what you're missing, that case was dismissed...so what's your point?

I've never seen these papers and I've never seen Mc. Donalds advertise "Hmm Mmm, Big Macs, eat it and it'll make you big and strong."

Five bucks says the boys are lying.

the angle of the cup in no way determines the temperature of the liquid inside, so I say that this is absolutly irrelevant. But to pull a figure out of my ass....3 degrees from the perpindicular. What about it?

So it was at an angle where it would be easier to spill it right? Tell me, did the car have cup holders?

I've never seen these papers and I've never seen Mc. Donalds advertise "Hmm Mmm, Big Macs, eat it and it'll make you big and strong."

Five bucks says the boys are lying.

well considering you haven't seen the claim and have not seen the evidence presented, once again you're talking out of your ass without information to back up your claims.

Again, unlike you, I don't make those judgements, I lack the information to properly decide. I merely state what the argument has been, and leave it up to them to substantiate their arguments in the proper place.

A court of law.

Not wilgrove's "well this is the way it should be" world of imagination and speculation.

well considering you haven't seen the claim and have not seen the evidence presented, once again you're talking out of your ass without information to back up your claims.

My evidence is that I've been to alot of Donalds in this country, Virgina, NC, SC, Tenn, Kentucky, California, etc. Not once have I see any type of paper that these boys are claiming was there.


Again, unlike you, I don't make those judgements, I lack the information to properly decide. I merely state what the argument has been, and leave it up to them to substantiate their arguments in the proper place.

A court of law.

Tell me, why was the case dismissed?

So it was at an angle where it would be easier to spill it right? Tell me, did the car have cup holders?

as a matter of law it's an irrelevant question. THe important question is "did Mcdonald's know whether or not her car had cup holders and would they have served her different coffee at different temperatures depending on whether she did or not?"

The answer is pretty obviously "no" and "no", therefore what she had is irrelevant since they gave it to her one way or the other.

If I give you food with poison on it, yet you have the 1 in a million chance of being immune to this poison, and I didn't know this, isn't it still attempted murder even if I couldn't kill you?

The defect was serving the product to her with the information they had.

My evidence is that I've been to alot of Donalds in this country, Virgina, NC, SC, Tenn, Kentucky, California, etc.

Anecdotal situations are not evidence

Not once have I see any type of paper that these boys are claiming was there.

see any type of paper....

Oh my god.

they claimed IN COURT PAPERS, documents filed WITH THE COURT. They didn't claim, in court, that they saw papers, they claimed, in papers presented to the court.

Really you're making legal argument without even knowing basic legal terminology?

Tell me, why was the case dismissed?

Presumably because they couldn't substantiate their claims, what about it?

It's really kind of cute when non lawyers try to make legal sounding arguments, but really at this point you're just embarassing yourself.

as a matter of law it's an irrelevant question. THe important question is "did Mcdonald's know whether or not her car had cup holders and would they have served her different coffee at different temperatures depending on whether she did or not?"

The answer is pretty obviously "no" and "no", therefore what she had is irrelevant since they gave it to her one way or the other.

If I give you food with poison on it, yet you have the 1 in a million chance of being immune to this poison, and I didn't know this, isn't it still attempted murder even if I couldn't kill you?

The defect was serving the product to her with the information they had.

The point is this. Every where in the world, coffee is hot, people like it hot because it taste terrible cold. So since coffee = hot is pretty much common sense, the woman in question should've realize this, and either hold it in a position that would've not burned her, or put it in the cup holder.

Also, what the car in question in motion when she tried to add in the sugar and cream? That could be another factor.

Presumably because they couldn't substantiate their claims, what about it?


So at the end I am right, that the claims were bull. I love the court system sometimes. :D

Want to know why they couldn't substantiate, because before this whole trial, Mc. Donald never published their nutritional values of their food.

All Ritalin, Prozac, Anti-depressant, really do is cure the symptoms and not the problem itself. I've already made a promise that I will never drug up my kids.Some types of depression are not curable. Anti-depressants are the only treatment that works for many. I suppose we should stop diabetics from using insulin since it's not a cure?

Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++LOL:D

Some types of depression are not curable. Anti-depressants are the only treatment that works for many. I suppose we should stop diabetics from using insulin since it's not a cure?I love you. Will you sleep with me?:fluffle:

The point is this. Every where in the world, coffee is hot, people like it hot because it taste terrible cold. So since coffee = hot is pretty much common sense, the woman in question should've realize this, and either hold it in a position that would've not burned her, or put it in the cup holder.

See you are under the impression she was "just burned". 3rd degree burns are not "just burns". Her skin wasn't burned, it was melted. The skin around her genitles and thighs was literally melted off her musles.

3rd degree burns are EXCRUCIATINGLY painful, intense, agonizing pain. Worse pain then you have ever felt in your life. Her skin, as I said, was literally melted off her body.

3rd degree burns will not heal on their own, there is no skin left to heal. She required skin grafts to replace the skin that was melted off her.

It's not about it being "hot". Now, is coffee = "hot enough to melt your skin" pretty common sense?

But go on, tell me how everywhere in the world coffee is served hot enough to melt the flesh off your muscle, tell me how every time someone spills coffee on themselves it's a trip to the emergency room. Tell me how "if you spill this on yourself you will require multiple surgeries" is "common sense".

Go on, give it a shot, try to do it with a straight face.

Also, what the car in question in motion when she tried to add in the sugar and cream? That could be another factor.

Already been said it wasn't. Also somewhat irrelevant as McDonald's didn't know she would stop and recognized that she might still have been moving.

So at the end I am right, that the claims were bull. I love the court system sometimes. :D

You can not say one way or the other that the claims were true or false, only that they were not substantiated. And before you were attacking this lawsuit...bipolar much? Or should you just get the facts before spouting off like you know what you're talkng about?

Want to know why they couldn't substantiate, because before this whole trial, Mc. Donald never published their nutritional values of their food.

Oh but they do now though.

It's not that I don't know, it's that I don't care. If I buy a Desert Eagle or a Magnum and blow my arm off, do I get to sue the manufacturer? No! Because I blew my own fucking arm off!
The difference being that while we expect coffee to burn a bit if we spill it in our laps, we don't expect it to cause serious injury.
If you don't expect a high power firearm to do serious damage when you shoot yourself with it you're a dumbass.
If you shoot yourself with a firearm, you're not using it as the manufacturer intended.
The coffee was being used as intended when it spilled. It caused serious injury.

I love you. Will you sleep with me?:fluffle:

hey, I saw her first!

I love you. Will you sleep with me?:fluffle:Depends. Where are you and will you pay for me to travel first class? :D

-snip-

Ok, lets just say that it was too hot. Yes it did cause some 3rd degree burns. However, does that take away from the fact that handling containers with hot liquid should be done with more care than handling containers containing coke?

Oh but they do now though.

Yea, because they don't want another fat idiot suing them.

hey, I saw her first!True enough.

Ok, lets just say that it was too hot. Yes it did cause some 3rd degree burns. However, does that take away from the fact that handling containers with hot liquid should be done with more care than handling containers containing coke?

Supposing she got into a minor fender-bender that spilled it on her anyway? Does that change the fact the coffee was criminally hot?

Supposing she got into a minor fender-bender that spilled it on her anyway? Does that change the fact the coffee was criminally hot?

No it doesn't but she didn't get into a fender bender. See, whenever I order coffee from Starbucks, I am extra careful because I know that if I spill this on me, it's going to hurt. However I will concede that the Mc. Donald's coffee may have been too hot.

Ok, lets just say that it was too hot. Yes it did cause some 3rd degree burns. However, does that take away from the fact that handling containers with hot liquid should be done with more care than handling containers containing coke?

Once again, did mcdonald's know whether or not she had cup holder and would they not have served it to her if they knew she did not?

No, and no.

They didn't take any assurances to make sure that she was capable of more properly handling extremely hot liquids. They didn't check to make sure she could put it somewhere safe before handing her, in a car, a beverage hot enough to melt her skin.

They didn't make any effort to determine this, and their actions wouldn't have changed on way or the other. They handed her something dangerous, in a car, knowing she may not be able to handle it properly.

