Against Caffeine

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by PauloL »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2017 12:11 am
Of course not. You forgot an "S". What a posting.
User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by PauloL »

PauloL wrote: Tue Aug 29, 2017 10:12 pm
thedoc wrote: Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:46 pm
I fully agree that Governments shouldn't be given power to ban anything [without a strong reason].

I doubt that Governments are apt to educate anyone. Politicos are indeed quite incompetent on that. I even think that science, just like religion, should be separated from state. Politicos try to educate as a matter of fact, but for political reasons only, so they are demagogic choosing what's important and what isn't.

Look at electronic cigarettes, EC. Politicos offer evidence based on weak sources, ignoring important ones, benefiting from heavy media coverage, which makes their claims look credible, making EC users return to tobacco, for the sole reason that they don't want outsiders interfere with their control of tobacco monopoly established centuries ago. They don't care if they aren't preventing cancer deaths by their positions because political interest must prevail and they won't be judged in Nuremberg.

Even if World Health Organization, a political body charged with public health, benefits from quite prestige these days, their authority became highly suspicious since political and commercial reasons in their positions leaked.

The role of Government should be encouraging proliferation of sound education emanated from independent scientific (non-political) bodies. Otherwise we risk a ban on coffee for political reasons disguised as scientific evidence.

If this nonsense ban on coffee attracted influential followers, what would they need to get a ban on coffee? Simple: lobbying. Then the Government would spread their false claims sourced by governmental entities to make them credible before enforcing the ban.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9287
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

PauloL wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2017 12:24 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2017 12:11 am
Of course not. You forgot an "S". What a posting.
So shoot me. I thought it was easier to just ask!
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9287
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

PauloL wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2017 12:26 am
PauloL wrote: Tue Aug 29, 2017 10:12 pm
thedoc wrote: Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:46 pm
I fully agree that Governments shouldn't be given power to ban anything [without a strong reason].

I doubt that Governments are apt to educate anyone. Politicos are indeed quite incompetent on that. I even think that science, just like religion, should be separated from state. Politicos try to educate as a matter of fact, but for political reasons only, so they are demagogic choosing what's important and what isn't.

Look at electronic cigarettes, EC. Politicos offer evidence based on weak sources, ignoring important ones, benefiting from heavy media coverage, which makes their claims look credible, making EC users return to tobacco, for the sole reason that they don't want outsiders interfere with their control of tobacco monopoly established centuries ago. They don't care if they aren't preventing cancer deaths by their positions because political interest must prevail and they won't be judged in Nuremberg.

Even if World Health Organization, a political body charged with public health, benefits from quite prestige these days, their authority became highly suspicious since political and commercial reasons in their positions leaked.

The role of Government should be encouraging proliferation of sound education emanated from independent scientific (non-political) bodies. Otherwise we risk a ban on coffee for political reasons disguised as scientific evidence.

If this nonsense ban on coffee attracted influential followers, what would they need to get a ban on coffee? Simple: lobbying. Then the Government would spread their false claims sourced by governmental entities to make them credible before enforcing the ban.
You are obviously a fan of nit-picking. So who wrote what here then?
User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by PauloL »

I pressed ENTER too early Vega.

How can I compensate?
Gloominary
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary »

Dubious wrote: Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:46 am To slightly paraphrase Nietzsche, life without coffee ain't worth living. If it's the Devil's drink, why did god create coffee beans?
Why to test our mettle of course.
Whatever's good is good, whatever's bad, but appears good, is a test.
God likes playing games, games are fun.
That's why just about every polytheistic culture had a Loki, Pan or prankster deity of sorts.
God pretending he's not a game player, as he does in Abrahamic cultures, is also part of the game.
Really it wouldn't be a game if you knew for sure you were being had.
Dubious
Posts: 2520
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Dubious »

Dubious wrote: Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:46 am To slightly paraphrase Nietzsche, life without coffee ain't worth living. If it's the Devil's drink, why did god create coffee beans?
Gloominary wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:05 amWhy to test our mettle of course.
Whatever's good is good, whatever's bad, but appears good, is a test.
God likes playing games, games are fun.
That's why just about every polytheistic culture had a Loki, Pan or prankster deity of sorts.
God pretending he's not a game player, as he does in Abrahamic cultures, is also part of the game.
Really it wouldn't be a game if you knew for sure you were being had.
Would that also include god being had once in a while by the poor miserable scum he created or is the game completely rigged?
User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by PauloL »

Gloominary wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:05 am
Devil's beverage is so delicious Pope Clement VIII couldn't but fail the test, just like me and I fail it quite often.
Gloominary
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary »

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:12 am Your idea that people shouldn't be allowed to drive after having caffeine is especially mental.
I meant if they had like 5-10 cups, there should be a caffeine blood limit just like there's an alcohol limit.
You seem to be under the impression that anyone under any psychoactive drug isn't allowed to drive, but that's not necessarily true. People are usually charged with a DUI under an intoxicating drug, provided that it did or plausibly could result in an accident. Right before my grandfather died, he would drive under high doses of morphine, and the doctor told him it would be just fine. Outside of alcohol, marijuana in some states, and illegal narcotics there's no set limit for what you're allowed to drive under the influence of. Because it's not usually a problem unless you make it one.
Just about any psychoactive, legal, illegal or over the counter, when consumed in excess will impair locomotion, that is, or ought to be common sense, self evident, I don't need to see a single study to know 2 + 2 = 4.
It's no where near the same culture or attitude. While caffeine is actually addicting and someone can develop a dependence on the substance, the withdrawal symptoms are far and away from meth or cocaine, and very no one lives for caffeine. Meth withdrawals can actually kill you.
I've done meth, from my experience and others I've talked to, the symptoms are very similar to a very large dose of caffeine.
Of course your average meth and coffee head are very different, meth is a dirty street drug, and is exclusively consumed in crystal form, it attracts the sort of people who're poor, desperate and destitute, the sort of people who have trouble with impulse control.
Culturally, they're very different, but from a purely neurophysiological standpoint, they're quite similar.
I would say meth is worse, but drinking 5-15 cups of coffee a day, depending on tolerance, or taking multiple caffeine pills in a single session, is no joke.
I was curious, do you happen to be Mormon?
I'm an atheist, but I'm nearly as skeptical of mainstream science as I am of religion.
Last edited by Gloominary on Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by PauloL »

Dubious wrote: Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:46 am To slightly paraphrase Nietzsche, life without coffee ain't worth living. If it's the Devil's drink, why did god create coffee beans?
Gloominary wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:05 am God likes playing games, games are fun.
Quite human indeed.

It's funny for God watch people playing the Russian roulette.
User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by PauloL »

Gloominary wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:30 am There should be a caffeine blood limit just like there's an alcohol limit.
Prepare for a breath test on caffeine when stopped by traffic police. Just in case.
Gloominary
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary »

Broadly my stance on drugs is not that they're completely bad, just vastly overrated by society.
I think a more sober society, where people not only consumed less alcohol and tobacco, but less caffeine and pharmaceuticals, would be a healthier one.
Natural drugs like marijuana tend to be healthier than unnatural ones, but it's even healthier to improve things by making changes to your diet, exercise and lifestyle, which's even more natural.
Last edited by Gloominary on Wed Aug 30, 2017 2:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by PauloL »

I'd really like to live in an ideal society and I don't think coffee, in or out, would help.
Gloominary
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary »

Furthermore, it's not merely happenstance coffee is the number one beverage, drug, and number two commodity in the world, it's an integral part of the capitalist, consumerist system, which's on its way out, one way, or another.
Coffee makes people think they have to do a lot more than they really have to and otherwise would.
People totally underestimate just how much of an impact even a few cups has on their psyche.
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

Gloominary wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:30 am
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:12 am Your idea that people shouldn't be allowed to drive after having caffeine is especially mental.
I meant if they had like 5-10 cups, there should be a caffeine blood limit just like there's an alcohol limit.
I've been on extremely high doses of caffeine and driven, as have many I know. In fact for some, it's a bit of a ritual to do before getting to work in the morning. If anything, caffeine makes most people more alert and better at driving. I'm pretty sure all the studies that have been done on the effects of caffeine would agree with my assessment. In fact, something I found relevant to the discussion. Maybe we should in fact, force people to consume caffeine before driving?

Caffeine is just not generally intoxicating enough to warrant such a law. How about, if someone is pulled over and they're on a drug responsible for the reason of them being pulled over? There are a thousand drugs we could add a limit to before caffeine, but this method seems to work just find.
Just about any psychoactive, legal, illegal or over the counter, when consumed in excess will impair locomotion, that is, or ought to be common sense, self evident, I don't need to see a single study to know 2 + 2 = 4.
Well no, I was saying you seem to have no understanding of how the law actually works. There's not a set limit for anything other than alcohol (and sort of marijuana) If you're just apparently intoxicated under another substance that isn't alcohol, you will be charged with a DUI. There's no legal limit for anything other than alcohol. You're arbitrarily setting up a limit on caffeine when there isn't even one on meth or heroin.
I've done meth, from my experience and others I've talked to, the symptoms are very similar to a very large dose of caffeine.
Of course your average meth and coffee head are very different, meth is a dirty street drug, and is exclusively consumed in crystal form, it attracts the sort of people who're poor, desperate and destitute, the sort of people who have trouble with impulse control.
Culturally, they're very different, but from a purely neurophysiological standpoint, they're quite similar.
I would say meth is worse, but drinking 5-15 cups of coffee a day, depending on tolerance, or taking multiple caffeine pills in a single session, is no joke.
Yeah I don't believe you've actually taken meth, if you act like this much of an autistic spass when it comes to this total non-issue of caffeine intake. The only similarity that meth has with caffeine is that they're both stimulants. 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.
I'm an atheist, but I'm nearly as skeptical of mainstream science as I am of religion.
I think you're wasting your energy on the wrong parts of 'mainstream science', maybe for the sake of trying to be different, because it doesn't even seem like you're that well informed on why caffeine is so bad for you. I would be more skeptical of these so-called 'alternative supplements' you speak of, a field of medicine ripe with pseudoscience, when there isn't just a complete lack of understanding around it.
Last edited by Sir-Sister-of-Suck on Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply