Philosophy Now Forum

Gloominary wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:17 amI just proved it, I made a reasonable inference.

This, you have not done, anymore than I have made a "logical inference" about tornadoes and penguins. You've shown that it's possible it could happen in a hypothetical event, but that's not something I ever doubted. You haven't proven that it does happen, by any sort of metric we could use to make a statistic. Am I repeating myself? Because it certainly sounds like I'm repeating myself.

Ironically, I'm pretty sure you actually implied that you don't know yourself if it's a factor that needs to be considered in accident statistics, because you said you wouldn't expect to see any connection made even if there was one, because "corruption". So which is it, do you know if caffeinated driving is a serious widespread issue that plaques this earth, or we just don't know? These two ideas inherently contradict each other.

I used what we all ought to know about history, psychology, sociology and so on, to make a reasonable inference.

No you did not, you specifically did the opposite; You keep making claims you know I (and anyone else here) don't accept. Instead of pulling this same gimmick, because you know by now how this is going to go, just force us to believe your claims by presenting this overwhelming amount of evidence you seem to have for them.

they're more in tune with their instincts and senses

Prove it.

They don't know what a drug is, they don't have to, they just know it tastes like shit and they're repelled by it.

If you put the average "drug" in your mouth, what you're tasting is not the drug within the pill itself, but the cutting and extraction agent, magnesium phosphate, and other ingredients that was used to make the pill. Even in practice, your experiment wouldn't be reliable.

Needless to say, coffee tastes amazing, and is exactly why it's continued to popularize over the past few centuries. It's a clear counter-example to this very broad, and strange, brush stroke you're making that "ALL DRUGS TATSTE ICKY".

An adult who has absolutely no experience with drugs or psychosocial conditioning will react the same way to drugs as babies.

I don't know, I liked the smell of tobacco before I even ever tried it. I've never smoked pot, and I like the smell of that as well; I really don't see why you're so insistent on making this point that our "instincts are against it"; It's clearly not always true, to our closest animal relatives or us, and that's not to say our instincts are even right about this. Often times, instincts are wrong. So I think you need to rethink this, and whether you're just making up these ridiculous arguments and hypothetical experiments as you go along as an attempt to strengthen your case on drugs in general. A "baby spitting shit up" is not a cogent or scientifically reliable experiment, and it sounds extremely ridiculous to use as one. It's absurd, demonstrably wrong, and obviously so, and you need to stop. Focus on what actually matters to you.

No only government and mainstream science has amazing powers, we shouldn't rely on our individual and collective senses, experiences, reason, intuitions, we should just patiently wait for the okay by authority figures.

We shouldn't rely exclusively on it, for sure, especially if that individual is someone who poops in their pants every couple of hours and is content on living his life twirling a fidget spinner. Or whatever it is they do with those crazy fidgets that spin.

Your antithesis pranksterism shows a complete lack of understanding of human nature and reality.

I think that your non-concern around pranksterism shows a complete lack of understanding of YouTube

Regardless, just because you can't conceive of a reason for someone to do something, doesn't mean there isn't one; This is the quintessential idea behind an Argument From Ignorance. This why it could be that someone is playing an elaborate prank on you - but also why it's unlikely because just coming up with a plausible motive or prior examples of situational similarities does not constitute evidence.

Scientists are conditioned from a young age to regurgitate what their teachers and society tells them to on command without question

When it comes to scientific theories, laws, and some other things which scientists overwhelmingly accept, sure. But those things aren't 'regurgitated' for no good reason, it's because it's consistent with all the data that exists. When it comes to a field where there isn't quite as many theories or generally-accepted truths like the study of pharmaceuticals, the presentation of new data contradicting the old is even more welcomed.