No it doesn't but she didn't get into a fender bender. See, whenever I order coffee from Starbucks, I am extra careful because I know that if I spill this on me, it's going to hurt. However I will concede that the Mc. Donald's coffee may have been too hot.

but IF you happen to spill that coffee on yourself (which you will, and if not you, somebody, regardless of how careful everyone is, it will happen eventually) you go "ow, son of a bitch, that burns".

Not "oh my god my skin is melting!" then pass out from the pain.

There is a well held maxim in the world, and it is "shit happens". Someone, no matter how careful they are, will eventually spill coffee on himself. The company has a duty to, knowing that it will happen, ensure they do not need hospitalization as a result.

They failed in that duty.

but IF you happen to spill that coffee on yourself (which you will, and if not you, somebody, regardless of how careful everyone is, it will happen eventually) you go "ow, son of a bitch, that burns".

Not "oh my god my skin is melting!" then pass out from the pain.

True. I still stand by that suing Mc. Donald because their food made you fat was a frivolous lawsuit, and the courts agree with me.

No it doesn't but she didn't get into a fender bender. See, whenever I order coffee from Starbucks, I am extra careful because I know that if I spill this on me, it's going to hurt. However I will concede that the Mc. Donald's coffee may have been too hot.

I understand your point about personal responsibility, and completely agree. Stupid people deserve divine punishment when it makes other people suffer.

However, it's still negligent to serve a dangerous product that seems innocuous because of past experience. Just because every hot-fudge Sunday you had before didn't have glass in it doesn't mean the next one won't.

True. I still stand by that suing Mc. Donald because their food made you fat was a frivolous lawsuit, and the courts agree with me.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you there. You can stop yourself from getting fat by eating too much, the difference of course is you can't decide to stop yourself from getting 3rd degree burns.

True. I still stand by that suing Mc. Donald because their food made you fat was a frivolous lawsuit, and the courts agree with me.

well, yes. OK, sometimes lawsuits are frivolous? What about it? The court did its job. What more would you have it do?

well, yes. OK, sometimes lawsuits are frivolous? What about it? The court did its job. What more would you have it do?

Did the teenagers or their parents pay the court fees?

well, yes. OK, sometimes lawsuits are frivolous? What about it? The court did its job. What more would you have it do?True enough. The courts are better qualified to say what is a frivolous lawsuit than the layman is.

Did the teenagers or their parents pay the court fees?

court fees or lawyer's fees? two very different things.

True enough. The courts are better qualified to say what is a frivolous lawsuit than the layman is.

for two reasons. One, judges are the experts on the law, and presumably they know more what is permissable or not than the average layperson.

Secondly...well there is this argument "we shouldn't allow these frivolous lawsuits to waste the court's time!" well...how do you know what is frivolous and what isn't until you examine the evidence?

It's like saying we shouldn't allow for frivolous lawsuits to go to court, but the only way to see which ones are frivolous or not is to get them into court and let the facts come out.

court fees or lawyer's fees? two very different things.

What I'm getting at, did the court make the people who brought this insane lawsuit pay for bringing this to court, by either paying a court fee, lawyer, fee or whatever.

What I'm getting at, did the court make the people who brought this insane lawsuit pay for bringing this to court, by either paying a court fee, lawyer, fee or whatever.

everyone pays a court fee to file papers (well, some exceptions due to poverty, and I THINK there is no fee for filing claims in federal court alleging violation of constitutional rights, but that's more a principle thing), so yes I'm sure they paid the required fees to bring it to court.

And they paid for their own lawyer (well, maybe not, most tort lawyers work on commission, % earnings from winning, no win, no pay, but if that's not the case they paid the lawyer, if that is the case the lawyer got nothing, except maybe the retainer they paid for).

The other side paid for their lawyers as well, unless the court ordered the other side to pay costs, which sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, hard to do with McDonald's who has in house council whom they pay one way or the other...

SO yes, they paid the court fees, and they paid their own lawyer, unless lawyer was working on comission, in which case he didn't get paid at all, except perhaps for a retainer.

