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.

  • fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    A lot of people around here say “capitalism” when they mean something more like “the Kali Yūga”, “this fallen world, this vale of tears”, “the age in which the Tao is lost”, or “this age of muck and clay, in which we are lesser than our fathers of iron, who were lesser than their grandfathers of silver, who were lesser still than the ancients of gold.”

    The folks who speak this way, if you asked them, “Was there any wrongdoing in the world before the first stock certificate was issued?”, would say “Of course there was!”

    If you asked them, “Did pre-capitalist kings or judges ever favor the unjust over the just because the unjust gave them riches?”, they would say “Yes, they did!”

    If you asked them, “In ancient times, were there rich and well-fed tribes, and poor and starveling tribes, and did the richer tribes lord over the poorer ones?”, they would say “Certainly.”

    Which all goes to show, at some level they do know they’re not really talking about “capitalism” in the economic or historical sense. They’re not talking about an economic structure or a stage of Marxist history. They’re taking about wickedness, graft, injustice, abuse of power – things which are much, much older than capitalism.

    They’re merely using their favorite snarl word instead of just saying “evil”.

    • Quokka@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.

      • fubo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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.

          • fubo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year 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.