Gay men sue counselors who promised to make them straight

[Andeavor]

Originally Posted by eric/

Why does this "psyche" distinction matter?

And the comparison with the hot coffee is basically to point out frivolous lawsuits. Even if the coffee is 250 degrees, you still know that it is hot and that you should let it cool before consuming.

One of the things that sucks about this country is the ability to sue people for anything. No matter how stupid it is.

Sexuality is part of your hormonal and psychological makeup and should not be tampered with based on prejudice or misconception. It causes your natural progression to stop or flourish and creates a personality disorder, which can easily backfire later in life harming not only the treated person but their loved ones as well.

It's like if they made you believe that rabbits are evil and every time to look at or think of rabbits you get sick and want to vomit - even over the cute ones. This could go so far that you can become apathetic to the point where you'd rather harm or even kill the rabbits as to give a reason to not liking them.

Also, when it comes to lawsuits, just like the religious, republicans, democrats or vegetarians, you cannot paint them all with the same brush. Sure, there are silly ones like the one with hot coffee but when it comes to medical or psychological treatment, the patient has a right to sue someone for malpractice.

[Mac'nCheese]

Originally Posted by eric/

Why does this "psyche" distinction matter?

And the comparison with the hot coffee is basically to point out frivolous lawsuits. Even if the coffee is 250 degrees, you still know that it is hot and that you should let it cool before consuming.

One of the things that sucks about this country is the ability to sue people for anything. No matter how stupid it is.

I thought the same thing as you. Then I watched the movie "hot coffee". Honestly, it was not a stupid lawsuit. It had merit and the movie opened my eyes to how all these "frivolous" lawsuits aren't so wrong after all. Now, the judge who sued the dry cleaners for MILLIONS of dollars for losing his pants....

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by eric/

So I assume you were ok with such lawsuits as

"this coffee that's super hot isn't marked as hot and it burnt me"?

It's in the law after all...
.

Originally Posted by eric/

Hot coffee is hot

The ole' like it or leave it fallacy

The hot coffee lawsuit was about far more than the coffee was hot. The problem was that McDonalds knowinly brewed their coffee at such an extreme temperature to mask the fact that they had terrible coffee. They were already aware of numerous cases of burns and spills in cars, and still continued to serve scalding hot coffee to customers. They made the conscious decision to put customers at risk to make more money.

The only thing about that case that was questionable was the sheer size of the punative damages. Beyond that, it was a case that has made drive thrus safer for everyone, and also it forced McDonalds and others to serve better coffee. Win win.

(*above was based on recollection - reviewing some other stuff, and some of that was slightly inaccurate)

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese

I thought the same thing as you. Then I watched the movie "hot coffee". Honestly, it was not a stupid lawsuit. It had merit and the movie opened my eyes to how all these "frivolous" lawsuits aren't so wrong after all. Now, the judge who sued the dry cleaners for MILLIONS of dollars for losing his pants....

Is this movie on Netflix or anything by chance? I'd like to see it.

[Grey Beard]

While I am aware that this is a generic term, this is Snake Oil salesmen in another guise. What did the Americans of this period do to the said snake oil practitioners ?

KGB

[FreeState]

Originally Posted by eric/

Is this movie on Netflix or anything by chance? I'd like to see it.

Watch on Netflix
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Ho...6?locale=en-US

the movies promotional site here: http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com

[eric/]

Originally Posted by FreeState

Watch on Netflix
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Ho...6?locale=en-US

the movies promotional site here: http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com

No free version

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by eric/

No free version

Ok wait- so you expect to get things for free? I thought you were conservative. Wow. I see how that works. I guess only liberals are supposed to pay for things.

[kavika411]

A few thoughts:

First, is it lawful to run a counseling group that seeks to make straight people gay? I am guessing the answer is yes, although I think that is where most people are getting hung up. I - and probably most people here - am rather appalled that there would be such counseling groups, but that alone unlawful behavior does not (appear to, at least) make.

Second, assuming it is lawful to run a counseling group that seeks to make straight people gay, are there ethical canons or such in the counseling group that are being broken? My guess is no, but my guess is that in the near future ethical canons (for lack of a better word) will be introduced to prevent this from happening.

Third, assuming it is technically lawful and technically "ethical," what promised or representations did the conselling group make or warrant? My guess is that they didn't make any, but perhaps they did. I go to a psychiatrist for depression treatment. To my knowledge from education and experience, I can't sue him if he "fails."

In short, it's grotesque that counselors do this, but I don't see a sustainable civil or criminal cause of action.

[Mac'nCheese]

Originally Posted by eric/

No free version

Yeah it's disc only I guess. I saw it on hbo so if u have that it might air again someday.

[MorphingDragon]

Ok wait- so you expect to get things for free? I thought you were conservative. Wow. I see how that works. I guess only liberals are supposed to pay for things.[/QUOTE]

Not if your government pays for everything. :P

[thekev]

Originally Posted by eric/

So I assume you were ok with such lawsuits as

"this coffee that's super hot isn't marked as hot and it burnt me"?

It's in the law after all...

Originally Posted by eric/

Why does this "psyche" distinction matter?

And the comparison with the hot coffee is basically to point out frivolous lawsuits. Even if the coffee is 250 degrees, you still know that it is hot and that you should let it cool before consuming.

One of the things that sucks about this country is the ability to sue people for anything. No matter how stupid it is.

You should take some time to consider things prior to rejecting them in their entirety. McDonald's sells millions of cups of coffee. Given the extreme scale, someone will spill it. At those kinds of numbers, not all spills are likely to even be the fault of the people they splash. Someone could simply walk into you, or it could be a weirder set of circumstances where the chance of it happening is much more significant due to sample size. McDonald's wouldn't acknowledge it or cover medical costs, which was the reason it went so far. When you simplify things to a single headline, there is too much potential to lose critical details. You may as well just skip reading these things if you aren't going to read about them in detail.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by thekev

You should take some time to consider things prior to rejecting them in their entirety.

I always do.

Originally Posted by thekev

McDonald's sells millions of cups of coffee. Given the extreme scale, someone will spill it.

Why is this McDonald's problem, unless somebody from the restaurant spills it?

Originally Posted by thekev

At those kinds of numbers, not all spills are likely to even be the fault of the people they splash. Someone could simply walk into you, or it could be a weirder set of circumstances where the chance of it happening is much more significant due to sample size.

Sample size has no application here.

And weird circumstances matter why?

Originally Posted by thekev

McDonald's wouldn't acknowledge it or cover medical costs, which was the reason it went so far.

And they arguably shouldn't have had to.

Originally Posted by thekev

When you simplify things to a single headline, there is too much potential to lose critical details.

That is true, but often times things are deceptively simple, and the key points are lost in the mud.

Originally Posted by thekev

You may as well just skip reading these things if you aren't going to read about them in detail.

No thanks

[thekev]

Originally Posted by eric/

Why is this McDonald's problem, unless somebody from the restaurant spills it?

They had prior incidents involving significant burns. No company really wants that, and they determined it as an acceptable risk. I mentioned the potential for someone else to spill it on them as we're talking about an incredible volume and a somewhat perpetual cycle.

Originally Posted by eric/

And they arguably shouldn't have had to.

That isn't a simple point. Saying someone arguably shouldn't have to isn't stating and argument. Her lawyers would have argued based on liability as dictated by law. My argument would be that they didn't acknowledge this as a problem. Common sense arguments in my experience don't scale well to such large numbers as the potential for strange circumstances arises, and people around you won't behave as if you're holding something deadly simply because you're carrying a cup of coffee. When it comes to coffee, it doesn't surprise me that someone was burned by it. No one would expect a cup of coffee to be scalding. If you brew one at home, you can probably touch it briefly without being burned. The association just isn't there.

If my sentence and paragraph structure is sloppy today, it's because I'm tired. Perhaps I need more coffee.

[NickZac]

If nothing else, and they went into a formal financial contract that promised an outcome and the outcome did not occur, then yes, you have a viable lawsuit because contractual obligations were not met.