McDonald's paid for their own lawyer unless the court ordered the other side to pay defendant's costs, which they might have, but I don't see.

everyone pays a court fee to file papers (well, some exceptions due to poverty, and I THINK there is no fee for filing claims in federal court alleging violation of constitutional rights, but that's more a principle thing), so yes I'm sure they paid the required fees to bring it to court.

And they paid for their own lawyer (well, maybe not, most tort lawyers work on commission, % earnings from winning, no win, no pay, but if that's not the case they paid the lawyer, if that is the case the lawyer got nothing, except maybe the retainer they paid for).

The other side paid for their lawyers as well, unless the court ordered the other side to pay costs, which sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, hard to do with McDonald's who has in house council whom they pay one way or the other...

SO yes, they paid the court fees, and they paid their own lawyer, unless lawyer was working on comission, in which case he didn't get paid at all, except perhaps for a retainer.

McDonald's paid for their own lawyer unless the court ordered the other side to pay defendant's costs, which they might have, but I don't see.

ok, then eh whatever.

Of course, Wilgrove had to gloss over all the unpleasant things, such as people getting murdered for their sexuality or ethnicity, rampant sexual abuse, sky-high STD and teenage pregnancy rates, and many school shootings, but that shouldn't get in the way of a good post. Anyone claiming that the '50s, 60s, and 70s were better than today are looking through rose-tinted glasses.

These are all modern phenomena, accentuated by the media. Show me proof that all those claims you make were worse than today. Otherwise, you're wrong.

http://www.orlyowl.com/quiterly.jpgBut seriously, I agree. Present day humanity is so fucking lame about so many fucking things. We are such pussies. Scandinavia used to be vikings and are now near socialist vaginas. America used to be a tough nation of cowboys that beat Imperial Japan, now we cant even subdue a bunch of rock-throwers. England used to run a global empire, and now its afraid to critic any domestic policies for fear of offending people. Germans almost conquered Europe and now they are too afraid to even wave a flag.

Ugh, lets return to the 50's.

Hey yeah, let's return to the age of patriotism on the level of nationalism, women relegated to second-class status, the dominance of the social and political agenda by one "race," overt militarism and really, really bad haircuts.

The only cool thing about the 50's (in the US) was the cars and the music. The rest, well......

And to include Germany in the list of nations that were better "back then" is an insult---an outright insult. I don't have to point out (please, don't make me) what was going on in Germany pre-and post 50's, do I?

<points out the errors in "Revisionist History Volume I: A Wish List" to AI and breaks out the yellow highlighter.>

My money's on improving the present. Just a thought, just a thought....


:gundge:

Yeah, it was way better when little Johny would rape his sister, and mom and dad would ignore it, and ship the sister off to a special place so she could have the child in secret and then be back for the next year of school with a story about mono...

Evidence?

Hey yeah, let's return to the age of patriotism on the level of nationalism, women relegated to second-class status, the dominance of the social and political agenda by one "race," overt militarism and really, really bad haircuts.

The only cool thing about the 50's (in the US) was the cars and the music. The rest, well......

And to include Germany in the list of nations that were better "back then" is an insult---an outright insult. I don't have to point out (please, don't make me) what was going on in Germany pre-and post 50's, do I?

<points out the errors in "Revisionist History Volume I: A Wish List" to AI and breaks out the yellow highlighter.>

My money's on improving the present. Just a thought, just a thought....


:gundge:

You're being unreasonable, what's so bad about science experiments without ethical consideration, such as the one conducted in the 20's where a test group of black men with syphilis were told they were being treated but were really being observed as it killed them?

Hey yeah, let's return to the age of patriotism on the level of nationalism, women relegated to second-class status, the dominance of the social and political agenda by one "race," overt militarism and really, really bad haircuts.

The only cool thing about the 50's (in the US) was the cars and the music. The rest, well......

And to include Germany in the list of nations that were better "back then" is an insult---an outright insult. I don't have to point out (please, don't make me) what was going on in Germany pre-and post 50's, do I?

<points out the errors in "Revisionist History Volume I: A Wish List" to AI and breaks out the yellow highlighter.>

My money's on improving the present. Just a thought, just a thought....


