NationStates

Valrifell wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:
Climate change is a natural process and the world was actually much hotter during the time of the dinosaurs.

You are ignorant on the topic of climate science, a believer of corporate misinformation.

Why not both?

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
You are ignorant on the topic of climate science, a believer of corporate misinformation.

Why not both?

Oh a twofer

Just for the record no the current rate of global warming is not natural and it has long since been conclusively been proven to be caused by industrial civilization.

Freiheit Reich wrote:
1) Yes, the coffee was hot. Yes, I feel bad she was hurt. yes, the US needs national healthcare so she could have gotten her burns taken care of without demanding money from McDonald's.

An unusual libertarian position. I wonder if any of the other things you advocate for might impede this-- no, no, I'm sure it's an entirely self-consistent political program, and this is not merely a deflection to avoid interrogating the moral consequences of your actual beliefs.

Yes, she was wrong to have sued McDonald's.

Why? They gave her third-degree burns over a significant area of her body (and by the way, "pelvic region" likely means severe burns to the genitals).

I don't find the situation funny. I feel upset that a sneaky lawyer likely encouraged her to sue for a ridiculous amount.

Why is it a ridiculous amount? Reconstructive plastic surgery isn't cheap, you know, especially of sensitive structures.

Would she even have made that much money if the coffee made her paralyzed

...I assume so? Are you suggesting third-degree burns to the legs, stomach, and genitals aren't really very serious injuries, or that paralysis is somehow special or more severe?

She died 12 years later meaning she was awarded over $50,000 per year of her remaining life because of a burn which did not paralyze or kill her.

This reminds me of a fucking bit from The Office. "You'll be shocked at home much money she got! Fifty... THOUSAND dollars... a YEAR!"

Jesus Christ, dude. Do you have any idea how complicated the surgeries to repair burns that serious are? She was probably in pain for the rest of her life.

Her remaining life was likely worth around $20,000 X 12= $240,000 (it depends if she had investment income or just SSN). Likely, she would not have worked full-time from age 79-91 (and she still got the same social security payment).

Sorry, you're quantifying the value of a human life based solely on what you assume her lifetime salary-earning potential was?

The burn did not reduce her income. Also, most workers in their prime years do not make $640,000 over a 12-year period and remember, the coffee burn would not have stopped 12 years of income. Even if the coffee burn killed her, the lawsuit seems too steep just going by estimated value of her remaining life (valuing a human life is quite controversial but it is done in courts).

So how much additional suffering, in your expert opinion, would she have had to go through to merit an award of $640,000 over 12 years?

2) Yes, McDonald's showed attractive people eating their food. Cindy Crawford enjoyed Pepsi. Paris Hilton enjoyed Carl Jr.'s. The company never said you will become slim and attractive by just eating their food.

This is just a tweak on the argument people were using to let Trump off the hook for inciting a riot-- "they didn't EXPLICITLY SAY 'eating this food will make you slim and attractive' or 'I want you to violently seize the building and kill those inside,' so you can't blame them in any way for anything that ever happened!"

3) Movie poster lawsuit. She lost the case but the fact she sued and scared the company (and wasted the court's time) is a problem. She is a greedy and shameless woman.

Showtime Beats Lawsuit Over Scary 'Dexter' Subway Poster. She lives in New York City and likely sees scarier things every day if she takes the subway.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-e ... er-1182878

She claimed Showtime intentionally and negligently created a hazard for pedestrians by placing a "disturbing, provocative, shocking and fear inducing" image on the stairs and argued the New York City Transit Authority, MTA and CBS were liable for negligence for allowing the ad to be placed in that location.

Eh, well, we're a litigious people. Tying yourself in knots over "A GREEDY AND SHAMELESS WOMAN" to this degree seems a little extreme, even if it was a stupid thing for her to do.

People are greedy by nature. Libertarians try to ensure this greed doesn't reduce the freedoms of others and is kept in check. Greed is good until it reduces others' freedoms and hurts other people (offering unhealthy choices to customers is not hurting people).

No, libertarians enable this greed's ultimate expression as the central organizing principle of society.

Valrifell wrote:

Adamede wrote:Becuase the government shouldn’t necessarily legislate ethics.

Legislating based on ethics is kind of the government's whole shabang.

Thing is ethics are arbitrary and subjective.

For example, many people consider drug use ethically wrong. Many don’t. However drugs are heavily regulated and criminalized and drug users face harsh jail sentences in the US, due to legislating ethics.

Senkaku wrote:You're like the alt-right Facebook aunt version of Kowani.

Especially with the flag coloration, like Kowani's evil twin

Page wrote:

Senkaku wrote:You know a woman was actually horrifically burned all over her body by literal boiling-hot coffee at McDonald's, and when she sued them, they ran a smear campaign to turn her into a national punchline like this?


A lot of McDonald's content from you today, but I'll take your point more broadly on health issues created by corporate products, whether it's hamburgers or cigarettes or talc baby powder. It turns out, when you're presented with only unhealthy options to put in your body, or you're told things are healthy which are in fact terrible for you, you're not in control of the situation and the adverse health effects that result could hardly be said to be your fault.

I haven't heard of this happening, and it does sound pretty funny, but given the level of insight you show in the rest of this post, I'm almost afraid the actual story is some terrible tragedy where the company really was at fault.


No, libertarians have been hoodwinked by corporate propaganda to advocate politically for the financial interests of vast, impersonal entities that couldn't care less if they lived or died.

Also all she wanted at first was for McDonald's to pay her medical bills (which were in the five digits cause 'Murika) but they refused, the hot coffee lawsuit was basically just a jury rightfully punishing McDonald's for being dicks.

If the USA had nationalized health care, this wouldn't have been a problem. Why does a major industrial power have the money to invade other countries and have the number one most expensive military BUT it can't afford basic healthcare for burns and broken bones?

Of course, Biden will likely support something awful like Obamacare instead of a reasonable plan.

Basic health care should be a right and not a privilege (one issue where I actually agree with some socialists). However, I don't think McDonald's should have had to pay for her injuries. They were not being unfair.

Kowani wrote:these fucking geniuses
the FBI is using Baked Alaska's livestream to track down the rioters

Half-baked Alaska.

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Bombadil wrote:
Actually all of it was about liability of companies, it's part of a much broader attack on the right of individuals to sue companies under Tort law. The whole dismissal of her case is part of a PR campaign to muddy the issue, your attitude has been created and defined by others aiming to strip you of your rights.

Do you question climate change, or think smoking is a case of individual rights? These messages have been created for you to think.

Climate change is a natural process and the world was actually much hotter during the time of the dinosaurs. Yes, humans are partly but likely not all to blame. Tree planting campaigns can help solve the problem. Anyways, it is about choice and you are not forced to drive a gas guzzler or use coal at home if you are a tree-hugger just as people should be allowed to eat meat or not eat meat based on their ethics.

There isn't some judgement day where the universe evaluates how environmentally conscious you were and gives you a corresponding climate bubble. It is as much as a choice as it is a choice for you if someone blows cigarette smoke in your face.

Senkaku wrote:You're like the alt-right Facebook aunt version of Kowani.

Stop giving FR so much credit and unmerited response. lol

Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:

Adamede wrote:Becuase the government shouldn’t necessarily legislate ethics.

What law is not ultimately based on some normative assertion?

That’s not what I’m saying dude.

There are some ethical debates that frankly shouldn’t be decided by the government. Just take a look at drugs. Thousands of people are effected in various negative ways by the government legislating a line on this ethical debate that frankly shouldn’t really be it’s concern.

Adamede wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Legislating based on ethics is kind of the government's whole shabang.

Thing is ethics are arbitrary and subjective.

For example, many people consider drug use ethically wrong. Many don’t. However drugs are heavily regulated and criminalized and drug users face harsh jail sentences in the US, due to legislating ethics.

Arbitrary? No. Subjective? Maybe.

For instance folks may consider drug use to be unethical because it harms their loved ones through addiction and their community through lost productivity.

Comerciante wrote:I'm starting to see why Libertarians are not popular.

Better than those who post useless comments.

Freiheit Reich wrote:However, I don't think McDonald's should have had to pay for her injuries. They were not being unfair.

Fact: McDonald’s didn’t just serve their coffee hot– their operations manual required that is be served between 180 and 190 degrees; 30-40 degrees hotter than other coffee-serving restaurants in the area. The Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati issued warnings that coffee served above 130 degrees was “dangerously hot.” McDonald’s knew that their coffee was “not fit for consumption” at the temperature it was served because it caused third-degree burns within 3-7 seconds of contact with the skin. In the ten years prior to this accident they had 700 complaints of burns from their coffee, including complaints of burns to children and infants from accidental spills.

They knew it was dangerous and did nothing about it.

Valrifell wrote:

Adamede wrote:Thing is ethics are arbitrary and subjective.

For example, many people consider drug use ethically wrong. Many don’t. However drugs are heavily regulated and criminalized and drug users face harsh jail sentences in the US, due to legislating ethics.

Arbitrary? No. Subjective? Maybe.

For instance folks may consider drug use to be unethical because it harms their loved ones through addiction and their community through lost productivity.

Use whatever words you want, but my point still stands.

Freiheit Reich wrote:However, I don't think McDonald's should have had to pay for her injuries. They were not being unfair.

What part of "if she had drunken that coffee she might have died" is not getting across here?

She would have third-degree burns in her throat instead of her lower body.

Nakena wrote:

Senkaku wrote:You're like the alt-right Facebook aunt version of Kowani.

Stop giving FR so much credit and unmerited response. lol

you know, I've had a lot of unique insults thrown at me here on NSG
this has been one of my favorites

[Redacted. Misread]

Washington Resistance Army wrote:Just for the record no the current rate of global warming is not natural and it has long since been conclusively been proven to be caused by industrial civilization.

Corporate climate scientists knew in the 1950s that there was strong evidence for industrially induced climate change, but instead of actually fixing the problem, they took their headstart in noticing the problem to develop a killer PR campaign that spreads misinformation and sows doubt to the general public to this day.

Heck, even said PR tactics are well studied by philosophers of science, psychologists, and advertisers, because of how effective it was at causing uncertainty in the face of insurmountable evidence and a consensus among scientists.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:
As long as they are just stating their opinions and not actually killing people, it is fine. I respect their right to have an opinion. I am sure they dislike my pro-Israel views, but I would hope they would respect my right to have that opinion as well and be respectful to me at work.

Yeah they'll respect your views until they stab you in the neck for being a Jew lover lol. I don't think you actually have much experience in the world, which seems to be common for libertarians.

If they stab me, they should go to prison because by stabbing me, they violated my freedom to live (assuming I was murdered). Until they stab me, let them spout their views (outside of the workplace). I dislike the idea of 'thought crimes.'

Valrifell wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:Just for the record no the current rate of global warming is not natural and it has long since been conclusively been proven to be caused by industrial civilization.

Corporate climate scientists knew in the 1950s that there was strong evidence for industrially induced climate change, but instead of actually fixing the problem took their headstart in noticing the problem to develop a killer PR campaign that spreads misinformation and sows doubt to the general public to this day.

Heck, even said PR tactics are well studied by philosophers of science, psychologists, and advertisers, because of how effective it was at causing uncertainty in the face of insurmountable evidence and a consensus among scientists.

The original playbook was smoking - link - I mean.. there's a reason I asked specifically about smoking and climate change because the same tactics are used to try and reduce corporate liability under Tort law per the McDonald's case.

Adamede wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Arbitrary? No. Subjective? Maybe.

For instance folks may consider drug use to be unethical because it harms their loved ones through addiction and their community through lost productivity.

Use whatever words you want, but my point still stands.

Either way, drug use is a poor example since that was a bottom-up swell and not a top-down dictation. We can even see that since, as the support for harsh drug sentences eroded, so did their policy. Arguably it was the worst example you could have picked since it's like, the only example of the US buckling to popular will.

Freiheit Reich wrote:
Climate change is a natural process and the world was actually much hotter during the time of the dinosaurs.

You know what? I'm just going to let it go. If you and a bunch of other people want to live on Hothouse Earth, because you've decided it's really no big deal and the risks to the global food supplies (among other things) are minimal, fine! You can pay for some O'Neill cylinders for the rest of us to go live on, and we'll go off to be the control group in your stupid fucking climate experiment while you stay here and see if observation matches your predictions that it won't be a problem.

I support propaganda campaigns to discourage smoking and the dangers can be discussed in public schools. However, private businesses should have the right to allow or not allow smoking and adults (16+) should be allowed to smoke. Cigarette companies should be restricted from putting dangerous poisons in their cigarettes but natural tobacco (and non-dangerous chemicals) should be allowed as long as they are on a label (I agree in some regulations but as limited and as reasonable as possible).

Senka's Fantastic Fentanyl* Cigarettes: Made With Organic Tobacco!

*our fentanyl is as pure as the mountain springs that produce our production facility's water supplies. We're proud to be bringing well-paying chemical manufacturing jobs back to America, and to produce the purest ethically-sourced fentanyl on the market to infuse into our cigarettes!

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Yeah they'll respect your views until they stab you in the neck for being a Jew lover lol. I don't think you actually have much experience in the world, which seems to be common for libertarians.

If they stab me, they should go to prison because by stabbing me, they violated my freedom to live (assuming I was murdered). Until they stab me, let them spout their views (outside of the workplace). I dislike the idea of 'thought crimes.'

Yeah it's fun to talk about thought crimes and stuff but there's a lot of ideologies that fundamentally do not believe in your rights or freedoms.

Adamede wrote:

Comerciante wrote:I'm starting to see why Libertarians are not popular.

Better than those who post useless comments.

I'd rather post useless comments on the internet than be an apologist for megacorporations.

This is ironic considering the premise of the nation I am using today lol...