The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

In my school days of the 70s and 80s if someone had a food allergy that person would tell you.

In my kids days of the 90s and 00s if someone had a food allergy their school would notify us to make sure our kids didn't allow them to ingest it.

Today if a kid has a food allergy the school will actually ban those foods altogether.  This means everyone suffers because of less than 1% of the population.

This is just one example of how we have completely flipped the script on society and taken away many forms of personal accountability and are counting on our government to save us. Ironically almost everyone agrees when the gov gets involved with something it makes things worse. This just seems so crazy to me how far we've gotten off track in such a short time.

The litigious nature of our society and the insurance industry has a lot to do with that too.  Businesses and other entities are so paranoid (and rightly so) about being sued that they take everything to extremes to protect themselves.  Kind of like people suing restaurants for being burned by coffee so the business ends up putting "beware, contents hot and could burn you" on the cup.  We all see that and think, "No shit, Sherlock" but some moron successfully sued at some point which is what led to it. 

This...exactly.

Parents sue schools these days for enforcing dress codes, for Pete's sake...imagine how those same parents would react if their kid got sick from eating the cafeteria food.

No one is taking away my peanut butter and jelly.

The coffee thing is a terrible example though. It wasn't that the coffee was just hot,it was scalding temperature which is negligent to serve. That woman spent 8 days in a hospital.

And that whole story of the "illogically" litigious person who sues over hot coffee is part of a planned PR campaign to discourage people from suing corporations for making profit decisions that harm consumers.

I disagree.

The government got involved in building the electric grid and we now have electricity.
The government got involved in building the interstate highway system, and now we have a way of transporting goods between places efficiently.
The government got involved in providing healthcare and social security to seniors, and now we don't have nearly as many homeless old people and mortality rates went down.
The government got involved in eradicating smallpox, and now we don't have smallpox.
The government invented the internet and satellite communications. Now we have this website. it worked out.
The government is constantly involved in funding research into medications that private companies then appropriate and then price gouge everyone.

So what I'll say is that contrary to what you think. The government is a valuable tool that leverages scale to do things that no single person could possibly accomplish.

Amazingly, I am old enough to remember when there were people counting on our government to save us from the threat to society presented by a woman marrying another woman.

Around the same time, there were many other people counting on our government to save us from the threat of religious extremists halfway across the globe who might fly some planes into skyscrapers.  I mean, over THREE THOUSAND!!! people died the last time they attacked us, so what freedoms wouldn't be worth giving up to stop the possibility of another disaster of that magnitude?

And who can forget arguably the largest government power grab of our generation: trillions of dollars wasted, thousands of people imprisoned, and countless lives lost, all to stop people from... maybe getting high!

Personal accountability has, indeed, deteriorated rapidly within the republic.  I am glad to see that someone finally has the courage to call out the nanny state.

My apologies.  I should have used one of the other thousands of examples that illustrate my point. 

You are right.  The nanny state is most definitely a prime enabler in the deterioration of personal accountability.   ;)

You are missing a key difference between now and the 1970s:  The fact that fetal food allergies has skyrocketed in prevalence.   Food allergies in general have skyrocketed as well, but the precautionary methods are only taken for the fatal ones specifically nuts.

Simply taking personal responsibility is not enough.  My sister’s friend died when a sandwich he ate was cut with a knife with used to spread peanut butter and had a tiny remanent left.  His friends knew of his allergy. 

Also for the most part peanut butter bans exist in elementary schools not high schools and colleges.  Bit ridiculous to put the burden of monitoring ingredients on a kindergartener rather than to have an outright ban.   

The sacrifice of 9 children not being able bring peanut butter school so that the 10th child may live seems to quite reasonable and the demand to be able to bring what ever you want even if it may result in the death of a classmate is downright selfish.  But this selfish thinking manifests in many ways, why should I be burdened with wearing a mask, I am young and healthy, if grandpa wants to avoid dying of covid that is on him. 

Not being super up to date on allergies, I started to research this based on this thread and was surprised to find that we have a pretty big increase in peanut allergy in this country.


With little kids, you just can't trust them to do the right thing or understand the ramifications.  We had a peanut allergy in one of our kid's classes once and we weren't allowed to pack anything with peanuts for the in-classroom snack, but their lunch in the cafeteria could still have peanuts.

