Dumby america

[Hey Bubu]

http://www.populistamerica.com/the_d..._american_mind

There is a very dangerous phenomenon that seems to be occurring in the United States of America; something that I refer to as "the dumbing-down of the American mind," a nearly willful tendency for Americans to forgo reality in favor of believing what they want to believe. But how could such a thing have occurred in such a proud nation, one that, according to George Bush, has become known as a bastion of freedom and democracy, a bright light for the whole world to see?

In my opinion, there are five factors that can explain such a phenomenon. First, there is the dumbing-down of education in our country. After having taught psychology at the college level for the past 39 years, I have seen our standards (what we essentially expect our students to accomplish in order to prove that they have learned something of value) go straight to hell! I began my career as an Instructor of Psychology back in 1966 at a very small junior college located only 60 miles south of the Canadian border, one with an enrollment of only 180 students, no doubt, a very cold and humble place in which to begin a teaching career!

And can you believe it, I actually required my students to read an entire textbook during the semester. And nobody got upset. Not the administrators, not the parents, nor even the students! However, today, if I were to do such a thing, I would have an extremely difficult time getting enough students to enroll in my classes in order to keep my job. The problem: A very determined standoff between the remaining few teachers willing to maintain standards versus a generation or two of students who are nearly unwilling to learn, students who have "apparently gone on strike" with an attitude of "I dare you to force me to learn!" The result: The fact that leniency (a lowering of academic standards in our country) has won out at the expense of quality education in that of our high schools as well as that of our colleges.

Consequently, in my opinion, our country is slowly but surely becoming "a nation of near retards," a collective group of individuals who have become so absurdly self-absorbed and disinterested in acquiring knowledge that we, as a nation, are slowly but surely losing touch with the reality of what is actually going on in the world! The best example is our population's general sense of ignorance in relation to world history, and especially that of our inability (or perhaps even unwillingness) to understand our own country's complicity in relation to the 9/11 attacks upon our nation.

Second, there has been a tendency for folks in our country to compartmentalize their religious beliefs from that of science and philosophy. Now it is important to understand that religion is based upon faith (knowledge that comes from personal experience). Science is based upon research (knowledge that accrues from the experimental process). And, of course, philosophy is based upon logic (knowledge based upon rational thought). One is no better than the other, and in our search for truth each should be allowed to complement the other. However, within that of the Christian fundamentalist community (one that did so very much to enable Bush-Cheney to be elected), there has been a deliberate attempt to discount what we have learned from science (as in global warming), as well as that of rational thought (that the world was created in a period of one week's time).

These folks believe that their religious beliefs are absolutely independent of anything and everything else in life, that their beliefs about God are more valid, and should be allowed to supersede every other source of knowledge. ...

This essay has been excerpted from PopulistAmerica.com

[Cock Puncher]

I still think we need a common sense clause in our laws

[Hey Bubu]

Originally Posted by damn-it-2-hell

I still think we need a common sense clause in our laws

Japan has something similar to that. Not really a law but yeah a country common sense. Problem is, whose common sense do we use as a measuring stick?


nice seeing you this weekend btw

[PETA]

Originally Posted by damn-it-2-hell

I still think we need a common sense clause in our laws

could you clarify?


or were you just joking - don't forget that sarcasm is lost on me

[zerojunkie]

After having taught psychology at the college level for the past 39 years...

The best example is our population's general sense of ignorance in relation to world history, and especially that of our inability (or perhaps even unwillingness) to understand our own country's complicity in relation to the 9/11 attacks upon our nation.

*sigh*

Left-wing bias in education says what?

[Cock Puncher]

Originally Posted by TypeH

Japan has something similar to that. Not really a law but yeah a country common sense. Problem is, whose common sense do we use as a measuring stick?


nice seeing you this weekend btw

word, sorry to hear about you cart problems

[Hey Bubu]

Originally Posted by damn-it-2-hell

word, sorry to hear about you cart problems

yeah it's sucked but you have to admit, it's a hell of a tale.

[Cock Puncher]

Originally Posted by xian

could you clarify?


or were you just joking - don't forget that sarcasm is lost on me

haha kinda joking kinda not. I guess applied when ppl try to file dumb lawsuits

like the mcdonalds coffee lady, common sense would tell you not to put hot coffee in your lap.

"well I didn't know it was gonna be hot!"

ya didn't ask for an iced frappacino, you ordered plain, black coffee.


*runs to 7-11, spills slurpee on lap* I'm gonna sue, I got frost bite on my left testy!!

[PETA]

Originally Posted by damn-it-2-hell

haha kinda joking kinda not. I guess applied when ppl try to file dumb lawsuits

like the mcdonalds coffee lady, common sense would tell you not to put hot coffee in your lap.

"well I didn't know it was gonna be hot!"

ya didn't ask for an iced frappacino, you ordered plain, black coffee.


*runs to 7-11, spills slurpee on lap* I'm gonna sue, I got frost bite on my left testy!!

I understand your point and efforts have been made to prevent frivolous lawsuits but its hard to stop all of them - your lament is shared by most lawyers believe it or not

On to the McDonald's lady... every once in a while this gets cited as a great example of a person taking advantage of the legal system. The facts are otherwise in this case however. The fact is that McDonald's did fuck up. I'll spare graphic details but had she been a man she'd have had no cock left (not that damage determines liability but it does speak to the huge award she initially received)

anyway - check out these for a decent desciption of the facts

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Liebeck

[hepkatmama]

Originally Posted by xian

anyway - check out these for a decent desciption of the facts

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Liebeck

so its her fault that due to this lawsuit its practically impossible to get a hot cup of coffee around here? in chicago i couldn't find one place that carried anything better than tepid.

coffee is supposed to be hot. even extremely hot.

this is another example of laws be perverted to accomodate a minority instead of rewarding the common sense of the majority that waits a minute or blows on the coffee knowing it to be close to molten lava temperature.

the fact that law boiled down to temperature (pun intended) says that the law gets to determine everyone else's comfort level to prevent foolish ppl from hurting themselves.

survival of the fittest. the coffee didn't have razor blades. it was a hot cup of joe.

if this law was logical i would suggest certification classes for fast food consumers. we don't want tubby to choke on fries or something.

[PETA]

lol - I have nothng but antipathy for the plaintiff's bar but this case I actually came down on in favor of plaintiff...

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

so its her fault that due to this lawsuit its practically impossible to get a hot cup of coffee around here? in chicago i couldn't find one place that carried anything better than tepid.

You could look at it that way. I'd look at it this way... had the McDonalds at the location she bought her coffee at complied with orders to reduce the temperature levels of their coffee to a temperature that wouldn't melt human flesh then you'd have an easier time finding hot coffee at McDonald's.

However, let me ask you - wtf were you doing looking for a good cup of joe at McDonald's (Or was it just in general you were looking?)

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

coffee is supposed to be hot. even extremely hot.

So is soup. However, if you were having dinner and the waiter spilled it into your lap and it burned your gentials so badly that you needed reconstructive surgery I suspect you'd think that the soup was too hot.

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

this is another example of laws be perverted to accomodate a minority instead of rewarding the common sense of the majority that waits a minute or blows on the coffee knowing it to be close to molten lava temperature.

The jury, myself and those who warned McDonald;s that their coffee was unacceptably hot et al disagree. Coffee should not be served at temperatures that melt one's flesh.

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

the fact that law boiled down to temperature (pun intended) says that the law gets to determine everyone else's comfort level to prevent foolish ppl from hurting themselves.

Did you read the links with the facts or are you just complaining. McDonald's had been put on notice to reduce the temperature of their coffee. They'd been warned. They knew that they were serving a dangerous product.

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

survival of the fittest. the coffee didn't have razor blades. it was a hot cup of joe.

if this law was logical i would suggest certification classes for fast food consumers. we don't want tubby to choke on fries or something.

We can agree to disagree on this but those who heard it up close, the jurors, thought mcDonald's screwed up. And, based on how much damage was caused by the coffee its not a hard row to hoe to demonstrate that it was served too hot.

We now return this hijacked thread to your regularly scheduled viewing

[hepkatmama]

Originally Posted by xian

lol had the McDonalds at the location she bought her coffee at complied with orders to reduce the temperature levels of their coffee to a temperature that wouldn't melt human flesh then you'd have an easier time finding hot coffee at McDonald's.

McDonald's had been put on notice to reduce the temperature of their coffee. They'd been warned. They knew that they were serving a dangerous product.

in lieu of the mcdonalds fiasco, it is now difficult to find hot coffee anywhere. i would never buy mickey d's joe. i tried starbucks and corner bakery among other places. tepid at serving. to protect me from myself.

if the soup was poured into my lap, the temperature of the soup is not at fault but the waiter than served it. food must be heated prior to serving and the point of my debate is whether or not the server can give it to u prior to it being tepid for safety's sake.

this direction would end flaming dishes and beverages being done at tableside, which is a crying shame.

so what about that? if the law put restaurants on notice that serving steak diane or cherries jubilee is serving a dangerous product, wouldn't that kinda ruin the recipe & culinary experience for those of us reasonable enuf to under stand what we are ordering?

if tepid food became standard wouldn't this endanger us to potential problems from salmonella & stuff since we could never really gauge how hot the food once was? i would rather get steaming hot food instead of guessing if it was cooked thru.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

in lieu of the mcdonalds fiasco, it is now difficult to find hot coffee anywhere. i would never buy mickey d's joe. i tried starbucks and corner bakery among other places. tepid at serving. to protect me from myself.

glad about the mcD's coffee

and, yes, I guess to your inquiry. The suit we're discussing probably lead to the lower temps.

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

if the soup was poured into my lap, the temperature of the soup is not at fault but the waiter than served it. food must be heated prior to serving and the point of my debate is whether or not the server can give it to u prior to it being tepid for safety's sake.

Sure, you'd have an additional issue of the negligence of the waiter. However, if the soup was not so hot as to melt flesh your claim would go only as far as a cleaning bill. So, the central issue is whether or not the substance in question is dangerously hot - even if it is not the sole issue raised by my hypo.

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

this direction would end flaming dishes and beverages being done at tableside, which is a crying shame.

why do you think some restaurants refeuse to serve burgers cooked medium rare? flaiming moes (or whatever shot you'd like) - a thing (largely) of the past. Still, many restaurants still do these things - thinking of a number of restaruants that serve flaming dishes, coffee drinks that are on fire, baked alaska etc. However, if these places fuck up - they're most likely on the hook.

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

so what about that? if the law put restaurants on notice that serving steak diane or cherries jubilee is serving a dangerous product, wouldn't that kinda ruin the recipe & culinary experience for those of us reasonable enuf to under stand what we are ordering?

I think you ask the question in a way that makes it easy to ridicule the suit we're talking about and to point out a slippery slope. However, I don't think it necessarily reembles rality that much.

Law suits like the one we're talking about put industries on notice as to what things could get them into trouble. These suits are decided on a case by case basis. Negligence is decided by a jury (usually - sometimes these cases are tried to a judge) - and negligence is made up of many factors - most simply - 1) is there a duty 2) what is it 3) was it breached. Industries can ask themselves those questions before making a choice that might lead down a path of tort liability

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

if tepid food became standard wouldn't this endanger us to potential problems from salmonella & stuff since we could never really gauge how hot the food once was? i would rather get steaming hot food instead of guessing if it was cooked thru.

I'd suspect most food served in restaurants has been iradiated so your worry well lain to rest. However that certainly won't be true in all cases and so you raise a very good point. Tort issues often put industries in a catch-22. Thank a plaintiff's lawyer next time you see one for saving you from yourself (and frankly - the jurors who think we're all too stupid to know that forks go pointy end into food not pointy end into eye)

[Hey Bubu]

So did McDonalds ever state why their coffee was kept at such high temps?

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

in lieu of the mcdonalds fiasco, it is now difficult to find hot coffee anywhere. i would never buy mickey d's joe. i tried starbucks and corner bakery among other places. tepid at serving. to protect me from myself.

if the soup was poured into my lap, the temperature of the soup is not at fault but the waiter than served it. food must be heated prior to serving and the point of my debate is whether or not the server can give it to u prior to it being tepid for safety's sake.

this direction would end flaming dishes and beverages being done at tableside, which is a crying shame.

so what about that? if the law put restaurants on notice that serving steak diane or cherries jubilee is serving a dangerous product, wouldn't that kinda ruin the recipe & culinary experience for those of us reasonable enuf to under stand what we are ordering?

if tepid food became standard wouldn't this endanger us to potential problems from salmonella & stuff since we could never really gauge how hot the food once was? i would rather get steaming hot food instead of guessing if it was cooked thru.

Hepkat.... i too agree with the woman's complaint and think that your analysis of the situation and the problem it presents is a bit overblown...IMHO of course.