:gundge:

Improve the present with what? Washed up ideas of "equality" that have resulted in more accentuated and devastating consequences? Or maybe just using little smiley guns that really bring the point across?

Improve the present with what? Washed up ideas of "equality" that have resulted in more accentuated and devastating consequences? Or maybe just using little smiley guns that really bring the point across?

Yeah, giving black people rights really ruined this country.

You're being unreasonable, what's so bad about science experiments without ethical consideration, such as the one conducted in the 20's where a test group of black men with syphilis were told they were being treated but were really being observed as it killed them?

Or the Nazi medical advances made without humanitarian regard on Jews?

All Ritalin, Prozac, Anti-depressant, really do is cure the symptoms and not the problem itself. I've already made a promise that I will never drug up my kids.

Whoa there. That's a lousy promise to make. If you had a kid who was clinically depressed and you refused to allow them to try taking antidepressants, you would be a rather horrible parent. Antidepressants do not just treat symptoms - they are designed to rectify the chemical imbalances that directly cause depression, and can vastly improve the quality of life of people suffering from depression. Please, educate yourself a little before you punish someone else for your ignorance.

Or the Nazi medical advances made without humanitarian regard on Jews?

Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

Yeah, giving black people rights really ruined this country.

No, it didn't. In fact, it helped. Where we go wrong is in the idea of affirmative action and poor government and social programs that end up adversely affecting society.

Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

Yes, I was supporting your point.

Interesting to think about though, that much of our medical "progress" was perpetrated under the most inhumane conditions...

Wow. We live in an oversanitized world. I think it's time to bring back some of the darker elements of life.

[satire on today's world]
I'm OFFENDED by the examples you called Johnny.

I'LL SUE YOU!!!111one11eleven
[/satire on today's world]

Not bad, heh? ;)

Yes, I was supporting your point.

Interesting to think about though, that much of our medical "progress" was perpetrated under the most inhumane conditions...

Oh thank God.

Sure, it's interesting to think about, but also horrific. In some ways it's good that their pointless deaths served the greater good, but I think the cost is far too high to ever consider something like that again.

Whoa there. That's a lousy promise to make. If you had a kid who was clinically depressed and you refused to allow them to try taking antidepressants, you would be a rather horrible parent. Antidepressants do not just treat symptoms - they are designed to rectify the chemical imbalances that directly cause depression, and can vastly improve the quality of life of people suffering from depression. Please, educate yourself a little before you punish someone else for your ignorance.

Anti-depressant maybe, but none of these pills that sussposely "help" ADD/ADHD.

Anti-depressant maybe, but none of these pills that sussposely "help" ADD/ADHD.

Some kids have it.

Some kids have it.

I was on these pills, trust me, they do not help. Mine actually made me sick and I threw up every day, I lost alot of weight and ugh, alotta things went wrong there.

These are all modern phenomena, accentuated by the media. Show me proof that all those claims you make were worse than today. Otherwise, you're wrong.I'll have to find it again, but I have read that out of wedlock births and STDs were higher in the 50's.
No sex education is was possibly contributing factor I can think of. Even with the pitiful state it's in now it's better than it was in the 50's.

Anti-depressant maybe, but none of these pills that sussposely "help" ADD/ADHD.My brother find that the improvement in his funtion since starting on drug treatment for ADHD is nothing short of amazing.

BTW, he was first started on Ritalin. He found it made him a nervous wreck. They changed his medication and it's worked miracles. Would you perhaps think of trying a different medication?

Anti-depressant maybe, but none of these pills that sussposely "help" ADD/ADHD.

Don't be silly. Drugs like Ritalin and Adderall have helped many people. That doesn't mean they help everyone, or that they're not sometimes prescribed in error. I took Ritalin when I was a child, and it helped me not one whit, because, as it turned out, I didn't have ADD. My mother, on the other hand, does have adult ADD, takes Adderall for it, and is much happier and more functional because of it.

I was on these pills, trust me, they do not help. Mine actually made me sick and I threw up every day, I lost alot of weight and ugh, alotta things went wrong there.