No you can’t.  Because just like with the McD’s coffee, each “example “ you have is a onesided misrepresentation that is a defendant whining after 12 ordinary people after hearing all the facts decided the defendants behavior was egregious.  The system is stacked against the plaintiffs, they only win if the defendant was outrageous.  But then they whine and only tell half the story.  The McD coffee is a perfect example of this.

I think the McD's example is actually the rare version because it saw a judgment.  Most often, when big corporations have done wrong, they settle early to avoid the bad press.  ...but that also assumes that the plaintiff has deep enough pockets or a lawyer willing to push the case.

I think CF is right that personal accountability is at an all time low, but chose a poor example.  Same with the McD's coffee thing, which I've pulled a 180 on, it shouldn't have been that hot.  It seems people are always finding something to blame their issues on instead of being responsible for it themselves.  This might be an anecdotal personal experience sort of perspective, especially since I have members of my family that would rather be victims to their circumstances than actually do something about them, like make lifestyle changes.

Here's the thing:  I can't even take this kind of complaint seriously.

I gave multiple recent and relevant examples of when "personal accountability" was not even considered in the pursuit of government restrictions (by the same groups decrying a loss of freedom today).  So it seems like "personal accountability" is just an excuse trotted out when one is not willing to own up to the REAL complaint being made: "I don't think I should have to limit what my kids bring to school" (or, by extension, "I don't think I should have to wear a mask").  Because THOSE arguments sound petty and selfish.

So instead, we get this cloak of "personal accountability" thrown on top.   But the kind of consistency in commitment to personal accountability that should be reflected in a genuine appeal is... far from evident.  It's a smokescreen.

I mean, if you want to make the argument that it's not worth the potential lives saved to ban peanut butter from an elementary school, then make that argument.  Own your position.  If you think the inconvenience of wearing masks is not worth saving hundreds of thousands of lives, or even if you think masks actually don't do anything, then make those arguments, too.  But don't give me this BS about "personal accountability" or "liberty" or whatever, because you wouldn't care about that AT ALL if we were talking about a restriction you agreed with.

At least have the courage and intellectual integrity to defend the actions you want to see happen.

Not often that I get up at my computer to give a standing ovation to a post... This one got it.

World's are spinning out of their orbit, Stroke has agreed with Spider. LOL. 2020 really is an off year.

Just to add a little background, I forgot about the specifics of the McDonalds case so I checked out Wikipedia.  So a 79 yr old woman that was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car purchased a coffee at the drive thru.  The grandson reportedly pulled over so the woman could add cream and sugar to the coffee.  The cup was between her legs when she accidentally spilled it all over her thighs causing the burns which resulted in her hospitalization.  The woman asked for $20,000 from McDonalds to cover $10,500 of expenses she had already incurred, with the additional amount to cover pain, suffering, and future medical costs.  McDonalds rejected her claim and offered her $800.  Therefore, the lady contacted a lawyer and the lawsuit went to court.  Although the jury awarded over $2.5 million, the Judge reduced the amount to $640,000.00.  McDonalds appealed and there was an undisclosed settlement of something less than $600,000.  Also, the jury placed 80% of the blame on McD's and 20% on the customer.  Furthermore, the cups at that time DID already say contents are hot.  It came down to the fact McD's served their coffee about 40 degrees hotter than other establishments.  Another note, the punitive nature of the $2.5M verdict amounted to about 2 days worth of coffee sales at McD's.

IMO McD's either didn't take the time to fully investigate the claim (if they did they probably could have just had the insurance company payout), or they felt they could just bully this person and they would go away with nothing.  And/or they just didn't want to pay because it might inspire other lawsuits.  I imagine their legal fees just to respond to the lawsuit were way more than $20K originally requested by the customer.

Yeah, we've talked about that lawsuit in several other threads here.  Many people had been seriously injured from minor spills because of the well-above-industry-practices high temperature McD's kept their coffee at, and their corporate office was uniformly dismissive of those who were injured.

Yes, I didn't mention that, but it came out in the trial that other people had suffered burns and McDonalds was aware of the problem, and had paid off some lawsuits.

IDK what their reasoning is to serve it so hot.  I actually avoided buying their coffee because I usually would have to wait a half hour for it to cool down so I could drink it.  Not to mention it never used to taste very good.