Philosophy Now Forum

I know from my experiences, and the experiences of people I've talked to, and the articles and books I've read, which jived with those experiences, that coffee is much worse than they're letting on, and that this whole drug culture, particularly the drugs the establishment pushes, but really they're pushing everything behind closed doors, is also much worse than they're letting on.
Now not everything the dominant institutions claim is corrupt or mistaken, but not everything they claim is correct.
Conversely not everything conspiracy theorists claim is corrupt or mistaken, but not everything they claim is correct.
each one has to weigh as much data as they can for themselves, and draw their own conclusions, but some refuse to conduct any alt research, or will even lump the claims of men like Noam Chomsky in with paranoid schizophrenics.
They're incapable of evaluating experiences or making inferences from those experiences when it comes to challenging the establishment, which has their consciousness locked in a small box of possibility.

I also know from talking to people that many over the counter/prescription meds can be used recreationally just like cocaine and heroin and are extremely addictive, and the FDA doesn't seem to be terribly concerned about it, gee I wonder why?

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:05 am I don't doubt collusion has ever happened, I just don't think it's happening between companies that manufacture caffeine containing products, and the pharmaceutical industry - which is run by the FDA - who actively discourage what they consider 'riskier' caffeine usage like energy drinks.

That's because your brain, your imagination lacks nuance, subtlety.
Mhm, well there has to be a limit, otherwise the adverse effects would be more obvious, but this way, they're just under the radar of many folks, like you.

Well, since you've decided to reduce our conversation to such a sad state of exchanging playground level insults, I think it's time for me to be the bigger man and just walk away.

If you're going to continue disrespecting me by calling me crazy, then this discussion is incommensurable, and you can fuck off.

Had you followed that link, you would've seen that renowned scholar Noam Chomsky claims the war on drugs itself is a conspiracy.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:34 am

Gloominary wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:32 am Yea it seems exceedingly difficult to inadvertently OD on caffeine barring a preexisting condition, but that doesn't mean there aren't lots of other dangers.
Almost all dangers involve degrees of human incompetence, do we leave people to their own devices, let them risk their lives and/or the lives of others, or do we intervene with education, restrictions, bans?
Like anything balance is key, and then we can argue over what balance constitutes generally or particularly, but some people will take things to extremes, or suggest intervening once logically necessitates always intervening, or not intervening once logically necessitates never intervening, which's silly.

Well yes, however the only time someone ever dies while on caffeine it's almost purely from human incompetence.

Your concern of people taking too much caffeine is still really dumb and unfounded. I've known some people who get panic attacks if they consume too much of it, but nothing that amounts to physical damage to himself or anyone else. It sure as hell has no connection to any sort of rise in car accidents. As the study I linked suggested, it may even decline it.

And if they get into a panic attack while driving, dummy?

From my research, even in small doses, caffeine can only improve alertness, if anything it probably slightly impairs response time, and if you're up all night on a caffeine binge and/or withdrawing, it will substantially reduce alertness.

@Suck

I think that you are using a very incorrect and fallacious application derived from many evolutionary phychologists. Saying that 'drugs taste icky' is a brush stroke far too big to begin with, but making an intuitive guess why something evolved in a certain way is not hard science. Evolutionary psychology is not a field that's taken too seriously for this reason.

In nature, animals have no science, they have nothing else to go on, and in nature, without man's meddling, what tastes bad is almost always bad for the animal, it would have to be because there's a lot of poisons and drugs and things out there, and if the animal could not discern nutrition from poison, it would not survive, dummy.

What I did, was claim that it's probably ingrained in our psychology based on the evidence that it is in our relatives. Namely, the vervet monkeys and chimps.
he vast majority of animals, the vast majority of the time, heed the warning, but humans have sought the milder toxins out for some of their 'beneficial' or interesting properties.
Do animals in the wild consume drugs on purpose?
Occasionally perhaps they do, sometimes they get sick and die as a result, and sometimes they can handle it, but they're the exceptions to the rule, most animals avoid drugs/toxins most of the time.
Most animals yes, but when looking at our closest relatives which evolved around areas where ethanol is present, we find that they actively seek after it. We know it wasn't a desire brought on by man-made alcohol, because they even go after the wine created in fermented tree sap.

Of course it's ingrained in our psychology, we take the stuff.
A lot of stuff is ingrained in our psychology that never had an advantage or put us at a disadvantage, so what?
Do you mean our brains have been naturally selected for it to be ingrained in our psychology?
And if so, that's evolutionary psychology.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:40 am I know from my experiences, and the experiences of people I've talked to, and the articles and books I've read

Well, let's just hope those sources are more accurate than the book you supplied as a source earlier, and can't be debunked with a 5 minute google search.

Most animals yes, but when looking at our closest relatives which evolved around areas where ethanol is present, we find that they actively seek after it. We know it wasn't a desire brought on by man-made alcohol, because they even go after the wine created in fermented tree sap.

Yea right, chimps getting drunk in the wild is evidence drugs have been 'ingrained in our psychology' for a long time, and so are presumably good for us.
Are you now saying alcohol is a good drug?
The only thing this demonstrates is our psychosis around alcohol might go back much further than we initially thought.

No institution is in a position of authority to determine what is and isn't good science.
Our institutions have been in the past and certainly are in the present corrupt and mistaken, the only question is: to what extent?
When the war on drugs is itself a fraud, and scientists have been caught many, many times catering and pandering to rich mega corporations, it's not at all a stretch to suggest they're doing it now, in fact it's practically guaranteed.
Having nothing else to go on, I would certainly consider what the FDA has to say about this or that substance, but when what they say flies in the face of what can be easily and readily verified by anyone who's been to Starbucks (by anyone who can reason that is), and when there's a lot of dissenting voices out there (many of them at odds with the establishment, no surprise there), and big money is involved, than I'm inclined to distrust them.
Our system and many-most of its institutions are very corrupt, really our civilization at its core is a demonstrable fraud, the banks, the bureaucrats, the media, the medical world, everything.

I have little doubt coffee contributes to things like road rage, and assault too, in high doses/sensitive persons.

I also have little doubt it contributes to our consumer capitalist, environmentally challenged civilization.

Anyway, that about wraps it up for me, for now.

People feel often listless and under the weather.
Coffee or some other drug (Red Bull, coke etc.) can make them active again.

Taking caffeine away without offering another effective remedy will not work.

What can people do to get the same effect as coffeine ?

1. Watch a horror movie ?
2. Jump up and down for about 500 times ?
3. ...

Gloominary wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:09 amThat's because your brain, your imagination lacks nuance, subtlety.
Mhm, well there has to be a limit, otherwise the adverse effects would be more obvious, but this way, they're just under the radar of many folks, like you.

They could be playing a game of 4 dimensional chess. They could be playing a game of 5 dimensional chess to fool those such as yourself who would think that such a limit would just be there for added-plausibility, and they really aren't corrupt. Maybe your brain lacks imagination because you're not considering that? Or maybe, we should come to a conclusion where evidence and reasoning actually lead. I see absolutely no evidence to think that 'Big Pharma' is colluding with these companies to cover up the adverse effects of caffeine, in a fact I have reasons to think against that.

Actually, 'that some institutions are and have been corrupt in the past, but it's not the FDA in the instance of caffeine containing products' is about as nuanced a claim as I could make.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:31 amIn nature, animals have no science, they have nothing else to go on, and in nature, without man's meddling, what tastes bad is almost always bad for the animal, it would have to be because there's a lot of poisons and drugs and things out there, and if the animal could not discern nutrition from poison, it would not survive, dummy.

You're assuming what 'tastes bad' for us tastes bad to an animal, and from that assumption you're also assuming that most things that do taste bad are harmful, in order to make a point off your assumption that most drugs also 'taste bad', and again I don't really know what you mean by that. I'm not sure if most animals actually have a perception of what 'tastes bad' in the sense that we do, and I don't think you're qualified to make such a claim either. I'm inclined to think it's more instinctual, but whatever. We'll leave it at that.

Yea right, chimps getting drunk in the wild is evidence drugs have been 'ingrained in our psychology' for a long time, and so are presumably good for us.
Are you now saying alcohol is a good drug?

No, that is not why I brought it up. You asked me if we lived in a 'pro-drug' world, and I provided it as a piece of nuance that while we ourselves may very well be, the legislature and cultural influence around the world is not.

And if they get into a panic attack while driving

I think you should tell me, as you're the one saying it's apparently a big problem in our world. They could get to their destination and calm themselves down, pull off to the side, go back, etc. I don't doubt that in a hypothetical situation caffeine could have an adequate responsibility for getting someone into a car accident, but I also don't doubt that in a hypothetical universe, a giant tornado in Antarctica could sweep up all the penguins in a sort of penguinado and hurl them at someone while they're driving, and committing a mass penguin genocide could be a solution to this issue; It just would not be a good one to what is already an implausible and exceedingly rare concern.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:40 pm a giant tornado in Antarctica could sweep up all the penguins in a sort of penguinado and hurl them at someone while they're driving,

Gosh, I wonder how many hits that would get on Youtube.

Conversely, a penguin could also end up hitting an innocent by-stander out of the way of an incoming car, so when measuring implausibilities, you need to weigh them out to the positives ones as well.