Encouraging acts like this - is it immoral?

[Erik von Nein]

The whole "Who would drink 100 C coffee? lol idiots." tangent would be a lot more meaningful if, you know, McDonalds actually advertised the fact that their coffee was being served at the temperature. Which, if you knew dick about the case, they weren't.

[Korto]

Hypothetical scenario
You're on your way to work. You haven't had breakfast yet, You've stopped at McDonalds for your first cup of coffee of the day. You're thinking about the load of work you've got to do, your home problems, the letter sent home from school about your kid's behavior. You're tired. You take your first gulp of coffee to wake yourself up.

You're fucking awake now!

Anything about this scenario unreasonable? Considering the number of customers McDonald's serves, there's going to be people who treat the coffee given to them as if, you know, it was just an ordinary cup of coffee.

On pest extermination, I have roaches and mice through my house, but I refuse to poison as I also have free-range chooks. I do have a cage trap for mice, checked every day and if anything's caught it gets dropped into a bucket of water. They're dead in seconds. It's a compromise between practicality and humanity.

[Flight Recorder]

1) That wasn't an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be if I dismissed your argument because you're a dumbass. I didn't. I pointed out the flaw in your argument, then called you a dumbass.

You didn't point out a "flaw", you made a useless comment that didn't address the point I was making and then called me a dumbass because of it. That is an ad hominem.

2) If a restaurant serves acid in a coffee cup with a lid, how are you supposed to tell before you drink it? By the time you realize it's acid, it has already started burning you. If you don't think restaurants have a duty not to serve food or drink that will cause you harm if you try to consume it, then I guess you are consistent with those beliefs, but you're also amoral by most people's definition.

Jesus fucking Christ, I am wasting my time with you. If you don't understand what point I was making with the acid thing, don't bother.

[Flight Recorder]

The whole "Who would drink 100 C coffee? lol idiots." tangent would be a lot more meaningful if, you know, McDonalds actually advertised the fact that their coffee was being served at the temperature. Which, if you knew dick about the case, they weren't.

I'm taking about the events in which after the person finds out that the coffee is that hot. Will they continue to drink it and "kill" themselves? That's what I am getting at here.

[Flight Recorder]

And the real point is coffee that hot can and DID cause third degree burns to a sizeable portion of the woman's body. Harping on about "zomfg who would drink that" is just playing the chewbacca defence.

It's not the point I was referring to though, I was referring to something you actually said. That suggesting drinking 100 C coffee would kill you - it is a pointless distinction to make. That's all I was saying.

This "real point" was not in contention in the first place.

[Flight Recorder]

But that said - who the hell would drink 100 C coffee anyway? Do you realise how much it would take to kill someone like that? By the time it reaches your tongue, you are certainly not going to force yourself to gulp down something that hot.

You're not wrong in this. Unless someone is fresh from the dentist with a numb mouth they'd immediately react to the burns and pain to their lips or tip of the tongue. So, no, nobody is ever going to die from third degree burns to their throat by drinking hot coffee.

That's beside the point, though. What would your reaction be if you picked up coffee that hot and then absent-mindedly took a sip? I imagine I would have a violent reaction of surprise and I'd spill more coffee on myself (and remember that the woman sustained 3rd degree burns from the spill). So now I have 3rd degree burns on my body and lips, and the "most stupid" thing I've done was to assume that I could cautiously sip (cautiously because it's hot!) the coffee that I'd ordered.

The point is that it's not entirely every single customer's responsibility to ensure that the coffee won't give them 3rd degree burns. You're right in that it's reasonable to assume that nobody sane would chug down scalding hot coffee. However, it's also the company's responsibility to ensure that if an accident, such as a spill, happens (and accidents will happen) then they've done all they can to reduce injury to their customer. Serving coffee at such temperatures that will cause 3rd degree burns is not exercising their duty of care to their customer, no matter how many people complain that their coffee gets too cold while driving. (I believe that was the reason McDonalds had the coffee so hot in the first place)

Fair points, and I do agree with them.

