Against Caffeine

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 3738
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

havin' my third cup of the day as I post this

Post by henry quirk » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:31 pm

Gloom,

How do you reconcile (anarcho) individualism with (green, local democratic) communitarianism?

One emphasizes one over many while the other does just the opposite.

Walker
Posts: 5582
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Walker » Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:44 pm

Individualism is apartness, not overness.

Off the grid, not necessarily controlling the communal grid.

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

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:08 pm

...But Suck, you don't have any evidence, even by your standards.
Apparently, there are no, official, scientific studies (dis)proving caffeine intoxication is dangerous and furthermore, you haven't proved the police and the courts even have the means to determine whether someone's DUI charge was the result of caffeine intoxication, that caffeine intoxication has even been legally defined, and that they could convict them without referencing scientific studies since there aren't any, and even if they could convict them without referencing scientific studies, without scientific studies, on what grounds would they be convicting them?
On unscientific grounds?
If the police rarely or never, have or employ breathalyzers/blood tests to determine whether someone has caffeine intoxication, if there isn't even a working definition of what caffeine intoxication is, and if the courts can't convict someone without referencing official scientific studies, than regardless of whether millions of people crashed their cars due to caffeine intox, or 1 or none, it would be a forgone conclusion no one would be convicted, and so not actually proof of anything, and even if they could convict them, whether they actually did or didn't, it wouldn't be on official scientific grounds, and so then according to you, moot.
So your argument then is circular, and meaningless.

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 » Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:41 pm

>Goes on to state opponent needs evidence to back up their (non) claim

>Counters by argument that evidence is not needed for what it is I'm claiming

>Demonstrates how some of what has been shown could be interpreted as evidence via null results, anyway

>Starts right back up, claims that the opponent still needs evidence to back up their (non) claim

>Green texting w/out green text

So you want me to attempt in debunking the claim that police officers would have no way of determining someone's caffeine usage as a factor of their accident? I think first, that's something that needs to be better proven by you. Police don't have any way of determining water intoxication or random dust debris entering your iris as a factor, either - using the very same methods you bring up. What would ever lead anyone to conclude this is a problem which even needs to be looked into?

That's not even a claim you seem to actually agree with, considering you yourself just shared a link attempting to demonstrate they can determine caffeine usage as a factor.

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

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:07 pm

Suck: Demonstrates how some of what has been shown could be interpreted as evidence via null results, anyway
It could just as easily be interpreted as: police rarely/never have the means to determine who's driving under the influence of Caffeine, and even if/when they do, they can't charge/convict them, because there's no legal, working definition of caffeine intoxication, and they can't charge/convict them without deferring to scientific studies that don't exist, and so that's why you never hear about it on your news.
And even if you're right and they could charge/convict them, it wouldn't be on your precious official scientific grounds, as there's no official scientific experiments/studies.
So my interpretation cancels your 'null results' interpretation out, leaving you with nothing, no positive, or negative empirical evidence.

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

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:20 pm

Suck: 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.
No virtually all recreational stimulants/depressants work the same, there's always temptation for some to go overboard, there's always a withdrawal that can temporarily alleviated by consuming more of the drug.
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.
I was talking about caffeine withdrawal for people who overconsume coffee, in regards to how it could affect driving, among other things.
Nope, I still don't see any proof that "over 4 cups of coffee makes someone too intoxicated to drive".
I"m not claiming they're, 'too', intoxicated to drive, I'm claiming that in all likelihood, after about four cups for the average person, driving becomes increasingly difficult, however great-slight.
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".
You haven't brought up any exceptions, tobacco and weed smelling good when you burn them is hardly an exception, it feels horrible when you inhale them, I mean wood can smell good when you burn it, but we don't have any temptation to go inhale the smoke, we'd start suffocating.
Drugs usually taste bad and sometimes they taste bland, our senses are indicating they're at best not good and at worst bad, that's a point against them.

Caffeine all by itself tastes bad and is a poison that kills cats, dogs and many other animals, but has a milder effect on humans.
Often seeds contain poisons that taste bad because that's the plants way of protecting its offspring, so you don't swallow them, or if you swallow them, you don't bite into them, allowing them to pass through your digestive tract unabsorbed.

Again, it's not that I trust my senses and instincts 100%, if my intellect and my senses are in conflict, than either I'll compromise with my senses, or when the danger is really apparent, I'll attempt to overrule them, but if my senses are indicating something is very bad, and my intellect doesn't know, or is divided, then I'm inclined to overrule my intellect.
Life and epistemology is holistic and ought to be lived that way, it's about taking data from multiple sources into consideration and weighing them against each other, instead of only relying on one source, presuming the other is completely arbitrary, or bringing up a couple of exceptions to try to disprove the rule.
scientists think sexual attraction evolved to help us select superior mates
...Scientists that you selectively trust.
And science you selectively consider, since you won't consider it here.
I do selectively consider science, but not arbitrarily, as you imagine.
Trusting science 100%, irrespective of assessing their motive, opportunity, history, the quality of their work, whether it aligns with reason and common sense, makes you a kind of science fundamentalist.

And I suppose the existence of cosmetics, porn, gays and lesbians disproves sexuality is rooted in natural selection.
Of course consumpsuality is rooted natural selection, it's just not absolutely rooted in it, nothing is, it's not that we should always trust our senses, it's that we should always consider them.
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.
But was the bean itself chewed up and swallowed, and did it taste good' to people not psychologically dependent on it?
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
Are you sure?
But there's no question they do review and criticize each others work on some level, so it's not something God bestowed exclusively to government and mainline academia.
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."
I said no on in their, right, mind.
Last edited by Gloominary on Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: havin' my third cup of the day as I post this

Post by Gloominary » Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:32 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:31 pm
Gloom,

How do you reconcile (anarcho) individualism with (green, local democratic) communitarianism?

One emphasizes one over many while the other does just the opposite.
While anarcho-individualism and local democratic communitarianism are different in many regards, they have some similarities.
When it comes to big government, the former rejects government altogether, where as the latter partly does.
While the latter is somewhat authoritarian, its authoritarianism is grass roots, local and democratic.
I also don't be believe in throwing people in jail for nonviolent 'offences': if people disrespect the laws, they can just leave.
Both would also be opposed to capitalism, corporatism and big business, property would be restricted to what people can personally use, and there'd be little-no intellectual property.
Of course they can't be fully reconciled, they're just two systems I'm about equally fond of.
Last edited by Gloominary on Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:40 pm

thedoc wrote:
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


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).
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.

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

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:41 pm

duszek wrote:
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.
Don't get me started on cell phone and computer radiation *laughs.

The world needs to re-wild itself, unfortunately there could be some casualties, but it has to happen, civilization isn't at all sustainable at present.
Last edited by Gloominary on Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Harbal » Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:04 pm

Gloominary wrote:
Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:41 pm
Don't get me started on cell phone and computer radiation *laughs.
I wouldn't have let you get started on coffee if it had been up to me.

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 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:28 pm

Gloominary wrote:
Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:07 pm
It could just as easily be interpreted as: police rarely/never have the means to determine who's driving under the influence of Caffeine, and even if/when they do, they can't charge/convict them, because there's no legal, working definition of caffeine intoxication, and they can't charge/convict them without deferring to scientific studies that don't exist, and so that's why you never hear about it on your news.
And even if you're right and they could charge/convict them, it wouldn't be on your precious official scientific grounds, as there's no official scientific experiments/studies.
So my interpretation cancels your 'null results' interpretation out, leaving you with nothing, no positive, or negative empirical evidence.
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. But once again, why assume that caffeinated driving is secretly a problem when this lack of methods could be concealing something like water intoxication as a popular cause for car accidents, as well?

It's not even me who's "right and they could charge/convict them", YOU are the one who shared a link to an attorney's site saying that they could. 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. Such a study wouldn't be needed to convict someone of a DUI under an extremely rare and unknown research chemical either. They just need to show the known results in this particular circumstance, and prove that the caffeine caused these results.

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 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:35 pm

Gloominary wrote:
Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:20 pm
consumpsuality
Frankly, it's very annoying that you've decided to respond to a post I made days ago, despite the fact that you've been online before hand...And actually have been responding to me - in fact - you've already responded to this exact post here but in a different way...To be blunt, it's a bit of a bitch move, and displays a pretty low-level of intellectual integrity. But I guess if you've already hit rock bottom in that department, there's not much I can say to convince you not to do this again.

Let me just go ahead and copy/paste a response I made for you in prediction that you would try and do something like this, as you have in other threads;

...Gloom, you are such a fraud, and it's clear to us all. You have no consistently applicable principles, research, or beliefs. Your insults aren't clever, and far more important than that you're really bad at debate. Just because you have responded to something, does not mean that you've automatically trumped the other person's point, and going off on long wall-o-text tangents where you just shovel the same old unfounded crap that I or someone in this thread has been over with you already, and gave a measured response to, does not suddenly negate all that information that was literally just discussed with you.

You display such a shameless, low-level of intellectual integrity, even in the direct presence of your wrongness, it's quite mind-boggling. It takes such a long time to cipher through your posts, because there's so much objectionable content in them, and you're somewhat aware that there is. Not telling you this just to be mean or anything, but I've grown quite sick of your methods and debate tactics, and I really want you to improve. This whole conversation has been so underwhelming low-brow, that I'm wondering if I should continue in fear of giving you undue credit. You need to realize your mistakes if you wish to have any kind of fitting discussion on a philosophy forum.


I had developed a sort of theory about this methodology you're pulling, that's not something I haven't seen before in online debate. I think you intentionally waited to respond to a comment I made days ago, in between dozens of other posts within the exact same thread - and one that you've already responded to, no less - as an added assurance that your opponent would lose his tract in the conversation and won't comment back so you can get the last word of the discussion, however low of any sustenance the word may be. As such, I'm not going to respond to these ludicrous antics, anymore than I would respond to the same comment over and over again, ironically with a bunch of re-hashed points I've gotten across before which my opponent has already given a response to.

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

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by Gloominary » 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?
why assume that caffeinated driving is secretly a problem when this lack of methods could be concealing something like water intoxication as a popular cause for car accidents, as well?
You're repeating yourself, we already covered this at length.
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?
Such a study wouldn't be needed to convict someone of a DUI under an extremely rare and unknown research chemical either.
Proof?

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.

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 » 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.

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

Re: Against Caffeine

Post by thedoc » 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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests