Against Caffeine

[Gloominary]

[...]

10-20 cups [of coffee] is going to give you as many as 10-20 beers.

[...]

If I drank 10 beers I'd enter coma, so I'll take 10 cups of coffee.

If I drank 10 coffees I'd probably have an anxiety/panic attack, maybe even a heart attack, some people do, coffee overdose can kill, especially if you have a preexisting condition you may or may not know about.

[PauloL]

Any overdose can kill. If you drink 5L water in 10-15 minutes you'll die. No need to add caffeine or whatsoever.

As Paracelsus put it, dose makes the poison. He means overdose for sure.

[Gloominary]

I'd really like to live in an ideal society and I don't think coffee, in or out, would help.

Coffee is overrated, I'd rather see more people do just about any drug, even alcohol than coffee.
If we're going to do drugs we should be smoking marijuana and taking LSD and shrooms, we'd probably have a more laid back, mellow, enlightened society.
Coffee turns people into lemmings, obedient workers.
If some other drugs expand consciousness, coffee narrows it.

The psychedelics don't suit everyone; some find them disturbing. Some people truly love being obedient lemming workers - diversity. They love their blinders and will furiously attack anyone who threatens them because those blinders provide the peace that some crave over freedom.

I used to joke at work that coffee was a performance enhancing drug and should be banned to prevent caffeinated workers having a competitive advantage over others. I'm personally more concerned about the increasing retreat from reason, logic and science in recent years than any drug.

I know, to each their own, at least to some extent, but still I'd sooner recommend psychedelics than coffee.
People need to open their minds up to new ways of thinking, I think, but some can't handle it or aren't interested.

Yea, there's always going to be lemmings, I just think that if we can't change them, they should at least be put to some nobler use than capitalism/consumerism.

*Laughs, that's a good one, maybe coffee should be banned in the workplace for that reason.

[Gloominary]

Any overdose can kill. If you drink 5L water in 10-15 minutes you'll die. No need to add caffeine or whatsoever.

As Paracelsus put it, dose makes the poison. He means overdose for sure.

For sure, you can OD on anything, an OD on coffee can kill, but a dose that's not an over dose but a high dose of coffee can indirectly kill, arguably, certainly gives many, most if not all people extremely bad reactions impairing reason/judgment.

[PauloL]

I think you need a coffee, Gloom.

My suggestion is Illy coffee (100% premium Arabica, mostly Brazil - at a price of course).

After taking one cup of first choice Satan's juice you'll change your mind forever and wish to go to hell.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Now this is just plain stupid/sophistry.
Apples and oranges

No it's not, it's an exact counter-example to what you're trying to imply. I'm showing how "If you can't go one day without it without feeling dreadful, than how good for you could it really be?" is a question that needs more context to actually be answered.

Naw what is it is playing dumber than you are, or devil's advocate.

I don't think you know what 'playing devil's advocate' means; Your point "If you can't go one day without it without feeling dreadful" cannot be led to the conclusion "how can it be good for you" because we know there are existing counterexamples to that conclusion.

Besides the fact that not everyone feels 'dreadful' going a day without caffeine

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

This guy admits the sugar and tobacco companies manipulated science in order to make their products look good, but doesn't suspect that's happening now with coffee, a commodity many, many times more powerful than sugar and tobacco put together.

I like how I just completely destroyed all integrity this so-called 'Dr' had and you're still adamant to defend him. You don't even acknowledge the brutal raping that just occurred. You just keep shouting out your propaganda, despite the main source of your propaganda being totally debunked in front of you.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Take pot this time for an example.
Contrary to your ass umption about me, I'm not a Mormon, and occasionally smoke pot here-there.

Do you have to smoke a lot of pot, for a long time to reap any repercussions?
No, a little pot will damage you a little, and a lot a lot.

My ex was a pot smoker, and after smoking it with her a few times a week, over the course of several weeks, I noticed my lung capacity was slightly diminished, it was a little more uncomfortable to breath, I hard a harder time breathing, and as far as I know, I have no preexisting condition that'd make me more susceptible to such things, no asthma, etcetera, my lungs are normally in good condition.

