The general decline in standards today

[ButteMT61]

So you're going to tell the families of victims of drunk drivers that they are somehow victims of Darwinism by being in the wrong place at the wrong time? You favor the legalization of meth, smoking wherever you wish to regardless of those around you, behaving drunk and disorderly, or jumping off a bridge despite the consequences it has for the public? You favor anarchy, then?

Here's the thing: you may not feel like you need to be told not to do these things, or that you don't need a law to keep from doing them, but many people obviously do. It doesn't deter some, but it does deter many.

Just curious... but that's the first time I've ever heard anyone argue against laws against drunk driving.

Not even worth a reply to. That interpretation is not even close to what I said or intended.

 

[C-dot]

Just curious... but that's the first time I've ever heard anyone argue against laws against drunk driving.

Don't go that far. The way I read it, he meant more on a personal level, that you shouldn't need to be reminded of what is common sense. And you really shouldn't - But what many thinking people fail to remember is that common sense is rarely at work.

 

[PoohBang]

That's NOT what I said. Nice twist though...
I did not feel lousy and was not in lousy shape for the previous 50 years. Low blow, badly interpreted. I simply over the last few years (if I'm honest, 4-5) got beyond what I'd like myself to be.
I had no fear of death - other than what normal humans have. No "event". Just a realization and the realignment of my stars to get me back on track. All you need is the desire to do it. Period.

Sorry, I thought you said when you blood pressure went up you decided to change. I wasn't trying to twist anything. I miss-read what you wrote. I'm glad you're healthy now.

And Cdot, I was just trying to find common ground and ask what positions we were talking about. As knowing what we're talking about would be easier than guessing.

Too bad they're not a triple snap emoticon you could have added after your comment.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

So you're going to tell the families of victims of drunk drivers that they are somehow victims of Darwinism by being in the wrong place at the wrong time? You favor the legalization of meth, smoking wherever you wish to regardless of those around you, behaving drunk and disorderly, or jumping off a bridge despite the consequences it has for the public? You favor anarchy, then?

Here's the thing: you may not feel like you need to be told not to do these things, or that you don't need a law to keep from doing them, but many people obviously do. It doesn't deter some, but it does deter many.

Just curious... but that's the first time I've ever heard anyone argue against laws against drunk driving.

I can sort of understand what he is trying to say, that we should already know we have to be better than morons to drink and drive (at least I think he means that), but it is sadly we do need the laws. Too many things happen without them. I think he just desires that "agencies" (the best way to say it) are not so deeply routed into our daily life that we become totally over run by "big brother", and no longer have any personal rights.

 

[TidiousTed]

Good point James.
Yeah, the lady would have been told "well coffee IS hot, you should know that."
Sometimes I wonder if in those cases it's a lack of common sense, or the addition of a need to "chase the money" via a lawsuit. Hard to say.

I actually live in a country where you will be laughed right out of court still trying to raise a case like that

 

[jamespowers]

If it weren't hot, she'd have returned it, I imagine.

Unfotunately, because of her suit, you can get nice lukewarm coffee at that place now.:eusa_doh:

 

[LoveMyHats2]

If they are producing Soylent Green then you have me on your side.

Where is Mr. Heston when you need him...oh rats, he died!

 

[ButteMT61]

I don't think he was going that far. The way I read it, he meant more on a personal level, that you shouldn't need to be reminded of what is common sense. And you really shouldn't - But what many thinking people fail to remember is that common sense is rarely at work.

Well thanks for sorta understanding. Well, you understood me, just not giving me full credit for it. Of course we need laws. Just not my thing to tell people what/when/how to eat. Most won't listen. Look at how many kids drop out of school. It's even against the law for a kid not to go, but they don't. So how are you going to get the same people with the same mentality NOT to eat Mickey D's every day? You won't.

 

[Gregg Axley]

Lovemyhats, if you look at old photos from the golden era, people did this!
It's a physical/psychological decision though, kind of like what Tango Yankee said.
Some need laws to protect them from themselves, but often times laws don't protect them or us!
We've covered this before who knows how many pages ago, when common sense reigned because people were taught how to act and think for themselves. Now, several generations are told how to act and think by a little box in the corner. Ever since then things have changed IMHO.

 

[C-dot]

Too bad they're not a triple snap emoticon you could have added after your comment.

Predictably cryptic again. If you're inferring that I was trying to "get" you with what I said, then you need to step outside yourself.

Well thanks for sorta understanding. Well, you understood me, just not giving me full credit for it.