This brings me to something I hadn't thought about before, the FDA, and studies released in medical journals, have absolutely no problem listing off the negative findings of other drugs. Unlike what the commercials you see on TV would have you believe, negative information is released on name brand drugs all the time. They're always finding new side effects, when the drug actually gives you bad side effects. If the FDA is colluding with Big Pharma, you'd think covering up the horribleness of their own drugs would be even more of a priority of covering up the horribleness of caffeine, a substance you claim is having its studies jack up for the beneficial corollaries it has on the sale of those name brand drugs; It would probably just be easier to take this level of skill and advance reasoning they have and apply it directly to the drugs they're trying to market. Maybe they need to find new PR?

Motivation is part of the equation, opportunity, historical precedents, their claims conflicting with common sense, the experiences and inferences of many people and the alt community,.

All that stuff is great and all, but unless that precedence, opportunity, and motive can coupled with a method to actually show what's happening now is the same deal, it has as much credibility as any other possibility. That is to say, it's as likely as anything else that's conceivable. Which is everything.

Have you ever thought that all that data from the 'alt-community' is just wrong, and as easily debunkable as in the case with 'Dr' Cherniske? Or it just means that the FDA is dumb, not colluding in a grand conspiracy caffeine companies?

Of course it's occurring

You think that the government is actually run by a secret cult of individuals, and not our president?

Let's just momentarily agree for the sake of argument in this particular instance we don't know how bad coffee is, because that's what we're trying to prove here, how bad coffee is.

Well no, we're discussing the logic of assuming a motive against what it transparently seems they're trying to do with it.

now, if the FDA sets a limit, that doesn't mean anything, it's not evidence of benevolence or malevolence.

You would have to assume it's a good limit in order for it to be a considered a benevolent act, and then yes, the more benevolent acts someone does for you, the more likely they care for you, but then conversely, the more malevolent individuals, institutions and the system itself have been in the past towards you, the more likely they're being malevolent towards you now

It's not about automatically assuming whether it's benevolence or malevolence just because they say so, but going with the thing that requires the least amount of harmonization. I mean, it's called a 'harmonization' for a reason, it's a counter-explanation to the most immediate logically deduced and apparent conclusion that can be made.

You can mumble away about it being 'bad' evidence all you want, but there needs to be a way to distinguish a better answer to avoid an infinite regression of harmonizations, because as explained, any shred of data can be counter-objected to using the exact same line of thinking that you are. If you don't accept this most basic practice of Occam's Razor, than nothing has evidence.

It's not hard

I would just need some actual, contrary evidence before I did resort to such a harmonization.

Let's take the shark one.

You don't need to take any of them, because the point is they all make a bunk conclusion; The likely hood of those things happening to you isn't dependent simply on where you live, but what you do in where you live; Context is important, it needs to be used in conjunction with the numbers to determine value when you attempt to apply something like an equation to reality. You cannot just take them in an absolute vacuum.

So no, it doesn't help to support your conclusion that "the 10th" institution is also corrupt.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:34 am I don't need a single study to prove to myself 10-20 cups of coffee or even 5 is going to up the odds of you getting into a car accident, anymore than I need a study to tell me fat people tend to be more insecure, but take a look at this anyway:

Like I've been saying, I don't doubt that 20 cups (funny that you keep upping the hypothetical dosage) would increase someone's chance of getting into a car accident if they did just, but I don't think that many, if any, are doing just that.

From just skimming over it real quick, the ironic thing about that article you just linked to, is that it doesn't actually support what you say it plainly does; It doesn't actually make any sort of conclusion on caffeinated driving. What it does do, is say that people who consume energy drinks, a product with far more than just caffeine in it, may increase the chance of developing a traumatic brain injury, which presumable, is what they mean increases your chance for a car accident.

"The National Safety Commission" did say they issued a warning specifically about drinking energy drinks while driving, but that claim seems to be pretty unfounded, since no source backing that concern was given.

@Suck

Like I've been saying, I don't doubt that 20 cups (funny that you keep upping the hypothetical dosage) would increase someone's chance of getting into a car accident if they did just, but I don't think that many, if any, are doing just that.

No, you haven't been saying that, this is backpedaling.
If you don't doubt 20 cups can do that, then you don't doubt penguins can fly and breath fire, or whatever silly thing you said.

