LogFAQs > #911868032

UnfairRepresent posted...

You've spent the entire topic ignoring what everyone says and calling them stupid and mentally ill.

Those are accurate descriptions.
UnfairRepresent posted...

"I don't insult people who disagree with me and I can't retort"

That's not an insult, just an objective statement.
UnfairRepresent posted...

I don't know the case law but the comparison that springs to mind is commonsense consumption laws where people tried to sue McDonalds for making them fat after they ate copious amounts of burgers and had strokes, to which the courts said "That's dumb."

I know that's for long term eating, but the principle is the same, prevent people from using frivious lawsuits to escape personality accountability. Specific case law probably exists which some poor overpaid lawyer for the Uni is probably putting together as you read this message.

"I consented to eat copious amounts of pie and then got sick/died because I ate copious amounts of pie." is a direct result of personal responsbility.

Sure if the university put arsenic in the pies or fired the pies at the contestants from a shotgun, the responsbility shifts.

But "It's unis fault I put copious amounts of pies in my mouth!" is kinda shameful. Take responsbility for your actions.

Wrong. You're making false equivalency analogies. This is akin to

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/jury-rules-radio-station-jennifer-strange-water-drinking/story?id=8970712
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/04/voodoo-doughnut-suspends-eating-challenge-after-death/
As Learning said learn to research wrongful death and negligence cases because you are incredibly ignorant on how it works.
Also you failed to address the examples with pulling a Uzi at a knock out free for all or having a sack race on a cliff would make them responsible for the death caused by those.