The Manipulators 2

Burning Woo

We don’t know if a particular news story we hear is truth, or lies, or propaganda, but we do know that everything reported on is part of a self-serving mission of some kind.

McDonald’s seems to be accomplished in using a sneaky fast one that exemplifies that fact. Supposedly, a woman bought a coffee at the drive-through of the hamburger joint, then burned herself by lodging the cup between her legs, then jamming on the brakes and spilling the hot drink on her woo-woo.

One way or another, this is a setup from the get-go. It provides free publicity to Mickey-D’s and gives an excuse for a new set of phony “precedents” in court. Why? One reason is to make it easier to target businesses they want to extort money out of or to put out to pasture.

The court would have and should have denied the plaintiff the ability to bring a case, and no one would have a beef with that. They pick and choose the cases they will allow, and this one was no exception. Assuming that it even occurred at all.

Imagine claiming the “principle” of suing the hammer manufacturer when missing the nail and banging your thumb. Or burning down the house with gasoline and suing Texaco and Bic lighters. Or pressing your hand on the stove burner and suing the manufacturer for damages.

In the past, no one burning their woo-woos or wee-wees after an incident like that would have even had the gall to cry foul and try to blame someone else, they’d be too embarrassed to own up to such a dumb stunt.

In investigating deeper into the story, an advocate for the woman made a plea, describing the woeful state of the woman’s woo, and how the coffee was extraordinarily hot to cause such a state, more than most places, that Mickey Ds had been warned about this in the past(!?) It’s easy to be swayed by the talk of the skin grafts and pain involved and horrific graphics of raw and blistered flesh, but that doesn’t negate the fact that coffee is supposed to be hot, much like hammers are supposed to be hard.

Putting a hot cup of coffee on your woo-woo and then crying when it gets burned. What if she’d poured the coffee over her head, essentially the same? It doesn't matter the specifics, if it was irresponsible behavior on part of the consumer, it can never be the supplier’s fault.

Now here’s a touchy point: It doesn’t matter how much scar tissue covered her woo, or how painful intercourse is now. It’s good to be swayed by this emotionally, but not to the extent of awarding her damages that burden McDonald’s or the taxpayers. If you’re truly sympathetic, donate to her woo personally, or console her and tell her, kindly, gently, not to put burning hot objects, particularly liquids, near her woo.

But if you set the precedent, there’s no end to the devilry that can ensue. (By the way, this con of “setting a precedent” is another legalese scheme, and needs to be examined and challenged.)

It’s easy to fall into the trap of “self-deception” via manipulations of this type, and people still have trouble believing that the courts or media would lie.

Regarding the publicity aspect, well, spectacles like this will bring many people into the business in support, outraged at the unfairness. As well, it wedges McD’s in people’s minds. Brainwashing. Free publicity. Something it doesn’t deserve, since its “food” is pure garbage, adulterated, chemical-laden and unhealthy, and should be avoided like the plague.

Remember: they are selective in what news they report. Some very important stories are glossed over, or ignored. So when they rave about something fairly insignificant, there's an ulterior motive.

Well, there's a new development in this saga, and a sure sign that it’s all faked. A May, 2023, article says that now McDs is being sued by a mother for providing chicken nuggets too hot, burning a four-year-old. But as the report mentions, McDonald’s could print, at literally no cost, on their containers, “Food or beverage may be hot.” Apparently that would be enough to "satisfy the courts."

Certainly that inaction supports the idea of it being a con, or they would have printed the warning, long ago, after the '90s case with the woo. We've all seen other warnings, spread like chaff, willy-nilly. "Water! May be wet!" "Contents: Peanuts: May contain peanuts!" etc. Looks like the McDonalds freakazoid publicity hounds resurfaced -- back at the trough for another kick at the can. Is that mixing my metaphors? The mom: Another grifter after an easy payday, "working the system?" Or a hired stooge, playing a role? If the story actually is true, the mother should be imprisoned for child abuse. Well, either way is irrelevant, McDonalds gets another opportunity to cry "poor me" crocodile tears.

The wart who wrote the nuggets article was all pious and preachy about how the terrible big company made its food hot. It has to be repeated: it is not McDonald's fault. The responsibility, and guilt, lies with the consumer. Most people learn to not pour hot coffee on their woo-woo, to test food before cramming it into their mouth like a baboon, and certainly to not let a toddler pounce on something without checking it first.

For the confused: If McDonald's staff spills hot coffee on you, or they serve up molten lead in your coffee cup, or something along those lines, then, they're culpable. Supposedly, in court, they relied on some nonsense that they were serving "hotter than industry standard," an absurdity. You order coffee, and you know its temperature varies wildly. Plus the temperature depends on how long it's been sitting out, plus, it is always limited to below the boiling point in any case.

Any precedent blaming the business is only a trap that will lead to exploitation down the road, because you don’t know the mindset of the people who might take advantage of it. Some will literally burn themselves -- or their kid -- for a fat payout. Does this really have to be stated? No, it's doubtful that anyone is really winning lawsuits over this, or you'd have every crackhead grifter in town at your door, jumping around in pain, fanning their groins and tongues with their hands. More likely, the token wins are merely part of the scam.

Looking again at the woo, there's something else that makes that story untenable. Run the scenario in your mind, and it'll be obvious.