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 » Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:50 am

@Suck
I never said that getting in an accident because of caffeinated driving is something that is an impossibility. I mean, for god's sake, I think it's technically a possibility that tornadoes could open up in Antarctica and sweep up penguins in a global catastrophe. It's just not a widespread issue, or even one that happens occasionally. Least, you haven't shown that it is, this article included. 20 cups of coffee is quite the absurd amount, and you've slowly gone up on your hypothetical dosage. You're too focused on the potential severity and not at all on the likely hood of this actually happening. There are hypothetical events that could increase someones chance of getting in a car accident after drinking too much water.

Someone could consume 100 bottles of water before they go driving and induce extreme water intoxication, it does not mean it's an occurrence in our world worth having a concern over. Just because people can do it doesn't mean they will.
You yourself admitted you know or knew people who caffeinated themselves into an anxiety attack, I know people who caffeinate themselves into a panic attack (like I mentioned near the beginning of my thread, my friend almost killed me a few times and now I won't get into his car with him), a lot of people know people.
And we know when these people are caffeinating themselves into a panic attack, they don't lock themselves in their rooms, they're busy, if anything they're busier than they normally are cause that's what people do when they're high on caffeine, they keep busy.
These people have lives, going to and from work, meeting up with friends, they don't drink their 10 cups at home and stay home and watch TV.
So we know millions of people abuse coffee and occasionally get into panic attacks on the road, it shouldn't be this hard.
Just as people on sugar go out and drive, or tobacco, or cocaine, or meth, PCP, XTC, alcohol, weed, or any other recreational stimulant/depressant.

I guess all the people you knew who abused caffeine were housebound or something, invalids, or more plausible, you would rather believe in something fantastical, that caffeine abusers never ever step into their car, which flies in the face of our common experience of caffeine abusers and our knowledge of how every other recreational stimulant/depressant works, than question big science and government, and it's not even like we have to question them a lot, just a little on this issue, they did their job on coffee to some extent, but here, there was either some bias, corruption, mistakes made and/or negligence.
When people like you or big science or government make fantastical claims, we have to call them on it.

The comparison to overdosing on water is asinine.
One, you have to take a hell of a lot more water to become intoxicated by water, water is the least toxic substance known to man.
Two, when you drink too much water, everything in your body screams telling you to stop, but coffee tricks the (central) nervous system into always wanting more.
Three, nobody knows anyone who gets intoxicated on water, except a couple of really dumb kids once in a while or people who're already severely intoxicated on something else, where as we know adults get intoxicated on coffee all the time, and drive.
It's just absolutely ludicrous you make me waste my time and energy having to explain this stuff to you.

And It's not just panic attacks either, what goes up high falls down low, there's also severe caffeine withdrawal.
Prove it.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifes ... t-20045678
You keep missing a crucial part: Apparently people who consume high enough amounts of caffeine that can plausibly be a considerable force for the reason of them getting into a car accident, don't drive much at all. Because that's not what the data shows.
Then the data is probably just partly biased, corrupt, mistaken and/or just negligent as it has been thousands of times in the past, I mean in addition to the other concerns, scientists only have so much time and energy to go after so many substances and things.
They prioritize, and unfortunately, there needs to be more studies and experiments conducted on this phenomenon, like the hypothetical experiment I proposed earlier about driving while heavily intoxicated on caffeine, because apparently some people need studies to assure them that fire burns.
Sugar isn't really a stimulant; If you're trying to say that energy drinks don't have any other ingredients in them which differentiate the effects from coffee, that is not true. They typically contain supplements like Taurine, (sometimes) L-theanine, multiple B-vitamins and L-carnitine - which has been found in studies to potentiate caffeine in a way that mere caffeine doesn't even provide. I've also seen herbs like Ginseng root in some of them, which actually is considered a stimulant, though I'm not sure of its psychoactive effect.

I mean, there's a reason why even this very "National Safety Commission" has gone out of their way to separate energy drinks from coffee or other caffeine containing products.
Of course energy drinks are worse than coffee, there's more caffeine in them, and yea maybe taurine or whatever amplifies them some more, but so what?
We know lots of people still manage to drink themselves into a stupor on coffee or caffeine pills and go driving, they don't need an energy drink to reach panic attack level, and we know panic attacks aren't good for driving.
...Moreover, the National Safety Commission is a government organization, which I thought you didn't trust?
It's not that I doubt government completely, it's that I have no reason to doubt them here, cause they're making a claim that goes against the money, and everything else, not with it.


