I did better. I pointed out a contradiction.
You said that McDonald's cannot be at fault because they would of had to have known severe burning is a likely result. They could not have guessed this, even though they serve millions of coffees and had evidence. So this statement is wrong in itself because they did know.
However, you then say everyone (including McDonald's, little children, your eight year old niece) knows that coffee could cause third degree burns. They knew the risks, you say, but they handled the coffee sloppily so they must be at fault.
You cannot simultaneously say, "There's no way McDonald's could have known", and "Everyone knows." If McDonald's didn't know, then how could the customer know? But McDonald's did know, but considered it more profitable to use a more dangerous, cheaper cup or not warn the customer.
You are right. By feeling I KNOW.
And presented lots of opinions. I rambled. Etc.
However, clearly I read everything you said. Your position is weak, and it's been weakly presented. But you say in effect that I'm just not smart enough to understand your position.
With all my poor arguing, I only watched the video up until the point where I saw the burns. That's all the information I needed. It was only later that I started googling stuff, and found that not only was your position wrong in my view, it was wrong in court.
Anyway, I like me
I'm :uni:B:uni:R:uni:I:uni:L:uni:L:uni:I:uni:A:uni:N:u ni:T:uni: