I literally picked this; because it is such a small regulation... to show that compromise should be possible.
Wider hallways are a "consumer protection" aren't they? After all, if there's a complication, a patient should be able to be wheeled out on a stretcher... right? If there are complications, then the doctor should have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital...
I'm sorry, can you explain how those increase consumer confidence in medical abortions? I mean, if you are going to compare a specific distillation process you better compare it to a specific abortion process.
- - - Updated - - -
Because nothing says confidence like requiring pamphlets with misinformation to be handed out to all women seeking an abortion.
Care to point out the issues that prompted those whiskey regulations?
Clearly, those altruistic and concerned folks just wanted to make sure women received the very best health care. I don't see why anyone wouldn't want patients to be as informed and safe as possible.
/s
- - - Updated - - -
Well, women will now be confident that their doctor had admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, in case there's any issues with her care. The wider hallways will make sure that a stretcher can be used if she has any complications. The ultrasound is to make sure she is as informed as possible.
Did I do it right?
- - - Updated - - -
Why do you want a medical clinic that cannot allow for stretchers to properly maneuver to a patient that may need one?
Nice to see Machismo is still shilling for his corporate masters at Diageo. Can't stop or the big guy won't be able to continue their market dominance.
"let's do it"
proceeds with doing nothing but bitching about words he doesn't understand
Did you really type that post and thought "yeah, that'll do, I've shown him! HA!"?
Let us all see how you're again defending the larger corporations against the smaller ones while telling everyone you want to protect small corporations and are in favor of diversity.
Go on, that'll be fun.
Except you're against so many regulations that would. And favour situations where the effect would be what I described. Less government = people with more resources get more personal power. The fact that you seem blind too it (Or think it's their right) is neither here nor there. You keep being blind to the fact that the people who owned the private roads would abuse that fact and cause harm. As a common example. A reason for why broadband ought to be a public utility. Just put down all the cable on the public dole and then let the ISPs supply the end connecting service and network management outside of the house.
You picked a regulation that you thought no one would object to its removal because on one side was a known brand that is a subsidary of Brown-Forman. Clearly aiming for a "look at this regulation that was clearly pushed with an agenda!" Thinking it'd be an easy sell. Missing what the regulation was doing. It was giving status to the sub-header of "Tennesee whisky" to put it on the same sort of level as Champagne or Parmigiano-Reggiano.
A thing that generally helps consumers as they'll better know what they buy. Same as I know what general character of whisky I get if I get an Islay. A fact that you keep missing in all your circles around this. And with the GMO stamp. The consumer having more information on the label is good for everyone but a very few people.
Then some people did use some hyperbolic arguments, but without this kind of protection they aren't far off. Without consumer protecting regulations someone could make vodka, colour it reddish-brown, and sell it as whisky for a premium.
I also brought up the removal of a regulation that corporations pushed for heavily. That then led to a huge recession. And you were silent.
- Lars
Another interesting element about this. DiageoMan raised a stink about new charred oak barrels. He claimed this requirement caused harm (without proof). Here's the kicker: This requirement is superseded by a 1964 US Congress law which requires that American Whiskey (ie Bourbon) be a 51% Corn Mash and be aged in..... new charred oak barrels. There's also a variety of additional regulations that surround this particular act of congress including NAFTA and others.
In the end, consumers just get a more accurate label.
Where did I say vaccines cause autism?
This is one of the consumer protections being pushed by conservatives in red states.
- - - Updated - - -
Great, then 5-foot-wide hallways, mandatory ultrasounds, and admitting privileges are going to be industry standards for abortions.
- - - Updated - - -
I brought up regulation that would be easy to compromise on... but some people don't want to compromise. Just don't expect any compromise when conservatives start pushing more and more abortion regulations.
- - - Updated - - -
I know there's multiple ways to perform abortions, depending largely on the gestation.
- - - Updated - - -
Not necessarily. You did know there's more than one type, right?
I'm defending liberty, try and keep up. And, you'll notice that I was siding with Benjamin Prichards, the smaller distillery.
- - - Updated - - -
Why would I try and convince you?
- - - Updated - - -
I sided with Benjamin Prichards, try and keep up. You brought up Diageo, not me.
Why are you siding with Planned Parenthood over people who just want consumer protections for women?
Except you didn't. You brought up a regulation that you felt looked harmless. And mostly it is. But it benefits consumers as much as producers. And is a very common type of law.
Your issue is that unless the regulation is maliciously put forth. Like your abortion regulations. Most regulations are either forced into being (see fire extingishers and exits). Or good for multiple sides of a situation. The Glass-Steagall Act was a regulation that was pushed in by force. And a regulation I'm sure you hated. Since it stopped the free market.
- Lars
Nope, that's you arguing for me. I pointed to it, because it is an easy one to compromise on, as I pointed out. This was pushed in... by a major corporation.
And that's the problem, people pushing abortion regulations will claim their motives are altruistic, and the courts may very well allow for those regulations to stick.