I don't know about anyone else, but here in America, there's a lot of legislation/policies refined and made so much so that they are nearly idiot proof, essentially hurting the whole by dragging the rest down. At the very least it's an annoyance. What i'm asking is, do we have a moral responsibility to protect those who are not smart enough to not spill hot coffee on themselves, and if they do blame it on the person who served it to them for not having a "Warning: Drink may be hot" sign on them? Do we really need to keep those people around? I do not mean that we get rid of them, that would be monsterous, but should we as a community paste warning signs all over the place, spend loads of extra time idiot proofing, for people who are not smart enough to realize that standing up in a roller coaster MIGHT be a bad idea? Should we let it be survival of the fittest, where the stupid die off and the smart live long?
The bums of the society drag the whole down, and true, there are legitimate people just down on their luck, but many are those who are un-educated because they were too stupid and dropped out, druggies or other people with vices, and they just drain everyone. However, when you have people who are so unintelligent that they cannot reason the simplest things out, should we just let them be, and if harm comes to them because of a self inflicted injury, not be responsible as a whole? If you don't wear a seatbelt when you drive and you die, it's not the governments fault, it's the driver's, but yet, we now have laws in place that you are fined for not wearing one because people are too stupid to do so. Would it not be better for society to just let those die off? Less people to support, more self-efficient people, less time expenditure to ensure the safety of the whole, and an entire slew of other problems, gone, just by letting stupid people be stupid.
@Kasic I see your point in the definitions, but I was trying to make a point: Idiots are the world's backbone, without them there would be no one to balance out things, no one to do the demeaning jobs, no one to hold our world up from the bottom.
Sorry for the double post. I'm not saying that a lack of intelligence in of itself is bad, and that we shouldn't help those who need help. What i'm saying is, we should have no sympathy or support for those who decide to do stupid things. I heard today that in Chicago or Illinois, somewhere anyways, that they are proposing to have schools not allow students to bring their own lunches because "Schools serve healthier lunches." There's no reason to punish all those who do make health choices and just don't like what the school serves because some idiots bring icecream for lunch every day.
On the case of the women spilling hot coffee on herself, no she shouldn't have grounds to sue, but what I heard was she didn't get much more money than to pay for the medical bills. I also heard they served it at 190 degrees which gave her 3rd degree burns. So It was stupid to serve coffee that hot but it's not stupid to accidently spill it on herself. The really stupid part is the legal system which allowed the women to sue because she is clumsy and the cup didn't say "hot".
There's a wiki link for the case, she got $640,000, her medical bill on the wiki was said to be $18,000. In other words, she got 35x the amount of money of her medical bill because she was clumsy and blamed it on the restraunt that served her the coffee.
If they can't sue, they can't breed. And you can't breed once you're dead.
I also heard they served it at 190 degrees which gave her 3rd degree burns.
I'm pretty sure that 150 degrees for just 2 seconds can give you 3rd degree burns. source: http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/soil/msg1120201431291.html Yup.
Thanks Einfach. So regardless of whether if it had been a lower temperature, she still would have been burned because she spilled it on herself. There is no other blame. All that lawsuit did was harm the company, albiet not much, and reward someone for being clumsy and pointing a finger.
There's a wiki link for the case, she got $640,000
Oh wow, that's no where near what my friend told me, i should probably have looked it up. Still, they shouldn't have served the coffee so hot (190 degrees can burin in 2-7 seconds) and she shouldn't have been able to sure. Seriously, are you less likely to spill if your drink now says "hot"?
(A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false finding that 149 °F (65 °C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.[16])
We live in a society where people will sue you for looking at them funny. All of those warning labels are not to protect the customer, but to protect the company so every idiot who spills coffee on themselves can't sue the hell out of everyone. No duh it's not a great idea to stand up in a roller coaster, that's common sense. But common sense isn't so common anymore, so if an idiot decides to stand in a roller coaster cause he thinks he's cool, and his head gets chopped off, the family can't sue the park. Though it should be the park's responsibility to help at least somewhat with the final expenses. It's part of damage control.