But I don't know anyone myself who has ever gotten into a car accident because of caffeine 'intoxication', and I have not heard of it happening, from anything that could remotely be deemed a reliable source of information.
I know my friend almost killed me because he was driving heavily caffeinated, I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I've seen him on low doses and high, he's a much better driver on low.

What is and isn't a reliable source has been challenged, arguably somewhat successfully, in this thread.
"billions of people drink water, and will occasionally get into a dangerous state of hyponatremia out on the roads" As another example, "Out of all the people who drink coffee, there must be a few that drop it into their eyeballs before they go driving"
Not all inferences are equally probable, relevant or widespread.
coffee tricks the (central) nervous system into always wanting more.
Prove it.
Caffeine withdrawals, and the fact that some caffeine heads have trouble regulating their caffeine.
As someone who has experienced this so-called 'severe caffeine withdrawal', it's really not, and most certainly not when compared to other drugs. But live in whatever delusion you'd like.
While I have little doubt your experience was true for you, plenty of people report caffeine withdrawals being really bad for them.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifes ... t-20045678
I don't see anything in that link which states "4 cups of coffee is too intoxicated to be driving, and doing so will lead to a car accident"
Anything over about four for the average person, and the effects become increasingly toxic.
It just damages the source for the intention you shared it because it doesn't even show that caffeine itself is a problem when driving, but specifically and only energy drinks.
Nothing is absolutely specific, everything has more-less implications for everything else.


I would say you almost don't taste anything of the drug, by putting the average pill in your mouth. In fact, even in coffee or marijuana, if you were to extract the pure alkaloids of the substances responsible for the psychoactive effect without any of the flavorlactones or scents attached, they wouldn't taste like anything at all. So needless to say - I still don't see your point.
In the wild, where sensation is especially reliable, you'd never find refined drugs, but in any case, whether refined or not, drugs taste somewhere in between bland and bad.
"My 2 year old daughter spits out broccoli and doesn't like unflavored water, therefore these things must be bad for you"
In the case of water versus sugar water, our use of refined sugar corrupts our palette, and in the case of broccoli, she'd probably eat it if it's all that was available, but having other available options, like fruit, meat and potatoes, she'd sooner eat them, and that probably is an indication they are better for her, but I don't wish to delve deeply into diet here.
It's not that the senses should always trump the intellect when deciding what to consume, it's that they should be used in conjunction with the intellect.
They're not arbitrary, especially when the intellect hasn't found ways to corrupt/distort them with things like refined sugar and salt, which dress foods up and mask their flavor.
The same principles apply in our attraction to the opposite sex.
Scientists think sexual attraction evolved to help us select superior mates, well the same is true of food, but just as cosmetics and things can be used to accentuate a persons beauty, or mask their ugliness, refined sugar and salt corrupt/distort natural mechanisms/processes.
That certainly didn't seem to be the case, for the Yemenis who originally popularized it in their culture it. In fact, while we don't know the exact origin, it's thought that the sweet fruit of the coffee shrub was first ingested, in ignorance that it possessed any psychoactive effects at all. Even black coffee is a byproduct that came after the ingestion of the coffea cherries, and the beans.
The sweet fruit and the bean/seed are two very different things, they probably would've spat the bean/seed out, or it would've passed through the system largely without being absorbed.
and just because you can't conceive of something as a driving force, does not mean that there isn't one, this was the point to bringing up extreme pranksterism.
You don't have time/energy to consider every possibility when making a predication, so you're selective, your brain does this automatically, it tends to think of the most likely possibilities first from prior experiences, predictions and research, however if upon closer inspection, another possibility is brought to your attention that's roughly equal or more probable than the ones you initially thought of, than fine, you can consider it, but every single one you brought up so far was demonstrably retarded, not even worth considering, because it wasn't rooted in prior experiences, predictions and research, like your penguin fantasy, and not at all like what I was doing.
Oh yeah, "nothing is really logical, the laws of thought are wrong, and everyone's opinion is equally correct
Until you try to prove something is indeed correct to someone, just saying it's correct, proves nothing.
If you have good arguments, and person x reviews and rejects them, than person x is wrong, even if he thinks he's right, but if you claim to have good arguments for another claim, but you never show them, whether they're actually good or bad, if they're never presented to person x, until he reviews them he has no reason to believe they're any good.
Furthermore, by the time he's permitted to question, his mind has already been conditioned not to
Prove it, as I've provided the exact opposite impression.
And I disproved your opposite impression, you claimed scientists always have motive and opportunity to stand up and speak out for what they believe to be true, no matter how controversial, because they care about peer and public recognition, where as I proved often this isn't the case, for lots of reasons, like if they end up being wrong, they'll appear foolish, or in the case of big business, science can easily be corrupted, scientists could lose their prestige, their careers, perhaps even their lives blowing the whistle on the establishment, or because they're very attached to and fond of their paradigm, the standard model, and the list goes on and on.
I don't have to prove scientists never speak out for what they believe to be true cause that's not my claim, my claim is sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, where as your claim is, or what you'd like to believe is: they always stand up for what they believe to be true, or we should always assume they do.
So the studies of this "alt-community" are even more consistent to each other than the ones that come from reliable universities, and peer reviewed medical journals?
Naturopaths also have universities and peer review, and anyone can review another's work, and make their review known.
I've just demonstrated we can't count on your sources, especially when it comes to caffeine.
So one could make the case that the reason they're so consistent is because they're colluding with each other in order to better sell their products? Because hey, the same motivation for institutional collusion is potentially there for them to do it if they all agree with each other, so why not? It could all be 'skewed and biased' data based on what their peers and individuals who they look up to are saying in this 'alt-community'.
That's why you have to experiment, try to verify some of their work, research, reasons and products for yourself.
If some of it checks out, than it's more likely the rest checks out too.
I'm advocating free thought here, where as your presenting a false dichotomy: either have blind faith in mainstream institutions, or divergent ones.
No one and nothing have a monopoly on truth.
Because hey, the same motivation for institutional collusion is potentially there for them to do it if they all agree with each other, so why not? It could all be 'skewed and biased' data based on what their peers and individuals who they look up to are saying in this 'alt-community'. I could make a feasible case for why this is, using the same jacked principles that you are to assume Big Pharma is colluding with caffeine manufacturers in order to increase profits, and pumping out bunk information.
We shouldn't believe what any individual or institution claims, when it flies in the face of reason and common sense, as yours do, especially in this case.
for all the reasons I've mentioned and probably more...
...that I've shown to be incredibly stupid. No one in their right mind relates to your idea that caffeine turns people into mind-numb, drug addicted savages. I think that you subconsciously know that as well, but maybe you're just too invested from already defending these clear irrationlities to turn back now.
No one in their right mind believes caffeine intoxication is benign, as you do.



This is your paradigm:

Establishment: innocent until proven guilty by the establishment.
Anti-establishment (Individuals and institutions operating on the fringes or outside the establishment): guilty until prove innocent by the establishment.
Never critique/question government, big business, big media and big science.
Always critique/question small business, small media, small science and yourself.
Do you see how much of a lemming your are?
Last edited by Gloominary on Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:00 pm, edited 12 times in total.

duszek
Posts: 2147
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by duszek » Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:40 pm

In case a no coffee age comes what will happen to the coffee producing farmers in the third world ?
What could they produce instead ?

I am ready to join an unofficial no coffee and no smartphone league.
Even without having read all the material collected and posted by Mr Gloominary.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:27 pm

Gloominary wrote:
Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:50 am
I know my friend almost killed me because he was driving caffeinated,
Like I said, from anything that could remotely be deemed a reliable source of information.
What is and isn't a reliable source has been challenged, arguably somewhat successfully, in this thread.
The only challenge you've successfully leveled in this thread, is being mentally challenged.
Not all inferences are equally probable, relevant or widespread.
It's that all consequential inferences based on related facts, if they have no necessity or evidence to support them, are equal to all others. As explained, what you're bringing up is just something conceivable, and not something that happens, just like the idea that many pour coffee into their eyes before they go driving is totally possible, but not likely to happen very often, if at all.

You keep responding to this point by saying assisting that we know that people drink caffeine and go driving, but we don't know that it's a reason for many getting into car accidents after taking obscene amounts. Similarly, we know that tornadoes exist, and we know that penguins exist, so with the same ingenuity, your logically equivalent doppelganger would make the hypothetical point that we must draw a concern from this, and infer that penguinado will occur and proceed to the mainland US.

