No, I'm not. I'm saying that for policy reasons, we require manufacturers or purveyors of goods and services to disclose warnings because that imposes the least amount of cost on society. You simply cannot argue with this--indeed, you admit that your policy failed with my example of prescription drugs--but yet, at the same time, you say that we should continue to embrace bad policy.
What you are saying is utterly irrational. Anyway, it's a meaningless debate. This issue has been settled a hundred years ago and it's not going to be reargued anytime soon.
I said the policy failed with prescription drugs. You're the one who drew the ridiculous analogy between required prescription drugs and voluntary behavior at an amusement park. Since you think it's analogous, I proposed a similar solution.
"What you are saying is utterly irrational."
Me? What about you? You're the one suggesting the ride operator inform the public that his ride may cause seizures in order to avoid liability.
I'm saying what about heart attacks? Strokes? Dizziness? Vomiting? Nosebleeds? Bruising? Internal organ damage? Where do you stop? Why did you stop with seizures?
That's your solution?