Against Caffeine

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Gloominary
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:10 am

thedoc wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:30 am
It should be pointed out that Gloomy is only able to post his nonsense due to the freedoms of expression enjoyed on this site. If he were to get his way and have somethings banned, his freedom to express his silly ideas would probably be the first to go, and he would be silenced by his own principles.
You don't know what my politics are, my politics are probably more liberating than yours.
There's two systems I'm fond of: anarcho-individualism, not to be confused with anarcho-capitalism, and what I call green, local democratic communitarianism, but I'm not going to get into either here.

Gloominary
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: here's mud in your eye

Post by Gloominary » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:13 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:59 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:43 pm
As I review this thread I'm havin' a cup of McDonald's coffee...not the best (or worst), but a decent brew for 87 cents...this makes my sixth cup of coffee (so far) today...pretty average for me...not feelin' particularly antsy or belligerent or psychotic or deranged...not seein' flyin' pigs...my heart ain't racin'...will probably have a couple or three more before day's end (11 or 12)...I'll wake at 4am tomorrow and start all over again.
So I guess in Gloom's ideal utopia, you'd be probably locked up in a jail cell right now, I mean assuming you drive or whatever. And you know what's funny about that? Even in jail and prison, coffee is readily able to be purchased, to rapists and murderers alike. It's that benign of a substance.
From what I know, at least some jails only permit decaff.

thedoc
Posts: 6441
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by thedoc » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:14 am

Gloominary wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:37 am
I mean I thought scientists were curious, you think there'd be vast quantities of literature and studies on caffeine intoxication, just as there's vast quantities of literature and studies on mild doses of caffeine, but there's none.
They'll study some obscure insect in the amazonian rain forest, when it's unlikely such study will bring any benefit to society, but once you go over 4 or 5 cups, mysteriously not a single study.
I mean even if coffee is totally benign, God's sacred gift to man, why not study caffeine intoxication anyway, just for a laugh?
How convenient for everyone's favorite beverage.
There is no reason to study something with no adverse effects. Scientists don't usually study something without some reason to study it.

Gloominary
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: here's mud in your eye

Post by Gloominary » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:15 am

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:43 pm
As I review this thread I'm havin' a cup of McDonald's coffee...not the best (or worst), but a decent brew for 87 cents...this makes my sixth cup of coffee (so far) today...pretty average for me...not feelin' particularly antsy or belligerent or psychotic or deranged...not seein' flyin' pigs...my heart ain't racin'...will probably have a couple or three more before day's end (11 or 12)...I'll wake at 4am tomorrow and start all over again.
You're used to that dose, an alcoholic could say the same thing: 12, no problem.

Gloominary
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:16 am

thedoc wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:09 am
Gloominary wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:37 am
Putting coffee aside a sec for a sec for the sake of argument, If I told you to jump in the car with me, and you knew I was experiencing those symptoms, would you get in with me at the wheel?
I rode home from college with an individual once (only once) who was deathly afraid of big trucks. On the Pa. turnpike we came up behind a semi rig and the individual was afraid to pass the truck saying that he knew the truck was going to pull out in front of him. He hung back till the truck came up behind another vehicle, lost patience waiting for him to pass and pulled out to pass the other vehicle. If the driver had not been so afraid and just maintained his speed there would have been no problem, but he slowed down in fear of the truck. A bad driver is a bad driver no matter what the cause.
In that case, we should just get rid of DUI's altogether.

Gloominary
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:50 am

thedoc wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:14 am
Gloominary wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:37 am
I mean I thought scientists were curious, you think there'd be vast quantities of literature and studies on caffeine intoxication, just as there's vast quantities of literature and studies on mild doses of caffeine, but there's none.
They'll study some obscure insect in the amazonian rain forest, when it's unlikely such study will bring any benefit to society, but once you go over 4 or 5 cups, mysteriously not a single study.
I mean even if coffee is totally benign, God's sacred gift to man, why not study caffeine intoxication anyway, just for a laugh?
How convenient for everyone's favorite beverage.
There is no reason to study something with no adverse effects. Scientists don't usually study something without some reason to study it.
That's probably what they said about sugar/tobacco, why study them, we know they're harmless.
And then sugar/tobacco were caught later on, bribing scientists not to release their studies that were because they were devastating to them.

