The EPA - Keeping us breathing since 1970!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

No need to be snarky. PCR testing isn't like a home pregnancy test. Not yet anyway. :bored:

---

I'm not being snarky, I'm being honest.

I think you'll find an increasing and welcome trend towards painless, affordable, idiot-proofed testing. While you might feel better thinking there's a CSI lab running tests on everything you put into your body, it's just not the case.

Quote:

---

You used USDA, a federal regulating agency as an example of a well known and easily understood label, yet you want to get rid of it? Seems the only answer you have is....because it's a government agency. :confused:

---

So, what you are really saying is consumers weren't burdened by the onerous and complicated burden of understanding what the USDA grades on the meat they were purchasing meant, and what it says about the food they are consuming?

Quote:

---

Here's an idea---use that voluntary raw food co-op you advocate, to get your raw milk! I'll bet they'd also have vitamins and supplements not evaluated or approved by the FDA, but can't make false medical claims on the labels.

---

Or I could just enter into a voluntary agreement with a store by exchanging my money for their products! I know, I know, it's a radical idea, but it just might work.

Quote:

---

Using that one example of feds busting a hippie group (that ignored labeling laws for four years) isn't a very good example of a tyrannical gov't out of control. Freedom to buy raw milk is being regulated or limited, not prohibited or banned. Not all federal regulations are bad just because you say so, or feel they are, simply because they're from a gov't. agency.

---

You think this is about labeling laws? Rawesome Foods was a private, members only buying club. These were felony charges leveled against a man for selling raw milk, and you think that these regulations are fair and rational? If the owner is convicted, he can face up to 8 years in prison. 8 years. That's more than many manslaughter convictions.

Better yet, why don't you show me the mountains of sick and dying that this unlicensed, unregulated monster left in his wake. I mean, there has to be at least one dying photogenic baby or something. For a possible 8 year prison sentence there better be.

Quote:

---

Do you believe Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death meant liberty from all/any federal oversight, in exchange for death by dinner?

---

Yes. That's absolutely what I think.

Enoch, CSI lab, huh? :haha: http://www.theworldforgotten.com/sho...ll=1#post95488 :donkey:

USDA, FDA, EPA are well known central agencies, streamlining businesses (and consumer safety) with standard information, consistent across all states. We've all agreed they're not perfect and need improvement. Instead, you want to dismantle them, replaced by....numerous, multiple, voluntary, private consumer groups....the equivalent of " rate this poster :up: :down: "

Why? Because, in general, you believe government restricts someone's freedom and liberty somehow, while also saying libertarians agree that's how civil society works. Using one example of raw milk and one example of inhalers with CFCs, as proof that federal regulations are "bad". Your solution is to advocate law suits, using a branch of government :bulb: to arbitrate Laws instead of Regulations after injury or death. Yet, you're complaining about legal charges against Rawesome Foods before it's even made its way through court. :confused:

Do you really think that would work for the food industry, manufacturing plants, and pharmaceuticals? This IV infusion of chemo has been approved by the Facebook user group Save the Tatas And that's BEST because any/all federal oversight is tantamount to tyranny? Seriously?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Why? Because, in general, you believe government restricts someone's freedom and liberty somehow, while also saying libertarians agree that's how civil society works. Using one example of raw milk and one example of inhalers with CFCs, as proof that federal regulations are "bad". Your solution is to advocate law suits, using a branch of government :mong: to arbitrate Laws instead of Regulations after injury or death. Yet, you're complaining about legal charges against Rawesome Foods before it's even made its way through court. :confused:

---

You are talking as though the restrictions and limitations on freedom and liberty are abstract and nebulous. They are not. I think this is a particularly disingenuous line of reasoning on your part.

A private contract among consenting adults is just that, private, and between adults. I absolutely have a problem with a felony lawsuit where there is no victim, and the crime being committed is selling raw milk as raw milk. Show me the dead and dying GGT. There were no shortage of customers to this place. Surely the dangerous, unregulated markets laughed with scorn and contempt at the sick. Surely they had to step over the dead bodies of their customers to even open up shop. Probably had mass graves on the back forty too.

Quote:

---

Do you really think that would work for the food industry, manufacturing plants, and pharmaceuticals? This IV infusion of chemo has been approved by the Facebook user group Save the Tatas And that's BEST because any/all federal oversight is tantamount to tyranny? Seriously?

