Nobody who brings the coffee case up is against corporate liability - they're against people profiting from stupidity, or more to the point, they're against the lawyers who enable it. Seriously, who burns themself with coffee and decides to sue? What kind of mindset is that?

Again, Cy, how does it feel to be a victim all the time?

First of all, I apologize for necrobumping this. I was caught up reading it and didn't realize the conversation was very old.

That said, Cylon, I was unaware of the full extent of the case, so obviously a bad example of what I was trying to illustrate. However there is a very strong belief in our culture that one lucky lawsuit can elevate a person to the ranks of the wealthy. This is played out in tabloids and the internet where you hear of massive settlements against corporations, private individuals or our government. The perception is 'if I sue and make a big enough stink, they will settle out of court and I'll have it made.' This is not anecdotal every month one major news organization or another runs a story about how back-logged our civil courts are with spurious legal actions. Civil cases which have absolutely no merits for trial and are simply being presented because someone is hoping that the suit is inconvenient enough that the claimant can pick up a quick settlement and the lawyer can get a cut of the take.

Now let me make one thing clear, because you seem to think that I'm going to jump to conclusion that you are calling me a corporate shill. I firmly believe that corporations and governments should be held accountable for actions they take that put consumers/citizens at risk. And when either of them attempt to cover up or deflect blame they should be penalized heavily for that as well.

I just found it interesting that the immediate response in your post was to say "I'm not calling you a corporate shill." Which, in a left-handed way, did call me exactly that.

If we were talking 'face to face' about this I would be slightly offended. We are not, you don't know me and you don't know my politics. Suffice to say though, if you did you would know how laughable that statement was.

You'll have to forgive Cy - if you don't immediately state your desire to string up and burn CEOs, he assumes you want to eat little children and work their parents to death on your money plantation.

Quote from: Werekoala;405287Nobody who brings the coffee case up is against corporate liability - they're against people profiting from stupidity, or more to the point, they're against the lawyers who enable it. Seriously, who burns themself with coffee and decides to sue? What kind of mindset is that?

Again, Cy, how does it feel to be a victim all the time?

Wel, it annoys me to be the victim of your little japes, asshole.

How the fuck was I claiming to be a civtim here, you retarded dick? I was pointing out that the case of the woman suing over the injuries she got from overheated mcdonald's coffee was not a frivilous lawsuit as she had been seriously injured, required surgery and mcdonald's had known it's coffee was too hot.

So whewre was I claiming to be a victim, retardo?

Gonna weigh in here, and to add some context I am a recovering addict with 13+ years of clean living under my belt. I have to say that I unequivically side with those sayiing this lawsuit is not just stupid, but potentially harmful, and not just to our civil liberties. If the man mentioned in the article is allowed to successfully blame the game company for his "addiction", our system will have enabled him to keep believing that the problem lies outside himself. I didn't sue Jack Daniels, and they make a product that's physically addictive with the full support of the law. Not only is this lawsuit silly and irresponsible, it's hypocritical if it's allowed to go forward. How did I get clean and sober from actual physically addictive substances? I took responsibility for my actions, and my recovery. I sought out and received help from others like me and learned a new way to live. I did not litigate. If it is found that in fact game companies are attempting to be manipulative in their designs, then perhaps they can be mildly regulated, but honestly camparing them to Big Tobacco is apples/oranges. Nicotine is a physically addictive chemical that induces physical cravings that are extremely difficult to overcome. I quit smoking 6 months after I quit drinking/drugging, and to be honest it was a physically and mentally harder addiction to put down, although it's now been 12+ years of cigarette-free living now as well. I hope for the sakes of both our society and this man as an individual that this lawsuit is dismissed soon.

Quote from: Cylonophile;405259I
To defeat the common myths about it, the woman was not driving, her son was so she wasn't "stupid enough to try handling her coffee while driving".

Also, she required skin grafts and surgery after the incident, the burns were so bad. She did sustain a serious injury, not a trivial one.

McDonald's had had other cases where people had been burned by their coffee, knew it could inflict serious burns and had refused to turn the temp down to a safe level. The case against them was justified and they deserved to get hit with a settlement, despite the lies and distortions that corporate lawyers have thrown over it for years.

Not to be an apologist, but what most folks don't know is that there are a great many people who would pitch monumental hissy-fits every time McDs would try to reduce the temp on the coffee... I've seen 'em do it. As recently as a couple years ago I witnessed on old guy (you know the ones... always just sitting around the McDs every morning) bitching the fucking cashier out because the coffee wasn't hot enough, and all she could do is keep saying they weren't allowed to turn it up anymore. I've seen 'em return coffee repeatedly because it wasn't "hot", even though I could see steam rising off it. They were kinda caught  between Scylla and Caribdes on that one. McDs still sucks though

Quote from: IceBlinkLuck;405018For example, America's war on drugs has completely failed in its mission to stop, or even put a dent, in the traffic of drugs in and out of our country. However what it has done is create mandatory jail sentencing so that a possession charge can net you more time served than a violent offense. It has also made several previously over the counter drugs (contact, sudafed) prescription only. We have limited the rights of the majority of our citizens to purchase medicine because we cannot stop the minority from producing methamphetamines. However the war on drugs continues because it allows representatives and senators who want to be re-elected to say they 'are tough on crime' and want to 'keep our kids safe from drugs.' Yeah, right.

It has also enabled law enforcement to detain without charging, and seizing assets without a warrant.

Quote from: Sigmund;405498Gonna weigh in here, and to add some context I am a recovering addict with 13+ years of clean living under my belt. I have to say that I unequivically side with those sayiing this lawsuit is not just stupid, but potentially harmful, and not just to our civil liberties. If the man mentioned in the article is allowed to successfully blame the game company for his "addiction", our system will have enabled him to keep believing that the problem lies outside himself. I didn't sue Jack Daniels, and they make a product that's physically addictive with the full support of the law. Not only is this lawsuit silly and irresponsible, it's hypocritical if it's allowed to go forward. How did I get clean and sober from actual physically addictive substances? I took responsibility for my actions, and my recovery. I sought out and received help from others like me and learned a new way to live. I did not litigate. If it is found that in fact game companies are attempting to be manipulative in their designs, then perhaps they can be mildly regulated, but honestly camparing them to Big Tobacco is apples/oranges. Nicotine is a physically addictive chemical that induces physical cravings that are extremely difficult to overcome. I quit smoking 6 months after I quit drinking/drugging, and to be honest it was a physically and mentally harder addiction to put down, although it's now been 12+ years of cigarette-free living now as well. I hope for the sakes of both our society and this man as an individual that this lawsuit is dismissed soon.

QFT

First, good for you man. Congratulations on changing your life for the better.

Second, congratulations on being one of a minute (apparently) minority of Americans that have a pair of balls, and can man-up and admit making poor choices, and then take responsibility for the problem and the solution. This country would be a better place if there were more like you. :hatsoff:

Quote from: Cylonophile;405484So whewre was I claiming to be a victim, retardo?

You're always claiming to be a victim, even when you don't say it. A victim of corporations, or right-wingers, of people who aren't gravitationally challenged, and now me of course. Your knee-jerk attack on someone who dared to not immediately side with the now-rich coffee lady as corporate "shills" is just further proof of the fact that you feel threatened and abused by - well, pretty much the world at large. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who noticed it, either. I'm just trying to bring it to your attention.

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

Just wanted to say 'congratulations' to Sigmund on facing his addictions. I've lost two friends to alcoholism and I think I'm still in shock over it 11 years after the fact. I'm glad your friends will have you around for a good long while

Quote from: IceBlinkLuck;405547Just wanted to say 'congratulations' to Sigmund on facing his addictions. I've lost two friends to alcoholism and I think I'm still in shock over it 11 years after the fact. I'm glad your friends will have you around for a good long while

Thanks. I certainly didn't do it alone, and it's an ongoing process.

Quote from: Sigmund;405549Thanks. I certainly didn't do it alone, and it's an ongoing process.

Congrats from me as well. I figured you for someone with a strong will.