Regardless of how certain we are of the establish facts that lead to an inference, it doesn't make that inference true
Caffeine withdrawals, and the fact that some caffeine heads have trouble regulating their caffeine.
I don't see how this supports the idea that "coffee tricks the (central) nervous system into always wanting more." That seems to me like a pretty complicated and precise neurological question, and one that requires a lot of aided research.
plenty of people report caffeine withdrawals being really bad for them.
I would say that the very vast majority of people cannot relate to such a thing. Even when they do, it's not to say they don't have a form of OCD or hypochondria that's mainly perpetuating it.
Anything over about four for the average person, and the effects become increasingly toxic.
Nope, I still don't see any proof that "over 4 cups of coffee makes someone too intoxicated to drive".
Nothing is absolutely specific, everything has more-less implications for everything else.
You probably shouldn't make a claim that it is specific, then.
In the wild, where sensation is most reliable, you'd never find refined drugs, but in any case, whether refined or not, drugs taste somewhere in between bland and bad.
I like how you've gone from weakening, and then strengthening up, and now weakened your claim down to "well, they (drugs) tend to taste somewhere between bland and bad". No, that's still not going to work, because this still has counter-examples that I've already been through with you. It's not aligned with the evidence we have for why certain drugs have popularized all over different cultures. You need to provide a more sustainable source that we've been evolutionarily adapted to avoid drugs, and that they generally 'taste bad', then "Well, stick a drug in a baby's mouth and they'll spit it out".
In the case of water versus sugar water, our use of refined sugar corrupts our palette, and in the case of broccoli, she'd probably eat it if it's all that was available, but having other things available, like fruit, meat and potatoes, she'd sooner eat them, and that probably is an indication they are better for her, but I don't wish to delve deeply into diet here.
So, your rebuttal as to why she would spit out things that actually are good for you is that there's an external reason for it, and that this method isn't actually accurate after-all? Why don't you afford a similar reason to why she would spit out 'drugs'? Because you can't conceive of one?
scientists think sexual attraction evolved to help us select superior mates
...Scientists that you selectively trust.
The sweet fruit and the coffee bean are two different things.
I was saying you used "Black Coffee" as a basic reduction of the most natural form of caffeine, but my point is that isn't even true. Both the Coffea cherry and the coffee bean could be and were consumed before it was ever made into a drink.
however if upon closer inspection, another possibility is brought to your attention that's roughly equal or more probable than the ones you initially thought of, than fine, you can consider it
There doesn't seem to be any way to differentiate a more probable theory from a less probable one, by your own standard that empirical data doesn't need to be considered.
but every single one you brought up so far was demonstrably retarded, not even worth considering
I think you misunderstand the reason I brought up most of those "demonstrably retarded" possibilities.
not at all like what I was doing.
I guess don't bother showing me how that possibility of stacy's mom is not at all parallel in any way with your own, because it's just so obvious
And I disproved your opposite impression, you claimed scientists always have motive and opportunity to stand up and speak out for what they believe to be true, no matter how controversial, because they care about peer and public recognition, where as I proved often this just isn't the case, for lots of reasons, like if they end up being wrong, they'll appear foolish, or in the case of big business, science can easily be corrupted, scientists could lose their prestige, their careers, perhaps even their lives blowing the whistle on the establishment, or because they're very attached to and fond of their paradigm, the standard model, and the list goes on and on.
I don't have to prove scientists never speak out for what they believe to be true cause that's not my claim, my claim is sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, where as your claim is, or what you'd like to believe is: they always stand up for what they believe to be true.
I don't really see how that's disproving something, but offering an alternate explanation. It doesn't go above to show how my reason is trumped, which you seemed to partially misunderstand. My point is not about integrity, but the motivation to speak out against the establishment because controversy gets more traction and publicity than the status quo. Stephen Hawking, who actually is not this incredibly well respected individual in his own field like everyone assumes, by the way, rose to stardom based on the fact that he stepped outside the status quo. Almost any historical scientist, has done this.

If they want to break the bank, and reach the millionaire net worth status of people like richard dawkins, hawking, or neil degrasse tyson, continuing to find the same result as everyone else and working up a corporate ladder is not going to do it. You have a great misunderstanding of how the scientific community actually operates.
Naturopaths also have universities and peer review
You will never seen anything from a naturopath that gets into anything other than a self-published medical journal, which is not the peer review that I speak of, and something anyone can post their work into
That's why you have to experiment, try to verify some of their work, research, reasons and products for yourself.
Why not assume they're fabricating it, based on the fact it's been proven that certain nutritionists have fabricated their work before for the benefit of profit, such as 'Dr' Stephen Cherniske? Since you also assume that the government is fabricating much of their own data, because past institutions have in other cases?
I'm advocating free thought here
It sounds more like you're brainwashed, and advocating for propaganda.
We shouldn't believe what any individual or institution claims, when it flies in the face of reason and common sense, as yours do, especially in this case.
Almost every single thing in a corrupt government organization and a motivational drive can be paralleled in the organization of this community you respect so much. Explain why the "alt-community" isn't actually corrupt. Since you've already claimed that evidence isn't needed, let's see if the same projections can really be acclimated.
No one in their right mind believes caffeine intoxication is benign, as you do.
According to you, everyone apparently does. This is in plain contradiction to what you've been arguing for since the start of this thread, that people don't take the effects of caffeine seriously enough.

Next time you try to steal a page from my book where I paraphrase one of my opponent's lines to throw it back at them, make sure you actually agree with that paraphrase. Protip*
Last edited by Sir-Sister-of-Suck on Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:45 pm

Gloominary wrote:
Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:50 am
Establishment: innocent until proven guilty by the establishment.
Anti-establishment (Individuals and institutions operating on the fringes or outside the establishment): guilty until prove innocent by the establishment.
Never critique/question government, big business, big media and big science.
Always critique/question small business, small media, small science and yourself.
It's more like "don't assume guilt unless proven guilty in the specific instance"

I also told you, it's not that I disagree with you that the FDA, or any government organization, is corrupt. I'm a pretty libertarian, small-government guy for a reason. I do not like the government, or even the FDA. I just don't think that the FDA is corrupt, in the likes of your accusation that they're colluding with companies which sell caffeine-containing products. Because there is absolutely no evidence for this in any regard, whatsoever, and it's unintuitive to resort to off the grid explanations to show how they are.
Do you see how much of a lemming your are?
"A small, short-tailed, thickset rodent related to the vole"?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2853
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

here's mud in your eye

Post by henry quirk » 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.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: here's mud in your eye

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » 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.

thedoc
Posts: 6334
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: here's mud in your eye

Post by thedoc » Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:19 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.
Whats less benign is Gloomy and his ilk who would take away our freedom, "for our own good".

thedoc
Posts: 6334
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by thedoc » 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.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:44 am

Oh yea give it to him doc

We're all just caffeine-addicted savages and big coffee shills apparently

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

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » 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 dangerous, you have nothing.
Absence of studies proving caffeine intoxication is dangerous, is not evidence caffeine intoxication is not dangerous, it's not proof of anything, anymore than absence of studies on the negative effects of LSD, MJ, Shrooms and XTC on pregnant mothers and their unborn children, is proof LSD, MJ, Shrooms and XTC has no negative effects on pregnant mothers and their unborn children, or anymore than an absence of studies on the long term effects of consuming paint, plastic or tinfoil is proof the long term effects of consuming paint or plastic is harmless, anymore than a lack of studies proving sugar, tobacco and transfats were harmful proved they weren't harmful in the early 20th century.

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.
Now I'm not against presenting anecdotal evidence, I consider it to be a lesser form of evidence than professional teams of alt or mainstream researchers conducting studies and experiments independently of financial interests that might skew their work, but still a form of evidence, unless you have lots of anecdotes or you know the person who made the anecdote personally or an anecdote something almost all of us can verify in our everyday experience, but let's not make more of them than they are, anecdotes are not equivalent to professional teams of researchers just because it fits your narrative.

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 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?
If there aren't any, or very few, or they were all funded by big coffee and their affiliates, then you have almost nothing.

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.
I made a logical inference that if a sports drink induced anxiety attack/withdraw increases your chances of getting into an accident, coffee/caffeine pill anxiety attack/withdraw probably will too.
the causes and effects of these two substances are very, very similar, and therefore, we shouldn't expect the danger to be 100% different, we should expect it to be similar.
That's what empirical evidence looks like, I mean like I said, a study specifically on sports drinks isn't exactly a study on caffeine pills or coffee, but it's still a hell of a lot closer than anything you've presented indicating caffeine intoxication is harmless, you haven't presented anything.

Of course you can never replicate anything 100%, every situation is going to be a little different than the next.
A cocaine intoxication might not be exactly the same as a sports drink intoxication, a sports drink intox might not be exactly the same as a coffee or caffeine pill intox, hell, an x coffee bean intox on a middle aged african vegan woman might not look exactly the same as y coffee bean intox on a young arabic omnivore male.
You can always raise the bar further and further to avoid having to face the conclusions that upset you and your paradigm.

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.
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.
If the cause is very similar, and the effect is very similar, the outcome is unlikely to be the very opposite.
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.

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

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:59 am

Hm, this is interesting.
Symptoms of Too Much Coffee
In moderate doses, about 2 cups, coffee can help people remain alert and less sleepy. However, too much coffee can cause problems. Jokes are often made about people who have had too much coffee and the way they behave. They are portrayed as extremely hyper and running around all over the place. Funny or not, these behaviors are not far from the truth. Symptoms of having too much coffee include:

Dizziness
Blurred vision
Restlessness
Nervousness
Increased heartbeat
Nausea
Anxiety
Heart palpitations
Insomnia
Sweating
Dizziness
Vomiting
Cardiac arrest
Many of these symptoms may also be experienced by people who have had too much alcohol or who are “high” on drugs.
Driving while Intoxicated
All jurisdictions base the crime of driving while intoxicated, commonly referred to as drunk driving, on the driver’s blood alcohol content (BAC). For example, in all 50 states it is a crime to drive with a BAC of .08 or above. A driver’s BAC is typically measured by using a breathalyzer, but a blood test or urine sample can also determine BAC. If a driver is intoxicated by coffee, he or she will pass a test that measures BAC. However, encompassed in driving while intoxicated laws are rules that not only prohibit driving while under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs, but also the prohibition from driving while impaired or while under intoxicating compounds. Such language can be interpreted to also making it illegal to drive while impaired by prescription drugs, over-the-counter drugs, and arguably by other substances such as caffeine.

Thus, if a driver is intoxicated from drinking too much coffee, a police officer can pull the suspected driver over if he or she show signs of reckless driving. If the driver fails a field sobriety test, such as the walk and turn test or the one-leg stand test, the driver can be charged with a driving while intoxicated offense.

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.

thedoc
Posts: 6334
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by thedoc » Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:00 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 dangerous, you have nothing.
Absence of studies proving caffeine intoxication is dangerous, is not evidence caffeine intoxication is not dangerous, it's not proof of anything, anymore than absence of studies on the negative effects of LSD, MJ, Shrooms and XTC on pregnant mothers and their unborn children, is proof LSD, MJ, Shrooms and XTC has no negative effects on pregnant mothers and their unborn children, or anymore than an absence of studies on the long term effects of consuming paint, plastic or tinfoil is proof the long term effects of consuming paint or plastic is harmless, anymore than a lack of studies proving sugar, tobacco and transfats were harmful proved they weren't harmful in the early 20th century.

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.
Now I'm not against presenting anecdotal evidence, I consider it to be a lesser form of evidence than professional teams of alt or mainstream researchers conducting studies and experiments independently of financial interests that might skew their work, but still a form of evidence, unless you have lots of anecdotes or you know the person who made the anecdote personally or an anecdote something almost all of us can verify in our everyday experience, but let's not make more of them than they are, anecdotes are not equivalent to professional teams of researchers just because it fits your narrative.

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 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?
If there aren't any, or very few, or they were all funded by big coffee and their affiliates, then you have almost nothing.

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.
I made a logical inference that if a sports drink induced anxiety attack/withdraw increases your chances of getting into an accident, coffee/caffeine pill anxiety attack/withdraw probably will too.
the causes and effects of these two substances are very, very similar, and therefore, we shouldn't expect the danger to be 100% different, we should expect it to be similar.
That's what empirical evidence looks like, I mean like I said, a study specifically on sports drinks isn't exactly a study on caffeine pills or coffee, but it's still a hell of a lot closer than anything you've presented indicating caffeine intoxication is harmless, you haven't presented anything.

Of course you can never replicate anything 100%, every situation is going to be a little different than the next.
A cocaine intoxication might not be exactly the same as a sports drink intoxication, a sports drink intox might not be exactly the same as a coffee or caffeine pill intox, hell, an x coffee bean intox on a middle aged african vegan woman might not look exactly the same as y coffee bean intox on a young arabic omnivore male.
You can always raise the bar further and further to avoid having to face the conclusions that upset you and your paradigm.

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.
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.
If the cause is very similar, and the effect is very similar, the outcome is unlikely to be the very opposite.
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.
There have been no studies to prove or disprove that caffeine intoxication is a problem, perhaps because it is a non-issue, there is no evidence to suggest that it is a problem so there have been no studies.

Caffeine Blues is not a reliable source of information, being seriously biased against caffeine.

There is no reason to expect a person to react to one substance in the same or similar way they react to a different substance, there is more than just caffeine in the several different drinks. Coincidence is not proof of anything.

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

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:37 am

thedoc wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:00 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 dangerous, you have nothing.
Absence of studies proving caffeine intoxication is dangerous, is not evidence caffeine intoxication is not dangerous, it's not proof of anything, anymore than absence of studies on the negative effects of LSD, MJ, Shrooms and XTC on pregnant mothers and their unborn children, is proof LSD, MJ, Shrooms and XTC has no negative effects on pregnant mothers and their unborn children, or anymore than an absence of studies on the long term effects of consuming paint, plastic or tinfoil is proof the long term effects of consuming paint or plastic is harmless, anymore than a lack of studies proving sugar, tobacco and transfats were harmful proved they weren't harmful in the early 20th century.

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.
Now I'm not against presenting anecdotal evidence, I consider it to be a lesser form of evidence than professional teams of alt or mainstream researchers conducting studies and experiments independently of financial interests that might skew their work, but still a form of evidence, unless you have lots of anecdotes or you know the person who made the anecdote personally or an anecdote something almost all of us can verify in our everyday experience, but let's not make more of them than they are, anecdotes are not equivalent to professional teams of researchers just because it fits your narrative.

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 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?
If there aren't any, or very few, or they were all funded by big coffee and their affiliates, then you have almost nothing.

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.
I made a logical inference that if a sports drink induced anxiety attack/withdraw increases your chances of getting into an accident, coffee/caffeine pill anxiety attack/withdraw probably will too.
the causes and effects of these two substances are very, very similar, and therefore, we shouldn't expect the danger to be 100% different, we should expect it to be similar.
That's what empirical evidence looks like, I mean like I said, a study specifically on sports drinks isn't exactly a study on caffeine pills or coffee, but it's still a hell of a lot closer than anything you've presented indicating caffeine intoxication is harmless, you haven't presented anything.

Of course you can never replicate anything 100%, every situation is going to be a little different than the next.
A cocaine intoxication might not be exactly the same as a sports drink intoxication, a sports drink intox might not be exactly the same as a coffee or caffeine pill intox, hell, an x coffee bean intox on a middle aged african vegan woman might not look exactly the same as y coffee bean intox on a young arabic omnivore male.
You can always raise the bar further and further to avoid having to face the conclusions that upset you and your paradigm.

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.
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.
If the cause is very similar, and the effect is very similar, the outcome is unlikely to be the very opposite.
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.
There have been no studies to prove or disprove that caffeine intoxication is a problem, perhaps because it is a non-issue, there is no evidence to suggest that it is a problem so there have been no studies.

Caffeine Blues is not a reliable source of information, being seriously biased against caffeine.

There is no reason to expect a person to react to one substance in the same or similar way they react to a different substance, there is more than just caffeine in the several different drinks. Coincidence is not proof of anything.
That's an argument, and according to Suck and his ilk, arguments mean nothing without referencing studies by big science, so you might as well believe the Penguins did it.
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.
But to say it poses no danger whatsoever, or as much danger as water intoxication or the bogey man, is plain dumb.

Maybe the caffeine blues was a book written an by a righteous man doing honest work unjustly persecuted by government and academia.

Sports drinks are essentially a strong cup of coffee with sugar and vitamins.
No coffee and water or coffee and beer are different drinks, coffee and sports drinks are practically the same thing, some people like their coffee strong, several scoops, extra cream and sugar.
All those symptoms these articles have been listing, how could they not be dangerous?
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 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.

thedoc
Posts: 6334
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by thedoc » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:00 am

Gloominary wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:37 am

Maybe the caffeine blues was a book written an by a righteous man doing honest work unjustly persecuted by government and academia.
Maybe Caffeine Blues was written by a religious zealot of the lunatic fringe who didn't have anything rational to say and is mostly ignored by the establishment.

thedoc
Posts: 6334
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by thedoc » 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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests