Reading Current Events

Political correctness disclaimer blah blah: I'm afraid I will have to bash a small percentage of the American population in this post. I don't mean everyone in the US, and I think you know that.

We probably all remember the lady who sued Mc Donalds for brewing their coffee at too hot a temperature after she was too stupid to hold a cup of coffee and spilled it all over herself.

Now the mother of an epileptic guy who committed suicide after playing EverQuest (an online role playing computer game) for too long, wants to sue Sony for selling an addictive game.

Uhm, Hello? Reality check anyone? This is bizarre. But a few people over there are obviously making millions of dollars with such bullshit.

Pull something like that somewhere else, and people will laugh at you, because it's just a joke that people sue for themselves being a braindead idiot. Things like this wouldn't even be considered to be taken seriosly.

I think I will emigrate to the US, then sue the state for the weather, the sun for shining, the car of my neightbor having four wheels, and the dog of my neighbor for not being a cat - come on! This is all so freaking stupid wrong and ridiculous.

Maybe someone can enlighten me how something as fucked up as this can happen in the Western world. What kind of people are getting on American juries, and how can anyone with the tiny fraction of a braincell not see the wrongness in this??

(I will try to get down again, I promise..)

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

Well this is one of the few things we're asking ourselves from time to time but never get an answer.

Why are they so stupid?

If I was a lawyer I'd very much like to see their law books because I can't believe them being so different from ours.

my little two pence thought is that the Americans never had something like moral, ethics (but plenty of religions and pseudo-beliefs).

It's said to be the country of unlimited opportunities.
This has some very posititve but also those many very negative consequences. E.g. nowhere else happen so many stupid crimes.
It can be a great country though, a wonderful landscape, futuristic technology and so on.

But why are the Americans so stupid and ignorant etc. Where did his start? I just don't know.

One problem may be: There are huge differences everywhere. Between race, money and so on. The US are a totally mixed up country.

Well, this is still no reason.

And still there are people who are not that stupid but maybe they're just a minority...

I'm looking forward to the posts of some more intelligent NAOists who maybe have a better answer :-)
An last but not least I want to know what "our NAO Americans" are going to say about this subject. Of course you belong to the minority, guys!

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

Hmmm....k....just some thoughts that I have pondered myself....I know for a fact we have a majority bedrock of Americans you rarely hear about except in their communities. Pursuing the true American dream, a reasonably safe land free of tyranny to have a family, home, business, giving back to the community, pursuing higher knowledge, practicing their religions...if they wish....firm in their knowledge our laws will prevent these things being ripped away from them by the government. If you look back on the family lines...a strong work ethic, family is valued, community is valued. Then there is another group....values are tied to amount of material objects gathered....standing in community....power to sway...Then a third majority.....lol...values are gathered by the ads seen on all our communications...and are truly a force in their decisions.......there are those who have worked and strived and not getting what the advertisements promise...so they want a quick way, without having to expend themselves more.
God I look back over this...and the subject is too big....Americans are everyone in the world....each unique and diverse...as all humans are....Yes....we have rotten spots....and weaknesses.....all open to the world if you wanna look....our leaders do not speak for every faction we hold in our borders....and God knows they make mistakes at times....really stupid ones....we are mean and petty to each other....some try like hell to bring down our government, really want to, some want to change it into what they personally feel is the way to run things, we are the object of laughter at times from the world, because not much is hidden, some of us will seek it out bring it to light, no matter is stupid or dangerous....We choose our leaders.....lol.....always with power and money with agenda's of their own trying to sway our government to their benefit...and to some part they sometimes succeed.....but we, as a majority have the power to uproot that leader, kick them out, and safely our government takes the changes....we are young, powerful, and brash at times..we try to help outside our borders.....and sometimes I personally think we do some awful stupid ways of helping..throwing enough money at a situation, sometimes is not the total answer....I personally hate what is happening in Israel and Palestine.....I don't see one damn positive thing happening that is going to heal this boil that has been opened and is now draining....not one thing.....and I don't like our leaders attitude or reasons....I didn't like how we handled the downfall of Russia...we should have got in there and helped the people of the country get back on their feet more....fuck their government.....help the people come back from that awful hunger and need...aw God I am on a rant and making less sense as I go.......the upshot of it is.....I Thank God I was born an American....
Oh hell, I got way off the subject......yeah we have some total dolts and idiot lawsuits.......but our laws have been changed for the better over the years from particular lawsuits....and changing our laws is not easy.....also lawsuits sometimes are the watchdog of certain professions that have closed ranks to protect individuals that continue to practice even though incompetent or outright dangerous.......but yes, there are some of the most mind boggling idiocies on record....

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

This post was edited by gentledeepwaters on Apr 03, 2002.

True enough, I don't think many of us Europeans can imagine the sheer size of the United States, and the number and diversity of people living under that flag, although it's considered only one country on paper.

We are used to all people of one nation living clumped together in (compared to the US) small space, most of them vaguely sharing one view of the world.

Somewhere on the net someone has commented those crazy lawsuits with "I think it has to do with that invidualism thing". Maybe he's got a point here. But still the question stands, whether the law should support that stance. There's this saying "your own freedom ends where it begins to hurt the freedom of others".

And after all, why does the US law expect everyone to be a boneheaded dummy rather than a human being halfway capable of not putting their nose into the file shredder?

Aren't we living centuries after the age of enlightenment, when we all thought that reason, common sense, etc. were a pretty good idea?

PS.: You always have some interesting thoughts for us gentledeepwaters, although you might consider using more paragraphs to make your ideas easier too read.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

Grins..I shall work on that.....sorry, I write like I think..in one continous blur. I would like to hear from the other Americans also....my views are mostly from observation and experience....
One last point..the insurance companies have tried in several states, to put a cap on the amount a physician is liable for in a suit. I personally disagree with this, the AMA (governing board of Physicians) have historically made a really poor job of weeding out the inept.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

This post was edited by gentledeepwaters on Apr 04, 2002.

Lol........this American agrees with you 100%......and ask also..................like the chicken and the egg.....do they run to a lawyer with these ideas or does the lawyer..........??

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Being an American I find this totally offensive! The lady who sued McDonald's for having scolding hot coffee spilt on her was lagit. The cups at that point in time did not have any warnings as to how hot the coffee was. Yes it might be common knowledge to some people that coffee is hot, but it was the principle of the no warning label. It's the same as people sueing cigerette companies for no warning label on how harmful they are. It's the same principle. As for this new law suit, I'm not too familiar with it, but this one is a bit 'bizarre', as you put it. Was there a warning before the game started that it had violnece in it? Maybe the game is not suitable for certain people of certain ages and should have a charge to be paid to play it, which makes it only available to those with a credit card who are concidered adults and mature enough to handle the content of the game. Now I'm not saying that the mother is not at fault, because she is too. People with epilespy should not be playing computer games, because the flashing lights and fast action can create a sezuire. I don't know how to end this, but I want to say, yes your right that most of the law suits in America are bizzare, rediculous, uncalled for, but a large sum of them are won, so the people sueing are not that dumb if they are making money no matter how bizzare they are.

'A man is not old until regret takes the place of his dreams' -John Barrymore

The lady who sued McDonald's for having scolding hot coffee spilt on her was lagit. The cups at that point in time did not have any warnings as to how hot the coffee was. Yes it might be common knowledge to some people that coffee is hot, but it was the principle of the no warning label

The "principle" of "the no warning label"???

You seriously think there should be a warning on your cup if you order hot coffee?

Carrying that thought a bit further.......should there be warning labels on autombiles "if you drive, you might have an accident"?

I say if you order hot coffee, you have to take the risk of the consequences of spilling it.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Why do cigerettes have a warning label on them? Why does a hair dryer have a warning label on it? Because they may cause harm. Cars do not have a warning label on them because you have to take a test to opperate them. And if you take drivers education you get enough warnings from the videos you watch.

'A man is not old until regret takes the place of his dreams' -John Barrymore

Why do cigerettes have a warning label on them?