Life's a spectrum, sometimes the spectrum is rougher/smoother than others, but it's basically a spectrum.
Anything over about 4 cups of coffee is intoxication, and so having a little over this limit is going to make you a little more debilitated, and more likely to make poor decisions on the road and elsewhere, and having a lot of over this limit is going to make you a lot more debilitated.
For sensitive persons or persons not used to the drug, 5 cups could feel like 10 or 20, or for long term (ab)users who's caffeine addiction is catching up with their mind/body.

Right, there's a problem with people consuming energy drinks and jumping into cars, but not a problem with people consuming loads of coffee and jumping into cars, apparently people who consume coffee don't drive much at all, and apparently don't abuse it much at all, it's as rare as an eclipse or a blue moon.

From just skimming over it real quick, the ironic thing about that article you just linked to, is that it doesn't actually support what you say it plainly does; It doesn't actually make any sort of conclusion on caffeinated driving. What it does do, is say that people who consume energy drinks, a product with far more than just caffeine in it, may increase the chance of developing a traumatic brain injury, which presumable, is what they mean increases your chance for a car accident.

The article is divided into three parts, the first part deals with different studies than the third, and has nothing to do with brain hemorrhages.

Here's what's in a redbull:

http://energydrink-us.redbull.com/en/in ... s-red-bull

The only stimulants in it are caffeine and sugar, most people take coffee with cream and sugar anyway, and most people who go to franchises like Starbucks take loads of sugar.

"The National Safety Commission" did say they issued a warning specifically about drinking energy drinks while driving, but that claim seems to be pretty unfounded, since no source backing that concern was given.

http://alerts.nationalsafetycommission. ... ng-car.php

@Suck

If you put the average "drug" in your mouth, what you're tasting is not the drug within the pill itself, but the cutting and extraction agent, magnesium phosphate, and other ingredients that was used to make the pill. Even in practice, your experiment wouldn't be reliable.

That's like saying canned, dried, jarred and juiced fruits and veg NEVER taste ANYTHING like themselves cause of all the additives and/or processes they've been through, which we know isn't the case.
In at least some instances they're going to taste something like themselves.
But yea, there's other stuff in there that's not drugs, and if that stuff tasted bad, than we probably shouldn't be eating much of that stuff either.

Needless to say, coffee tastes amazing, and is exactly why it's continued to popularize over the past few centuries. It's a clear counter-example to this very broad, and strange, brush stroke you're making that "ALL DRUGS TATSTE ICKY".

Black coffee doesn't taste good to kids or anyone not a coffee addict.
Alcohol, chocolate and spices don't either.

I don't know, I liked the smell of tobacco before I even ever tried it. I've never smoked pot, and I like the smell of that as well; I really don't see why you're so insistent on making this point that our "instincts are against it"; It's clearly not always true, to our closest animal relatives or us, and that's not to say our instincts are even right about this.

Tobacco is laced with all sorts of things to make it more aesthetically appealing.
As for marijuana, while it can smell good, you would never eat it for its flavor.
And you would never smoke either of them or anything for smoking's sake.

Often times, instincts are wrong. So I think you need to rethink this, and whether you're just making up these ridiculous arguments and hypothetical experiments as you go along as an attempt to strengthen your case on drugs in general. A "baby spitting shit up" is not a cogent or scientifically reliable experiment, and it sounds extremely ridiculous to use as one. It's absurd, demonstrably wrong, and obviously so, and you need to stop. Focus on what actually matters to you.

While I wouldn't say trust your instincts 100%, it's still a point against drugs.

Regardless, just because you can't conceive of a reason for someone to do something, doesn't mean there isn't one; This is the quintessential idea behind an Argument From Ignorance. This why it could be that someone is playing an elaborate prank on you - but also why it's unlikely because just coming up with a plausible motive or prior examples of situational similarities does not constitute evidence.

I deal primarily with what I know, and the blanks I can reasonably partly or fully fill with what I know.
I think you're conflating reasonable inferences with just making shit up, one of your major epistemic weaknesses.

