Why can't they just remove the lid and sip like from a cup ?

[dowie]

A liquid that will seriously injure or kill a person who drinks it is not a drink. A liquid that's hot enough to cause serious injury or death isn't a matter of what I think. It's a matter of physics and biology. It doesn't matter if you ignore degrees of temperature and the different effects of them - reality won't.

A cup of coffe is a drink, I’m not really sure what you think you’re adding with this pointless semantic argument that coffee isn’t a drink when it’s hot. That it is hot isn’t in dispute and whether you want to pointlessly declare it to not be a drink at some temperature isn’t really relevant here.

You’ve again ignored the question though.

 

[Telecaster]

The two blatantly obvious points being missed, a high percentage of Mcdonalds are Drive-Thrus, having a lid and a straw on your drink is quite handy when you're driving as it means the inside of your vehicle doesn't get redecorated, so simply removing the lid and drinking it from the cup is a nonstarter.

Secondly, have your tried drinking a maccies milk shake out of the cup? what insanity is this? The paper straw is terrible, it goes soggy quick and has a weird taste and texture, I'm all for binning off the plastic ones but surely they're capable of coming up with something better than this?

The real issue here is cost, they want to be seen to be doing the right thing and being on trend with all the youngsters permanently outraged on 'the socials', but only if it doesn't cost them too much money.

 

[UberTiger]

have your tried drinking a maccies milk shake out of the cup?

Yeah, takes way less time to drink it that way

 

[Angilion]

A cup of coffe is a drink, I’m not really sure what you think you’re adding with this pointless semantic argument that coffee isn’t a drink when it’s hot. That it is hot isn’t in dispute and whether you want to pointlessly declare it to not be a drink at some temperature isn’t really relevant here.

You’ve again ignored the question though.

I am sure what you're thinking when you pretend that there aren't degrees of heat. It's such a silly argument that you can't be intending it as an actual argument.

I've lost your question in the utter nonsense of ignoring degrees of heat. Were you asking if there's a difference between 30C and 30,000C? Both are hot (one for a day in the UK, one for the surface of a star), so they must be the same because hot is hot.

There's nothing complicated about the argument that a liquid that will cause serious internal injury or death if drunk is not a drink. The difference between a drink and death isn't a "pointless semantic argument". I don't know how to put it any simpler than that.

 

[dowie]

I am sure what you're thinking when you pretend that there aren't degrees of heat. It's such a silly argument that you can't be intending it as an actual argument.

I haven't pretended that.

I've lost your question in the utter nonsense of ignoring degrees of heat. Were you asking if there's a difference between 30C and 30,000C? Both are hot (one for a day in the UK, one for the surface of a star), so they must be the same because hot is hot.

Well I haven't done that...

There's nothing complicated about the argument that a liquid that will cause serious internal injury or death if drunk is not a drink. The difference between a drink and death isn't a "pointless semantic argument". I don't know how to put it any simpler than that.

Trying to define coffee as not a drink is a pointless semantic argument.

Arguing that you believe coffee is too hot to drink at a particular temperature isn't but is also easily countered by any number of people who've bought a McDonalds coffee, I'm not saying you should gulp one down nor am I denying that injuries can be caused by them, they clearly can, but my argument is that an establishment ought to be able to serve a adult a hot drink or lets say hot cup of coffee for the sake of avoiding a further pointless semantic argument over what constitutes a drink and for that adult to have some personal responsibility.

The question involved pointing out that plenty of establishments in the UK serve hot drinks, in particular tea and instant coffee, at a temperature at least as hot as McDonalds, in the case of black tea you can prepare some blends with boiling water... and indeed might well serve uncovered. Do you believe that such an establishment should be potentially bankrupted should any of the customers carelessly split such a drink down themselves. This could apply to any number of say greasy spoons cafes that simply fill up a mug containing a team bag with hot water etc...

 

[Angilion]

I haven't pretended that.

You have and are continuing to do so, e.g.:

[..] my argument is that an establishment ought to be able to serve a adult a hot drink or lets say hot cup of coffee for the sake of avoiding a further pointless semantic argument over what constitutes a drink and for that adult to have some personal responsibility. [..]

