690
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
690 points (97.5% liked)
News
35962 readers
2991 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You used the size of the lemonade to argue its caffeine content was not excessive given the lemonade was larger in volume than a comparable coffee beverage.
But the topic of this chain started with the girl not realizing the drink was caffeinated to begin with.
The context of my question was calling into doubt the relevance of caffeine to volume ratio in defining “excessive” when the underlying issue was accidental consumption due to (alleged) poor product labeling.
Given she had a heart condition, any amount seems to have been “excessive”.
I think you just made the mistake of conceding my whole point. Yes, if she shouldn't have had ANY caffeine, we have a problem. And the problem is that she walked to a self-service area where over 90% of the beverages are caffeinated (they have maybe 2 or 3 things that aren't, tops?), and she filled her cup with the ONLY one that explicitly advertised being caffeinated.
Back to your question:
Yet again, I don't think this question is relevant ESPECIALLY now that you conceded that the amount of caffeine is irrelevant and not problematic. But here's the key quotes of the thread, and why I felt your question was out-of-touch:
Note, you just accepted my side of the underlying discussion as fact because it didn't matter to your new point. That's how I know your reply was a context-switch.
Can you show me where I conceded your point? That was not my intention, as I do not concede your point. To the contrary, I assume the “typical” coffee contains far less than 400mg of caffeine.
I further do not concede that the drink was adequately labeled as caffeinated. Not because I know it wasnt, I don’t, but since the girl knew she couldn’t have caffeine it seems unlikely she would intentionally ignore information about caffeine content that was adequately marked.
It’s possible she was being generally unobservant, maybe even fair to assume it, but that just brings us back around to the only point I’ve tried to make. It’s reasonable to assume lemonade is not caffeinated since AFAIK it’s pretty much always uncaffeinated. So it doesn’t necessarily matter how many beverages at the self serve were caffeinated because who has ever heard of caffeinated lemonade?
There’s no calculation she should have been expected to assume re: caffeine to volume ratio of lemonade so it’s not a stretch that she wouldn’t think to check.
The fact that any amount would have been too much was just a compounding factor in a tragedy.
The average cup of coffee has about 95mg of caffeine (found it: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/caffeine/art-20049372). So each of these lemonades she drank was over 4 cups of coffee.
If she was able to miss the labeling, which is reasonable to assume - bc she would she ignore it on purpose? - then it would have been very easy for her to ingest an extreme amount of caffeine in a short period of time, which is what I assume happened.
Sure! This is where you conceded the only point I cared about discussing here.
You don’t seem to actually want to discuss the implications of that point. Take care.