I believe you would have a very difficult time proving that. Really, how big of an issue was this before she was injured? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
You are right. But the coffee temperatures are lower at Macs, it is a logical assumption. It still isn't a big issue. It's just that this case became the bellweather of the "frivolous lawsuit" movement. And there certainly are plenty of frivolous lawsuits that should be quashed. I just don't think this was the best example of one.
That's it, right there. Coffee is hot. Everybody knows coffee is hot. Hot means burns. Everybody knows hot means burns. To suggest that serving hot coffee is negligence makes zero sense. The degree of "hotness" means absolutely nothing.
the courts have their opinion and i have mine. i am not "wrong" for believing individuals shoud bear more responsibility. whats good for everyone, not just me, is individual responsibility, the world is a collection of individuals, set up the rules such that they know they need to learn to manage their own risks and everyone is better off for it. i often think of your moderate views as simply unprincipled. chosen for their easyness in implementing.
Hmmm. You know, it is clear to me that a principled policy is one that advocates both individual rights AND the common good while an unprincipled one advocates only its own personal opinion. Taking a moderate position is no more easy or hard than taking an extreme position, but is is almost always more prudent. It is also more flexible since moderates can accept viewpoints to the right and the left as appropriate while extremists are always at the extremes. A moderate does NOT have to be an absolute centrist. You do not understand this.
right, unprincipled viewpoints are very flexible, since they are based on no real principles other than opposition to the current "extremes". but not the same extreme. for instance i am violently opposed to the religious right on many issues, and just as opposed to various collectivist liberal philosophies on the other side. thats because my views are based on principle, not wishy-washyness. then again, you dont really even understand the political spectrum, so it isnt suprising that your views are unprincipled.
You know nothing about what my viewpoints are based upon. Just tell us about your viewpoints and quit attemping to "explain" mine. I'm the world's friggin expert on my viewpoints and you are always sadly mistaken in your wild-ass guesses. Interesting. What you describe is a moderate viewpoint and you don't even realize it. Moderates are not slaves to a single party or a philosophy. Circular logic. You just said in your first sentence that my viewpoints are unprincipled because "they are based on no real principles other than opposition". Then you follow that with "i am violently opposed to the religious right on many issues, and just as opposed to various collectivist liberal philosophies" and claim this as as a principled stance. You are "wishy-washy" and unprincipled by your own twisted definitions. Busted. This is what you get by stretching your thesis to the breaking point. It breaks.
So its simply not possible for someone to have a different opinion from you on the subject without being confused? There is a valid argument and I have presented it here. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's baseless. I could easily be on the other side of this, criticizing this law suit for being frivolous because I see that point of view, but I chose on my own accord to think otherwise.
fair point, but i figure i understand your views enough to hit them with over the top criticisms. if i was part nazi and part communist, would that make me a moderate because i am not a slave to a single party? right, specifically opposition to anything considered extreme by today's standards. i am pointing out that my extreme opposition to today's dominant parties is based on real principle. in my case, the oppostion of irrational faith and collectivism in favor of reason and individual rights. those are my principles. it appears your principles are to favor whatever has a chance of making it as actual policy and because it opposes both extremes and can find the most acceptance. i rarely if ever oppose both extremes of the same issue at the same time, because i am not afraid of them. a moderate is. but i kinda wish i hadnt brought it up again, and will happily let you have the last word and forget about it for now.