You have and are continuing to pretend that there is no difference between a non-toxic liquid that is at a temperature that is towards the upper end of safely drinkable, i.e. a hot drink, and a liquid that is at a temperature high enough to cause serious injury or death if drunk. If drinking a liquid kills you, whether or not it's toxic is, in my opinion at least, of less importance. It's relevant only in the context of an autopsy.

(EDIT: As has already been said repeatedly, the adult in this case was held to "have some personal responsibility", as was officially stated in the court ruling. Why are you ignoring that?)

As for "pointless semantic argument", all I can do is repeat myself:

There's nothing complicated about the argument that a liquid that will cause serious internal injury or death if drunk is not a drink. The difference between a drink and death isn't a "pointless semantic argument". I don't know how to put it any simpler than that.

I think that it's your argument of "hot = hot regardless of the temperature" that is better described as "a pointless semantic argument".

 

[dowie]

You have and are continuing to pretend that there is no difference between a non-toxic liquid that is at a temperature that is towards the upper end of safely drinkable, i.e. a hot drink, and a liquid that is at a temperature high enough to cause serious injury or death if drunk.

No I haven't pretended that at all, I've already stated this so it seems pointless to insist that I am when I'm specifically saying that I'm not... why carry on trying to claim otherwise when it has already been clarified for you. I'm well aware and have specifically commented that McDonalds serves hot drinks at a temperature hotter than filtered coffee is typically served at, I've also pointed out that hot drinks are served at similar temperatures or higher all over the place in the UK, in particular tea and instant coffee.

You're verging on hyperbole with this serious injury and death stuff... serious injuries are rather rare, the food itself is more likely to cause harm and death, in fact the car journey to drive to the drive through might well pose a bigger risk than consuming a hot drink

As for "pointless semantic argument", all I can do is repeat myself:

ergo pointless..

I think that it's your argument of "hot = hot regardless of the temperature" that is better described as "a pointless semantic argument".

That isn't my argument with respect to the case but certainly a comment on the ridiculousness of it, coffee is indeed hot and should be treated with care... and yes a coffee served at 70 degree say and one served at 80 degrees are both "hot". If I were ordering a takeaway coffee with the intent of taking it away then I'd prefer the hotter one.

Again though you've deliberately avoided answering the question... you've just engaged in more pointless semantics and tried to make up an argument for me and then argue against it...

Try to post in good faith please...

 

[Angilion]

No I haven't pretended that at all, I've already stated this so it seems pointless to insist that I am when I'm specifically saying that I'm not... why carry on trying to claim otherwise when it has already been clarified for you. I'm well aware and have specifically commented that McDonalds serves hot drinks at a temperature hotter than filtered coffee is typically served at, I've also pointed out that hot drinks are served at similar temperatures or higher all over the place in the UK, in particular tea and instant coffee.

You're verging on hyperbole with this serious injury and death stuff... serious injuries are rather rare, the food itself is more likely to cause harm and death, in fact the car journey to drive to the drive through might well pose a bigger risk than consuming a hot drink

And you're still doing it. You're pretending there is no distinction between a liquid that can be drunk, i.e. a drink, and a liquid that will cause third degree burns on skin in 2 seconds. Where is your evidence to support your assertion that the mouth, throat and stomach of a human is so much more heat resist than human skin that a liquid that would cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds to skin will not cause serious injury if drunk?

ergo pointless..

Not entirely. You ignore it, but there's a possibility that someone else might be reading this and mistakenly think you're making a point. I'd like to ensure that nobody is mistaken in that way.

Again though you've deliberately avoided answering the question... you've just engaged in more pointless semantics and tried to make up an argument for me and then argue against it...

Try to post in good faith please...

Physician, heal thyself!

I haven't answered a question I haven't seen. I will continue to not answer a question I haven't seen. I don't even know if you ever asked a question. I'm certainly not going to search back through the blather about it being safe to drink liquids that will burn entirely through skin in 2 seconds in order to maybe find some sort of question.

 

[spoffle]

I mean if he wants to play grammar Nazi he could at least spell sentence correct

Is that what you mean?

 

[Minusorange]

Is that what you mean?

What ?

 

[dowie]

And you're still doing it. You're pretending there is no distinction between a liquid that can be drunk, i.e. a drink, and a liquid that will cause third degree burns on skin in 2 seconds. Where is your evidence to support your assertion that the mouth, throat and stomach of a human is so much more heat resist than human skin that a liquid that would cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds to skin will not cause serious injury if drunk?

I'm not doing that. I've specifically stated that I'm not so why pretend otherwise? I'm well aware there is a difference in the potential injuries caused by say spilling a hot drink at 60 degrees vs spilling one at say just below 90 degrees...

Just for clarity - I'll state it again:

My position is not that there is no difference between coffee at 60-ish degrees and coffee at 80-90 degrees

I think the issue is that you've just skim read my posts as you've avoided any meaningful discussion and seemingly just want to either engage in a pointless semantic argument about whether we can call coffee at 80-90 degrees a "drink" and try to argue against something I've not claimed.

I haven't answered a question I haven't seen. I will continue to not answer a question I haven't seen. I don't even know if you ever asked a question. I'm certainly not going to search back through the blather about it being safe to drink liquids that will burn entirely through skin in 2 seconds in order to maybe find some sort of question.

I think you're just lying now, you've even quoted the post where I initially asked you and deleted the question, here is the original post in full again:

They were serving a hot drink. Have you never ordered a cup of tea in the UK? Should I be able to bankrupt any cafe owners if I spill a cup of tea down myself?

She got a takeaway drink then put it between her legs in the car park, removed the lid and split it on herself.

Yes a hot drink is hot, adults should be aware of this.

I make these “extremely dangerous”, as you call them, hot drinks every day at home, in fact the ones I make are even more dangerous as they’re hotter (with water straight from the kettle) and the mugs I use at home don’t even have a lid.... strangely enough I don’t tend to stick them between my legs as that would be a silly thing to do.

Note that at no point have I made the claim that there is no difference between hot drinks at different temperatures, I am however of the opinion that adults ought to be careful of any hot drinks! I've also pointed out that these hot drinks are quite common in the UK at various establishments, especially in the case of tea and instant coffee.

I've quoted you a second time:

You've still avoided the question though and have instead chosen to carry on with some semantic argument where you want to claim a hot drink isn't a drink.

Before: It was not a drink because it could not be drunk. Contact would cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds. Even minor contact would require expensive medical treatment and cause permanent injury.

Have you never been to say a greasy spoons type cafe where they serve a cup of tea with a full English breakfast?

And I've mentioned the question a third time:

The question involved pointing out that plenty of establishments in the UK serve hot drinks, in particular tea and instant coffee, at a temperature at least as hot as McDonalds, in the case of black tea you can prepare some blends with boiling water... and indeed might well serve uncovered. Do you believe that such an establishment should be potentially bankrupted should any of the customers carelessly split such a drink down themselves. This could apply to any number of say greasy spoons cafes that simply fill up a mug containing a team bag with hot water etc...

If you want to carry on with some argument against a position I don't hold or carry on with some pointless semantics where you define a cup of coffee above a certain temperature to not be a drink then this is utterly pointless... it is like discussing McDonald's food and then someone ignoring the discussion and instead making a pointless side argument that you can't call the product McDonald's serves "food". It isn't helpful or constructive, it is just side tracking and disingenuous.

On the other hand I've simply asked your opinion with regards to various other establishments who serve hot "liquid" (for the sake of argument) at similar temperatures, such as tea and instant coffees...

 

[Angilion]

I'm not doing that. I've specifically stated that I'm not so why pretend otherwise?

You're saying that after explicitly referring to drinking a liquid at a temperature high enough to cause 3rd degree burns to human skin in 2 seconds. So yes, you are doing that.

I think you're just lying now, you've even quoted the post where I initially asked you and deleted the question, here is the original post in full again:

I delete most of your posts because I don't care about you repeating that liquids that burn completely through human skin in 2 seconds are merely "hot drinks".

Now that you've repeated the question rather than repeating that I'm "avoiding" a question I haven't seen, I'll answer it.