Yes it does constitute evidence, that's how psychology works, we make predictions about what individuals are going to think and do based on prior instances of their behavior, and based on prior instances of other peoples behavior, the same principles can be essentially applied to institutions.
We use the past, to make judgments about the future, particulars to make predictions about the general and vice versa.

For example if I haven't interacted with x dog, based on my prior experiences of other dogs, I can make some reasonable predictions about what it'll do, especially if the other dogs were the same subspecies, and were raised and reared in the same or similar environments and so on, the more you have to go on, the stronger the prediction.
Nothing's 100%, there are no FACTS, at no point can you be ABSOLUTELY sure what this or that will do, ever, it doesn't matter how many studies you conduct, there could always be something different this time around that'll completely change the outcome, but certain causes tend to have certain effects and vice versa.

When it comes to scientific theories, laws, and some other things which scientists overwhelmingly accept, sure. But those things aren't 'regurgitated' for no good reason, it's because it's consistent with all the data that exists. When it comes to a field where there isn't quite as many theories or generally-accepted truths like the study of pharmaceuticals, the presentation of new data contradicting the old is even more welcomed.

It's up to each individual themselves to determine what's consistent or inconsistent.
If someone's never allowed to question anything he's being taught, it's just brainwashing.
He has no reason to trust much of it, he has no reason to believe the thousands of scientists that came before him meticulously and rigorously checked the model and found nothing wrong with it, anymore than he has reason to believe the thousands of theologians that came before him meticulously and rigorously checked their model and found nothing wrong with it.

Furthermore, by the time he's permitted to question, his mind has already been conditioned not to, and most mental development takes place during formative years.

Have you ever thought that all that data from the 'alt-community' is just wrong, and as easily debunkable as in the case with 'Dr' Cherniske? Or it just means that the FDA is dumb, not colluding in a grand conspiracy caffeine companies?

Nothing is 100%, the more different factions of the alt community say the same thing, independently of whatever products they're pushing, the more internally consistent with itself and externally consistent with what can be verified by anyone it is, the more I'm inclined to believe it.

And I'm sure scientists never, ever receive funding from big coffee, skewing their results.
Again, we can talk at length about how big the bias is, but there's definitely a coffee bias, for all the reasons I've mentioned and probably more.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:34 pm

duszek wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:36 pm 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. ...

People feel under the weather in part because of coffee.
Coffee rousing people more than their body is naturally inclined can harm it in the long.
People often get a more shallow sleep than they otherwise would, and experience withdrawals the next day, thus coffee causes or amplifies the problems it temporarily alleviates.
The body tends to wear down from over-stimulation, and gradually overtime, the withdrawals worsen, and soon you're taking the drug just to feel normal, nevermind get an extra boost.
If you want an extra lift you're going to have to take increasingly higher doses which'll cause even more side/negative effects.

If you're looking for an extra boost, you can take more time out to eat better and drink more water.
Eat some fruits, or drink some juice or eat some honey, these things'll give you some pep with no-fewer repercussions.
Some people take supplements, but myself I don't.

I cannot agree more.
What seems to work for my blood circulation also is chili.
Only today I am ready to add Yorkshire humour, as displayed by Mr. Harbal.
It would be good to know what he eats and drinks.

What puzzles me a little is your name "Goominary".
Your diet does not make you gloomy, I hope ?

Jeez...drink it, don't drink it...no body 'cept nosey little turds give a shit one way or the other.

Some one -- please -- kill this friggin' thread.

duszek wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:21 pm

Gloominary wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:34 pm

duszek wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:36 pm 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. ...

People feel under the weather in part because of coffee.
Coffee rousing people more than their body is naturally inclined can harm it in the long.
People often get a more shallow sleep than they otherwise would, and experience withdrawals the next day, thus coffee causes or amplifies the problems it temporarily alleviates.
The body tends to wear down from over-stimulation, and gradually overtime, the withdrawals worsen, and soon you're taking the drug just to feel normal, nevermind get an extra boost.
If you want an extra lift you're going to have to take increasingly higher doses which'll cause even more side/negative effects.

If you're looking for an extra boost, you can take more time out to eat better and drink more water.
Eat some fruits, or drink some juice or eat some honey, these things'll give you some pep with no-fewer repercussions.
Some people take supplements, but myself I don't.

I cannot agree more.
What seems to work for my blood circulation also is chili.
Only today I am ready to add Yorkshire humour, as displayed by Mr. Harbal.
It would be good to know what he eats and drinks.

What puzzles me a little is your name "Goominary".
Your diet does not make you gloomy, I hope ?

Sobriety puts you more in touch with the real world, which can be gloomy at times.
But the more we're in touch with reality, the more we can prepare for it.
Most of the time I feel fine, moreover I feel stable, where as caffeine user's moods and emotions tend to fluctuate, and are often embellished, exaggerated.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:13 pm Jeez...drink it, don't drink it...no body 'cept nosey little turds give a shit one way or the other.

Some one -- please -- kill this friggin' thread.

I feel your pain.

Mr. Gloominary:

Can you recommend any ways of improving one´s mood without any substances ?

Do you meditate ?

I would say anything that gets you out of your head and improves your health can help.
Meditation can help, so can physical activity, whether it's going for a walk, jog, hike or playing a sport.
Finding a cause, hobby or interest can help, something you're good at and enjoy, or if you already have one, do more of it, anything that makes you feel creative and gives your life meaning.
Sometimes it's good to shake things up, be spontaneous, if you never go to say an art gallery or museum, try that.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:53 pm where as caffeine user's moods and emotions tend to fluctuate, and are often embellished, exaggerated.

Have you ever tried coffee, (real coffee with caffeine) or are you just repeating what you have been told.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:54 amNo, you haven't been saying that, this is backpedaling.

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.

Anything over about 4 cups of coffee is intoxication

Prove it.

apparently people who consume coffee don't drive much at all

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.

The only stimulants in it are caffeine and sugar, most people take coffee with cream and sugar anyway, and most people who go to franchises like Starbucks take loads of sugar.

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.

http://alerts.nationalsafetycommission. ... ng-car.php

"There's not a whole lot of information on the risks of high energy drinks and driving"; An exact quote verbatim from this page.

While I do give you props for attempting to back up your statements for once with an actual source, this is not actually a study which gives you any kind of metric number on how many car accidents can be blamed on energy drink usage. In fact, it's not a study at all. What it does, is list off potential side effects that energy drinks may give you, and stipulate that it could present itself as a problem, and not establishing that it is one which occurs commonly in our world. In other words, not much different than what you have saying all along. Not different at all, really.

...Moreover, the National Safety Commission is a government organization, which I thought you didn't trust?

Gloominary wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:58 amThat's like saying canned, dried, jarred and juiced fruits and veg NEVER taste ANYTHING like themselves cause of all the additives and/or processes they've been through, which we know isn't the case.
In at least some instances they're going to taste something like themselves.
But yea, there's other stuff in there that's not drugs, and if that stuff tasted bad, than we probably shouldn't be eating much of that stuff either.

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.

"My 2 year old daughter spits out broccoli and doesn't like unflavored water, therefore these things must be bad for you"

Grade-A logic, sir.

Black coffee doesn't taste good to kids or anyone not a coffee addict.
Alcohol, chocolate and spices don't either.

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.

So now we're going after spices and chocolate too? I think that's an even harder step to take, if you're trying to make this case that they objectively and evolutionarily don't taste good, and our instincts demand that they don't. Unlike coffee, they don't have any psychotropic effect that can be measured to any considerable degree.

I still don't get why you're so sure our instincts even need to be against them. What makes you think that they do? Are you able to prove it? What is the evidence that our instincts are really as in-tact as you suggest?

Tobacco is laced with all sorts of things to make it more aesthetically appealing.

The raw prepackaged tobacco, though I guess still cured and dried, smells even better to me, and is what I preferred to use.