Because it is required by law to prevent people from starting to smoke (not that the labels would help much), because smoking is #1 killer worldwide? Because it's at least as (or, as some suggest, more) addictive as Heroin? Because when you smoke it doesn't only stink out your air, but also mine?
Definitely not out of cigarette manufacturers' kindness of heart, or fear of a lawsuit.

Why does a hair dryer have a warning label on it?

Because it may save lifes. Not everybody (especially not minors) know how dangerous using a hair dryer near a filled bathtub can be. It's the same reason there's the "an airbag can kill your child" sticker in the passenger seat of your new car. They warn you of dangers you may not be aware of, even with a healthy common sense.
The (hypothetical) "putting a device powerful enough to drill a two-inch hole in solid concrete up your nose is a bad idea" or "don't put your weener into this vacuum cleaner's fan unless you're into S&M" or "hot coffee is hot, don't spill it all over yourself" labels prevent nothing else than acts of sheer stupidity.

And if you take drivers education you get enough warnings from the videos you watch.

Obviously none of the videos covered the dangers of leaving the driver's seat to make coffee without bringing your motor home to a halt first.
Let's sue the driving instructor!

So do you want to say that there needs to be a warning label for everything you could possibly do wrong?

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

"They warn you of dangers you may not be aware of, even with a healthy common sense."

What does the hot coffee warning label due?? Even with a healthy common sense

'A man is not old until regret takes the place of his dreams' -John Barrymore

but it was the principle of the no warning label.

- No offense meant -

Being a non-American, I find it funny how far some people take this there-was-no-warning-label thing.

There was that guy who tried to remove an itch in his nose with a power drill. He succeeded in getting rid of the itch, but he also got rid of his nose in the process. He supposedly sued the drill manufacturer for 25 millions, because nowhere in the manual it said that you shouldn't put the device up your nose.

Then there was this old guy who bought a motor home (isn't this story here on NAO somewhere?), and while driving got in the back to make coffee. Of coursehis vehicle caused an accident. And of course he tried to sue the manufacturer because, yes, nobody told him not to leave the driver's seat unattended while driving.

And suing McDonald's for not pointing out that feeding on nothing else than Big Macs all your life isn't exactly good for your figure? Come on, where do you have to live to not know this? You eat too many burgers, you get fat. Everybody knows this!

I don't think writing stuff like "caution, freshly brewed coffee may be hot" or "don't put this power drill into bodily orifices" solves the problem. What these people really need is a sticker saying "Warning: common sense is required to use this product" on all products more dangerous than a jelly bear.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

What these people really need is a sticker saying "Warning: common sense is required to use this product" on all products more dangerous than a jelly bear.

so now we know how Dubya came to power and why half the americans with brains think the average american ape has an IQ ranging substantially higher than the average american human.

yours, bG.

p.s.: warning - flameable: and when reading such ridicolous 'I need a warning label because I aint got brains'-shit like the one called raeofsun wrote, this seems to be true. or maybe this user is just a parody aka FAKE and someone tries to bullshit us all? (come on, somebody loving ALL the imperialistic cliché crap cant be truely considered as a real person - real persons have a choice of their own!)

Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind!

This post was edited by ginsterbusch on Nov 08, 2003.

Ya think?? Sigh.....being an American...I hope you are right....tis someone purporting to be an American.

But, then again.

We do have Shrub in the Whitehouse.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

One: I am an American not a fake or parody as you put it (using the word in the wrong context because parody means something that imitates a piece of literature or art in comical way to get a point across.) But anyway.
Two: What quote are you using? Because I knowthat I never said that Ineeded a warning label.
Three: Before you go and make an assumption about a whole country, live there. I do not say that all muslims are mother f*ckers in the actual context. So please do not say that about all Americans because it is only the select few that seem to have problems with sticking power tools up their noses.
Four: And IF McDonlad's did not believe they were at fault how come their coffee cups have warning labels on them now?

'A man is not old until regret takes the place of his dreams' -John Barrymore

More importantly, people don't realize what the whole lawsuit was about. Consumer warning groups had told MacDonald's reps that the coffee they served was DANGEROUS. Like a serious physical hazard.

The woman who spilled that coffee on her hand didn't sue because she spilled it on herself. She sued because it was hot enough to cause 2nd and 3rd degree burns, which can cause serious nerve damage. McDonald's, before the lawsuit, kept their coffee ridiculously hot because it could keep longer that way, even though it was a serious safety hazard to both purchaser and server. Admittedly, there are some severe bullshit lawsuits in this country, but that one got screwed up because somebody in the McDonald's management figured that if they did something blatantly obvious like the warning label, that it would make the whole suit seem trivial.

Thbbbbt

Game and Match to magnifico.

Look at me! I'm a prostitute robot from the future!

My bad on not researching the info:

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - When a law firm here found itself defending McDonald's Corp. in a suit last year that claimed the company served dangerously hot coffee, it hired a law student to take temperatures at other local restaurants for comparison.

After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all over the city, Danny Jarrett found that none came closer than about 20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured, about 180 degrees.

It should have been a warning.

But McDonald's lawyers went on to dismiss several opportunities to settle out of court, apparently convinced that no jury would punish a company for serving coffee the way customers like it. After all, its coffee's temperature helps explain why McDonald's sells a billion cups a year.

But now - days after a jury here awarded $2.9 million to an 81-year-old woman scalded by McDonald's coffee - some observers say the defense was naïve. "I drink McDonald's coffee because it's hot, the hottest coffee around," says Robert Gregg, a Dallas defense attorney who consumes it during morning drives to the office. "But I've predicted for years that someone's going to win a suit, because I've spilled it on myself. And unlike the coffee I make at home, it's really hot. I mean, man, it hurts."

McDonald's, known for its fastidious control over franchisees, requires that its coffee be prepared at very high temperatures, based on recommendations of coffee consultants and industry groups that say hot temperatures are necessary to fully extract the flavor during brewing.

Before trial, McDonald's gave the opposing lawyer its operations and training manual, which says its coffee must be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees and held at 180 to 190 degrees for optimal taste. Sine the verdict, McDonald's has declined to offer any comment, as have their attorneys. It is unclear if the company, whose coffee cups warn drinkers that the contents are hot, plans to change its preparation procedures.

Coffee temperature is suddenly a hot topic in the industry. The Specialty Coffee Association of America has put coffee safety on the agenda of its quarterly board meeting this month. And a spokesman for Dunkin' Donuts Inc., which sells about 500 million cups of coffee a year, says the company is looking at the verdict to see if it needs to make any changes to the way it makes coffee.

Others call it a tempest in a coffeepot. A spokesman for the National Coffee Association says McDonald's coffee conforms to industry temperature standards. And a spokesman for Mr. Coffee Inc., the coffee-machine maker, says that if customer complaints are any indication, industry settings may be too low - some customers like it hotter. A spokeswoman for Starbucks Coffee Co. adds, "Coffee is traditionally a hot beverage and is served hot and I would hope that this is an isolated incident."

Coffee connoisseur William McAlpin, an importer and wholesaler in Bar Harbor, Maine, who owns a coffee plantation in Costa Rica, says 175 degrees is "probably the optimum temperature, because that's when aromatics are being released. Once the aromas get in your palate, that is a large part of what makes the coffee a pleasure to drink."
Public opinion is squarely on the side of McDonald's. Polls have shown a large majority of Americans - including many who typically support the little guy - to be outraged at the verdict. And radio talk-show hosts around the country have lambasted the plaintiff, her attorneys and the jurors on air. Declining to be interviewed for this story, one juror explained that he already had received angry calls from citizens around the country.

It's a reaction that many of the jurors could have understood - before they heard the evidence. At the beginning of the trial, jury foreman Jerry Goens says he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill."

At that point, Mr. Goens and the other jurors knew only the basic facts: that two years earlier, Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald's, and while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks. Her suit, filed in state court in Albuquerque, claimed the coffee was "defective" because it was so hot.

What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously. "It made me come home and tell my wife and daughters don't drink coffee in the car, at least not hot," says juror Jack Elliott.

Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

Some observers wonder why McDonald's, after years of settling coffee-burn cases, chose to take this one to trial. After all, the plaintiff was a sympathetic figure - an articulate, 81-year-old former department store clerk who said under oath that she had never filed suit before. In fact, she said, she never would have filed this one if McDonald's hadn't dismissed her requests for compensation for pain and medical bills with an offer of $800.

Then there was the matter of Mrs. Liebeck's attorney. While recuperating from her injuries in the Santa Fe home of her daughter, Mrs. Liebeck happened to meet a pair of Texas transplants familiar with a Houston attorney who had handled a 1986 hot-coffee lawsuit against McDonald's. His name was Reed Morgan, and ever since he had deeply believed that McDonald's coffee is too hot.

For that case, involving a Houston woman with third-degree burns, Mr. Morgan had the temperature of coffee taken at 18 restaurants such as Dairy Queen, Wendy's and Dunkin' Donuts, and at 20 McDonald's restaurants. McDonald's, his investigator found, accounted for nine of the 12 hottest readings. Also for that case, Mr. Morgan deposed Christopher Appleton, a McDonald's quality assurance manager, who said "he was aware of this risk…and had no plans to turn down the heat," according to Mr. Morgan. McDonald's settled that case for $27,500.

Now, plotting Mrs. Liebeck's case, Mr. Morgan planned to introduce photographs of his previous client's injuries and those of a California woman who suffered second- and third-degree burns after a McDonald's employee spilled hot coffee into her vehicle in 1990, a case that was settled out of court for $230,000.

Tracy McGee of Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, the lawyers for McDonald's, strenuously objected. "First-person accounts by sundry women whose nether regions have been scorched by McDonald's coffee might well be worthy of Oprah," she wrote in a motion to state court Judge Robert Scott. "But they have no place in a court of law." Judge Scott did not allow the photographs nor the women's testimony into evidence, but said Mr. Morgan could mention the cases.

As the trial date approached, McDonald's declined to settle. At one point, Mr. Morgan says he offered to drop the case for $300,000, and was willing to accept half that amount.

But McDonald's didn't bite.

Only days before the trial, Judge Scott ordered both sides to attend a mediation session. The mediator, a retired judge, recommended that McDonald's settle for $225,000, saying a jury would be likely to award that amount. The company didn't follow his recommendation.

Instead, McDonald's continued denying any liability for Mrs. Liebeck's burns. The company suggested that she may have contributed to her injuries by holding the cup between her legs and not removing her clothing immediately. And it also argued that "Mrs. Liebeck's age may have caused her injuries to have been worse than they might have been in a younger individual," since older skin is thinner and more vulnerable to injury.

The trial lasted seven sometimes mind-numbing days. Experts dueled over the temperature at which coffee causes burns. A scientist testifying for McDonald's argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third-degree burns, so it didn't matter whether Mc Donald's coffee was hotter. But a doctor testifying on behalf of Mrs. Liebeck argued that lowering the serving temperature to about 160 degrees could make a big difference, because it takes less than three seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees, about 12 to 15 seconds at 180 degrees and about 20 seconds at 160 degrees.

The testimony of Mr. Appleton, the McDonald's executive, didn't help the company, jurors said later. He testified that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it. He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible. Finally, he testified that McDonald's didn't intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures, saying, "There are more serious dangers in restaurants."

Mr. Elliott, the juror, says he began to realize that the case was about "callous disregard for the safety of the people."
Next for the defense came P. Robert Knaff, a human-factors engineer who earned $15,000 in fees from the case and who, several jurors said later, didn't help McDonald's either. Dr. Knaff told the jury that hot-coffee burns were statistically insignificant when compared to the billion cups of coffee McDonald's sells annually.

To jurors, Dr. Knaff seemed to be saying that the graphic photos they had seen of Mrs. Liebeck's burns didn't matter because they were rare. "There was a person behind every number and I don't think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that," says juror Betty Farnham.
When the panel reached the jury room, it swiftly arrived at the conclusion that McDonald's was liable. "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company," says Ms. Farnham. "They were not taking care of their consumers."
Then the six men and six women decided on compensatory damages of $200,000, which they reduced to $160,000 after determining that 20% of the fault belonged with Mrs. Liebeck for spilling the coffee.