I don't think you fully understand what drives science, did Copernicus have a reason for proposing his heliocentric model?
Did Galileo have a reason to aim his telescope at the moon?
Did Newton have a reason to formulate his theory on gravitation?
Do scientists have a reason to study the dinosaurs or the Creatures of the Cambrian?
Are they only permitted to study dinosaurs only if it can be demonstrated there'll like be some utilitarian benefit?
No, they study dinosaurs for the same reason kids do: wonder.
They're fascinated by them, they marvel at them.
Sometimes billions of dollars are spent on something just for the sake of curiosity, before we uncover some public benefit, if we ever do.
Utility is probably not the primary motivator of science, it's wonder, and then money and utility are also important considerations, and from what Suck says, pranksterism, but I think the only prankster is him.

You don't know for sure caffeinated driving isn't a problem, althou you might suspect it probably is or isn't, you study it to make sure.
From the literature I'm reading from, a lot of people seem to agree with me that caffeine intox is likely a problem, yet there's no study.
I mean this is caffeine, 80% of consume it everyday, why wouldn't you want to know everything there is to know about it?
Scientists are OCD, there's bound to be a few people out there who're interested in everything coffee and only coffee, they want to know every implication of its consumption the good, the bad and the ugly, but where are they?
Millions of scientists, tens of thousands of studies on caffeine, not a single study on its deleterious effects when it comes caffeine intoxication and driving?
And what about a study on high levels of caffeine consumption, how it impacts health over in the long term, or in their daily life or in regards to mental/mood disorders, not even one on them?
Perhaps a few are out there, somewhere, in the shadows.

thedoc
Posts: 6441
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by thedoc » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:56 am

Gloominary wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:16 am
thedoc wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:09 am
Gloominary wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:37 am
Putting coffee aside a sec for a sec for the sake of argument, If I told you to jump in the car with me, and you knew I was experiencing those symptoms, would you get in with me at the wheel?
I rode home from college with an individual once (only once) who was deathly afraid of big trucks. On the Pa. turnpike we came up behind a semi rig and the individual was afraid to pass the truck saying that he knew the truck was going to pull out in front of him. He hung back till the truck came up behind another vehicle, lost patience waiting for him to pass and pulled out to pass the other vehicle. If the driver had not been so afraid and just maintained his speed there would have been no problem, but he slowed down in fear of the truck. A bad driver is a bad driver no matter what the cause.
In that case, we should just get rid of DUI's altogether.
This persons aversion to trucks had nothing to do with DUI, there is no relevance.

Gloominary
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:58 am

thedoc wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:56 am
Gloominary wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:16 am
thedoc wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:09 am


I rode home from college with an individual once (only once) who was deathly afraid of big trucks. On the Pa. turnpike we came up behind a semi rig and the individual was afraid to pass the truck saying that he knew the truck was going to pull out in front of him. He hung back till the truck came up behind another vehicle, lost patience waiting for him to pass and pulled out to pass the other vehicle. If the driver had not been so afraid and just maintained his speed there would have been no problem, but he slowed down in fear of the truck. A bad driver is a bad driver no matter what the cause.
In that case, we should just get rid of DUI's altogether.
This persons aversion to trucks had nothing to do with DUI, there is no relevance.
What was your point then, a bad driver is a bad driver, that bad driving has little-nothing to do with substance abuse?

thedoc
Posts: 6441
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by thedoc » Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:00 am

Gloominary wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:50 am
You don't know for sure caffeinated driving isn't a problem, althou you might suspect it probably is or isn't, you study it to make sure.
From the literature I'm reading from, a lot of people seem to agree with me that caffeine intox is likely a problem, yet there's no study.
Post the study, otherwise you have nothing but some wild speculation from some dubious sources.

thedoc
Posts: 6441
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by thedoc » Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:03 am

Gloominary wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:58 am
thedoc wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:56 am
Gloominary wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:16 am

In that case, we should just get rid of DUI's altogether.
This persons aversion to trucks had nothing to do with DUI, there is no relevance.
What was your point then, a bad driver is a bad driver, that bad driving has little-nothing to do with substance abuse?
Yep, this persons bad driving had nothing to do with substance abuse. Not all bad driving is due to substance abuse, sometimes it's just stupidity.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 872
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:03 am

Gloominary wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:19 am
..But Suck, you haven't presented anything that could remotely be called empirical evidence for your claim, that caffeine intoxication is harmless, you have nothing.
Because I have been on the defensive, and not on the offensive. I'm not the one who decided to make a thread about the dangers of caffeine, in admitted contrast that most "mainstream" studies agree it's generally fine. I have provided certain sources inverting some of the negative claims you have made about caffeine, such as the study on caffeinated driving.

Another contention is that you also have not asked me to prove to you that caffeine is harmless. You claim to already be aware of the positive studies, but reject them whole-sale, so I don't know why you would ask me that.
Absence of studies proving caffeine intoxication is dangerous, is not evidence caffeine intoxication is not dangerous
This is correct, but even you don't think we have an absence of studies on caffeine, you just believe they're rigged.

It's worth noting, that in the concept of testing for 'Null Results', the absence of evidence that it's good is not evidence that it's bad, but the absence of evidence that it's bad is actually evidence that it's good. This can be best demonstrated in something like a cat-scan, if they don't see any cancer, it's evidence, or even proof, that you don't have cancer. This can be likened to a drug study somewhat, where if a side effect like erectile dysfunction is not observed, than the drug clearly does not cause ED.
All you've presented so far is anecdotal evidence: I've seen people caffeinate themselves into a panic attack, but I don't recall them driving afterwards: I don't recall anyone implicating caffeine in vehicular accidents.
I'm not using my anecdotes that caffeinated driving isn't a problem as proof that it isn't, because I don't need any; I can't assume everything that doesn't even have evidence to suggests it happens, happens. Just as I can't assume penguinadoe, and in fact will assume that it isn't a problem. I don't need evidence against a claim, you need evidence for it. This more or less falls into the idea of assuming something is a problem just because it's a possibility, that I've been conversing with you.

When I say that I've never heard of anyone who's gotten into a car accident because of caffeine, I'm not just speaking in a personal sense, but I've never heard of it happening on the news, either.
Now I'm not against presenting anecdotal evidence
Of course you're not, you're the culprit who's been ripe with them from the get-go. You've been constantly presenting anecdotes to in attempt to show how caffeine is bad for you, and a problem while driving.
Where's the scientists who've conducting studies of automobile accidents specifically looking to see whether they can implicate caffeine intoxication in any of them?
Where's the scientists looking to see if tornadoes plan on picking up penguins in Antarctica anytime soon? I mean, having said I'm sure it's been considered before, it's just not something that has many or any leads to make into an issue. I'm there aren't any studies looking specifically into the state of water intoxication while driving, either.
Where's the experiments like I came up with near the beginning of this thread, where drivers are given enough caffeine to induce a panic attack or psychosis before driving through obstacles courses, to see if they perform just as well sober?
You mean the made-up experiment that you specifically made up to pre-suppose that it's an issue in reality?
If there aren't any, or very few, or they were all funded by big coffee and their affiliates, then you have almost nothing.
I reject your notion that I didn't source anything, because I did provide some studies. I don't recall that you ever asked me to back up something I said with source, whereas I asked you many times

Stop it with the big coffee shite. We've been over this, and it's an entirely separate point already delved. The sources don't mean much to you because you've been incredibly indoctrinated into meaningless principles that you don't even apply to your own community of individual that you respect. You don't even afford me any benefit of doubt, you just assert it's all funded by "Big Coffee", a term I'm still not quite sure encompasses, if it's something that goes against your beliefs, without going into detail of showing how it's even funded by 'big coffee', probably because you don't have a lick of evidence.
So far I'm the only one who's presented anything like empirical evidence, my link to the Caffeine blues, which government and whatever else rejects, and my study on sports drink intoxication.
It's not the government that rejects your silly book, it's an independent research site, and in fact the Quackwatch page I linked to doesn't say a darned word on his book, just on the individual himself. It goes into detail about how he got his degree without any proper training by basically purchasing it, which in fact was not referenced by any 'government institution', but a direct email to a former head of school that gave that degree to him. *Also collaborated by a wikipedia page on the school in question

It's too humorous as well, that you don't provide the author of that book with the same level of skepticism for 'big money interest' that you would for anything else, because the man sold his own supplement claiming to negate the 'side effects' CAUSED by caffeine, the same substance he wrote a book about and has such a contention with.

I've already been over with you about how your article on the energy drink thing wasn't actually a study, did not and does not show what you think, AND, ironically - FROM A GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION! - which you claim - being under the false impression that Quackwatch is a government website - is not to be trusted in the case of Caffeine Blues author Stephen Cherniske! My dude, your mind is a crazy labyrinth I
can barely find my way out of, but I guess you never learn.
You can always raise the bar further and further to avoid having to face the conclusions that upset you and your paradigm.
It's not that I'm raising the bar, I think you're just entirely confused as to which bar I'm using.
We know panic attacks themselves apart from any drug are bad for driving and a whole host of other things too, and it's very unlikely a caffeine induced panic attack is going to be somehow magically, radically different.
I don't know if panic attack are a big issue while driving, either. If they're bad enough, but typically, people with general anxiety disorders just learn to go about their daily lives living with it. That includes activities like driving.
Just saying: well there's no studies specifically (dis)proving caffeine is harmless, so therefore it's harmless, therefore I don't have to deal with your arguments and liken to arguments to magical penguins, is incredibly lazy and selfserving.
My point to likening any of your scenerios to penguinado, is not to say that something like that has the same probability of occurrence - we don't know if it does - but that it COULD be as much or similar of a concern, because we have absolutely no data suggesting caffeinated driving is an issue, or that penguinado is one.

I think I've had to reexplain this to you more than enough times that you'd stop butchering the meaning of why I bring up penguinado.
I'm not the only one who's made a claim here, Suck has made a claim also, and therefore there's just as much burden on him to prove caffeine intox is benign/not dangerous.
For the better half of this thread, we've been discussing the effects and potential issues of caffeinated driving, and not the overall health of caffeine. Needless to say - you're not the one asking me to back up anything. If you did, I would probably just quote some studies from a couple of universities, and you'd go on to tell me that they're being skewed by the cult worshipers of Big Coffee, and you'd probably claim that - without providing any evidence, despite that you're the one harping on ME for not providing evidence.

Gloominary
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:08 am

thedoc wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:03 am
Gloominary wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:58 am
thedoc wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:56 am


This persons aversion to trucks had nothing to do with DUI, there is no relevance.
What was your point then, a bad driver is a bad driver, that bad driving has little-nothing to do with substance abuse?
Yep, this persons bad driving had nothing to do with substance abuse. Not all bad driving is due to substance abuse, sometimes it's just stupidity.
Agreed, but stupidity is something you can't help, your substance addiction more-less is.
You can't cure stupidity but you can cure substance abuse, however difficult, and therefore substance abusers should be held more accountable for their actions.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 872
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:13 am

Gloominary wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:59 am
The goal of driving while intoxicated laws is to prevent people, who are impaired, from endangering other drivers and protect them from falling victim to a reckless driver. Therefore, it should not matter why the driver is impaired. While coffee seems less harmful than alcohol or illicit drugs, should the penalties for driving while intoxicated by coffee be the same as someone who is intoxicated by alcohol or drugs?

http://www.avrek.com/blog/coffee-intoxi ... ch-coffee/

Hm, fascinating.

So according to this, if I have not interpreted this wrong, it appears you can be pulled over for coffee intoxication, or just about any psychoactive you appear to be intoxicated on, and charged with a DUI.
It wouldn't really surprise me if coffee is technically on the books of DUI enforcement. After-all, with something known as the "Analog Act", though more meant to target research chemicals if they have enough molecular resemblance to other illegal drugs and automatically ban them, substances that aren't even on the books are on the books. It doesn't mean that many, or any arrest has ever been made in history for the substance.

thedoc
Posts: 6441
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by thedoc » Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:17 am

Gloominary wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:08 am
thedoc wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:03 am
Gloominary wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:58 am

What was your point then, a bad driver is a bad driver, that bad driving has little-nothing to do with substance abuse?
Yep, this persons bad driving had nothing to do with substance abuse. Not all bad driving is due to substance abuse, sometimes it's just stupidity.
Agreed, but stupidity is something you can't help, your substance addiction more-less is.
You can't cure stupidity but you can cure substance abuse, however difficult, and therefore substance abusers should be held more accountable for their actions.
Can you demonstrate that reasonable consumption of caffeine can lead to substance abuse that is impairing to the user? (Note I said reasonable consumption, not extreme consumption of amounts that are not normal).

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 872
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:24 am

Gloominary wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:37 am
I don't know, from the articles I've been reading, many of them seem to agree with me that caffeine, while not as dangerous as alcohol, is certainly dangerous.
In all likelihood it's both, caffeine isn't as dangerous as alcohol, perhaps 10 or 5% of what alcohol is, but also the reason why no studies have been conducted is due to what I've been saying all along: corruption and people being enamored with caffeine.
You said on a few of the first pages that you'd rather see someone on almost any other drug than caffeine - including alcohol
Gloominary wrote:
Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:03 am
I totally disagree, coffee is just as dangerous as alcohol or any drug, a few cups of coffee is going to give you about as many problems as a few beers, and 10-20 cups is going to give you as many as 10-20 beers.
Gloominary wrote:
Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:59 pm
Coffee is overrated, I'd rather see more people do just about any drug, even alcohol than coffee.
It's alright, at this point we've all grown used to you constantly contradicting yourself.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests