IllustriousSignal575

IllustriousSignal575 t1_jad9qqk wrote

I think it's more of a combination of shit corporations and shit people. There are shit corporations who dont care about people, and there are shit people who regularly seek out weaknesses in a corporation in order to file an easy lawsuit for easy money. Then we have the select few who are USDA Certified Stupid and think you can drink bleach or shove a tampon soaked in alcohol up your ass and not have anything bad happen to you, those guys, theyre the ones we have to have warning labels for in all reality.

Edit: not saying old lady was a dumbass, her situation was the definition of an accident.

1

IllustriousSignal575 t1_jad7tbt wrote

Yes, however let me explain some smaller not widely known facts of the case.

She was actually against the lawsuit and only wanted her medical bills to be paid for. Thanks to the up and coming media age, she got way more.

The end problem is that hot coffee generally has to be brewed between 175-195F, but it also has to be served between 150-170F iirc. A Keurig, for example, spits coffee out at 195.

Then we come into the issue of workload during breakfast hours, fast food having their timers for how quickly someone goes through their drivethrough, etc.

2

IllustriousSignal575 t1_jad6fj1 wrote

That McDonald's? It was a lot more than just that McDonalds. There were hundreds of cases of hot coffee burns each year by that point, hers was just the one that got full coverage and everything it got due some specifics. Her case was not uncommon at the time though, not even close to uncommon.

3

IllustriousSignal575 t1_j65mrs1 wrote

See, thats where youre wrong. If I was arguing your argument, I would have had a source that was broken down by 1st world countries. You didnt do that, so thats all the Info I used to counter argue. Thats how debates go, you fucked up with your words and sources, I saw your bluff, I utilized your bluff to make this argument go exactly how it went, and then I pointed your bluff out.

Good day, sirimg

0

IllustriousSignal575 t1_j65jv8z wrote

Your argument was that countries "without guns" are safer. You provided a source where most of the countries have very strict gun laws and were on the top of the list for gun related deaths. I dont even know where you're trying to go with your argument now because you make zero sense. Stop talking to me.

2

IllustriousSignal575 t1_j65ighb wrote

Far from average joe when it comes to firearms related anything, try again. Id also like to point out that I spend the majority of my time at home, where there are 7 security cameras (half acre) that alert to my phone and record if so much as a bird lands in my yard. So no, I dont think a single person will be able to get close to me. When they do, they will be sadly awakened with either a PS90 or 37mm because those are my two favorites in my arsenal. I actually encourage someone to try, though, as I live in Florida....where the cops actually applaud you if you shoot and kill a home intruder on live television.

−1