"Should I be able to bankrupt any cafe owners if I spill a cup of tea down myself?"

If they knew it was far too hot to be a drink, knew it was very dangerous, knew that their choice had already caused hundreds of injuries, knew that the way in which the undrinkable liquid was served was causing injuries without any fault from their customers (some of the injuries were caused by spills not at all caused by the customer who was burned) and didn't even bother informing their customers of this unexpected degree of risk, then yes.

I've spilt tea and coffee on myself at work. It didn't burn completely through my skin in 2 seconds because it wasn't hot enough to do so because it was drinkable, i.e. a drink.

 

[dowie]

You're saying that after explicitly referring to drinking a liquid at a temperature high enough to cause 3rd degree burns to human skin in 2 seconds. So yes, you are doing that.

No, I'm not! Please stop trying to straw man me here, I've specifically told you that my argument isn't that hot drinks at different temperatures are the same.

I think most of us are familiar with, say, having a cup of tea so you don't need to add in hyperbole here. I'm pretty sure the tea I just had now could cause serious burns if I were to tip it into my lap, that doesn't prevent me from sipping it right now or referring to it as a "drink" nor does it imply that I've made any claim that there is no difference between it and a drink at a less hot temperature.

You're arguing against something I've not said but rather something you've decided that I'm implying despite me offering an explanation a few times now and directly stating that that isn't my position. I've made myself clear there yet you carry on discussing in bad faith.

I delete most of your posts because I don't care about you repeating that liquids that burn completely through human skin in 2 seconds are merely "hot drinks".

Well they are hot drinks... you're still getting hung up on semantics if you're insistent on arguing that McDonalds' coffee isn't a "drink" because in your opinion the temperature it is served at is too hot.

If they knew it was far too hot to be a drink, knew it was very dangerous, knew that their choice had already caused hundreds of injuries, knew that the way in which the undrinkable liquid was served was causing injuries without any fault from their customers (some of the injuries were caused by spills not at all caused by the customer who was burned) and didn't even bother informing their customers of this unexpected degree of risk, then yes.

I've spilt tea and coffee on myself at work. It didn't burn completely through my skin in 2 seconds because it wasn't hot enough to do so because it was drinkable, i.e. a drink.

I think it is potentially rather different if an injury wasn't cause by the customer, if a member of staff spills a coffee all over a customer causing burns then that is McDonald's fault.

I'd also argue that with a cafe a risk re: a hot cup of tea isn't "unexpected", certainly not in the UK. It is filtered coffee historically perhaps more popular in the US (and which is of course quite popular over here too in the past decade or so) which is served at a lower temperature. Tea and instant coffee has been served at around this hotter temperature in the UK for a while if not hotter even in some cases.

But just to clarify, if the cafe were to warn customers that a cup of tea is indeed hot and can burn them if they spill it then you're fine with it?

I mean that is essentially what McDonalds does now, they've just placed warnings that hot drinks are hot... and carried on serving them as usual. And that is why some people think this lawsuit was rather silly in spite of the injuries caused.

 

[Lopéz]

@dowie , @Angilion , honestly guys, nobody gives a flying one about what temperature constitutes a hot drink, other than you two. Get a room and have your semantics battle there where normal people can't get affected.

 

[dowie]

@dowie , @Angilion , honestly guys, nobody gives a flying one about what temperature constitutes a hot drink, other than you two. Get a room and have your semantics battle there where normal people can't get affected.

That is what I'm asking! I've been quite clear in saying that some argument about whether or not a McDonald's coffee is a "drink" or not is utterly pointless.

 

[Minusorange]

If you serve lava in a cup is it a drink ?

 

[builder22]

chicken tikka mcflurry???

 

[Bear]

If you serve lava in a cup is it a drink ?

No, but it is if its a Lavazza

 

[NoobCannon]

No, but it is if its a Lavazza

Ban

 

[Freakbro]

@dowie , @Angilion , honestly guys, nobody gives a flying one about what temperature constitutes a hot drink, other than you two. Get a room and have your semantics battle there where normal people can't get affected.

Personally I find it highly entertaining when the immovable object and rain man get into a disagreement!