I get junk mail from the ACLU, but haven't given anything to them in a few years. They recently sent me an email saying "thanks for your wavering support".
Bringing up Stella Liebeck makes me feel irrationally hostile; I've had a negative reaction to people "busting the myth" of that lawsuit on the internet for probably 20 years.
I certainly believe that suing corporations with deep pockets is a reasonable and moral way to deal with medical bills in a country without universal health care. It's not a good system, but if you can get away with it, why not?
And I know well that on average, the scourge of frivolous lawsuits against corporations is a myth, because I've worked in the legal industry and have a perspective based on many other lawsuits.
And if McDonald's served coffee without a properly secure lid, or some other defect then they should be held responsible for every penny of damages.
However, I am irritated by anyone who may insist that it is a "fact" that serving coffee which is hot (but less than 212 deg) is negligent in itself. And if I continue to see this "myth busted" or "fact checked" for the next 20 years, it's not going to change my opinion, because assuming I live that long, I'm going to be boiling water for coffee on my stove almost every day.
That tea was hot enough to cause bad burns, and did cause bad burns. If you wanna fact check it, heat 12oz of water to 185F and dump it in your lap.
It was known by management to be dangerous; that was done deliberately so that people would be forced to sip slowly, to discourage refills. Ain't negligence in light of intent
When I make coffee it is also right around 180-185F. I checked. I also scald myself with live steam once in a while so I know it's easy to burn yourself. I could cite some industry association's standard for brewing temperature, but I know nobody cares.
The point I'm trying to make is not that coffee should be hot, because I know arguing that is futile.
The point is, that framing this as a disagreement about readily available facts is incorrect and if you habitually interpret people's opinions/values this way, it warps your sense of reality to your own detriment.
I think anyone who wants to prevent me from getting hot coffee is not a nice or reasonable person, and I feel threatened by any implication that I would be in the wrong for making hot coffee if someone else spilled it. But these are facts about me, not about the rest of the world. As such, you don't have to accept them, but you can't invalidate them with facts about the world either.
Bringing up Stella Liebeck makes me feel irrationally hostile; I've had a negative reaction to people "busting the myth" of that lawsuit on the internet for probably 20 years.
I certainly believe that suing corporations with deep pockets is a reasonable and moral way to deal with medical bills in a country without universal health care. It's not a good system, but if you can get away with it, why not?
And I know well that on average, the scourge of frivolous lawsuits against corporations is a myth, because I've worked in the legal industry and have a perspective based on many other lawsuits.
And if McDonald's served coffee without a properly secure lid, or some other defect then they should be held responsible for every penny of damages.
However, I am irritated by anyone who may insist that it is a "fact" that serving coffee which is hot (but less than 212 deg) is negligent in itself. And if I continue to see this "myth busted" or "fact checked" for the next 20 years, it's not going to change my opinion, because assuming I live that long, I'm going to be boiling water for coffee on my stove almost every day.