EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration

[Coito ergo sum]

I have no interest in talking with people who ignore the largest financial crisis since before the Great Depression in order to avoid tainting their argument.

Whatever. You're not arguing anyway.

This is a thread about bottled water, labeling thereof, and dehydration. You think that Gramm Leach Bliley repealing part of the Glass Steagall Act 14 years ago has some relevance to this argument?

You seem to think that because we have a huge financial crisis that it must mean that whatever the EU is doing in terms of labeling bottled water must be a wonderful regulatory endeavor. If that is your argument, as it seems to be, then I've already typed much more than is needed to rebut you. You've done yourself in.

[Schneibster]

I have no interest in talking with people who ignore the largest financial crisis since before the Great Depression in order to avoid tainting their argument.

Whatever. You're not arguing anyway.

I was until you started ignoring reality.

[Coito ergo sum]

I have no interest in talking with people who ignore the largest financial crisis since before the Great Depression in order to avoid tainting their argument.

See, I told you, the moment that Schneibster is called on his own lies and bullshit

So there was no financial crisis in 2008?

OK.

Oh, there was, and a huge one.

Neither that, nor Glass Steagell/Graham Leach Bliley have anything much to do with the EU banning claims that water can prevent dehydration.

Your argument: There was deregulation somewhere (proof = repeal of Glass Steagall); that had some blame in the huge financial crisis; therefore, the EU's time and energy in banning claims that water can prevent dehydration is government resources well spent.

Well done sir. Well done.

[Coito ergo sum]

I have no interest in talking with people who ignore the largest financial crisis since before the Great Depression in order to avoid tainting their argument.

Whatever. You're not arguing anyway.

I was until you started ignoring reality.

What's your problem, friend?

I haven't ignored reality.

Was there a Glass Steagall Act? Of course.

Was a lot of it repealed by Graham Leach Bliley? Sure, especially that bit noted above about the separation of different facets of the financial sector.

Was that a bad thing, ultimately? I think that's debatable, but I believe, based on what I know about it, that the repeal of Glass Steagall helped bring about the financial crisis, among other things. So, I think you and I are in agreement there.

What I dispute, however, is that we had "deregulation" in general, overall - we had "different regulation," and overall the number and intrusiveness of regulations in our economy has increased every year for the last 50+ years.

Also, I dispute that Glass Steagall, its repeal, or "deregulation" (whether or not we've actually had an overall deregulation in the US) has fuck all to do with the EU banning water claims on bottled water.

You appear to think there is a connection. I invite you to state your argument in some semblance of a logical form. If you care to, fine. If not, fine. But, I think everyone reading your last few posts is a bit puzzled by what the fuck you're even saying.

[Schneibster]

I have no interest in talking with people who ignore the largest financial crisis since before the Great Depression in order to avoid tainting their argument.

Whatever. You're not arguing anyway.

I was until you started ignoring reality.

What's your problem, friend?

I haven't ignored reality.

You wrote this after your post above?

OK.

What was the point of this?

[Schneibster]

I have no interest in talking with people who ignore the largest financial crisis since before the Great Depression in order to avoid tainting their argument.

See, I told you, the moment that Schneibster is called on his own lies and bullshit

So there was no financial crisis in 2008?

OK.

Oh, there was, and a huge one.

Neither that, nor Glass Steagell/Graham Leach Bliley have anything much to do with the EU banning claims that water can prevent dehydration.

We're talking about deregulation (of advertising). My point was we already tried that (Graham-Leach-Bliley). It was a disaster (2008 financial crisis).

Therefore Libertardian arguments blaming regulations are in general bullshit and need to be viewed extremely critically considering the catastrophe they caused last time.

I deleted the part where you used logical fallacies to draw an incorrect conclusion. Hope that's OK.

[Coito ergo sum]

I have no interest in talking with people who ignore the largest financial crisis since before the Great Depression in order to avoid tainting their argument.

Whatever. You're not arguing anyway.

I was until you started ignoring reality.

What's your problem, friend?

I haven't ignored reality.

You wrote this after your post above?

OK.

What was the point of this?

Honestly, I don't even know what you are talking about.

You brought up deregulation and Glass Steagall. What's that have to do with it?

[Schneibster]

I have no interest in talking with people who ignore the largest financial crisis since before the Great Depression in order to avoid tainting their argument.

See, I told you, the moment that Schneibster is called on his own lies and bullshit

So there was no financial crisis in 2008?

OK.

Oh, there was, and a huge one.

Neither that, nor Glass Steagell/Graham Leach Bliley have anything much to do with the EU banning claims that water can prevent dehydration.

We're talking about deregulation (of advertising). My point was we already tried that (Graham-Leach-Bliley). It was a disaster (2008 financial crisis).

Therefore Libertardian arguments blaming regulations are in general bullshit and need to be viewed extremely critically considering the catastrophe they caused last time.

I deleted the part where you used logical fallacies to draw an incorrect conclusion. Hope that's OK.

Maybe you didn't notice.

[Svartalf]

Take a chill pill or get a room you two, you are ruining what used to be a perfectly good thread.

[Schneibster]

Snicker.

[Coito ergo sum]

I have no interest in talking with people who ignore the largest financial crisis since before the Great Depression in order to avoid tainting their argument.

See, I told you, the moment that Schneibster is called on his own lies and bullshit

So there was no financial crisis in 2008?

OK.

Oh, there was, and a huge one.

Neither that, nor Glass Steagell/Graham Leach Bliley have anything much to do with the EU banning claims that water can prevent dehydration.

We're talking about deregulation (of advertising).

We're talking about whether it's a waste of time and money to have a government bother about a claim that water can prevent dehydration. THAT regulation is fucking stupid.

We're not talking about deregulation, because "not regulating" a particular activity, or "not criminalizing" a particular set of words on a label is not "deregulation." Deregulation is when you take a regulated industry and then make it no longer subject to regulation anymore (or dramatically reduced regulatory requirements) That's got fuck all to do with the topic at hand.

My point was we already tried that (Graham-Leach-Bliley). It was a disaster (2008 financial crisis).

That's not what is going on in the water bottle thing. The government still has the power to regulate product labeling and does. We're just talking about whether it's a good idea for them specifically to ban the claim that water can prevent dehydration. Nobody has made the claim that there should be no regulation of labeling at all.

Therefore Libertardian arguments blaming regulations are in general bullshit and need to be viewed extremely critically considering the catastrophe they caused last time.

This is a red herring. "The last time?" That's not "the last time." There have been many instances throughout the history of legislation in the US where regulatory requirements have gone up and down in different industries. Grabbing one example that was a bad idea doesn't say fuck all about whether regulations are always good or always bad. They're not always good or always bad, and nobody made the argument that there should be ANY regulation - the argument I made is that this fucking stupid effort to protect people from the oh-so-dangerous claim that water helps with dehydration.

I deleted the part where you used logical fallacies to draw an incorrect conclusion. Hope that's OK.

From your post? That would take most of what you wrote out.

[Coito ergo sum]

Take a chill pill or get a room you two, you are ruining what used to be a perfectly good thread.

Your argument fails because of Glass Steagall. Very sound argument.

[Svartalf]

I don't know... just what kind of blue? cheese appellations are so heavily regulated these dayes

[Seth]

I think everyone reading your last few posts is a bit puzzled by what the fuck you're even saying.

Understatement of the year!

[JimC]

Leaving aside the issue about whether claims of that nature should be regulated, or whether they are technically true, such attempts at manipulating the consumer into buying uneccessary products piss me off. Sure, you can always argue that the gullible deserve to be parted from their money if the method has a veneer of legality, but that doesn't stop it being appallingly obnoxious.

A pox on all advertising men, and their rabid desire to make a buck by manipulating the minds of others. Arseholes the lot of 'em.