Philosophy Now Forum

I find it amusing how everyone's suddenly a conspiracy theorist as soon as it's personally or politically inconvenient not to be.

Maybe Sir Suck's a coffee or big pharma shill.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2017 10:59 pm

Gloominary wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2017 8:55 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2017 8:52 pm Maybe next time, you should actually read what you're replying to?

I did read a bit of it, I'll read more and see how much I can verify.

I have a feeling you'll choose to rationalize it away by just proclaiming "Big coffee is trying to bring him down!", or some such conspiracy bullshit. That seems to be your MO when confronted with something that goes against your claim

I wouldn't put it passed them.

We know science has been corrupted by big business/government, the only real question is: exactly how deep does the rabbit hole go?

Gloominary wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:11 am I find it amusing how everyone's suddenly a conspiracy theorist as soon as it's personally or politically inconvenient not to be.

I think you misunderstand that this was a sarcastic remark meant to level your own line of thinking; Harbal provides just as much evidence that your claims are corrupt as you did with the study about taking caffeine and driving.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:25 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2017 10:59 pm

Gloominary wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2017 8:55 pm
I did read a bit of it, I'll read more and see how much I can verify.

I have a feeling you'll choose to rationalize it away by just proclaiming "Big coffee is trying to bring him down!", or some such conspiracy bullshit. That seems to be your MO when confronted with something that goes against your claim

I wouldn't put it passed them.

We know science has been corrupted by big business/government, the only real question is: exactly how deep does the rabbit hole go?

Things "have" been that way in the past =/= things are that way in this specific case.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:16 am Maybe Sir Suck's a coffee or big pharma shill.

I hope you realize "caffeine" is on the polar opposite end of 'big pharma'. It's barely a regulated drug.

I've already proven 10-15 coffee can be deadly, or even just a few in highly sensitive/low tolerance individuals, to anyone not asleep, you wait for more studies from corporate/government approved sources, in the meantime keep guzzling, it's good for you.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2017 4:25 am I've already proven 10-15 coffee can be deadly, or even just a few in highly sensitive/low tolerance individuals, to anyone not asleep, you wait for more studies from corporate/government approved sources, in the meantime keep guzzling, it's good for you.

That isn't really even the case though, unless you have a pre-existing condition. Keep in mind that would be an insane amount of caffeine by the standard of most, but the LD50 of caffeine is actually around 10 grams, which is roughly around 80-100 cups of coffee.

https://www.thrillist.com/health/nation ... s-overdose

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2017 4:19 am

Gloominary wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:25 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2017 10:59 pm
I have a feeling you'll choose to rationalize it away by just proclaiming "Big coffee is trying to bring him down!", or some such conspiracy bullshit. That seems to be your MO when confronted with something that goes against your claim

I wouldn't put it passed them.

We know science has been corrupted by big business/government, the only real question is: exactly how deep does the rabbit hole go?

Things "have" been that way in the past =/= things are that way in this specific case.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:16 am Maybe Sir Suck's a coffee or big pharma shill.

I hope you realize "caffeine" is on the polar opposite end of 'big pharma'. It's barely a regulated drug.

Tobacco was once largely unregulated, and next to tobacco and alcohol, sugar is still largely unregulated, and even still, so what?
The coffee people still have lots of motive and opportunity to pull the strings of government and science, and certainly are, the only real question is, to what extent?
There's so much easily and readily verifiable BS about caffeine, I suspect it's probably worse than sugar and tobacco ever were put together.

We all know people are a hell of a lot more likely to get anxiety/panic attacks and a host of other debilitating psychological and physical conditions after consuming 10-15 cups of coffee, especially if they're not used to such doses, and we all know that such a state is no state to be in behind a wheel, or in a lot of other places and predicaments for that matter.
Half the symptoms Stephen Cherniske lists ought to be common knowledge.
Caffeine can be deadly, you don't need 80 cups, in some cases 8 will do.

We all know big oil is corrupt AF and played a big part in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and coffee is right behind it, number two commodity in the world.
It's no joke, this is very serious business.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2017 4:36 am Tobacco was once largely unregulated, and next to tobacco and alcohol, sugar is still largely unregulated, and even still, so what?
The coffee people still have lots of motive and opportunity to pull the strings of government and science, and certainly are, the only real question is, to what extent?

My point was that your sarcastic accusation doesn't even make sense, because if I were a "big pharma" shill, that would have absolutely nothing to do with caffeine. Caffeine is virtually unregulated, whereas pharmaceuticals have to be. The companies manufacturing caffeine products and the companies manufacturing drugs are, if anything, technically in competition with each other.

There's so much easily and readily verifiable BS about caffeine, I suspect it's probably worse than sugar and tobacco ever were put together.

Are they as "verifiable BS" as the author and so-called 'Dr' of your sourced book? Part of the reason why we didn't know what we do now about tobacco is that there just wasn't all that much literacy or data on the subject; Not many studies were conducted on drugs prior to the 60s, at least not how they are now.

Caffeine is legal in just about every country on the face of the earth; It is an international commodity, and is non-patented. Nothing is holding anyone back from committing to their own independent research on the substance if they wanted to.

The truth is we generally live in a very anti-drug world. When big organizations like the DEA are trying to demonize substances as benign as marijuana or kratom, it speaks volumes that they may actually have a bias to pull things in this direction, despite the good it would do for our economy and all the tax benefits. I actually have reason to think they would jump on caffeine, an unregulated substance, not bred from big drug corporations, if there was ample evidence to suggest doing so.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2017 4:44 amHalf the symptoms Stephen Cherniske lists ought to be common knowledge.

Stop quoting material from him; I already destroyed that utter joke of a human being.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2017 4:44 amCaffeine can be deadly, you don't need 80 cups, in some cases 8 will do.

I concede that it 'could' be deadly, even outside it's common LD50 based on certain and rare pre-existing conditions. But let me ask you this, if I were to drop a Motrin tablet on a highway and got ran over when I went to pick it up, would the fault be on Motrin?

Differentiating the symptoms of overdosing on a drug, from a fatal action that follows from taking that drug, is a very important difference to make.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:00 am We all know big oil is corrupt AF and played a big part in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan

Well, no not really. That's not something we all accept, but believe what it is sounds good to you.

Even "Big Oil" isn't able to cover for the fact that the current rate of carbon emissions is damaging to our planet. The adverse effects of using oil is quite apparent, even the government funded studies show that it is; Caffeine being this demon is certainly not.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:11 am I find it amusing how ......

When people say this it usually means that quite the opposite is the case.

everyone's suddenly a conspiracy theorist as soon as it's personally or politically inconvenient not to be.

It's not a matter of convenience, it's simply a case of applying the principle: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:16 am But let me ask you this, if I were to drop a Motrin tablet on a highway and got ran over when I went to pick it up, would the fault be on Motrin?

No because that could happen with any (class of) object(s) we use, and we can't blame, ban or restrict all objects.
Some (classes of) objects are both especially alluring, unnecessary, and perilous, even when used by competent people, and these objects we can, and in some cases ought to blame, ban or restrict.