Yet again, readers can take note of Bricker’s many curious errors here.
And this is why nothing you have said or will say in this thread can be taken as accurate. Even though I clearly, explicitly and obviously talked about the precedent of warning labels on cigarettes, you claimed I did not. And you made this erroneous claim with as much snark as you could muster. You claimed that I actually only said that the ICC was at issue, and in order to make that claim not only do you have to ignore virtually every other post I made in this thread, but you have to ignore literally 3/5 of my first post in this thread. You also supported Notre’s cherrypicking of my argument, ignoring the fact that not only did he realize that my argument was not just “the ICC says so”, but he responded in detail to several of my other arguments that were not “the ICC says so” but then later reverted to that strawman of my argument once it was proven that his own cites supported my claims.
Disingenuous twaddle.You claimed, and I quote, that I “intended” to say “that we could regulate warning labels because we’ve been doing it forever.” I pointed out that, in fact, that’s exactly what I said. All anybody has to do is control-F for “century” and see just what type of an argument you’re making and what it means that you refuse to retract it. Now you’re adding more snarky bullshit and still refusing to admit even that simple error.
I’ll note that, despite your fresh bullshit, your original claim was not that I improperly addressed it, but that I did not address precedent at all and that I ever claimed that the ICC alone was sufficient. Both of which are so obviously false that any honest reader knows what to do with your subsequent fiats explaining how little I understand about the issue.
As your argument now consists of ad hominem bullshit about synesthesia and a claim that 3/5 of my first post talking about the precedent of warning labels somehow was unclear on the fact that the issue of precedent of warning labels was involved, and you still refuse to retract your nonsense about how I never even mentioned precedent, your new revelation should be treated as if it shares the veracity of your previous claims. And if you are in error, one should, perforce, expect that you will be just as quick to admit it.
Of course.
Of course.
Naturally though, as you’re wrong and playing some rousing Lawyerball from the facade of Non-Loud Disinterested Observer and arguing in the teeth of the facts, your renewed snark just goes to show that not only is your factual and logical argument bankrupt, but you will reduce your argument to this much instead of simply admitting you’re incorrect. Your attempt to move the goalposts from your claim that I didn’t say that precedent was at issue to this new nonsense that I said it but not well enough or not clearly enough or I missed other factors or…
Well, it’s pretty clear what the quality of your argument is.
Well at least we only have this disingenuous ‘not taking a position Just Asking Questions’ nonsense, and not any “loud” text.
Of course, you’re yet again presenting an argument that’s patently false. You did not actually speak to the issue, you’re trying some bullshit handwaving with ‘these aren’t the droids you’re looking for.’
A picture of what might happen to a smoker is just as accurate as the words “SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema”.
You’re rather obviously playing devil’s advocate here, and you’re equally obviously taking arms against the tide. As if saying “smoking causes lung cancer” is totally factual, but showing a picture of lung cancer caused by smoking is all of a sudden not factual. It’s an obvious rationalization designed so you can snark and avoid admitting your wrong, and I truly doubt you’re fooling anybody at all. Which raises the question as to why you’re even trying to use such disingenuous nonsense.
So yet again, going to address let alone retract your errors any time soon?