@Suck
Close but still no cigar. The point I'm drawing between the statistical similarity between penguinado and caffeinated driving is not to object to the truth about whether or not you are right that someone who drinks 15 cups of coffee, before going driving will in fact get in an accident, but that it's not an event anyone has proven to actually be an issue in this world.
I just proved it, I made a reasonable inference.
Nope, sorry, no matter how many times you assert that coffee is "more dangerous than we think", it doesn't just make that statement true. First prove to me that it is and some provide some reliable sources which backs that up.
I used what we all ought to know about history, psychology, sociology and so on, to make a reasonable inference.
We know that if a tornadoes were to pick up penguins and hurl them at individuals, that could be catastrophic as well. Doesn't mean that it happens often, or even ever will.
Your inability to draw from your experience or common experience to critique the political, economic and scientific establishment, makes you susceptible to all sorts of manipulation, good luck with that.
Anyway, your experiment is totally ridiculous and doesn't prove bullshit, and I haven't the slightest inkling how it would...Because babies are more in tuned with their natural instincts than adults?
Take alcohol, bitter chocolate/coffee or smoking, and even many herbs and all spices, try getting a baby, cat or dog to take them, they won't, because yes, they're more in tune with their instincts and senses, we primarily take them because we've learned to interpret the high we get 30 minutes or an hour later as beneficial, or because after years of abusing these substances, we've acquired a taste for them.
It's not just recreational drugs, most scientific elixirs and potions have to be laced with sugar to be palatable, the ones that have any flavor, the flavor is almost always bad.
Because even if they can magically detect specifically what a 'drug' is,
They don't know what a drug is, they don't have to, they just know it tastes like shit and they're repelled by it.
Most animals don't know why they eat or fuck, they just do cause they enjoy it, and it increases the odds of their survival.
A cat doesn't know why it likes meat and not veg, a cow doesn't know why it likes grass and not meat.
babies can't have their own phychological traits that they grow out of within adult hood?
An adult who has absolutely no experience with drugs or psychosocial conditioning will react the same way to drugs as babies.
Because there couldn't be any other explanation for why a baby will spit up the average pill, than they just have super-powers, apparently?
No only government and mainstream science has amazing powers, we shouldn't rely on our individual and collective senses, experiences, reason, intuition, we should just patiently wait for the okay by authority figures.
I don't know, I think it's just because your brain, your imagination lacks nuance, subtlety.
Google search "Man gets shingles after bachelor party prank", or the "Sam Pepper" controversy; people take pranking pretty far, and pretty seriously in this day and age. I mean, can you show how there necessarily isn't a way anyone would ever take a prank to such an extreme?
We know from the history of science and business, and from conducting our affairs in the real world, that money and truth drive science and business, and if the opposite were the case, and we did things all, most or much of the time for a laugh against the interests of money, truth and survival, collectively and individually, we'd've died out a long time ago.
Your antithesis pranksterism shows a complete lack of understanding of human nature and reality.
Though this is a bit aside the point, I would in fact argue that a scientist would typically be more of a benefactor to speak out against a commonly held idea in society, because controversial studies actually get more traction and coverage, and hence publicity.
Scientists are conditioned from a young age to regurgitate what their teachers and society tells them to on command without question, comment or critique, it's only when they reach university that they're taught to think for themselves in very limited, controlled ways.
When big ideas and money are involved, many scientists risk losing their prestige, their careers, perhaps even their lives or the lives of their families by blowing the whistle on the establishment.
So, motivation is the sole thing you need to decide if something is happening?
Motivation is part of the equation, opportunity, historical precedents, their claims conflicting with common sense, the experiences and inferences of many people and the alt community, the fact that the scientific and caffeine industries are so large, some individuals are bound to be caught up in nefarious activities, the fact that society needs a stimulant like caffeine to keep it going, and so many people are addicted, it's all of those things put together, think holistically.
There's motivation for the government to have an underground cult of dictators who are really running the country, and not our president. Why don't you believe that, you know, if you don't need to demonstrate how something is actually happening in reality, with evidence, and all you need is to just assume anything and everything with a plausible motivation is occurring?
Of course it's occurring, politicians are loyal to the people who fund them: the rich megabanks and corporations, who conspire.
Noam Chomsky and many historians will tell you government conspires, that it's beholden to corporate and financial interests, that these interests help set policy, it's so boring and so obvious, it's hardly worth talking about.
Not saying it's impossible that's why the limit exists, it's just not the most intuitive thing to assume. It's a rationalization you'd have to go with in order to fit everything in line with your belief system in regards to this conspiracy. It's a harmonization, which doesn't subtract from the fact that the FDA's limit is still evidence against the motive you suggest, it's just not evidence that can't be explained away with an alternate explanation. But then again - no evidence is, because every shred of data that exists in the world can be explained away with an infinite number of conspiracy theories, and logical interpretation rules.
Let's just momentarily agree for the sake of argument in this particular instance we don't know how bad coffee is, because that's what we're trying to prove here, how bad coffee is.
Now, if the FDA sets a limit, that doesn't mean anything, it's not evidence of benevolence or malevolence.
You would have to assume it's a good limit in order for it to be a considered a benevolent act, and then yes, the more benevolent acts someone does for you, the more likely they care for you, but then conversely, the more malevolent individuals, institutions and the system itself have been in the past towards you, the more likely they're being malevolent towards you now.
Converely, even if you are able to provide evidence supporting your theory about why the FDA limit is there, your 'evidence' is able to be reinterpretated and harmonized by the very same principle that brought to this conclusion, because again, they could be playing a game of 5D, reverse-reverse phychology chess in attempt of a prank; That's why it's always rational to go with the most intuitive option, unless enough contrary evidence arises which demands that harmonization is needed. Which, you, admittedly, have not provided.
It's not hard, when the tobacco and sugar companies lied, did they say tobacco and sugar are harmless and turn you into superman?
No, they told you a lie they'd think you'd swallow, media and politicians do it all the time, if they're going to tell a lie, there will always be a limit to it unless you're dealing with a kid or a very simplistic, dumbed down population.
"if 7 out of 8 people who live at the beach get eaten by sharks, it must mean I'm going to get eaten by a shark as well";
"If 6 out of 7 people attempt suicide in the city I live in, it must mean I'm going to attempt suicide one day as well"; "If 19 out of 20 people own a gun in my county, it must mean I own a gun as well".
Do you see why aprior context and the specific situations that created the number, matter? Maybe what you're saying works purely in the equation of a mathematical pattern, assuming all values are equal, but it does not work in your made up, completely hypothetical statistic.
Let's take the shark one. If we have nothing else to go on, then yes, if someone got eaten every month, then next month you're probably next. Now, we may look at the particulars, and we may find out that of those 8 people the last one who hasn't been eaten yet was the only one who doesn't go down to the beach, and so won't be eaten, or on the other hand, we might find he also goes down to the beach, and so will be eaten, now what I'm saying is: when it comes to coffee, the particulars aren't meaningfully different from big oil, big pharma, sugar, tobacco and so on anyway.
