Modern Culture

[razoredge]

Excellent Z, wow ! All the things I never knew HOWEVER - I learned years ago, hell decades ago to live in fear of fresh McDonalds cofee. I have peeled part of the roof of my mouth a few times way way back in order to learn my lesson. not to mention a few yowwee's on the paepae, adding sugar to the overly full cup. Croc - sorry dude but you get an F on this one [eyeroll], that friggin MCD coffee is hot ! Edited September 27, 2005 by razoredge

[sciguy_0504]

McDonalds knew before this accident that burn hazards exist with any foods served above 140 degrees.
McDonalds knew that its coffee would burn drinkers at the temperature they served it.
McDonalds research showed that customers consumed coffee immediately while driving.

Or pretty much common sense...

[Croc]

I never really had it until after the lawsuit, so I guess they had lowered the temperature. Now, it seems like every other coffee, except very low quality.

[Sixty8panther]

Z: you left out a couple very IMPORTANT details... She was wearing spandex and put the coffee cup right between her legs while taking the top of the cup. Stupid. Skin grafts and a lot of the problems she experienced was due to her own careless actions. P.S. I studied this case as well in college, in a Business Ethics course.

[Drew Dowdell]

Z: you left out a couple very IMPORTANT details...

She was wearing spandex and put the coffee cup right between her legs while taking the top of the cup. Stupid. Skin grafts and a lot of the problems she experienced was due to her own careless actions.

P.S. I studied this case as well in college, in a Business Ethics course.

[post="21071"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

79 years old.... in spandex?


:shudder:

[Robert Hall]

Z: you left out a couple very IMPORTANT details...

She was wearing spandex and put the coffee cup right between her legs while taking the top of the cup. Stupid. Skin grafts and a lot of the problems she experienced was due to her own careless actions.

P.S. I studied this case as well in college, in a Business Ethics course.

That's pretty stupid... too dumb to use a cupholder? And why would you take off the top of the cup? Felony stupid. Edited September 28, 2005 by moltar

[CARBIZ]

The McDonalds case is just the most famous. Every major (and small) company pays out thousands or millions of dollars every year in stupid legal cases. When I was manager at a big retail store, I had an incident of woman slipping and falling on a wet spot (it was snowing like hell outside) on our floor. The stupid b**** was wearing high heeled boots in a storm!!!! She stood up very quickly, stammered her apologies and hustled out before we could check on her (no doubt hugely embarrased), but later head office heard from her lawyer. No sense of responsibility. Victim society. Blame someone else.

[Sixty8panther]

Where does it stop...? Anyone here agree with the retard suing several Fsat Food places because he ate their food like 12 times a week and it made him fat? The ingredients were not properly disclosed to him... :rolleyes: Give me an effin break! MAD-TV didan excelent parody of this case. Sad but true. <_<

[razoredge]

When I was single, working very hard as in burning intense calories I was loosing weight and all I ate was a quick stop at MCD or BK for breakfast or diner with penut butter and jelly for lunch. When my wife and I met she called me an Ethopian chicken. So my question is now that Im fat "can I sue my wife ?" As long as the court system allows this BS is will continue. However - I do and always have agreed with the MCD coffee issue though because that stuff was scalding and as I indicated earlier I never understood why. Most of the times I would be at work before I would even dare try to driink it. Furthermore - Nearly everyone fixes their coffee between their legs from a drivethrough and everyone has to remove the cover to do so. MCD workers were always noted to fill to within 1/8th to 1/4 inch of tippy top as well. I now only regret that I was not the one to get this lawsuit - really, Im tired, wore out and still pissed off about that first time I burnt the roof of my mouth, tongue and upper lip on that stuff. My case would have had one supplement however, all MCD decision makers as well as their lawyers would be placed in a large lockerroom shower, knecked and sprayed with MCD coffee. Thats what we non college graduates call "live and learn"

[Sixty8panther]

You have a point Razor, but this was not (I'm sure) the first time she ever bought a cup of coffee from MCDonalds. She should have taken her busiess elsewhere IMHO. $200,000 would have been sufficient not SEVERAL MILLION.