The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages. Mr. Morgan had suggested penalizing McDonald's the equivalent of one to two days of companywide coffee sales, which he estimated at $1.35 million a day. During the four-hour deliberation, a few jurors unsuccessfully argued for as much as $9.6 million in punitive damages. But in the end, the jury settled on $2.7 million.

McDonald's has since asked the judge for a new trial. Judge Scott has asked both sides to meet with a mediator to discuss settling the case before he rules on McDonald's request. The judge also has the authority to disregard the jury's finding or decrease the amount of damages.

One day after the verdict, a local reporter tested the coffee at the McDonald's that had served Mrs. Liebeck and found it to be a comparatively cool 158 degrees. But industry officials say they doubt that this signals any companywide change. After all, in a series of focus groups last year, customers who buy McDonald's coffee at least weekly say that "morning coffee has minimal taste requirements, but must be hot," to the point of steaming.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT - Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. This reduction is a corrective feature built into our legal system. Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be much less than the judge's reduced award. Another corrective feature.
ADDITIONAL NOTE - Prior to the Liebeck case, the prestigious Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Some with a bit of knowledge thanks....we needed that cleared up...i used to work at McDonalds and I can tell u personally that the coffee is really hot, i have a blister on my arm from it spilling on me, and this is post-warning label....

'A man is not old until regret takes the place of his dreams' -John Barrymore

Four: And IF McDonlad's did not believe they were at fault how come their coffee cups have warning labels on them now?

Supposedly there were Superman costumes on sale, with a warning like "wearing this costume does not enable the wearer to fly" on them - on request of disappointed parents who bought the costume for their children, and then found out just that.

In other words, warning labels can save you lots of trouble - even obvious warnings, if only the customer is stupid enough.

So please do not say that about all Americans because it is only the select few that seem to have problems with sticking power tools up their noses.

I agree, there are intelligent people and stupid people in about any country of the world. But the question is, should the latter be rewarded for their stupidity? (--> $1,000,000,000,000,000 lawsuits)

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on Nov 10, 2003.

Some days i wish i was stupid and could make millions....

'A man is not old until regret takes the place of his dreams' -John Barrymore

Some days i wish i was stupid and could make millions....

We all do. :-)

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

yes your right that most of the law suits in America are bizzare, rediculous, uncalled for

If that is how you think, why do you feel offended?

but a large sum of them are won, so the people sueing are not that dumb if they are making money no matter how bizzare they are.

Then I take it back. These people are not dumb, they are parasites clever enough to realize that they can cheat a company or individual out of an insane amount of money by abusing the court's benevolence.

Yes it might be common knowledge to some people that coffee is hot, but it was the principle of the no warning label.

That sounds like it's completely stupid, only that someone said it isn't.

Even if I was to totally deny the idea of self responsibility, the principle of the no warning label is completely unworkable. No matter how many warning labels you slap on a drilling machine, some clever parasite will always come up with something else. If you assume everyone has potentially an IQ of zero, there's an unlimited number of idiocies you have to warn about.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

Of course i can't stand back and watch this discussion but have to throw my two cents in ;)

Every human beeing has a consciousness and is responsibe for himself. We DO know what the reaction of our action may be. And we have an inner voice that helps us.
Human beings haven't "conquered" the world because every T-Rex had a sign on his back: "Warning: Attacking a T-Rex may be dangerous for your health" (Metaphorically of course ;) )
So why do we need it now? The german legal system thinks of a human being as responsible for his actions and has the principle that everyone has to be responsible for his own damage. Just in fact your damage is made wilful or carelessly you can sue the other person....
I think it's a good point but always pleased to get convinced by other views...

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

Human beings haven't "conquered" the world because every T-Rex had a sign on his back: "Warning: Attacking a T-Rex may be dangerous for your health"

A T-Rex is by itself a huge, living warning label :)

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion