@JeSuisRickSpringfield Your link in response to @MrGrimm888
(Appeal to the stone= Argumentum ad lapidem) goes for your “I wouldn’t say yes. I also think that the comparison is fatuous.” You didn’t explain.
2) “Unfortunately, that wasn’t clear because it makes absolutely no sense to say that a company that didn’t sell a product is just as responsible for harms that said product causes as the company that did sell it.”
My post says (in different words) that it makes just as much sense (meaning zero sense) to sue the one who sold the coffee as suing the one who didn’t sell it.” The word “preposterous” shows it.
3)Re. _”)If someone sells you gum secretly laced with cyanide, is it your fault for chewing it?“__
So, the fact that hot coffee is _varying degrees of too hot _ (no matter who made it and who handed it to an adult, and not a toddler or so) is supposed to be a secret?
4)The fact that there’s that many people who can’t handle hot coffee (Mcdonalds had many complaints already) means just that, it doesn’t mean it legitimizes a lawsuit.
5) It not like _” It’s the same way that someone who gets hit by a drunk driver while not wearing their seatbelt because the drunk driver is not just doing what he/she is supposed to do* like Mcdonalds was, selling hot coffee, not lukewarm or cold coffee.
6) @MrGrimm888 reponded to you with the straws example.