Then you were probably given the wrong thing. I admit that the prevalence of these drugs is practically criminal, but some children DO need their aid. I'm sorry you got hurt by an incompetent doctor, but some people do need help.

hey, I saw her first!I didn't ask her to marry me or anything... I don't know her, and so that would be weird.:p

Someone had asked for the proof that teachers are getting sued by parents for failing their kids:

http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2002/07/12/parents_rule/index.html

Here's just a couple of cases. I first heard about it in an article in Readers Digest.

As for the sports with a competetive nature being banned, well:

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20061130-084530-2486r.htm

Banning tag during recess? No wonder kids are more hyperactive these days :rolleyes:

Eh...that could happen anytime from the dawn of man to about 5 minutes from now. Silence, lest ye be silenced.

Oh dont be stupid, :p. I am retarded for saying "perfect" but there was obviously never a time when everything was "happy days" and nothing bad ever happend. Bad things happend then, and they will continue to happen. I just tink the social contruct of the family was better then, and I think that was a boon to our soceity, our children and our culture.

*By the way, I'm not calling you stupid or anything, and I suppose its my fault for saying "perfect":p

Well, in those wonderful 50s people of color did not have any rights to speak of. And gangs prevalent and violent then as now... usually two different ethnicities throwing down on each other. Women were expected to be homemakers and to cater to their husbands.

Yeah, I'll say it wasn't perfect. Unless you were white and male -- then it was wonderful.

Anti-depressant maybe, but none of these pills that sussposely "help" ADD/ADHD.

Just like in the 50s, Miltown supposedly "helped" domestic conflict.

well, they were rarely shot in a gang fight in the 50's. Knifed? beaten with a bat? hell yeah, but shot?

Dead is still dead, whether it be via razor, broken bottle, switchblade, lead pipe, tire iron, baseball bat, good old fashioned stomping, or gun.

snip

so you're inventing stuff to prove what exactly?

"Knowingly dangerous levels"? Anything that is near boling is dangerous to human flesh. Coffee is hot. That's a given. This is something you should know and be aware of. Furthermore, the company should not be responsible for your clumsiness. The coffee was only dangerous if spilled, and the company in no way aided in the spilling of the coffee.

Incorrect. McDonald's had done internal studies which told them that what they were doing was dangerous and they knew it.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm


During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

And that's why they lost -- they knew the danger and said, "Tough for anyone who gets burned -- it's their fault even though we're holding it at dangerously high temperatures that NO ONE ELSE keeps their coffee at."

Boiling water is by definition dangerously hot.

Do you drink boiling coffee? Is it actually bubbling in your cup when you drink it? 212 degrees Fahrenheit?

Or when you pour it out of the pot, is it actually much cooler -- as in 135-150 degrees?

Whether coffee is at normal coffee temperatures or a bit above (I mean, seriously, how above normal was this coffee?) it will still burn you when you spill it.

If you spilled coffee on yourself that you made at home, should you be able to sue the coffee bean company because it knowlingly produced a product that had to be hot in order to make it?

The McDonald's coffee was at or about 185 degrees Fahrenheit.
Normally, coffee you get out of your pot at home is around 130 degrees.

See the problem?

It's not that I don't know, it's that I don't care. If I buy a Desert Eagle or a Magnum and blow my arm off, do I get to sue the manufacturer? No! Because I blew my own fucking arm off!

What if the gun was made in such a way that the bullet was liquified when the hammer struck, and you were burned with splattering molten lead because of that design. You wouldn't sue them because their design is what caused your injury?

It's not that I don't know, it's that I don't care. If I buy a Desert Eagle or a Magnum and blow my arm off, do I get to sue the manufacturer? No! Because I blew my own fucking arm off!

Well thanks to this stupid lawsuit, Mc. Donalds don't serve hot coffee anymore, the coffee is now lukewarm.

False.

My mom was burned badly as a kid because her older sister accidently spilled raman on her.

Should we sue the raman makers for making a product that needs to reach dangerously hot levels in order to cook it?

The point is this. Every where in the world, coffee is hot, people like it hot because it taste terrible cold. So since coffee = hot is pretty much common sense, the woman in question should've realize this, and either hold it in a position that would've not burned her, or put it in the cup holder.

