4 ms·
> there's been presumably hundreds of applicants Well, that's exactly the question, isn't it. You can't presume this because the answer to the question turns
by lisper 2y ago
> there's been presumably hundreds of applicants
Well, that's exactly the question, isn't it. You can't presume this because the answer to the question turns on the actual fact of the matter.
- cynicalpeace 2y agoI'm presuming it because it's very likely, we don't need a double blind randomized controlled study to declare certain things are true. Like that the idea "equality before the law" doesn't exist in this country, unfortunately.
- lisper 2y agoI will not defend the claim that equality before the law exists in the U.S. It's still far from obvious to me that hundreds of entities have applied for coca import permits with legitimate justification and been denied.
- cynicalpeace 2y agoGreat, we agree on the far more important claim
- lisper 2y agoIn that case you don't have to bring coca into it at all, that just muddies the waters. All you have to do it look at Marcellus Williams and Richard Glossip and compare how they were/are being treated to how Donald Trump is being treated.
- fluoridation 2y agoWe don't need double blind randomized controlled studies, we just need documentation showing that hundreds of business applied for an exception to import coca leaves for legitimate purposes and were denied.
- cynicalpeace 2y agoTo show that equality before the law doesn't exist in our country? Also, you're asking for evidence no one can produce. How convenient. I was being hyperbolic to point out that the "evidenced-based" culture has gone too far, to the point where you need obviously unobtainable evidence to prove something that is obviously true.
- bluGill 2y agoYet this is something where it should be possible to produce evidence. Paperwork like is needed is generally available if you ask the right place. Any company trying that was rejected is has a bunch of people who did that paperwork and they could talk about it - indeed if the company was serious they have incentive to talk about it. Now it is possible that the paperwork required means hundreds of companies never even tried, and evidence of that chilling effect is hard to produce. However that is not the claim.
- cynicalpeace 2y agoThe claim is "equality before the law" doesn't exist in the USA (unfortunately)
- bluGill 2y agoThe request is evidence. So far all I get are claims. However I know from experience that many claims are false so I want to know if this one is real or just another one made for a point without any real trust behind it. I'm not claiming the US is perfect, but you are making a strong statement that is either completely false, or is true but only with pages of fine print (and it may turn out that if I read all those details I'd be fine with that as a place where we shouldn't allow equality in the first place)
- cynicalpeace 2y agoThe history of how and why they were granted this exemption is extensively chronicled by Ricardo Cortes. https://rmcortes.medium.com/the-cocainemaker-reefer-madness-and-the-vice-president-of-the-coca-cola-company-e1b39e65b63c https://rmcortes.medium.com/the-cocainemaker-reefer-madness-... You’re unsure our government and institutions are corrupt?
- dustyventure 2y agoSo the question is if at a minimum, one of thousands of cola makers (or tens of thousands of hobbyists) wanted to make a cola closer to coke and was willing to spend any reasonable amount of money/time relative to their intended volume. Knowing the answer to this would be like knowing if anyone ever wanted to make a watch with a Rolex like movement.
- cynicalpeace 2y ago"evidenced-based" culture at its worst. I like being evidenced-based but you can certainly have too much of a good thing.