---

I surely do. Also, the liberty to die from dinner thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

You are talking as though the restrictions and limitations on freedom and liberty are abstract and nebulous. They are not. I think this is a particularly disingenuous line of reasoning on your part.

---

Defining liberty and freedom also include subjective interpretations, acknowledging that things change and evolve over time. That's why our Constitution is an adaptable and fluid document, allowing for Amendments. Like changing the definition of "man" so black slaves weren't 3/5ths of a person, and women could vote.

Quote:

---

A private contract among consenting adults is just that, private, and between adults. I absolutely have a problem with a felony lawsuit where there is no victim, and the crime being committed is selling raw milk as raw milk. Show me the dead and dying GGT. There were no shortage of customers to this place. Surely the dangerous, unregulated markets laughed with scorn and contempt at the sick. Surely they had to step over the dead bodies of their customers to even open up shop. Probably had mass graves on the back forty too.

I surely do. Also, the liberty to die from dinner thing.

---

You're asking me the wrong question in order to defend your position. :confused: First of all, I'm not sure how you can complain about the lawsuit, when law suits are your chosen method to replace Regulations in the first place. Secondly, you make it sound as if pasteurization wasn't a legitimate health policy from the outset, when people were made quite sick from consuming raw milk. Anything else you want to refute scientifically, like refrigeration, storage, or cross-contamination? How about those mandatory vaccinations that eliminated small pox, and almost eliminated polio, mumps, measles, rubella? Are those on your voluntary list, too?


<<By the way, some of this IS a labeling and information issue, with legal consequences, even if you don't recognize it as such. We still have freeedom for sushi bars serving raw fish, restaurants offering steak tartare or "rare" hamburgers, genuine Caesar salad made with raw eggs, diners serving "dippy eggs" sunnyside up, with runny yolks......as long as people clearly know by labels and disclaimers that what they're ingesting has potential health risks. That "contract" is something large chains like McDonald's decided is part of their risk for serving food to large numbers of the public, and chooses to only serve fully cooked meats and eggs, pasteurized cheese and milk. As recommended by CDC, FDA, USDA.....>>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

You think this is about labeling laws? Rawesome Foods was a private, members only buying club. These were felony charges leveled against a man for selling raw milk, and you think that these regulations are fair and rational? If the owner is convicted, he can face up to 8 years in prison. 8 years. That's more than many manslaughter convictions.

---

Yes, that is retarded and it signals problems both with how you guys approach regulations of industry as well as how you approach eg. manslaughter. I agree with you that it's bad to approach this as a felony. Some of the examples in Dread's thread about mens rea also seem inappropriately categorised as felonies when they may be better treated as summary offences if they have to be treated as crimes at all.

Libertarians would have to first restructure our entire legal process, before dismantling our consumer protections agencies. Pretty sure I said that ages ago....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

You're asking me the wrong question in order to defend your position. :confused: First of all, I'm not sure how you can complain about the lawsuit, when law suits are your chosen method to replace Regulations in the first place. Secondly, you make it sound as if pasteurization wasn't a legitimate health policy from the outset, when people were made quite sick from consuming raw milk. Anything else you want to refute scientifically, like refrigeration, storage, or cross-contamination? How about those mandatory vaccinations that eliminated small pox, and almost eliminated polio, mumps, measles, rubella? Are those on your voluntary list, too?

---

Again, lawsuits require victims. Show me the victims here. Is the state the victim? Or were the people who paid to purchase a membership, (isn't this what you were advocating for anyways?) to the members-only-buying-club that advertised and was known for selling raw milk and raw milk products, the victims of getting exactly what they paid for?

And this is where we get into the hypocrisy. You believe people should be able to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, do illicit drugs, but Glod help them if they want to buy raw milk? Look, I don't purchase, or regularly consume raw milk. I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've drank it. I purchase pasteurized, homogenized, ultra-processed, FDA molested, USDA raped tyranny milk. And I like it! That doesn't mean I believe consenting adults are incapable of making (ir)rational choices, and put whatever substances they want into their own bodies. Up to and including raw milk.

You clearly believe we need protection from ourselves. I don't.

Quote:

---

<<By the way, some of this IS a labeling and information issue, with legal consequences, even if you don't recognize it as such. We still have freeedom for sushi bars serving raw fish, restaurants offering steak tartare or "rare" hamburgers, genuine Caesar salad made with raw eggs, diners serving "dippy eggs" sunnyside up, with runny yolks......as long as people clearly know by labels and disclaimers that what they're ingesting has potential health risks. That "contract" is something large chains like McDonald's decided is part of their risk for serving food to large numbers of the public, and chooses to only serve fully cooked meats and eggs, pasteurized cheese and milk. As recommended by CDC, FDA, USDA.....>>

---

...

RAWesome Foods. Sorry, maybe that wasn't clear: RAWesome Foods.

Now please, show me the deception on the part of the store, the bait and switch, the wailing and gnashing of teeth of their customers. Show me the bodies, the victims, the dead and dying. These are the crazy, money grubbing, price-over-safety kkkapitalists you keep railing about, so surely there's a body count attached, right? Or do you really think they were going out of their way to deceive their customers about their products? Do you really think that members of the private, members-only-buying-club paid the premium for a product they thought thought was pasteurized milk? More importantly, is mislabeling a product a felony offense deserving of 8 years? Please, GGT. This is bordering on the ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

RAWesome Foods. Sorry, maybe that wasn't clear: RAWesome Foods.

Now please, show me the deception on the part of the store, the bait and switch, the wailing and gnashing of teeth of their customers.

---

To be fair their name should have been "Unlicensed Rawesome Foods: raw milk from an unlicensed farm; we won't tell you when our goats were last seen by a vet or when our hygiene was last inspected. Membership may or may not be required"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

To be fair their name should have been "Unlicensed Rawesome Foods: raw milk from an unlicensed farm; we won't tell you when our goats were last seen by a vet or when our hygiene was last inspected. Membership may or may not be required"

---

I'd be fine with that.

I have no doubt you would, but that wasn't the name of their establishment. Unfortunately, no-one cares about the well-being of goats :'(

Of course this may be proven to constitute abuse of power by the county (they seem to have way too much freedom wrt how they deal with this sort of thing).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I'd be fine with that.

---

Not according to what you've posted so far. Even when I mentioned the legal labeling aspect of this. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Again, lawsuits require victims. Show me the victims here. Is the state the victim? Or were the people who paid to purchase a membership, (isn't this what you were advocating for anyways?) to the members-only-buying-club that advertised and was known for selling raw milk and raw milk products, the victims of getting exactly what they paid for?

And this is where we get into the hypocrisy. You believe people should be able to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, do illicit drugs, but Glod help them if they want to buy raw milk? Look, I don't purchase, or regularly consume raw milk. I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've drank it. I purchase pasteurized, homogenized, ultra-processed, FDA molested, USDA raped tyranny milk. And I like it! That doesn't mean I believe consenting adults are incapable of making (ir)rational choices, and put whatever substances they want into their own bodies. Up to and including raw milk.

You clearly believe we need protection from ourselves. I don't.

...

RAWesome Foods. Sorry, maybe that wasn't clear: RAWesome Foods.

Now please, show me the deception on the part of the store, the bait and switch, the wailing and gnashing of teeth of their customers. Show me the bodies, the victims, the dead and dying. These are the crazy, money grubbing, price-over-safety kkkapitalists you keep railing about, so surely there's a body count attached, right? Or do you really think they were going out of their way to deceive their customers about their products? Do you really think that members of the private, members-only-buying-club paid the premium for a product they thought thought was pasteurized milk? More importantly, is mislabeling a product a felony offense deserving of 8 years? Please, GGT. This is bordering on the ridiculous.

---

I don't think I'm the ridiculous one here at all. Rawesome Foods maybe, for not properly labeling their raw milk, or limiting who buys from their voluntary raw milk co-op...for four years long. What's up with that? Same thing would apply to you if you brewed wine in your bathtub, but tried to sell it to the general public who didn't know it was brewed in your damn bathtub. Why would you have a problem with that? :confused:

I gotta tell you though GGT, I don't think that a law that in practice only ends up benefiting lawyers and bureaucrats at the expense of the public (who pays their salaries :o) and single moms... well I don't think that's the ideal. We can support regulation in principle without supporting their misuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Not according to what you've posted so far. Even when I mentioned the legal labeling aspect of this. :confused:

---

I've got no problem with an entity acknowledging it isn't being regulated. Likewise I would have a problem with an entity claiming it has been regulated when it hasn't. You're clearly not understanding.

Quote:

---

I don't think I'm the ridiculous one here at all. Rawesome Foods maybe, for not properly labeling their raw milk, or limiting who buys from their voluntary raw milk co-op...for four years long. What's up with that? Same thing would apply to you if you brewed wine in your bathtub, but tried to sell it to the general public who didn't know it was brewed in your damn bathtub. Why would you have a problem with that? :confused:

---

What part of MEMBERS ONLY CLUB don't you understand? This is like when you were arguing in the discrimination thread that a members only club should be allowed to discriminate, smoke, and do other unhealthy, unwholesome activities by virtue of it not being open to the general public. To even get in the door at Rawesome Foods you had to be a member, or pay a fee for temporary membership pass. This is you own brand of insanity, but it still isn't good enough.

I'm having trouble believing you're being anything other than disingenuous.

I believe one of the allegations was that they occasionally provided the products to non-members as well, although that's just an allegation and I'm not sure if they sold to non-members.

I dunno about this temporary (= single use) membership business. How is that different, in principle, from the public just paying extra for getting raw food? That's not "membership", although I don't think it should be illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I believe one of the allegations was that they occasionally provided the products to non-members as well, although that's just an allegation and I'm not sure if they sold to non-members.

I dunno about this temporary (= single use) membership business. How is that different, in principle, from the public just paying extra for getting raw food? That's not "membership", although I don't think it should be illegal.

---

What's a membership anyway? Does a membership have to require a fee? Is it a verbal agreement? A written one? Why does this matter anyways?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I gotta tell you though GGT, I don't think that a law that in practice only ends up benefiting lawyers and bureaucrats at the expense of the public (who pays their salaries :o) and single moms... well I don't think that's the ideal. We can support regulation in principle without supporting their misuse.

---

Agreed. Try explaining that to Enoch, though. Case in point:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I've got no problem with an entity acknowledging it isn't being regulated. Likewise I would have a problem with an entity claiming it has been regulated when it hasn't. You're clearly not understanding.

What part of MEMBERS ONLY CLUB don't you understand? This is like when you were arguing in the discrimination thread that a members only club should be allowed to discriminate, smoke, and do other unhealthy, unwholesome activities by virtue of it not being open to the general public. To even get in the door at Rawesome Foods you had to be a member, or pay a fee for temporary membership pass. This is you own brand of insanity, but it still isn't good enough.

I'm having trouble believing you're being anything other than disingenuous.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

What's a membership anyway? Does a membership have to require a fee? Is it a verbal agreement? A written one? Why does this matter anyways?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

What's a membership anyway? Does a membership have to require a fee? Is it a verbal agreement? A written one? Why does this matter anyways?

---

I'm only curious about the legal aspect of that :noob: given that your laws prohibit the selling of raw milk to the "general public" but permit sales to "members" I was wondering how they distinguish between the two and why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Agreed. Try explaining that to Enoch, though. Case in point:

---

I'm not sure you're reading what you're responding to, or understanding what is being said, and I'm really not trying to be offensive here, I'm not trying to insult you, but I'm clearly not understanding your thought process.

Let me lay out my confusion.

First, you've said, both in this and other threads, that a private, members only club should be able to do what it wants. Be that discriminating as to who can be a member, what activities occur on the premises, what dues are, etc... This is a private, members only club, that was selling milk, cheese, and other produce to its private membership. This is, by definition, the very thing you were lobbying for, something you said time and time again that you support, and yet you clearly don't. The reasonable conclusion here is that you don't support the rights of individuals to willingly and knowingly buy and consume the products they choose to, even in private.

Is this a case of you being backed into a corner and not wanting to admit you're wrong? Is this, as I'm suspecting more and more, a case where even though you say you want smart, reasonable regulation, that really means GGT dictating what gets made, sold, and consumed everywhere? For you, do reasonable regulations mean an 8 year prison sentence for a man selling milk that, by all accounts has made no one sick? That this hippy becomes a felon, a label that means he's lost his right to vote, would leave him with a tarnished employment history for the rest of his life and could result in him serving more time than many manslaughter cases? For selling raw milk to willing customers? Somehow tobacco companies can make and sell a product that has contributed in the deaths of millions, and that's okay because it's regulated, but this man who sold raw milk which, again by all accounts, hasn't caused any illness could be doing jail time? If this is your idea reasonable regulation and enforcement I've never been happier to be a zealot.

I'm probably kidding myself in thinking I'll get a rational, point-by-point reply from you, but I'm hoping I do. Otherwise this has proven to be a gigantic waste of time.

Whoah. I have no problem with reasonable Regulations or Laws, as laid out by teh evil gummint or its regulating agencies. Flawed as they are. Even if that means arresting some hippie raw milk "co-op" distributor for not labeling its product properly. Take it to the courts (as you say, Enoch, that's the BEST way to handle these things). Has Rawesome Foods been convicted and sent any CEO to jail for eight years for selling raw milk as a felony conviction? NO. You're complaining about the legal charges, which is what you've advocated as the BEST way to deal with this sort of thing in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Whoah. I have no problem with reasonable Regulations or Laws, as laid out by teh evil gummint or its regulating agencies. Flawed as they are. Even if that means arresting some hippie raw milk "co-op" distributor for not labeling its product properly. Take it to the courts (as you say, Enoch, that's the BEST way to handle these things). Has Rawesome Foods been convicted and sent any CEO to jail for eight years for selling raw milk as a felony conviction? NO. You're complaining about the legal charges, which is what you've advocated as the BEST way to deal with this sort of thing in the first place.

---

...

In short, yes, this was a complete waste of my time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I'm having trouble believing you're being anything other than disingenuous.

---

That's one explanation. I personally prefer Hanlon's Razor, and I think substituing ~"crazy" for "stupid" honors the original spirit. YMMV, I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I believe one of the allegations was that they occasionally provided the products to non-members as well, although that's just an allegation and I'm not sure if they sold to non-members.

---

And if they did, so what? It's not like they shipped their milk out to grocery stores and someone didn't know what they were getting. People coming to them definitely knew what they were getting, and wanted it, so it's a consensual contract between legal adults, and none of the government's fucking business. You seem to agree on this point (that it shouldn't be illegal), and 8 years in jail is definitely obscene... yet at the same time you have trouble accepting that a great many people have legitimate reason not to bow to government as the great savior of mankind. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

...

In short, yes, this was a complete waste of my time.

---

So, you've been going back and forth with a couple (few?) socialists-and-proud-of-it... and GeeGee for almost 140 posts now. I sincerely hope that this isn't a recent revelation you're sharing here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

So, you've been going back and forth with a couple (few?) socialists-and-proud-of-it... and GeeGee for almost 140 posts now. I sincerely hope that this isn't a recent revelation you're sharing here.

---

I enjoy a lot of the conversation and banter from Minx, GGT, and even Khend; it only becomes a waste of time when the other party stops reading and responding relevantly and intelligently. If I thought GGT actually had a point, or was driving at something interesting I'd be open to that discussion. I want to be charitable here, but increasingly it looks like she's just trying to get the last word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

And if they did, so what?

---

Just clarifying the allegations as they may be relevant to the laws as well as to Enoch's remark about selling exclusively to members. As you perhaps I realise I don't really see why you have to be a "member" to buy food, although I suppose it's one way for the supplier to make a little more money :o

Quote:

---

You seem to agree on this point (that it shouldn't be illegal), and 8 years in jail is definitely obscene... yet at the same time you have trouble accepting that a great many people have legitimate reason not to bow to government as the great savior of mankind. :bored:

---

Another person may see this as a clue that I'm not crazy, unreasonable or holding the position you claim I hold :noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I enjoy a lot of the conversation and banter from Minx, GGT, and even Khend; it only becomes a waste of time when the other party stops reading and responding relevantly and intelligently. If I thought GGT actually had a point, or was driving at something interesting I'd be open to that discussion. I want to be charitable here, but increasingly it looks like she's just trying to get the last word.

---

Haven't you heard? GeeGee (actually, I prefer Gigi, but we'll let that slide) has many relevant points, and pointed questions, if it weren't for a couple of posters trying to make her/me sound insane. That's just part of a tactic used in order to avoid actual questions.

Enoch, you may think you answered my original question of how, exactly, any disparate and voluntary groups could possibly be as effective as the CDC, FDA, USDA acting in tandem, but you really did not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Enoch, you may think you answered my original question of how, exactly, any disparate and voluntary groups could possibly be as effective as the CDC, FDA, USDA acting in tandem, but you really did not.

---

You're asking how a voluntary organization, whose membership is contingent on following standards outlined by the organization, and whose purpose is to set and hold an industry accountable to defined parameters, could be as effective in passing and enforcing regulation as a regulatory body with the full force and power of the United States Government?