Now guys like Joe Rogan might have better lungs than many-most people, cause even though they smoke pot, they hike, jog, workout (so long as they don't exercise in excess or use steroids or too many supplements), but it's an even thou, they'd probably be even healthier if they gave up pot entirely, particularly if they're chronic consumers of the stuff.

I don't believe there's any strong evidence that pot is bad for your lungs. Regardless, even though that might sound intuitive, I don't think health works like a stat in a video game. There's no gurantee that a person will suddenly be healthier if they ceceed their marijuana usage, because there are other factors to consider. Maybe pot will reduce his stress-levels to such a considerable degree, that any adverse effects are outweighed by the health benefits gained from that. Maybe the person in account gains extra motiviation, and hence excercises more than he would.

I think there are certainly drugs we could say have such adverse effects, we can reasonably say that in any given scenerio they should not be used. I don't think that pot, caffeine or even alcohol is one of them.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

The thing about dopamine and shit is regardless of what your mind wants, your body-brain doesn't want to be happy all the time, shouldn't be happy all the time, happiness should be more-less proportionate to reality, and so if your brain-body notices an excess of happy chemicals it stops producing happy chemicals, it might even start producing sad ones, and so you need heavier dose to sustain that high, and so people start taking the drug just to feel normal, they're wasting their money, and the heavier the dose, the more it pollutes and poisons the body, until the body can't cope.
This is why if drugs ought to be used recreationally at all, they should be used more sparingly, or when there's a medical problem that can't be solved in a healthier, more natural way, ideally.

You seem quite obsessed with this idea of being natural. I know it's a pretty popular lifestyle within the community of nutrionists/herbalists, but I think that's a very dangerous hole to go into, because not all things that are good for you are natural, and not all good things are natural. We wouldn't treat any disease if we had this mentality.

But I'll wager a new concept for you, everything is natural because it fits into the laws of nature.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I'll have to examine that study, sounds like bullshit to me, funded by coffee corps over or underhandedly, and even if they're true, coffee has so many adverse effects, especially at high doses but even at small, it wouldn't be worth it, for the little bit of benefit, people supposedly driving a little better when given small doses.

Sort of like how your sources from 'Dr' Stephen Cherniske were funded by a self-interest of selling his own supplement? It's not an article or book with some agenda, it was an independent study, and so far more reliable than just about anything you've sourced. Corporate interest is not the only thing that can bias a study.

You sound like a retard.

I like how your response to me telling you why you're wrong, and then insulting you, is not a rebuttal then an insult, but you just flat-out insulting me. And also the least imaginative insult you could have come up with; This is not how you debate.

Society, and you, are far more enamored with caffeine than nicotine, the real dirt has yet to be dug up on coffee, or it has been dug up, it's just been locked in a vault that needs to be blown.

No actually, I enjoyed smoking and vaping a lot more than having a cup of coffee.

Consensus doesn't always mean truth, it just means consensus.

It certainly hasn't always been the case historically. But when you hear something that goes against the scientific consensus, you should be very, very skeptical of that claim, including the counter-claims of why they're right. With every conspiracy there rests 1000 skeptic ready and willing to debunk their claims. It might do you good to always look them up, if you're actually concerned with truth.

Who said anything about the supplement industry, I never said it wasn't partly corrupt too.
Quit making assumptions about me or what I think, it's making you sound like an imbecile.

Good thing I was actually asking a question.

[Gloominary]

The thing about dopamine and shit is regardless of what your mind wants, your body-brain doesn't want to be happy all the time, shouldn't be happy all the time, happiness should be more-less proportionate to reality, and so if your brain-body notices an excess of happy chemicals it stops producing happy chemicals, it might even start producing sad ones, and so you need heavier dose to sustain that high, and so people start taking the drug just to feel normal, they're wasting their money, and the heavier the dose, the more it pollutes and poisons the body, until the body can't cope.
This is why if drugs ought to be used recreationally at all, they should be used more sparingly, or when there's a medical problem that can't be solved in a healthier, more natural way, ideally.

You seem quite obsessed with this idea of being natural. I know it's a pretty popular lifestyle within the community of nutrionists/herbalists, but I think that's a very dangerous hole to go into, because not all things that are good for you are natural, and not all good things are natural. We wouldn't treat any disease if we had this mentality.

