Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Hating Libertarians: Reason #241

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Mar 19, 2002
 Comments:
<whine>Liberalism is destroying the country. Look at the mess our courts are in. I want $5 million for spilling coffee on myself while driving</whine> (artistic license, Libertarians never actually stop whining)
diaries

More diaries by aoc
Atheists Unite!
I'm sick to fucking death of having to show time and time again that the case of the woman who sued McDonalds after spilling coffee and burning herself is NOT an example of a frivolous lawsuit.

Post the evidence and refute the myth: she wasn't driving, the car wasn't moving, the coffee was near boiling -- far, far above the typical level of "hot" coffee, the McDonalds had received many complains about the temperature, the woman was in the hospital for weeks recovering from third degree burns (flesh melting) and skin grafts, she received less than a million dollars.

Clearly demonstrate that the suit was totally legitimate and what do you get?

Yeah, it was hot enough to cause third degree burns. So the fuck what? IT'S COFFEE!!!

I hate Libertarians. I hate them so very, very much.

       
Tweet

I'd just like to interject... (5.00 / 6) (#1)
by elenchos on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 06:15:20 PM PST
...that this entire ugly, unfortunate incident could have been avoided had she gone with Hypermints instead of coffee.

HTH


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by aoc on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 07:12:18 PM PST
You are, of course, absolutely correct. The courts should have extracted money from McDonalds to provide for an education campaign extolling the virtues of the best, safest, most satisfying caffeine source available.

The again, the excellence of Hypermints speaks for itself. No need to taint their fine product with dirty money.


 
let me ask (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by DG on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 02:03:15 AM PST
were hypermints around back then? if not it's rather moot don't you think? stop pluging hypermints it's starting to get sickening
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
its not a question for the (civil) courts (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by foon on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 06:58:21 PM PST
Last I checked, it is possible to purchase coffee at retail establishments other than McDonalds. Personally I have never purchased coffee at McDonalds. However there are really two possibilities here, and neither justifies a lawsuit. One is that this was an isolated instance of a particular employee willfully heating the coffee to an unsafe temperature. If this was the case, a criminal case should be brought against this employee and they should be held personally accountable. The other possibility is that this it was the standard procedure at McDonalds. Now this is probably the case, as it seems there were other complaints. So the question is: why? Now, if it were really just a mean-spirited attempt to endanger customers, you must ask yourself why they would do that. The truth is that McDonalds is a corporation, and their aim is to improve shareholder value. If McDonalds were providing an inferior, dangerous product, it would become uncompetive, profit would decline, and they would have to change it, for instance by serving it at a lower temperature. Now, the fact that this did not happen indicates one thing: That McDonalds' customer base prefers coffee to be served at that temperature, and by doing so they are simply responding to customer needs. Maybe this woman does not realize this, but by buying coffee at McDonalds she was indicated that she prefers the coffee product offered by McDonalds' restaurants. If a person does not wish for coffee to be at this temperature, there are many other choices. Now what the court is effectively doing, aside from rewarding a person for making an irrational choice, is preventing McDonalds' from providing its customers with the service that they demand. This is exactly the kind of government interference in markets that has resulted in the present dependent, welfare-state mentality so prevalent today.

Now, if you want to criticize libertarians, you should really consider their support of moral deviancy such as sodomy and pornography, their insistence on granting full legal protection to those who promote hate of america, and some of their opposition to america's attempts to defend itself from terrorism.


I ask this question all the time. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by elenchos on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 11:41:39 PM PST
Which countries' system would you rather have? I mean, is there a country that doesn't use the civil courts to force companies to make safer consumer products in spite of the hidden hand of the marketplace or not? And that also doesn't overrule the hidden hand with government safety rules?

I just want to know which country you want us to become more like, so I can compare and see if I think they are better off than me.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


A little clarification (none / 0) (#15)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 04:12:12 PM PST
Which countries' system would you rather have? I mean, is there a country that doesn't use the civil courts to force companies to make safer consumer products in spite of the hidden hand of the marketplace or not? And that also doesn't overrule the hidden hand with government safety rules?

Interesting comparison would be how much of the regulations and safety specs were scaled down or delayed after extensive lobbying of the targeted industries. Cars are a great example, especially the infamous Ford Punto.


You should rent "Top Secret" (none / 0) (#16)
by jvance on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 10:01:20 PM PST
especially the infamous Ford Punto

I was going to flame your spelling, but on reflection it's an improvement.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Spelling (none / 0) (#18)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 12:01:10 PM PST
I was going to flame your spelling, but on reflection it's an improvement.

Can the facts that I am ESL and that I am doing my best be considered as a defense?


Well, (none / 0) (#19)
by jvance on Thu Mar 21st, 2002 at 12:18:48 PM PST
Check out this site. Maybe I'm warped, but in that light, "Ford Punto" seemed very, very appropriate.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
Meaness of Libertarians. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by walwyn on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 06:12:49 AM PST
The parent comment is a near perfect parody of a Libertarian argument.

Meanness Meanness, Meanness.
  1. Meanness in whitespace.
  2. Meanness in argument - its always a strawman.
  3. Meanness in direction - always follows a circle.
  4. Meanness in conclusion - always ends up the fault of Government.
  5. Oh did I mention meanness of whitespace.
the only thing that discounts this post as being from a Libertarian, is that it misses the living vitality of a quote from some dead guy.


dead guys (none / 0) (#14)
by foon on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 01:55:44 PM PST
the only thing that discounts this post as being from a Libertarian, is that it misses the living vitality of a quote from some dead guy.
Yeah, come to think of it, I probably should have found an appropriately ridiculous quote from Malthus or something to end with.


 
Question? (none / 0) (#4)
by Shinkansen on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 07:40:15 PM PST
Is "I hate Libertarians. I hate them so very, very much." related to "I hate Breakfast Chunck. I hate them so much!!" from the Invader Zim show?

Unfortunately, with out Libertarians, things could be worse. Libertarians, along with mega-conservatives, help define what we think is right and wrong. Pushing the envelope allows us to make laws, so no matter what way you look at it, we are going to need them. This does not mean you have to like them or the bitching that they do. Similarly, super strict conservativists prevent necessary change, but also help cause it. Either way, I think we need both.

Shinkansen!!
Awww... My bees!...



Shinkansen!!
Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

this is unbelievably stupid (none / 0) (#5)
by nathan on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 08:28:12 PM PST
Libertarianism is closely related to social conservatism. It is not exactly what you would call a countervailing force. Large-L Libertarianism is probably the saddest botched-abortion political movement among the many in American history.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

huh... (none / 0) (#6)
by Shinkansen on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 08:46:20 PM PST
Well...
Slap my ass and call me Charlie, I sure am stupid. Let me change "libertarianism" to "liberals" from the confusion for reading and being a general moron, and say "Fuck the libertarians... you can do what you want with them."

Shinkansen!!



Shinkansen!!
Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

you just spelled it w/ a small 'l'. big diff. n/t (none / 0) (#8)
by derek3000 on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 05:28:32 AM PST



----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Ahhh.... (none / 0) (#10)
by Shinkansen on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 06:13:15 AM PST
I would suggest for your signature:

Visiting www.theonion.com
or www.redmeat.com/meatlocker/
they have some good stuff there.

Shinkansen!!



Shinkansen!!
Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

I am a big fan of the meat. n/t (none / 0) (#11)
by derek3000 on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 07:08:30 AM PST



----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

(cue funk bass) n/t (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by nathan on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 07:52:29 AM PST

--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
probably South Park (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 01:52:23 PM PST
from the Civil War reenactment episode


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.