3 ms·
> Should our government protect (idiots|naive investors) from getting scammed? > But one could also argue that this is just the financial survival of the fitte
by senko 5y ago
> Should our government protect (idiots|naive investors) from getting scammed?
> But one could also argue that this is just the financial survival of the fittest and, hence, a natural rule that suckers get taken advantage of.
In the nation where you have to put "Caution - Hot" on coffee-to-go cups to avoid being sued, I think the answer to that is self-evident.
- barnabee 5y agoNot all of us live there or want those rules
- dugite-code 5y ago>In the nation where you have to put "Caution - Hot" on coffee-to-go cups to avoid being sued Hate to be that guy but McDonald's got sued over the hot coffee because they continued to serve coffee well above safe temperatures long after valid saftey concerns had been raised. The poor woman recieved 3rd degree burns (something that shouldn't be possible from a spilled beverage). She was publicly vilified for the massive settlement awarded to her when she only asked for reasonable medical costs. Also the "Caution - Hot" warning wouldn't have prevented her from being able to sue for negligence. From the data America isn't nearly as litigious as many media stories make out. In fact after this minor court case it actually became harder to sue companies in America and arguably resulted in may corporations to be less concerned about their affect on the common good.