Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
People love narratives that are simple and have an easy to understand moral to them even if they're absolutely wrong. In this case, the narrative is that she asked for hot coffee and got hot coffee, and the moral is that people are greedy and stupid and you have to protect yourself from them. I've often found that one well-constructed point can blow these narratives up though. I was talking with my dad about this particular case, he's a big "gotta do something about these frivolous lawsuits" guy because he used to own a business that was adjacent to real estate and real estate is probably the most litigated business in America. I'm a big "frivolous lawsuits is a term exploitative industries use to get people excited to give up their rights" guy, so we were at loggerheads about this one. Eventually I was like "Have you ever spilled coffee? When you did, who paid for your skin grafts?" Turns out that when crafting their narrative about how she was "suing them for giving her what she asked for", the industry lobby left out the part where she had to spend 8 days in the hospital and have multiple reconstructive surgeries.
And she only asked McDonalds to cover her medical bills. It was the jury who threw out her request and instead punished McDonalds with the huge settlement, because they were horrified by how grossly negligent the company had been and decided her request wasn’t a strong enough punishment.
Don't forget they had previously been ordered several times to reduce the temperature and refused.
the same goes for the Dingos Ate My Baby woman
dingos did eat her baby.
They also left out the fact that this was not the first injury nor the first complaint and that McDonald's knew their coffee was inappropriately hot. The majority of damages weren't to because of medical costs, but we're punative as punishment for knowingly serving a dangerous product. It was intended to make them change their practices. That didn't happen though. McDonald's had the amount reduced in appeals and continues to serve coffee that is hotter than almost anyone wants.
But, butt... if she spilled the coffee, then it's on her for being clumsy... right? /s
they gave it to her without a lid when she ordered in the drive thru
Ouch... that's an asshole move, they deserve the punitive damages.
The fact that someone actually was dumb enough to sue over coffee being hot was a punchline in the 90s and 2000s. It's amazing what kind of misinformation can run amok in a world where you don't have easy access to the internet and whatever corporate wants the spin to be, that's what every Outlet is going to tell you.
Thankfully proper research has revealed that news groups were strong armed by McDonald's into leaving important details out to save their stock prices... and this version of the story is the one that's catching on.
I certainly hope that a better research clears up other misunderstandings ( the amount of people who actually believe Mother Teresa was a sadistic serial killer thanks to Christopher Hitchens riding the New Atheist wave of the early 2000's with his easily debunked Hell's Angel book is.. way too high. The book claims among other things that she ran sham hospitals when in fact she ran hospices long before the concept was a thing in mainstream medicine and is credited for pioneering the concept of palliative care.)
If you want to defend Saint Teresa of Calcutta and how she funneled charity money to the Vatican while being unable to afford analgesics in her hospices, calling pain "Jesus's kisses", or defending child molesters and getting an exorcism to heal her heart attack while opposing both abortion and contraception, then you shouldn't encourage people to do better research... which they can start with at:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa
Did you even read this link before you sent it?
Other than the parts I copied from it? Yeah, probably. You?
I did, it seems like you skipped most of the article and jump straight into criticisms, most of which have been largely debunked. There has never been any credible accusation of Mother Teresa stealing money from her hospice to give to the Vatican.
That's a funny way of saying that she sent over 90% of donations directly to the Vatican, instead of putting them towards hospice work. Sure, she didn't "steal from her hospice"... the money didn't even reach the hospice in the first place!
But hey, she managed to spare some change to fund monasteries over Europe, and followed Mahatma Gandhi's steps in "no painkillers for thee, but all of them for me".
You do know that in India, especially at the time, there was a ban on painkillers. Morphine wasn't even allowed for medicinal uses, so it's not that she kept the painkillers for herself, it's that she didn't have them to begin with.
You're quoting "Hell's Angel" which has been pretty thoroughly debunked as bullshit
You don't seem to know there is more than one kind of painkiller (US, land of the opioids, amirite?). India had banned oral opium, not for medical use; they didn't join the Metamozole banning stupidity until 2013, just in time for other countries to start legalizing it as a way to combat opioid addictions (coincidentally, the opioid epidemic in the US started about when Metamozole got banned... surely no relation).
Saint Mother Teresa, kept giving her patients acetaminophen, several orders less effective than any of the alternatives she had available.
Haven't read that, and don't plan on doing so. If what I'm saying, based on public sources, happens to match what's written in there, then you might want to revisit your definition of "pretty thoroughly debunked as bullshit".
Except if you checked the "public sources", you'd see you're literally just regurgitating the hit piece done by Hitchens, and absolutely nothing from the real history.
Additionally, Morphine, as I said, was illegal at the time. Her tylenol was the best she could do at the time.
Not sure which sources are you regurgitating, since Morphine was legal for medical use, and you completely glossed over Metamizole.
Sounds like the "War on Drugs" talking points, that have so effectively spread illegal (and highly profitable) opioid abuse in the US.
It was India in the 1950's dude
Precisely, dude:
1884 maybe...
Sides, what makes you think she even had this. The Indian Governement's always been strict and it's not like they're giving this Nun from another country access to top of the line medicine. Especially when her patients are people so far gone that hospitals literally will not take them, because no one's ever heard of Pallative Care, because Theresa's in the middle of inventing the concept!
You may want to brush up on Indian history, including the 19th century India-China wars on (export) of opium.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcotic_Drugs_and_Psychotropic_Substances_Act,_1985
If you check the "non criticism" parts of Mother Teresa's Wikipedia article linked earlier, you may notice how "this Nun from another country" was receiving Indian awards since 1962.
So no, there is no justifying of what she did for decades... unless you want to think the Indian government was fine with removing the terminally ill off the streets and dumping them into a hellhole run by a bunch of religious fanatics.
Except palliative care is not praying the pain away, this is:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palliative_care
Okay the fact that terminally ill people were on the streets is already a really big problem in and of itself. But hey, fuck Mother Theresa for trying to do something about it eh?
I'm done with this conversation, say what you want. I'm not replying again.
🙊
Are you a ChatGPT bot comment?
Why is she in quotes?
Emphasis maybe?
Why are you "asking"...? (there, edited, hope that helps the tokenizer 🙄)
because I'd "like" to "know". Some people use them to communicate dubiousness, some people use them to indicate they're actually quoting someone, some "people" use them for emphasis.
"Assume good faith unless proven otherwise"... should be a rule. Anyways, we good now?
You /s but someone in this very same conversation posted a comment above basically saying the same thing.
Sort by "top", they'll be below... *sigh* there's always gotta be a reason to require the /s, ain't it?
I once worked in a chain and spilled fresh brewed coffee on my arm. Looks half a pot. Got second degree burns.
Company paid for my ER visit, naturally. No way in hell was our coffee as hot as McD's, by a long shot. And I we still in pain for weeks.