Also, what the car in question in motion when she tried to add in the sugar and cream? That could be another factor.

See you are under the impression she was "just burned". 3rd degree burns are not "just burns". Her skin wasn't burned, it was melted. The skin around her genitles and thighs was literally melted off her musles.

3rd degree burns are EXCRUCIATINGLY painful, intense, agonizing pain. Worse pain then you have ever felt in your life. Her skin, as I said, was literally melted off her body.

3rd degree burns will not heal on their own, there is no skin left to heal. She required skin grafts to replace the skin that was melted off her.

It's not about it being "hot". Now, is coffee = "hot enough to melt your skin" pretty common sense?

But go on, tell me how everywhere in the world coffee is served hot enough to melt the flesh off your muscle, tell me how every time someone spills coffee on themselves it's a trip to the emergency room. Tell me how "if you spill this on yourself you will require multiple surgeries" is "common sense".

Go on, give it a shot, try to do it with a straight face.



Already been said it wasn't. Also somewhat irrelevant as McDonald's didn't know she would stop and recognized that she might still have been moving.


http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/uvahealth/peds_burns/thirdeg.cfm
Check it out.

My mom was burned badly as a kid because her older sister accidently spilled raman on her.

Should we sue the raman makers for making a product that needs to reach dangerously hot levels in order to cook it?Don't be silly. We expect boiling water to cause serious injury. Most hot drinks are served at a temperature that cause no more than a scald if spilled. And McDonalds knows their overly hot coffee is likely to be drunk in a moving vehicle.

Ok, lets just say that it was too hot. Yes it did cause some 3rd degree burns. However, does that take away from the fact that handling containers with hot liquid should be done with more care than handling containers containing coke?

Some?
We're talking about huge tracts of skin from your thighs, buttocks, legs and genitals. Now, if you can do without those, let us know, mmmkay?

We're not talking about red, stinging and swollen. We're talking DEAD, charred away, had to be removed or it would have caused gangrene, had to be replaced.

Would you much like to have your manhood burned off? Because that's precisely what we're discussing here.

Don't be silly. We expect boiling water to cause serious injury. Most hot drinks are served at a temperature that cause no more than a scald if spilled. And McDonalds knows their overly hot coffee is likely to be drunk in a moving vehicle.

I don't remember saying the raman was boiling. In fact, it was in a bowl, about to be eaten.

I disagree with the fact that people should not be use paddles or belts, but getting beat up teaches everyone a lesson.

Dead is still dead, whether it be via razor, broken bottle, switchblade, lead pipe, tire iron, baseball bat, good old fashioned stomping, or gun.except a gun will call the cops to the location... and is faster than being beaten to death with a bat. ;)

about the coffee thing? remember, Drinking while driving is NOT encouraged, infact, most Driver's ed classes I've been in say don't do anything to distract you, that means eating, drinking, shaving, putting on makeup... etc. Being distracted while driving is a felony offense.

so the idea of near boiling coffee makes sense. it sits in its cup till the person get's to their destination and the coffee would still be hot when the drinker reaches a safe destination.

this is not to exscuse McDonalds, they lost their suit. but a possible explanation as to why they had their coffee so hot.

of course it doesn't explain that to the people who "eat at the resturant" that get burned... :p

I don't remember saying the raman was boiling. In fact, it was in a bowl, about to be eaten.

You pointed out that it needed to be boiled in order to cook. That isnt what is being argued really. It didnt need to be served boiling and i doubt it would be eaten so

I disagree with the fact that people should not be use paddles or belts, but getting beat up teaches everyone a lesson.

What lesson does it teach you?

I don't remember saying the raman was boiling. In fact, it was in a bowl, about to be eaten.Perhaps parental supervision is in order. Most parents I know do not hand children really hot food.

Perhaps parental supervision is in order. Most parents I know do not hand children really hot food.

And perhaps the woman needed someone holding her hand to tell her that coffee is hot and can burn you.

Drinking while driving is NOT encouraged, infact, most Driver's ed classes I've been in say don't do anything to distract you, that means eating, drinking, shaving, putting on makeup... etc. Being distracted while driving is a felony offense.


But she was not drinking while driving, hence she was not guilty of distracted driving. She was not in the driver's seat at all, and the car was further not in motion -- it was stopped in the parking lot while she took the lid off to add milk and sugar.

And as you said, it would not have helped her had she been served inside and done precisely the same thing, and McDonalds previously had 700 incidents of third degree burns to their customers.

Wow talk about rose colored glasses

And perhaps the woman needed someone holding her hand to tell her that coffee is hot and can burn you.

Third degree burns mean charred, DEAD skin down through all three layers. Surely you're not ignorant enough to believe that extesive third degree burns from a cup of coffee are normal?

My mom was burned badly as a kid because her older sister accidently spilled raman on her.

Should we sue the raman makers for making a product that needs to reach dangerously hot levels in order to cook it?

False premise.

Your aunt cooked the ramen, yes? So she caused it to be the temperature it was at.
Your aunt SPILLED the ramen, yes? So she caused your sister to be burned.
The ramen company is not responsible for your mother's injury, your aunt was.

McDonald's cooked the coffee, yes? They caused it to be the temperature it was at.

McDonald's admitted that they knowingly held the coffee at an unsafe temperature, yes? (It's back in the judgment, go look if you need to). So they were KNOWINGLY responsible for handing Liebeck a cup of coffee they KNEW was dangerously hot. We're not talking "OH SHIT!" and red and swollen, with maybe some blisters, which is what would happen if you sloshed it as you poured at home. We're talking COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF SKIN.

Clearly, they are responsible for serving coffee that is hot enough to melt you.

But she was not drinking while driving, hence she was not guilty of distracted driving. She was not in the driver's seat at all, and the car was further not in motion -- it was stopped in the parking lot while she took the lid off to add milk and sugar.

And as you said, it would not have helped her had she been served inside and done precisely the same thing, and McDonalds previously had 700 incidents of third degree burns to their customers. again, the lid was taken off while in the car, not a very steady place to be handling any hot (even if no where near boiling temp) drinks. and if she was adding milk and sugar to it, it would be for the purpose of drinking it while in motion. (another not smart idea).

but as you said, and as I said, Mc D's got the ruling and paid the punnishment. I don't drink coffee so I can't say if they still keep it at near boiling temps, but the fact that the last three times I picked up my father's coffee and he had to nuke it to his preferred temp, I would say no.

if she was adding milk and sugar to it, it would be for the purpose of drinking it while in motion. (another not smart idea).

Yup, but they have those tops that are 95% closed with only a keyhole to sip from -- no one I know would drink in a moving car or even while walking without the lid back on.

What lesson does it teach you?No one has tried for a while, so the best I can it teaches humlity.

False premise.

Your aunt cooked the ramen, yes? So she caused it to be the temperature it was at.
Your aunt SPILLED the ramen, yes? So she caused your sister to be burned.
The ramen company is not responsible for your mother's injury, your aunt was.

McDonald's cooked the coffee, yes? They caused it to be the temperature it was at.

That sounds rather hypocritical. My aunt should be responsible for cooking a food according to the instructions? How do you cook raman without bringing it to a boil first? And then you claim that because it was my aunt who spilled the raman she should be responsible, yet even though it was the woman who spilled the coffee, she should not be held responsible. What's the difference?

I think this is one of those arguments that is not going anywhere. I have not been convinced by any of your (collective) proofs. Nor are you convinced by anything I have said. It's just one of those times where we shall have to agree to disagree. ::thumbs up::

Yup, but they have those tops that are 95% closed with only a keyhole to sip from -- no one I know would drink in a moving car or even while walking without the lid back on.

see, because it's open, even with a tiny hole, it can still sp...



Damit Kat, I can't argue with you... Your avatar is just too cute and distracting! :D

My mom was burned badly as a kid because her older sister accidently spilled raman on her.

Should we sue the raman makers for making a product that needs to reach dangerously hot levels in order to cook it?

Hey, me too! Well, my hands got burned bad once. I was thinking of bringing that up.

Clearly, they are responsible for serving coffee that is hot enough to melt you.

But it was pointed out that even the temperatures used by other establishments would cause severe burns.