But I'll wager a new concept for you, everything is natural because it fits into the laws of nature.

While not everything natural is good, or you can have too much of a good thing, even natural ones, I would argue we have gone much too far the other way as a society, where nature is recklessly being exchanged for artifice just cause it seems momentarily convenient to do so, or x, y and z corporations are running some cute ads.

Not a new concept for me at all, everything is natural in that sense, but some things have been radically altered by man's ingenuity, and some things have been altered little or not at all.

[Gloominary]

Take pot this time for an example.
Contrary to your ass umption about me, I'm not a Mormon, and occasionally smoke pot here-there.

Do you have to smoke a lot of pot, for a long time to reap any repercussions?
No, a little pot will damage you a little, and a lot a lot.

My ex was a pot smoker, and after smoking it with her a few times a week, over the course of several weeks, I noticed my lung capacity was slightly diminished, it was a little more uncomfortable to breath, I hard a harder time breathing, and as far as I know, I have no preexisting condition that'd make me more susceptible to such things, no asthma, etcetera, my lungs are normally in good condition.

Now guys like Joe Rogan might have better lungs than many-most people, cause even though they smoke pot, they hike, jog, workout (so long as they don't exercise in excess or use steroids or too many supplements), but it's an even thou, they'd probably be even healthier if they gave up pot entirely, particularly if they're chronic consumers of the stuff.

I don't believe there's any strong evidence that pot is bad for your lungs. Regardless, even though that might sound intuitive, I don't think health works like a stat in a video game. There's no gurantee that a person will suddenly be healthier if they ceceed their marijuana usage, because there are other factors to consider. Maybe pot will reduce his stress-levels to such a considerable degree, that any adverse effects are outweighed by the health benefits gained from that. Maybe the person in account gains extra motiviation, and hence excercises more than he would.

I think there are certainly drugs we could say have such adverse effects, we can reasonably say that in any given scenerio they should not be used. I don't think that pot, caffeine or even alcohol is one of them.

Then I take it you have either never smoked pot, or known anyone who has, or sorry to say, you must be delusional.
We can argue over how bad for your lungs it is, or in what ways, or whether the pros outweigh the cons,
but it's plainly obvious that it is, bad for your lungs.

[Gloominary]

This guy admits the sugar and tobacco companies manipulated science in order to make their products look good, but doesn't suspect that's happening now with coffee, a commodity many, many times more powerful than sugar and tobacco put together.

I like how I just completely destroyed all integrity this so-called 'Dr' had and you're still adamant to defend him. You don't even acknowledge the brutal raping that just occurred. You just keep shouting out your propaganda, despite the main source of your propaganda being totally debunked in front of you.

I'll have to look further into this link you posted to see if/how badly I was 'raped'.

[Gloominary]

No it's not, it's an exact counter-example to what you're trying to imply. I'm showing how "If you can't go one day without it without feeling dreadful, than how good for you could it really be?" is a question that needs more context to actually be answered.

Naw what is it is playing dumber than you are, or devil's advocate.

I don't think you know what 'playing devil's advocate' means; Your point "If you can't go one day without it without feeling dreadful" cannot be led to the conclusion "how can it be good for you" because we know there are existing counterexamples to that conclusion.

Besides the fact that not everyone feels 'dreadful' going a day without caffeine

We all already know, or ought to know what the context was, there was no need to provide it.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

This guy admits the sugar and tobacco companies manipulated science in order to make their products look good, but doesn't suspect that's happening now with coffee, a commodity many, many times more powerful than sugar and tobacco put together.

I like how I just completely destroyed all integrity this so-called 'Dr' had and you're still adamant to defend him. You don't even acknowledge the brutal raping that just occurred. You just keep shouting out your propaganda, despite the main source of your propaganda being totally debunked in front of you.

I'll have to look further into this link you posted to see if/how badly I was 'raped'.

Not you, the author of "Caffeine Blues" you sourced for many of your points. Assumable it's also the main driving force for your contention with caffeine, yes? You already replied to the comment where I quoted the key info about him, did you even read any of it?

He got his 'degrees' from an unaccredited college that was later shut down due to illegal activity. He also sells his own formula, which just so happens to 'combat' the negative effects of caffeine. That guy is a scam artist