I don't think you appreciate the difference between never and improbable. In fact, your buddy AdamT was just arguing with Ikari about this difference being significant. Ikari pointed out that, based on statistics, it's wildly improbable that your McDonald's Coffee is hot enough to severely burn you. AdamT says that even though this probability is approximately 0.0, the fact that it's not is a big deal.
You seem to have misunderstood the argument. McDonalds coffee was *always* hot enough to burn you. It happened on average 70 times a year.
Happening 70 times in a year is a far cry from *always*, unless McDonalds sells only 70 coffees that year. Do lawyers think *sometimes* means *always*?
The coffee was always hot enough to cause third degree burns but coffee was not always spilled on flesh.
In fact it was exceedingly rare for it to be spilled on the flesh long enough to cause third degree burns.
Now you seem to misunderstand the context of the word always as used above. Do mathematics students always have trouble understanding English?
The coffee was always hot enough to cause third degree burns but coffee was not always spilled on flesh.
You actually believe that every single cup of coffee served by McDonalds was hot enough to cause third degree burns? Give me a damn break! Common sense suggests there are customers who have complained their coffee is too cold, and thus third degree burns could not be caused even if it was poured on your sensitive areas.
Those engaged in felonies should have no recourse in either criminal or civil courts for damages they suffer in the course of their illegal transactions
Yes, on a per-coffee basis. Not rare at all on an annual basis.
A non-zero number of people win the lottery too...doesn't make it a good bet.
since none of us are involved in the jury process, and since there were no criminal proceedings, and since none of us had a relevant bearing on whether or not there WOULD be criminla charges, ALL that remains is opinion. My personal opinion is that a meth addict armed with three knives including one strapped to his leg is a dangerous human being. Meth addicts are not exactly famous for their mental stability and capacity for reasoned rational choices...especially when they are specifically on a mission to get money to score more meth. Id be a little interested in seeing the autopsy photos and just how much brain damage he had suffered. Wicked beastie, meth is.
I disagree...it ISNT about whether or not laws were broken. The county prosecutor and grand jury spoke pretty clearly on that issue. Opinion on if the law should change...well...isnt that what everyone is expressing? their opinion? As to the civil award...its not really relevant to what the girl needs...what is relevant is what she was deprived of and what the father could reasonably be expected to provide. Anything over a jury award of say...12 bucks...Id say that was stretching things a bit.
It's a pretty safe bet if the wager is how many winning tickets there will be.
That's never the wager though. It's a good bet that 3000+ people will die from driving each year too, but what's the chance you'll die.
See if you skip the statistics, you skip information which is important. Now someone on this thread was raving about flimsy lids or whatever for McDonald's cups. But is 0.000007% really indicative of a design flaw? You can cite the absolute number and say 70/year, it would be a good idea to turn the temp down on that. Not unreasonable. But if you look at the 0.000007% you see that this was not a design failure on McDonald's part, but rather more indicative of operator error.
The chances that any individual will die driving are slim; does that mean that we shouldn't worry about traffic safety? Of course not.
And as I said (you were so smarmy against others when they didn't read things you wrote, maybe you should keep that in mind), lowering the temp of the coffee is fine. Taking them to court over the temp of the coffee is fine. But when you go to award a plaintiff, you should keep in mind the proper probabilities since there is information in those. Was it truly a problem is McDonald's cups? No. If they had a real problem, it wouldn't be a .000007% report rate. People in the end must understand a bit of math and statistics, these are important things when trying to quantify a system. You seem like you are most willing to skip over that and completely ignore it. It's unfortunate that one would advocate purposefully the denial of information in such a manner. It is a symptom of what I believe to be the big problem particularly in our judicial system. No one is thinking.
We should be nominally concerned for traffic safety, but also because of the probabilities involved; I wouldn't freak out about it. It's relatively safe, even though cars kill more people in the US than terrorists.
I've known someone who was struck by lightning too. Does that mean we should force the populace to stay indoors on days even remotely overcast?
Oh by the way, the chances of getting struck by lightning? Much higher than someone spilling hot McDonalds coffee on their dumb selves.
It's also a bit easier to lower the temperature of a coffee pot than it is to prevent lightning.
I'm not ignoring it at all. I'm saying that it is beside the point when they knew that on average 70 people were getting seriously injured every year as a result of their too-high coffee temperature. That's the point that you are ignoring.
and then you'll get some retard suing for false advertizing because the coffee isn't "hot" and some jury of idiots will award them $$$$$$$
If you knew anyone with special needs you might choose your words a little more carefully. Not that I've come to expect anything less than utter immaturity from you.
PROTIP: If you're going to deride people with intellectual disabilities, you might want to learn how to spell "advertising" correctly.
Ikari said:Do you understand what I am saying now? When Texas passed (was it Texas? I think so) the loser pays law; I spoke out against it. I think it is absurd and damaging to the system.
Would you extend this opinion to murderers? Such as the defendants in this particular case?
And as I said (you were so smarmy against others when they didn't read things you wrote, maybe you should keep that in mind), lowering the temp of the coffee is fine. Taking them to court over the temp of the coffee is fine. But when you go to award a plaintiff, you should keep in mind the proper probabilities since there is information in those. Was it truly a problem is McDonald's cups? No. If they had a real problem, it wouldn't be a .000007% report rate. People in the end must understand a bit of math and statistics, these are important things when trying to quantify a system. You seem like you are most willing to skip over that and completely ignore it. It's unfortunate that one would advocate purposefully the denial of information in such a manner. It is a symptom of what I believe to be the big problem particularly in our judicial system. No one is thinking.
We should be nominally concerned for traffic safety, but also because of the probabilities involved; I wouldn't freak out about it. It's relatively safe, even though cars kill more people in the US than terrorists.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?