5 ms·

If I were on the jury for the civil case where you are accused of destroying several minimum wage call center employees' eardrums and hearing, I would vote guil

by brvsft 3y ago

If I were on the jury for the civil case where you are accused of destroying several minimum wage call center employees' eardrums and hearing, I would vote guilty.

nrb 3y ago
Ridiculous, it’s on the headset operators to keep the devices at safe levels. That’s like me sending you a fax and you suing me for a papercut you gave yourself with it.
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  I have no idea what lawyers would actually say but now I’m curious about making your fax machine print off Top Secret documents and illegal pornography.
- paulgb 3y ago
  > That’s like me sending you a fax and you suing me for a papercut you gave yourself with it. The major difference is whether it was done with malicious intent, which is a factor in legal culpability.
- brvsft 3y ago
  When you don't want to talk to someone on the phone, you hang up. What was suggested here goes out of the way beyond hanging up to expressly cause annoyance or potential damage. It's not just speaking loudly into the phone, it is starting off quiet with the intent that the telemarketer turns up the volume on their device, and then screaming into the phone. It's not even close to your suggestion. A papercut would be a potential injury in normal use of a fax machine, from wanted or unwanted faxes. That would be like someone hurting their wrist when holding the phone up to their head.
Waterluvian 3y ago
Caution: coffee is hot.
- brvsft 3y ago
  Actually a classic example of the general public's misconceptions about the 'litigious' nature of the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... > Stella May Liebeck was born in Norwich, England, on December 14, 1912. She was 79 at the time of the burn incident. On February 27, 1992, Liebeck ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a McDonald's restaurant at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe, which did not have cup holders. Her nephew parked so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it.[10] In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[11] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks and groin.[12][13] > Liebeck went into shock and was taken to an emergency room at a hospital. She suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[14][13] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9.1 kg), nearly 20 percent of her body weight, reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for three weeks, which was provided by her daughter.[15] Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.[16][17] ... > The Liebeck case trial took place from August 8 to 17, 1994, before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott.[20] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). Liebeck's attorneys argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. The attorneys presented evidence that coffee they had tested all over the city was served at a temperature at least 20 °F (11 °C) lower than McDonald's coffee. They also presented the jury with expert testimony that 190 °F (88 °C) coffee may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about three seconds and 180 °F (82 °C) coffee may produce such burns in about twelve to fifteen seconds.[12] Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns.[21] Of course, why am I bothering? You apparently think that human beings are just objects to be fucked with for your own pleasure, and that telemarketers are akin to literal Nazis who were "just following orders" when committing genocide, thereby justifying any harm you would do to them.
mcpackieh 3y ago
I don't think any phone or headset has enough power to actually destroy eardrums. They can be loud enough to cause pain and even hearing loss over long-term use, but not loud enough to actually blow out somebody's ear drums in one blast. Even shooting a gun without ear protection, which is much louder than any phone or headphone speaker, is very unlikely to ever rupture your ear drums outright (although some loss of hearing is certain.) I don't think you could successfully sue somebody for "they played a loud sound that was painful but my ear drums are still intact."

by brvsft 3y ago

If I were on the jury for the civil case where you are accused of destroying several minimum wage call center employees' eardrums and hearing, I would vote guilty.

nrb 3y ago

Ridiculous, it’s on the headset operators to keep the devices at safe levels. That’s like me sending you a fax and you suing me for a papercut you gave yourself with it.

Waterluvian 3y ago
I have no idea what lawyers would actually say but now I’m curious about making your fax machine print off Top Secret documents and illegal pornography.
paulgb 3y ago
> That’s like me sending you a fax and you suing me for a papercut you gave yourself with it. The major difference is whether it was done with malicious intent, which is a factor in legal culpability.
brvsft 3y ago
When you don't want to talk to someone on the phone, you hang up. What was suggested here goes out of the way beyond hanging up to expressly cause annoyance or potential damage. It's not just speaking loudly into the phone, it is starting off quiet with the intent that the telemarketer turns up the volume on their device, and then screaming into the phone. It's not even close to your suggestion. A papercut would be a potential injury in normal use of a fax machine, from wanted or unwanted faxes. That would be like someone hurting their wrist when holding the phone up to their head.

Waterluvian 3y ago

Caution: coffee is hot.

brvsft 3y ago
Actually a classic example of the general public's misconceptions about the 'litigious' nature of the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... > Stella May Liebeck was born in Norwich, England, on December 14, 1912. She was 79 at the time of the burn incident. On February 27, 1992, Liebeck ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a McDonald's restaurant at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe, which did not have cup holders. Her nephew parked so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it.[10] In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[11] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks and groin.[12][13] > Liebeck went into shock and was taken to an emergency room at a hospital. She suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[14][13] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9.1 kg), nearly 20 percent of her body weight, reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for three weeks, which was provided by her daughter.[15] Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.[16][17] ... > The Liebeck case trial took place from August 8 to 17, 1994, before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott.[20] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). Liebeck's attorneys argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. The attorneys presented evidence that coffee they had tested all over the city was served at a temperature at least 20 °F (11 °C) lower than McDonald's coffee. They also presented the jury with expert testimony that 190 °F (88 °C) coffee may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about three seconds and 180 °F (82 °C) coffee may produce such burns in about twelve to fifteen seconds.[12] Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns.[21] Of course, why am I bothering? You apparently think that human beings are just objects to be fucked with for your own pleasure, and that telemarketers are akin to literal Nazis who were "just following orders" when committing genocide, thereby justifying any harm you would do to them.

mcpackieh 3y ago

I don't think any phone or headset has enough power to actually destroy eardrums. They can be loud enough to cause pain and even hearing loss over long-term use, but not loud enough to actually blow out somebody's ear drums in one blast. Even shooting a gun without ear protection, which is much louder than any phone or headphone speaker, is very unlikely to ever rupture your ear drums outright (although some loss of hearing is certain.) I don't think you could successfully sue somebody for "they played a loud sound that was painful but my ear drums are still intact."