If you mean what I said about "thinking people," that wasn't directed at you. I apologize, I certainly intended to give you full credit.

 

[jamespowers]

Where is Mr. Heston when you need him...oh rats, he died!

[video=youtube_share;9IKVj4l5GU4]http://youtu.be/9IKVj4l5GU4[/video]

 

[ButteMT61]

I can sort of understand what he is trying to say, that we should already know we have to be better than morons to drink and drive (at least I think he means that), but it is sadly we do need the laws. Too many things happen without them. I think he just desires that "agencies" (the best way to say it) are not so deeply routed into our daily life that we become totally over run by "big brother", and no longer have any personal rights.

* BTW, this thread should help bump us all up a notch or two on the "Excessive posting" thread
Indeed. The more morons we cater to, the fewer freedoms I HAVE!
That's my issue with gub'ment involvement in general. Every time we ask them to think for the dummies, the others pay for it.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Things are getting into hyper drive now, I am seeking my tennis racket and have my bowl of popcorn and am really enjoying the show! Weeeeeee! hahahah lol!

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Good point James.
Yeah, the lady would have been told "well coffee IS hot, you should know that."

Most people don't know this, but the reason why McDonald's was hit with such high punitive damages is because they kept their brewed coffee at an EXTREMELY high temperature. Notably higher than the restaurant industry norm, and higher than was necessary to provide customers with acceptably hot coffee. By keeping its coffee scalding hot, McDonald's was saving itself money.

If I buy a coffee, I can be reasonably held to expect that spilling it (regardless of the reason) would scald my skin -- but not that it would burn off my muscle tissue right down to the bone. That's essentially what happened to the lawsuit's badly injured plaintiff.

 

[ButteMT61]

Things are getting into hyper drive now, I am seeking my tennis racket and have my bowl of popcorn and am really enjoying the show! Weeeeeee! hahahah lol!

Considering how emotional this is, I think everyone is doing a great job of self-restraint!!!

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Most people don't know this, but the reason why McDonald's was hit with such high punitive damages is because they kept the brewed coffee at an EXTREMELY high temperature. Notably higher than the restaurant industry norm, and higher than was necessary to provide customers with acceptably hot coffee. By keeping its coffee scalding hot, McDonald's was saving itself money.

If I buy a coffee, I can be reasonably expected to expect that spilling it (regardless of the reason) would scald my skin -- but not that it would burn off my muscle tissue right down to the bone. That's essentially what happened to the lawsuit's badly injured plaintiff.

I know they have been sued a few times about many issues. And I have to agree that when anyone does suffer an injury they should be able to seek redress in court.

 

[jamespowers]

Lovemyhats, if you look at old photos from the golden era, people did this!
It's a physical/psychological decision though, kind of like what Tango Yankee said.
Some need laws to protect them from themselves, but often times laws don't protect them or us!
We've covered this before who knows how many pages ago, when common sense reigned because people were taught how to act and think for themselves. Now, several generations are told how to act and think by a little box in the corner. Ever since then things have changed IMHO.

Geez, I wish I could post the Idiocracy introduction here. In several more generations Clevon will be the rule not the exception.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Considering how emotional this is, I think everyone is doing a great job of self-restraint!!!

If it went south, I have a box of depends ready to slap on, for sure!

 

[C-dot]

Most people don't know this, but the reason why McDonald's was hit with such high punitive damages is because they kept their brewed coffee at an EXTREMELY high temperature.

According to the American National Coffee Association, McDonald's was keeping their coffee at the recommended 90°F temperature. Also, they were not hit with any damages, punitive or otherwise - The case never went to trial. McDonald's settled with Miss Liebeck for a still undisclosed amount.

 

[jamespowers]

Most people don't know this, but the reason why McDonald's was hit with such high punitive damages is because they kept their brewed coffee at an EXTREMELY high temperature. Notably higher than the restaurant industry norm, and higher than was necessary to provide customers with acceptably hot coffee. By keeping its coffee scalding hot, McDonald's was saving itself money.

If I buy a coffee, I can be reasonably expected to think that spilling it (regardless of the reason) would scald my skin -- but not that it would burn off my muscle tissue right down to the bone. That's essentially what happened to the lawsuit's badly injured plaintiff.

And would this have been so 60 or 70 years ago? NO!
Why would you put your coffee there in the first place? Just out of curiousity. I wouldn't. The second thing is why would you drive and drink coffee at the same time? They come in those drink holder containers. Obviously she removed it from the holder.