I think you're conflating reasonable inferences with just making shit up

I think you conflate the implementation of 'reasonable inference' with shit that can be made up; Just because something is conceivable, doesn't mean that it's true. Stacy's mom could have a motivation to actually go on a meth run when she says she's just going to the pet store to get some cat-food, and she secretly runs this city living her double life as a drug kingpin. I mean, excuses have been made by drug addicts before, and kingpins have existed, so even though there's not even any evidence for it - why not?

Yes it does constitute evidence, that's how psychology works, we make predictions about what individuals are going to think and do based on prior instances of their behavior

So, it's safe to assume stacy's mom is a drug kingpin, based on the fact that there have been kingpins in the past, and her 'prior instances of behavior' suggests a secret double life, because it can be alternatively explained as such?

You need to realize that without a more external criteria than the one you provide, literally anything could be evidence for anything because a countless number prior examples in history have happened - 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. Unless you can show how it absolutely couldn't be that, it means just as much as a conceived motivation, which is nothing.

For example if I haven't interacted with x dog, based on my prior experiences of other dogs, I can make some reasonable predictions about what it'll do, especially if the other dogs were the same subspecies

You already know that this dog example works for you, so you're proposing a scenario where you already know you're right in order to also show that you're correct in this case; That's pretty fallacious. It's not that probability-like equations and generalization can never be made for reality, because it can in the right context. It's not being used correctly in this case, anymore than it is in assuming stacy's mom is secretly a drug kingpin, where there's no evidence or way to confirm that generalization is correct.

It's up to each individual themselves to determine what's consistent or inconsistent.

Oh yeah, "nothing is really logical, the laws of thought are wrong, and everyone's opinion is equally correct"

Except no. We have external reasoning techniques to determine if someone's views are total horse shit, and if that person is a total joke of a human being. Case in point.

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.

Nothing is 100%, the more different factions of the alt community say the same thing, independently of whatever products they're pushing, the more internally consistent with itself and externally consistent with what can be verified by anyone it is, the more I'm inclined to believe it.

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? Interesting. 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'. 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.

Except, that would be equally as fallacious and dumb on my part, and I'm just making a point

If "Dr" Stephen Cherniske is any constellation about the supposed "consistency" you claim of the 'alt-community', than they're just consistently wrong.

And I'm sure scientists never, ever receive funding from big coffee, skewing their results.

This isn't even about 'big coffee', whatever that even means, because caffeine is in so much more than just that.

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.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:42 pmYou yourself admitted you know or knew people who caffeinated themselves into an anxiety attack

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.

So we know millions of people abuse coffee and occasionally get into panic attacks on the road

"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"

Do you still not see the issue in assuming problematic stats that may or may not exist, simply on the basis that it's used by a lot of people?

The comparison to overdosing on water is asinine.

Hey now, I'm just doing what you're doing, and assuming that it happens because so many people do it.

coffee tricks the (central) nervous system into always wanting more.

Prove it.

Three, nobody knows anyone who gets intoxicated on water, except a couple of really dumb kids once in a while or people who're severely intoxicated on something else, where as we know adults get intoxicated on coffee all the time, and drive.

Nobody knows any adults who get so 'intoxicated' on coffee that they get into car accidents, either.

It's just absolutely ludicrous you make me waste my time and energy having to explain this stuff to you.

I think it's absolutely ludicrous you make me waste my time and energy having to explain why non-guaranteed consequences can't just be granted as something that happens based off a high number of something else.

there's also severe caffeine withdrawal.

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.

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"

Then the data is probably just partly biased, corrupt and/or just negligent

Or, it means that you're incorrect. For the same reason you shouldn't be too surprised that not many individuals are likely pouring coffee into their eyeballs, in spite of the fact that so many use it.

Of course energy drinks are worse than caffeine, 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 panic attack 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.

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.

It's not that I don't trust government completely, I have no reason to doubt them here, cause they're making a claim that goes against the money, not with it.

You pick and choose when it coincides with your beliefs that haven't even been proven, you mean?

Why does it smell like something has been deleted?