Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Do we all just get to make up sh1t about anyone we disagree with on this thread?

Except I haven't done that. And you have provided exactly zero evidence of me doing so with reference to a post on this thread.

So your accusaation is judged to be without foundation, and therefore without merit.

That's true as well they are not mutually exclusive statements.

As I said earlier it is people's consumption patterns that lead to damage not the place or time of purchase.

Nope. You accused me of mixing fact and supposition, with no distinction between the two. Yet, tellingly, when asked for a post as evidence, you do not provide one

So you can't find a single post where I, without qualification, stated that. So I reject your accusations as entirely without merit.

Yes, and it is clear in that post the basis on which I made the statement. So the post you have cited as evidence disproves the allegation you made that I made no distinction between fact and supposition.

Also, you were asked for the post where I stated, without qualification / as a matter of fact, that they are prohobitionists. Which is something else you accused me of.

So politely, before you make further accusations against me, find that post.

That's because you deliberately left out the rest of the sentence which distinguished and qualified it! It is not an absolute statement.

Your posts have jumped the shark into deliberate misrepresentation now.

That’s not a qualification though. It’s an explanation of how you got to your conclusion, but it doesn’t qualify your conclusion as an absolute statement.

You haven’t made any distinction between facts and supposition, so I’m clearly entitled to assume that the two of those are the absolute same thing to you, right? It’s all about what you haven’t said.

I can tell the difference between facts and supposition. Evidently you cannot.

I think most posters on the thread can see through these semantic games you are engaging in with your posts to try to shutdown debate of the AAI agenda.

Grand so, you accept it is legitimate for us to discuss prohibition as an end goal of AAI and the possibility of further anti-alcohol measures being pushed by them.

Or are we not allowed to talk about that?

Because it seems like you won't allow any discussion of a group that is not based on their current declared agenda - which we all know, is not likely to represent a complete declaration of their future agenda.

Ok so we are allowed to debate it. And presumably in that debate there will be posters who are of the opinion that it is their end goal and state that and list why they have come to that conclusion. So how is this 'debate' possible under your ground rules?

This is what I stated, clearly laying out the basis for saying so:

They are an organisation focused only on alcohol. So they are being judged on what they have said. Given what they have said, and in the absence of a firm statement to the contrary, I think it is reasonable to draw the conclusion as to their ultimate goal re: long term in favour of banning of alcohol. They dont give speeches / policy positions on Ukraine. Or Global warming. But about alcohol and its availability and accessibility. So entirely valid to draw conclusions about what they do not say about alcohol.

Let us imagine a party which pitches itself as pacifist and in its agenda say it will cut military spending etc. It does not give any commitment to retain say a nuclear deterrent.  Is a discussion that said party ultimately seeks to get rid of the nuclear deterrent based on 'rumours'? Would there be no basis for saying they plan to get rid of it? I think we can see such a standard would preclude debate of any political topic outside the present exact text of a party \ organisation's agenda or manifesto. You would not allow any such debate until they state it openly? Because apparently we are not allowed to have a debate based on 'rumours'?

An absurd standard, without merit or foundation, that I completely reject. Any more posts attempting to apply that standard to the discussion will be ignored by me and I doubt I am alone.  

And do you really expect all the people involved in illicit trade and crimes etc to own up to it?

Given that drugs are illegal, how is someone with a drug problem meant to access help? And in accessing that help, they know what they say is treated confidentially. And the people providing that help can see numbers increasing.

Bit different to when they are sat down and asked to fill out a self incriminating survey.

Whereas why would someone admit to stealing alcohol? Or buying alcohol illegally?

Or we could open our eyes and ears.

The AAI lads are an absolutely clueless bunch tbh. So far up their own arses with morality that they actually don't even have a breeze about the subject matter. Publishing reports which prove their own bias but refusing to understand data that crushes their bias.

Lollipops and rainbows of zero alcohol consumption and no drugs. Its absolute mental stuff. I think at this point they might just enjoy the smell of their own arses, rather than have any notion of cross sectional society. Maybe if they put their efforts into addressing class poverty and institutional inequality they may address the escapism troubled alcoholics are trying to achieve.

But... that isn't the real goal is it. Never was. A thin frame of morality finger waving and curtain twitching. Self righteousness wrapped in a cloak of tax payer's money to keep them warm. Yum yum

Listen to Prof. Frank Murray and Dr. Sheila Gilheany of AAI tag teaming on Liveline today telling Joe all about how Norway is a good example to us on how to label non alcoholic drink and that we need to raise taxes on drink even higher among other anti alcohol measures they are campaigning for..

Oops AAI used that bad word on LL (albeit about smoking but you know what their intentions are)