Punk rockers/anarchists and Libertarians, what is the difference?

[Mayhem]

Nope, I pointed to the smaller distilleries opposing it.

Try and keep up.

Oh, and it's not marketing.

And the circle begins again. Stop lying, you linked to an article, nothing else. It was an article that god knows who wrote for whatever reason. Considering you obviously never researched shit, the article might as well was sponsored by Diageo.

Don't blame me, because you called it marketing.

What is it then? Don't answer, everyone knows what's coming.

[Ivanstone]

So, you cannot say they are falsely advertising and lying, because the very entity you are defending for pushing implementing this legislation says so. So, now you want to go after the little guy, again? Damn, you really want Jack Daniels to control everything, don't you?

From a purely legal stand point they are in the clear. However, you keep on whining about harmful but legally correct regulation.

The reality is this:
Jack Daniels pushed for a consumer friendly regulation. Their motives might have been selfish but their motives aren't relevant because of the results.
Benjamin Prichards pushed for a special exemption for themselves and themselves alone. Its both selfish and harmful to the consumer. Other regulations at least inhibit them from putting dishsoap in their bottles.
Diageo fought this regulation to further entrench their already massive position in the world whiskey market. They really do want to control everything.

[Mayhem]

Great, then he'll be happy when all those new abortion regulations are finalized!!!

Err, I mean marketing.

Also no, see this is again your black/white thinking. Either you are against all regulations or for all regulations, there's no in-between. That is the thinking of a kindergartener.

[Shadowferal]

Nah, just pointing to the lovely horseshoe in the room.

Lol... C'mon... Say it...corporations and organizations shouldn't say whatever they want... You can do it!

[Machismo]

I'm saying that the reason behind a regulation matters. Not who's pushing it, or their arguments for pushing it.
In your example that's dominated this thread for ten pages big corportations were on both sides. Small independents on both sides. One independent got an exception that I personally think they probably shouldn't have gained. Could have branded themselves as something new instead.

You pushing abortion regulations here is just crazy and stupid. All of the type of regulation here are made to make abortions harder to impossible to get. A thing that does cause harm, pushed by dishonest argumentation and claims they "care for the children".
Meanwhile, a regulation that puts specificity behind a label is good for the market.
Which is why I keep bringing up Champagne. Without the protected nature of that label most champagne would be far cheaper than it is.
Your actions are absolutely in a position where you thought you were on to an easy win, and missfired. But feel to entrenched to admit that fact. Since you are only throwing stones inside of your glass house instead of actually engaging with any substantial rebuttals.

Well, the people pushing the abortion restrictions swear it is to protect the patient. According to the people pushing it, it's to make sure abortions are safe, and patients are properly informed. And guess what, they likely have the SCTUS judges to get them passed.

In the case of this whiskey regulation, it was for JD to gain a competitive advantage. I was told that the motives behind it didn't matter. You guys should get together to make sure you are arguing the same thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol... C'mon... Say it...corporations and organizations shouldn't say whatever they want... You can do it!

Why would I say that?

- - - Updated - - -

Also no, see this is again your black/white thinking. Either you are against all regulations or for all regulations, there's no in-between. That is the thinking of a kindergartener.

I thought people wanted consumer protections!!!

[Shadowferal]

Why would I say that?

Freedom of speech...damn you can't even remember your own arguments! Lmao

[Machismo]

From a purely legal stand point they are in the clear. However, you keep on whining about harmful but legally correct regulation.

The reality is this:
Jack Daniels pushed for a consumer friendly regulation. Their motives might have been selfish but their motives aren't relevant because of the results.
Benjamin Prichards pushed for a special exemption for themselves and themselves alone. Its both selfish and harmful to the consumer. Other regulations at least inhibit them from putting dishsoap in their bottles.
Diageo fought this regulation to further entrench their already massive position in the world whiskey market. They really do want to control everything.

From an entirely legal stand point, the people pushing abortion regulations are likely in the clear moving forward.

I'm arguing against any government action that punishes/restricts an action that does not cause harm.

Those folks are just pushing consumer-friendly protections, they swear. Their motives aren't relevant. Oh, and on that note, if you are arguing that JD's motive are irrelevant, then you'd also have to argue that Diageo's motives are irrelevant. So, is that your new argument?

- - - Updated - - -

Freedom of speech...damn you can't even remember your own arguments! Lmao

I didn't... so this seems like you lying and shitposting.

[Mayhem]

I thought people wanted consumer protections!!!

Yes, and everyone including you knows those regulations about abortion clinics aren't consumer protection. Don't play stupid. I am saying stop with the black and white thinking and you counter with a black and white argument. This is bordering insanity.

[Shadowferal]

I didn't... so this seems like you lying and shitposting.

I'm sure you have a very selective memory.
Everyone posting in this thtead is likely convinced.
You? Pfft..

[Ivanstone]

Which is why I keep bringing up Champagne. Without the protected nature of that label most champagne would be far cheaper than it is.

Champagne uses a lot of things that might only be available in Champagne. Or not. I'm fine with its protected status regardless because the beverage did originate there.

I brought up Parmessan Cheese specifically because you literally can't make the stuff outside of Parma. The process involves three specific kinds of bacteria that only live in the Parma region's plants. The cows graze and take in that bacteria and put it in their milk. Those bacteria have a special interaction during the aging process. Best you can do is approximate the same process.

[Machismo]

Yes, and everyone including you knows those regulations about abortion clinics aren't consumer protection. Don't play stupid. I am saying stop with the black and white thinking and you counter with a black and white argument. This is bordering insanity.

Not according to the people pushing those consumer protections. They swear it's to protect the patient. I also don't believe JD about their motives, either. I tend not to believe the motives of anyone trying to use force over others.

And, as another poster put it, their motives are irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure you have a very selective memory.
Everyone posting in this thtead is likely convinced.
You? Pfft..

I mean... it's your claim.

[Shadowferal]

Don't play stupid. I am saying stop with the black and white thinking and you counter with a black and white argument. This is bordering insanity.

You think he's playing stupid? Look at his arguments... He's not keeping track of what he's posting anymore.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean... it's your claim.

One I'm certain of.

[Machismo]

You think he's playing stupid? Look at his arguments... He's not keeping track of what he's posting anymore.

- - - Updated - - -

One I'm certain of.

Great, evidence please.

[Muzjhath]

Champagne uses a lot of things that might only be available in Champagne. Or not. I'm fine with its protected status regardless because the beverage did originate there.

I brought up Parmessan Cheese specifically because you literally can't make the stuff outside of Parma. The process involves three specific kinds of bacteria that only live in the Parma region's plants. The cows graze and take in that bacteria and put it in their milk. Those bacteria have a special interaction during the aging process. Best you can do is approximate the same process.

I've brought up Champagne, Parmessan, Parma Ham, Islay Whiskey, Feta Cheese. As examples of the same type of deal as this regulation. Wondering what his thoughts on them are. Some of those laws are old, some are modern.
I also bought up the repeal of a regulation that was actively harmful (repealing it was harmful), which he also was quiet on. Even if I'm sure he was on the side that wanted it repealed based on practically all his old posts about freedom of markets.

[bladeXcrasher]

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?

So you aren't going to answer the question? I'll just take that as an admission of defeat. Thanks for admitting you're wrong.

[Shadowferal]

Great, evidence please.

Already in the thread... (That's what you post when someone asks for proof.) Everyone else is convinced. You however don't rate.

[Ivanstone]

I'm arguing against any government action that punishes/restricts an action that does not cause harm.

Those folks are just pushing consumer-friendly protections, they swear. Their motives aren't relevant. Oh, and on that note, if you are arguing that JD's motive are irrelevant, then you'd also have to argue that Diageo's motives are irrelevant. So, is that your new argument?

This is a shitty example of that.

Diageo's motivations are quite relevant. They actively sought to harm the consumer and the competition. Its always good to know why.

JD on the other hand could've been entirely selfish in their actions but the consumer received a benefit. We'll just except this as a bit of quid-pro-quo.

Since you're really, really upset by your poor choices in life I'll give you a homework assignment that might make you feel better. There are other benefactors to this arrangement:
Corn Producers
Maple and Oak Wood Producers
Oak Barrel Coopers
I couldn't find anything on the latter but you're welcome to try!

[Mayhem]

Not according to the people pushing those consumer protections. They swear it's to protect the patient. I also don't believe JD about their motives, either. I tend not to believe the motives of anyone trying to use force over others.

Funny because you're constantly trying to force your argument and line of thinking onto others. People tell you the motives are irrelevant what counts is the outcome and you counter with "but their motives!". You are unable to comprehend the simplest sentences.

And, as another poster put it, their motives are irrelevant.

The motives are irrelevant. Stop thinking that if people here have no problem with one regulation they can't have a problem with all regulations.

[Machismo]

So you aren't going to answer the question? I'll just take that as an admission of defeat. Thanks for admitting you're wrong.

it was a stupid fucking question.

- - - Updated - - -

Already in the thread... (That's what you post when someone asks for proof.) Everyone else is convinced. You however don't rate.

What can bet asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a shitty example of that.

Diageo's motivations are quite relevant. They actively sought to harm the consumer and the competition. Its always good to know why.

JD on the other hand could've been entirely selfish in their actions but the consumer received a benefit. We'll just except this as a bit of quid-pro-quo.

Since you're really, really upset by your poor choices in life I'll give you a homework assignment that might make you feel better. There are other benefactors to this arrangement:
Corn Producers
Maple and Oak Wood Producers
Oak Barrel Coopers
I couldn't find anything on the latter but you're welcome to try!

There's more of your hypocrisy.

So, just to be clear, the motives of the people pushing abortion regulations are irrelevant, but the motives of those opposed to them are not?

- - - Updated - - -

Funny because you're constantly trying to force your argument and line of thinking onto others. People tell you the motives are irrelevant what counts is the outcome and you counter with "but their motives!". You are unable to comprehend the simplest sentences.



The motives are irrelevant. Stop thinking that if people here have no problem with one regulation they can't have a problem with all regulations.

I'm not using a guy with a gun, and calling it marketing.

if the motives are irrelevant, then the motives of those pushing the abortion restrictions are irrelevant.

[Shadowferal]

What can bet asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

This whole thread has been exemplary of your dismissal of any and all evidence, facts, truth... Whatever you imagine is "logic" isn't compatible with the rest of humanity.