As far as the ethics go, that is a little complicated because there was mutual agreement on the sides of both parties. Is it ethical to promote the ability to change someone's sexuality? Common sense would say no based on the fact that it isn't possible and applies superiority. However, common sense and law are not the same. The 'buyers' were not coerced, traditional malpractice did not occur, and it does not seem like substantiating claims of external review were made. Both the seller and buyer entered a deal despite what would seem like to most to be a scam, or an impossible claim at best. However, if we look at it in the doctor-patient perspective, coercion may have occurred...but that is something needing further review.

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by eric/

Even if the coffee is 250 degrees, you still know that it is hot and that you should let it cool before consuming.

Just what planet would you be on, to have coffee at that temperature?

[likemyorbs]

Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese

Yeah it's disc only I guess. I saw it on hbo so if u have that it might air again someday.

Just watched it on HBO Go. Amazing documentary. Definitely a must watch for a lot of people. Especially republicans...

[eric/]

I think holistic medicine in general should just be banned. "Spiritual" healing, which obviously doesn't do anything and is a false promise shouldn't be legal because it's just a scam.

[2020mike]

I think I just recently read that the temperature on the coffee at McDonalds is now the same temp as it was the burned the lady. After the lawsuit they lowered it but through out the years they have gradually raised it back up to its originally temp. *adds nothing*

[chrono1081]

While I absolutely agree "conversion therapy camps" shouldn't exist here are my thoughts.

1. If they want to exist and people want to throw their money away, let them. HOWEVER no minor should EVER be allowed to go there, and, even if they are an adult, there should be a questionnaire they have to fill out in private (just like when you join the US Army) that says "If anyone is making you do this against your will check this box" and you're out. You can't partake.

2. There should have to be warnings that none of the therapies have ever been proven effective by science (because they haven't, don't believe me go look on the American Medical Association and similar websites). There should also be "side effect" warnings like possible suicidal tendencies since that is a very real side effect of this "therapy".

Again, I do not agree with these shams existing at all but since they do and they aren't going away for the forseeable future they should at least be held to some kind of regulation.

----------

Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese

I thought the same thing as you. Then I watched the movie "hot coffee". Honestly, it was not a stupid lawsuit. It had merit and the movie opened my eyes to how all these "frivolous" lawsuits aren't so wrong after all. Now, the judge who sued the dry cleaners for MILLIONS of dollars for losing his pants....

I'm not sure if you knew this or not but he ended up being wrong and admitting it! They were in his closet or something.

[Mac'nCheese]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

While I absolutely agree "conversion therapy camps" shouldn't exist here are my thoughts.

1. If they want to exist and people want to throw their money away, let them. HOWEVER no minor should EVER be allowed to go there, and, even if they are an adult, there should be a questionnaire they have to fill out in private (just like when you join the US Army) that says "If anyone is making you do this against your will check this box" and you're out. You can't partake.

2. There should have to be warnings that none of the therapies have ever been proven effective by science (because they haven't, don't believe me go look on the American Medical Association and similar websites). There should also be "side effect" warnings like possible suicidal tendencies since that is a very real side effect of this "therapy".

Again, I do not agree with these shams existing at all but since they do and they aren't going away for the forseeable future they should at least be held to some kind of regulation.

----------



I'm not sure if you knew this or not but he ended up being wrong and admitting it! They were in his closet or something.

Holy crap! I've got to go goggle that....

[chrono1081]

Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese

Holy crap! I've got to go goggle that....

Hm maybe I'm wrong. I could have sworn I saw a video and everything of the guy apologizing and saying it could happen to anyone (brushing it under the rug) but now I can't locate it at all.

From what I am finding though the court ruled in favor of the dry cleaners.

EDIT: I know what it was, it was something to do with him thinking he brought a different pair of pants in then he actually did.

[Mac'nCheese]

In case others are wondering what we r talking about:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pears...hung#section_2

[mentaluproar]

Wasn't there a Boston Legal episode about this?