[Enzora]

Modern American Culture has evolved so rapidly that America is losing its cohesiveness, and is slowly destroying the traditional place of the family.

What is your opinion on this relatively new trend (post WW2)? Is this good or bad? what are its consequences? what does it provide to our society? Remember nothing is bad unless society deems it so  http://www.cheersandgears.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/AH-HA_wink.gif

[post="19952"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The role of the family isn't in a state of destruction, it's in a state of transition. It's happened before in times of economic transition. And people didn't take it well then either.

And the 50s nuclear family was really a huge exception in itself that only lasted a few decades. The whole two parents, two and 1/3 children, father works and mother stays at home family couldn't happen before because people couldn't survive on one person's wages, and the same is happening now.

<<sociology major giving his 1.3 semesters' worth of expert knowledge on the subject. http://www.cheersandgears.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/AH-HA_wink.gif

[Cory Wolfe]

Well... :D My grandpa worked, my grandma stayed at home. They had six kids. They lived in a ranch house. My grandpa worked at a gas company. They survived. Ofcourse... the oldest and youngest child is like 15 or more years apart... and that wasn't in the 50s... :P

[Croc]

Correct, prior to the 1950s it wasn't uncommon for extended family to live together and survive on the wages of all the men. Women didn't start entering the workforce until the Rosie the Riveter days of WWII.

[razoredge]

The role of the family isn't in a state of destruction, it's in a state of transition.  It's happened before in times of economic transition.  And people didn't take it well then either.

And the 50s nuclear family was really a huge exception in itself that only lasted a few decades.  The whole two parents, two and 1/3 children, father works and mother stays at home family couldn't happen before because people couldn't survive on one person's wages, and the same is happening now. 

<<sociology major giving his 1.3 semesters' worth of expert knowledge on the subject.    http://www.cheersandgears.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/AH-HA_wink.gif

[post="22194"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

the reason this was possible in the 50's, 60's and somewhat into the 70's was because this country was an industrial giant with organized labor making sure the workers got their share of the profits. We were also a very self sufficient country. Woman and massive immigration entering the workforce has created competition in the work place forcing wages down. Two incomes within the family has giving companies the excuse they need to keep wages down. I wont get into the effect of import products from "slave" labor and its effects, thats a givin everyone knows but hates to except. Mothers always did the motherin and full time house arrans until recent decades, its not economic transition, its corporate and wall street greed, thats the only place any financial transition is taking place. Its not like the moneys not out there from the products/services the producers produce. If it wasnt because of the workers then just where the hell did the money come from ?

life time major watching the decline of America through 3 generations :unsure:

[razoredge]

Correct, prior to the 1950s it wasn't uncommon for extended family to live together and survive on the wages of all the men.  Women didn't start entering the workforce until the Rosie the Riveter days of WWII.

[post="22254"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

When the boys came back from Europe and the Pacific, Rosie went home and created, raised and cared for us baby boomers and this country had a great 2.5 decades, then came the "new" corporate and political ideas.

[Croc]

When the boys came back from Europe and the Pacific, Rosie went home and created, raised and cared for us baby boomers and this country had a great 2.5 decades, then came the "new" corporate and political ideas.

[post="22281"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Many did, but many still retained their jobs, if they could. Women started reentering the workplace is the mid '60s. Edited September 30, 2005 by Croc

[razoredge]

Yes, more began working other than the more typical teacher, nursing, ect. Still a family could get by just fine on modest income with one paycheck and 2-4 children. Try it today ? NOT !

[Croc]

Yes, more began working other than the more typical teacher, nursing, ect. Still a family could get by just fine on modest income with one paycheck and 2-4 children. Try it today ? NOT !

[post="22301"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah it can, mine does. But I know that when I get married, my wife better work cuz that means more money to spend. Edited September 30, 2005 by Croc