Against Caffeine

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

thedoc
Posts: 6442
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by thedoc » Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:26 am

Gloomy, you've been reading too much anti- literature and don't have a good grasp of reality.

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

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:34 am

Suck, I'm not going to be the one to change your wet diapers.
Frankly, it's very annoying that you've decided to respond to a post I made days ago
*To the tune of a violin.
I think you intentionally waited to respond to a comment I made days ago
...And they say I'm paranoid.

I think your imagination is running wild.
Not telling you this just to be mean or anything
You're breaking my heart.

___

Suck, there's a solution, if my posts aren't worth responding to, and anybody following this thread can plainly see that, don't respond, or in your case, react to them.

Put up or shut up.

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

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:43 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:38 pm
Gloominary wrote:
Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:54 pm
Suck: We don't have a "legal, working definition" of any drug intoxication except alcohol/Marijuana, as I explained on the first page of this thread.
Proof?
I don't think I really do have to prove it, because the claim that there isnt a set limit on anything other than marijuana and alcohol isn't a claim you seemed to have any contentions with back when I made the claim here, in fact it was a claim you worked off of.
You're repeating yourself, we already covered this at length.
I don't believe you actually have addressed the concern of 'not being able to analysis water intoxication' just as you 'can't analyse caffeine intoxication', yet. I mean, we've discussed your concerns with water intoxication in my analogical comparisons to caffeinated driving, but not in regards to the ability to scan for it specifically, and why you don't think it can be related.
But if I were to assume that someone was taken in due to a high over-consumption of coffee while driving, I don't think scientific studies showing it's been a problem in the past with driving would need to be used in order to make a case.
Proof?
You want me to prove...an assumption that you're having me assume? Or do you want me to prove that not all drugs which people have been arrested under suspicions of a DUI have had driving-related studies on them?
Such a study wouldn't be needed to convict someone of a DUI under an extremely rare and unknown research chemical either.
Proof?
That the police department doesn't need studies on a drug's effect on driving to determine if a DUI can be charged to you, or that research chemicals which have no studies in general, can get you arrested with a DUI?
Now I'm not saying you're wrong on this, I'm just saying it's also possible that in the case of caffeine (and other substances who's effects are unknown to science, particularly as they pertain to driving), it might be impossible for police to charge/convict anyone without referring/deferring to the science, which, perhaps conveniently, doesn't exist in regards to caffeine, a substance billions of people consume, and many millions of people abuse, on the road and elsewhere in North America.

As far as I know, breathalyzers can't detect caffeine, and as for blood tests, perhaps they're rarely able to detect caffeine, or give an indication of how much caffeine had been ingested at the time of the accident/the arrest/they were pulled over.
Top
Well, I mean, there's no breathalyzers testing for water intoxication, or if someone has a consequential amount of dust in their car that could have resulted in a piece of the debris getting in their eyes, either. What leads us to assume that it's an issue which deserves to get looked into? We can't just look into everything.
Don't make me repeat myself, as you're in the habit of making me do.

Not saying it is or isn't there, I just want to see it.

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 » Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:53 am

I'm not asking you to repeat your questions, I'm asking you to clarify on your questions and why it is you're asking me to prove things we both seem to already accept.

What you're trying to do here is not clever at all. I'm actively aware you're attempting to mimic a method where I've been asking you to 'prove it' for continuously-contended ideas, because it's an efficient way to make the point that they are, in fact, contended. Just randomly asking me to "prove" things without any clear coordination of what it is you're even trying to do yourself, is simply not smart.

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 » Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:57 am

Gloominary wrote:
Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:34 am
Suck, I'm not going to be the one to change your wet diapers.
This is the aforementioned "your insults aren't clever" part of my pre-prepared response to you. I originally questioned whether I should include it because it feels unnecessary and honestly a bit beside the point, but I guess it turned out to be relevant to your follow-up. Though on second thought, I feel adding "cringe inducing" would have more accurately portrayed my assessment.
...And they say I'm paranoid.

I think your imagination is running wild
Maybe you didn't intentionally wait to respond to it, but you responded to it specifically with the knowledge that it was a 4 day old post - one that you've already responded to - in between tons of other posts by me that you did respond to.

It's unreasonable to expect the person you're conversing with to respond to a reply on a random post, on a random page made days ago, when, in addition, you've already responded to that same comment. That's crazy, and it's something I'm not affording my thoughts to.
there's a solution, if my posts aren't worth responding to, and anybody following this thread can plainly see that, don't respond, or in your case, react to them.
I wasn't really responding for the benefit of impressing anyone listening in or because your posts were "worth it", I was engaging in this conversation with you to hopefully teach you something and help you learn and realize your mistakes, maybe learn something myself on the way. But this is just taking it a step too far, in the unnecessary.

As it unfortunately turns out, I am not an efficient enough teacher.

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

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:14 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Thu Aug 31, 2017 7:19 pm
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.
"I'll have to look further into this link you posted to see if/how badly I was 'raped'."

"Suck: Not you, the author of "Caffeine Blues" you sourced for many of your points"

___

I think the words 'brutal raping' betray the true motivations behind your participation in this thread.

Did you win, turd?

Is this what, 'rape', feels like?
Last edited by Gloominary on Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:29 pm

A list of anecdotes, courtesy of Suck:

"because I've even heard some people with anxiety disorders say it helps them, especially those with social anxiety."

"Right before my grandfather died, he would drive under high doses of morphine, and the doctor told him it would be just fine."

"If I suddenly stop or switch over to decaff from daily coffee use, I get migraines as well."

"I've only known one person who's gotten hypoglycemia from caffeine intake, and that was because he consumed very large amounts of it on an empty stomach and used it in addition to opioids, which may also effect blood sugar."

"When I was in customer service a few years back, I would often drink 2+ monster energy drinks, a starbucks, and part of a shot of 5hour energy daily and I did not notice any significant adverse reactions - even when I suddenly stopped. Even my very indulgent and clear overuse of caffeine didn't make me feel that bad. It's absolutely nothing compared to when I smoked, where I noticed a very stark difference in my health."

"I've been on extremely high doses of caffeine and driven, as have many I know."

"As I explained, even the worst caffeine withdrawals are not all that bad, speaking from experience, and If they ever are, it's an extremely easy substance to taper off of. It was a thousand times more brutal when I quite smoking. What's a joke, is even comparing the two."

___

Don't go back and edit your posts, or we'll know.

All of these are from the first several pages of this thread.

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

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:36 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:53 am
I'm not asking you to repeat your questions, I'm asking you to clarify on your questions and why it is you're asking me to prove things we both seem to already accept.

What you're trying to do here is not clever at all. I'm actively aware you're attempting to mimic a method where I've been asking you to 'prove it' for continuously-contended ideas, because it's an efficient way to make the point that they are, in fact, contended. Just randomly asking me to "prove" things without any clear coordination of what it is you're even trying to do yourself, is simply not smart.
Suck, you've made some claims.
You haven't provided any proof to support these claims.
Until you do, I, and everyone following this thread, have no reason to believe you, it's that simple.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3941
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Harbal » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:45 pm

Gloominary wrote:
Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:36 pm
everyone following this thread, have no reason to believe you,
We've got no reason not to, either.

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

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:50 pm

Suck: This is the aforementioned "your insults aren't clever" part of my pre-prepared response to you. I originally questioned whether I should include it because it feels unnecessary and honestly a bit beside the point, but I guess it turned out to be relevant to your follow-up. Though on second thought, I feel adding "cringe inducing" would have more accurately portrayed my assessment.
My insults can't be much cleverer than my subject matter.

What is there to say about someone who trips over his own posts and lands face first on the floor other than: he's a dumb ass?
Maybe you didn't intentionally wait to respond to it, but you responded to it specifically with the knowledge that it was a 4 day old post - one that you've already responded to - in between tons of other posts by me that you did respond to.

It's unreasonable to expect the person you're conversing with to respond to a reply on a random post, on a random page made days ago, when, in addition, you've already responded to that same comment. That's crazy, and it's something I'm not affording my thoughts to.
Yea yea we get it, the dog ate my homework, the controller wasn't working...

Keep blaming your inability to keep up on supposed underhanded tactics by me, and hope nobody notices, that seems to be your new MO.
I wasn't really responding for the benefit of impressing anyone listening in or because your posts were "worth it", I was engaging in this conversation with you to hopefully teach you something and help you learn and realize your mistakes, maybe learn something myself on the way. But this is just taking it a step too far, in the unnecessary.

As it unfortunately turns out, I am not an efficient enough teacher.
Suck, you're not a teacher of anything, and you're not half as clever as you think you are, you're a sniveling, pretentious, arrogant little twat.

If you have nothing more to say about the dangers of caffeine...than get the fuck off my thread.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3941
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Harbal » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:59 pm

Gloominary wrote:
Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:50 pm
If you have nothing more to say about the dangers of caffeine....
The only caffeine related danger I can think of is inadvertently running out of coffee. That's why it's always the first thing I put on my shopping list.

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

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:04 pm

thedoc wrote:
Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:23 am
Gloominary wrote:
Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:40 pm
Caffeine keeps us in a constant, unnatural state of fight/flight.
While that seems to work for some individuals, I argue for humanity as a whole, and for the environment, it's detrimental.
If there's nothing to fight/fight from, what's the point of everyone being in that state all the time?
It's going to lead to people feeling more needy than they'd otherwise feel, causing them to overproduce/consume.
No it doesn't, that is only your projection and not realistic at all. Caffeine tends to relax people and make them less likely to react with fight or flight.
The only people caffeine, temporarily, relaxes is the people desperate for another fix.

thedoc
Posts: 6442
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by thedoc » Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:45 pm

Gloominary wrote:
Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:50 pm
Suck, you're not a teacher of anything, and you're not half as clever as you think you are, you're a sniveling, pretentious, arrogant little twat.

If you have nothing more to say about the dangers of caffeine...than get the fuck off my thread.
Gloomy has resorted to name calling and profanity which indicates that he has nothing to offer. It wasn't even nice while it lasted.

thedoc
Posts: 6442
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by thedoc » Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:51 pm

Gloominary wrote:
Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:04 pm
The only people caffeine, temporarily, relaxes is the people desperate for another fix.
I see that you are taking a page from the anti-smokers handbook, offer an extreme example to make a point about something that is, in this case, relatively benign, but you object to it on principle because that is all you've got, no substance only principle.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3941
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Harbal » Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:53 pm

Gloominary wrote:
Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:50 pm
get the fuck off my thread.
Calm down, Gloomy, make yourself a nice cup of coffee, sit down and relax.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests