During the trial it was revealed that McDonald’s knew that heating their coffee to this temperature would be dangerous, but they did it anyways because it would save them money. When you serve coffee that is too hot to drink, it will take much longer for a person to drink their coffee, which means that McDonald’s will not have to give out as many free refills of coffee. This policy by the fast food chain is the reason the jury awarded $2.7 million dollars in punitive damages in the McDonald’s hot coffee case. Punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant for their inappropriate business practice.

  • Quokka
    link
    fedilink
    English
    14
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    And why do we blame capitalism instead of generic “evil”?

    Because capitalism is the system that actively promotes it and is in every facet of our lives.

    It’s greed not evil.

    Murdering a baby is evil, letting millions starve to death is business.

    • @Quacksalber
      link
      English
      -510 months ago

      Capitalism opens an avenue for greed to be used for the benefit of the many, whereas any other form of resource distribution has no place for greed and as such no place for the greedy. At that point it becomes the same kind of discussion as the prohibition discussion. Do you ban it or do you allow and regulate it. Banning greed won’t make it go away, it will only force it into hiding and to undermine the current system. Capitalism forces greed to the surface, at which point people can have a discussion about how much greed should be permitted.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        79 months ago

        an avenue for greed to be used for the benefit of the many

        Wow, that’s some impressive horse shit! The very nature of greed means that it will always benefit the few over the many and the nature of capitalism is that greed is elevated to a virtue, inevitably hurting the many to serve the few rich and powerful.

        any other form of resource distribution has no place for greed and as such no place for the greedy

        First of all, that’s false. Pretty much every centrist and right wing structure of government centers the individual and thus caters to the greed of the individual over the needs of the many.

        Besides, if that was true, that would be a good thing! Being greedy isn’t some inescapable natural urge that must be satisfied or you explode. Making space for the most base parts of human nature isn’t good with cruelty, deceitfulness or (except in the ordered and consensual context of sports and even that is a bit iffy in many cases) violent tendencies, so why do you want to nurture and protect greed?

        Banning greed won’t make it go away

        Sure, but just like the other vices I just mentioned, discouraging it and making it disadvantageous to act in a greedy manner will suppress and lessen its impact on society.

        Capitalism forces greed to the surface, at which point people can have a discussion about how much greed should be permitted.

        Yeah, that’s the same thing people said about right wing extremists when Trump emboldened them and look how that turned out…

        Bottom line is that capitalism directly encourages greed and in doing so indirectly encourages cruel indifference towards the lives, health and happiness of anyone who stand in the way of greedy people and corporations. This lawsuit is 100% a symptom of how capitalism hurts people.

        • @Quacksalber
          link
          English
          -19 months ago

          Wow, that’s some impressive horse shit! The very nature of greed means that it will always benefit the few over the many and the nature of capitalism is that greed is elevated to a virtue, inevitably hurting the many to serve the few rich and powerful.

          Under capitalism, a greedy person can sate their greed by offering up something many people are willing to pay for. Elon Musk is a shit human being, but his companies revolutionized the EV market, the commercial rocket launch provider market and Star Link now allows for internet access anywhere. Capitalism has turned his greed, at least in part, into a benefit many can profit from. Similarly, with Elon now tanking Twitter, BluSky, Threads and Mastodon can compete for users that have stopped using Twitter.

          First of all, that’s false. Pretty much every centrist and right wing structure of government centers the individual and thus caters to the greed of the individual over the needs of the many.

          I was talking about systems of resource distribution, the government concerns itself with the judicial system.

          Sure, but just like the other vices I just mentioned, discouraging it and making it disadvantageous to act in a greedy manner will suppress and lessen its impact on society.

          Just like the prohibition lessened the impact of alcohol on society? Just like the war against drugs lessened the impact of drugs on society? Just like, as evangelicals would claim it, banning contraception and abortions lessens, in their eyes, the negative impact on society. Historically, the greedy have been, through corruption and the like, just as damaging to society as they have been now.

          Yeah, that’s the same thing people said about right wing extremists when Trump emboldened them and look how that turned out…

          With a bunch of them in jail and with Trump weakening the republican party for years?

          Bottom line is that capitalism directly encourages greed and in doing so indirectly encourages cruel indifference towards the lives, health and happiness of anyone who stand in the way of greedy people and corporations. This lawsuit is 100% a symptom of how capitalism hurts people.

          Capitalism isn’t to blame for the suffering of the ones standing in the way of the big players, western european nations show that quite clearly. While not perfect, they have much stronger protections for the powerless against the powerful, yet they also employ capitalism. This lawsuit is a failure of the judicial system, it wouldn’t have happened in a country with stronger laws against abuse.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -5
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Okay, maybe you really do think kings and warlords were more virtuous than shareholders or CEOs. Alas, it was not that way. They were buttholes too. Buttholery is not controlled by the economic system of the day.

      • Quokka
        link
        fedilink
        English
        910 months ago

        You seem to think that I wouldn’t also reject authoritarianism?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -4
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          There is no system of governance or economy among humans that you wouldn’t reject, if you reject every one in which wrongdoing takes place or people enrich themselves unjustly.

          That’s my point. “I reject capitalism because people can benefit themselves by doing injustice within it” is dopey, because that predicate is not unique to capitalism; in fact it’s universal. In every system of the world, people can benefit themselves by doing injustice within that system.

          Therefore, the person who reasons this way would reject any conditions under which they might find themselves living.

          Whatever “reject” means here, I’m not entirely sure.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            7
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            “I reject capitalism because people can benefit themselves by doing injustice within it”

            No, we oppose capitalism because it inherently ENCOURAGES people to benefit themselves by doing injustice. That’s a crucial difference.

            In every system of the world, people can benefit themselves by doing injustice within that system.

            It’s equally true that people can be violently bigoted against religious, racial and sexual minorities in every system, but only a few actively ENCOURAGE them to.

          • pjhenry1216
            link
            fedilink
            79 months ago

            Regulation is still useful. You’re basically arguing for anarchy with your naive take. When a system advances the idea to exploit people, the system is fundamentally flawed. Will all systems have abuse? Sure. But that doesn’t mean “you will dislike all systems, so it’s irrelevant if one is better or worse.”

          • @Quacksalber
            link
            English
            -3
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            And what makes capitalism superior to any other form of resource distribution that humanity has tried so far is not that it does or doesn’t allow greed, but it lets the greedy use their greed in a way that has at least the potential to benefit the many. And by having a legal avenue for greed to be used, capitalism forces greed to the surface and makes it legal for everyone to discuss.

            • Quokka
              link
              fedilink
              English
              29 months ago

              Oh yeah, we’re all feeling that trickle down any day now.

              • @Quacksalber
                link
                English
                09 months ago

                You are missing the point. EU countries also have capitalism and they are far better off. It’s not capitalism that sets taxation laws or anti-trust laws, those are what has failed in the US. In the EU, while not perfect, those types of laws are more rigorous and in turn those countries suffer less from corruption and injustice.

                • Quokka
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  19 months ago

                  Not everyone is American.

                  Also capitalism is still ticking up the EU, there’s a reason they have to constantly fight against it just to ensure the most basic of freedoms for its citizens.