Simply put, it wouldn't. Coincidentally, (and apparently surprisingly?) it's also not the raison d'etre of the organization. You're wanting an analog to the FDA, CDC, USDA, etc... and there wouldn't be. Now, that I've answered your question, care to address any of the ten or so points I've raised in the last ten posts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

You're asking how a voluntary organization, whose membership is contingent on following standards outlined by the organization, and whose purpose is to set and hold an industry accountable to defined parameters, could be as effective in passing and enforcing regulation as a regulatory body with the full force and power of the United States Government?

Simply put, it wouldn't. Coincidentally, (and apparently surprisingly?) it's also not the raison d'etre of the organization. You're wanting an analog to the FDA, CDC, USDA, etc... and there wouldn't be. Now, that I've answered your question, care to address any of the ten or so points I've raised in the last ten posts?

---

And what would those be? How crazy it is for feds to raid hippies selling raw milk, with their guns drawn? I agreed, that's crazy shit. One down, nine to go?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

And what would those be? How crazy it is for feds to raid hippies selling raw milk, with their guns drawn? I agreed, that's crazy shit. One down, nine to go?

---

Quote:

---

2. First, you've said, both in this and other threads, that a private, members only club should be able to do what it wants. Be that discriminating as to who can be a member, what activities occur on the premises, what dues are, etc... This is a private, members only club, that was selling milk, cheese, and other produce to its private membership. This is, by definition, the very thing you were lobbying for, something you said time and time again that you support, and yet you clearly don't. The reasonable conclusion here is that you don't support the rights of individuals to willingly and knowingly buy and consume the products they choose to, even in private.

---

Quote:

---

3. Is this a case of you being backed into a corner and not wanting to admit you're wrong?

---

Quote:

---

4. Is this, as I'm suspecting more and more, a case where even though you say you want smart, reasonable regulation, that really means GGT dictating what gets made, sold, and consumed everywhere?

---

Quote:

---

5. For you, do reasonable regulations mean an 8 year prison sentence for a man selling milk that, by all accounts has made no one sick? That this hippy becomes a felon, a label that means he's lost his right to vote, would leave him with a tarnished employment history for the rest of his life and could result in him serving more time than many manslaughter cases? For selling raw milk to willing customers?

---

Quote:

---

5.Somehow tobacco companies can make and sell a product that has contributed in the deaths of millions, and that's okay because it's regulated, but this man who sold raw milk which, again by all accounts, hasn't caused any illness could be doing jail time?

---

Quote:

---

6. What part of MEMBERS ONLY CLUB don't you understand? This is like when you were arguing in the discrimination thread that a members only club should be allowed to discriminate, smoke, and do other unhealthy, unwholesome activities by virtue of it not being open to the general public. To even get in the door at Rawesome Foods you had to be a member, or pay a fee for temporary membership pass. This is you own brand of insanity, but it still isn't good enough.

---

Quote:

---

7. Again, lawsuits require victims. Show me the victims here. Is the state the victim?

---

Quote:

---

8. Or were the people who paid to purchase a membership, (isn't this what you were advocating for anyways?) to the members-only-buying-club that advertised and was known for selling raw milk and raw milk products, the victims of getting exactly what they paid for?

---

Quote:

---

9. Now please, show me the deception on the part of the store, the bait and switch, the wailing and gnashing of teeth of their customers. Show me the bodies, the victims, the dead and dying. These are the crazy, money grubbing, price-over-safety kkkapitalists you keep railing about, so surely there's a body count attached, right? Or do you really think they were going out of their way to deceive their customers about their products?

---

Quote:

---

10. Do you really think that members of the private, members-only-buying-club paid the premium for a product they thought thought was pasteurized milk? More importantly, is mislabeling a product a felony offense deserving of 8 years?

---

And that's just a start.

I've already stated that being a member of a co-op is great; that raiding said co-op with guns drawn is not; that labeling regulations are crucial, and any mis-labeling isn't "Kosher" for either co-op members or non-members buying retail; that an 8 year felony sentence would be stupid; and that waiting for a victim in order to file a law suit, as a way to replace current federal agencies is also stupid.

That pretty much covers all your ten or so questions, doesn't it?

No, not really. Thanks anyways.

Sorry I didn't meet your expectations? FYI, the dead bodies would have been before pasteurization, not afterward.