I was, however, questioning a particular statement in regards to "death from 100C coffee", and assuming the person were to continue drinking it, then it would be at that point where the responsibility or fault of the restaurant ends. They were negligent, yes, but assuming the person dies from swallowing something that hot, then would it really be their fault (the death that is)?

On the other hand, his clients might not even let him check the traps daily. Can you imagine this speech:
"Ma'am, I also need a key to the house. Every day at 10:45 while you're at work I have to swing by and check all the traps. Remember that I placed traps under the porch, in the shed, in the garage, in the basement, under the furnace, under the hot water tank, under the bathroom sink, behind the toilet, under the kitchen sink, in your pantry, behind the fridge, in your closet, under your bed, and in your attic. Every day, ma'am."

This thread and other threads have already illustrated the dangers of letting every homeowner try to deal with it themselves.

*nods*

Fair enough.

Then I suppose in that instance the onus is on the homeowner to be more responsible about it.

[Flight Recorder]

.If you don't think restaurants have a duty not to serve food or drink that will cause you harm if you try to consume it, then I guess you are consistent with those beliefs, but you're also amoral by most people's definition.

I never said restaurants didn't have a duty of care. Of course they do. The point I was making was that if someone was drinking something that hot, but continues drinking it - then you can't pin all of that on the restaurant.

[Formless]

Fair points, and I do agree with them.

I was, however, questioning a particular statement in regards to "death from 100C coffee", and assuming the person were to continue drinking it, then it would be at that point where the responsibility or fault of the restaurant ends. They were negligent, yes, but assuming the person dies from swallowing something that hot, then would it really be their fault (the death that is)?

At this point I would suggest you do a google image search for "third degree burn" with the safe search function off, but frankly I'll spare you the gory imagery (I looked. Its horrifying. But still. For Science). Depending on how severe the burns (and thus the scarring), death would be almost kind. And yes, if it gets infected (as often happens to burn wounds due to the sheer amount of tissue damage that gets exposed to the air) even a relatively small third degree burn could be life threatening. So it is NOT the case that the person would have to keep drinking to be significantly harmed or even killed by this.

Fucking ignoramus.

[Terralthra]

1) That wasn't an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be if I dismissed your argument because you're a dumbass. I didn't. I pointed out the flaw in your argument, then called you a dumbass.

You didn't point out a "flaw", you made a useless comment that didn't address the point I was making and then called me a dumbass because of it. That is an ad hominem.

2) If a restaurant serves acid in a coffee cup with a lid, how are you supposed to tell before you drink it? By the time you realize it's acid, it has already started burning you. If you don't think restaurants have a duty not to serve food or drink that will cause you harm if you try to consume it, then I guess you are consistent with those beliefs, but you're also amoral by most people's definition.

Jesus fucking Christ, I am wasting my time with you. If you don't understand what point I was making with the acid thing, don't bother.

The point you were making was stupid. People served acid would be fools to keep drinking it, after it's already burned them, but by then, it has already burned them, fucktard! People ordering coffee from a restaurant have a right to expect to be served coffee at a temperature that won't cause fucking third-degree burns, just as they have the right to be served coffee, not acid.

If that wasn't your point, maybe you should try rephrasing it, because pretty much everyone in this thread took it exactly the same way I did.

[Terralthra]

.If you don't think restaurants have a duty not to serve food or drink that will cause you harm if you try to consume it, then I guess you are consistent with those beliefs, but you're also amoral by most people's definition.

I never said restaurants didn't have a duty of care. Of course they do. The point I was making was that if someone was drinking something that hot, but continues drinking it - then you can't pin all of that on the restaurant.

Oh, goodie. Now, you will kindly explain how that has any relevance at all? The McDonald's case did not involve a woman who "continue[d] drinking it," it involved her spilling a small amount on her (clothed) leg and getting third degree burns through the cloth.

[HMS Conqueror]

Not really familiar with this case, but it sounds incredibly stupid. How is it not a reasonable expectation that a drink that is prepared by boiling water may be at or around 100deg C? Anything you pour straight from your kettle will be at that temperature. Unless the lady was sitting in a car under greater than atmospheric pressure, it's impossible that the liquid was "unusually hot".

---

btw, the google search for "third degree burn" is a little misleading, with full thickness burns going down the bone - that is fourth degree. Wiki has a more accurate picture:

[Formless]

You could not be a more pale-faced liar. You got that image from here. Nowhere on that page indicates that that is a third degree burn. Here we see what wikipedia is currently using as an example of a second degree burn on its burn entry. Here is what they have on the same entry as an example of a third degree burn. Both those examples show MASSIVELY more damage to the skin than your picture, which is consistent with eMedicine.com's definition of a first degree burn:

First-degree burns

In first-degree burns, minor epithelial damage of the epidermis exists. Redness, tenderness, and pain are the hallmarks of this injury. Blistering does not occur, and 2-point discrimination remains intact. Healing takes place after several days without scarring. Because the epidermal barrier remains intact, metabolic response and risk of infection are minimal. Most common causes of first-degree burns are flash burns and sunburns.

No sane person could seriously think the level of damage a third degree (possibly even a second degree) burn causes is acceptable for a restaurant like McDonalds, especially when they did not warn their customers of the temperature of the coffee.

[HMS Conqueror]

You could not be a more pale-faced liar. You got that image from here

If you say so, Mystic Meg. The image was the example from the wikipedia burn article, or at least, was, until "someone" replaced it this morning.

btw, I have seen a semi-serious coffee burn like this IRL, and it looks like the old pic, not like what you changed the image to.

[Formless]

Alright, asshole, would you like to explain to me why you are incapable of linking to the pages you talk about? Oh, that's right, because it shows how full of shit you are. First of all, I am not Ginko100. You can make all the backhanded accusations all you like, but its a simpe fact. Go ahead, contact this person. Contact people that know her. Ask them if they have ever heard of a poster named "Formless". Hint: I do not have a wikipedia account, shitwit .

Another thing: That edit is marked eastern standard time. I live in Colorado. You can confirm with the moderators on this one if you like. By the time I saw your "contribution" to this thread at ~11PM, said editor had already changed the article in question.

So maybe you aren't a liar. But...

Third thing: do you really want to argue that your picture is representative of a third degree burn? Go ahead, read the eMedicine article I linked to (which, by the way, does not use the term "fourth degree burn". Even wikipedia says that its a colliquialism. Dumbass). The picture you showed clearly fits the description of a first degree burn. Do you understand that wikipedia is not an authoritative source? Do you realize that personal anecdotes are pointless in the face of what real medical professionals say? I do. That is why I quoted the eMedicine entry for the definition of a first degree burn. You have no fucking clue what the hell you are talking about, and if you had any sense you would shut the fuck up right now. Being a moron and an asshole is little better than being a liar.

[Formless]

Here, I'll save people the effort of trawling through that eMedicine article and let them decide for themselves which picture more accurately represents what medical professionals would classify as a third degree burn. Take particular note of the underlined portion:

Third-degree burns

Third-degree burns are full-thickness burns that destroy both epidermis and dermis. The capillary network of the dermis is completely destroyed. Burned skin has a white or leathery appearance with underlying clotted vessels and is anesthetic. Unless a third-degree burn is small enough to heal by contraction (<1 cm), skin grafting always is necessary to resurface the injured area. Immersion scalds, flame burns, and chemical and high-voltage electrical injuries cause third-degree burns.

Edit: On second checking myself, it turns out eMedicine does use the term "fourth degree burn." Bit surprising... but oh well. My point stands.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You could not be a more pale-faced liar. You got that image from here

If you say so, Mystic Meg. The image was the example from the wikipedia burn article, or at least, was, until "someone" replaced it this morning.

btw, I have seen a semi-serious coffee burn like this IRL, and it looks like the old pic, not like what you changed the image to.

And you also dont know a god damn thing about medicine. Someone with the medical training of a boyscout knows what a third degree burn looks like, and what you linked to was not one.