> I'm really just playing the devil's advocate here. Indeed. But all your questions are why I'm, as I said, unclear if it should be illegal. > My understandin

> I'm really just playing the devil's advocate here. Indeed. But all your questions are why I'm, as I said, unclear if it should be illegal. > My understanding that hot liquids are dangerous is apparently not enough in that context. There is a reality in which I was supposed to somehow prevent the user from harming themselves with the dangerous item they asked for. As if I could be blamed for someone who died from shooting themselves when I sold them a gun, or cutting themselves when I sold them a knife. Hotter than expected, because it was hotter than anyone else provided it. As I showed, you were in error to claim '"I was burned by your hot coffee that's illegal" was the entire argument'. The jury even determined the fault was 20% hers, 80% McDonald's. Also the final settlement in her case was undisclosed, so you can't tell if it was or wasn't close to a million; the jury decided on $2.8m between actual damages (harm to her) and punitive damages (to deter McDonald's), the judge reduced it $640k, both sides appealed before settling confidentially: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaura... I'm from a culture where even the cops don't have guns, so I don't know what the gun analogy of this would look like. Handing someone a fully automatic pistol when all other gun providers only supply manual? So everyone knows it's dangerous, but the people who buy one are wildly wrong about how dangerous?