I’m not pretending anything really. How hard is it to follow their laws in their country. As long as they apply to everyone. Seems simple to me. I would expect German imports to meet our laws in the US.
We all have some “silly” laws. Look at some of our US FRA regulations. They need to meet our laws.
Or get waivers from our laws – which is the case for any imported ‘high-speed’ equipment reliant on CEM instead of 800k buff/draft for ‘safety’
The ‘pretending’ was not addressed to you, but to Volker, who seemed to be claiming that German beer was healthier to drink because of a 500-year-old law. I note he also raises the old Chlorhunchen argument as though that were still a concern…
(In the interest of fair disclosure, I don’t like wheat ‘beer’, don’t care much for corn/maize beer (except in Yuengling black and tans), and admire the effect of the Law in a world where brewers aren’t required to put an ingredient list on their labels…)
[quote=“JL_Chicago, post:206, topic:412875”]
We all have some “silly” laws. Look at some of our US FRA regulations. They need to meet our laws.
[/quote]
Some of our protectionist agricultural laws need to go. People do not realize how hard protectionism hits them at income and standard of living levels. Everyone would live better with zero tariffs and no protectionism. The real issue driving protectionism is people do not want to change or adapt to do what they do best. They like their feathered nest and so the entire world lives poorer and with less personal income.
Combating non-rail disinformation is fair game as long as a few keep doing so.
The whole point is that the Bavarian Reinheitsgebot was adopted for purposes of proper ingredients (didn’t say health), price (dependent on season) and profits. In parts of Bavaria Munich) it dates to 1487! Only after the war did it start to be used to restrict the contents of imports into a rebuilding West Germany. The European Court of Justice ruling only removed content regulation on beers imported into West Germany at that time, not domestic beers.
I was in the small town of Ft William, Scotland many years ago. My wife and I were eating our lunch in a decent pub/restaurant when two Texan couples walked in. How did I know they were from Texas? Because they let everybody know, just like New Yawkers do. Anyway, the one man asked me what I had. I was drinking a McEwan’s Scotch Ale and I think bangers and mash. He listened intently and I thought that I’d convinced him to try some of the local food. Nope! When the waitress came around he said “Do y’all have Budweiser? How about a cheeseburger?”. I cringed… Why anyone would want to drink American beer in Europe is beyond me.
Fear of the unknown!
Misguided exceptionalism, perhaps. I have never figured out why people wouldn’t seek out the ‘best’ in countries they visit; it’s just as much part of the culture as the scenery, arts, or architecture.
On the other hand, I haven’t acquired the taste for warm Courage in the BVI, not for want of trying… 
It’s been my experience that the disinformation label has often been used on reports/statements that were later shown to be true. Along those lines, disinformation is often in the eye of the beholder.
We’re talking about someone who just pulls “facts” out of thin air. There are opposing viewpoints and then there’s BS.
Disinformation is always susceptible to the truth. If the truth subsequently proves that details of the ‘disinformation’ are true … that’s still truth.
The problem is leaving the disinformation uncontested. The evil is thinking that other disinformation is the proof.
Perhaps you meant “uncontested”?
The “truth” can take a long time to come out of hiding. As an example, I’ve done a lot of reading about WW2 over the last 60+ years, and am still running across details that put a different perspective on what happened.
Not sure how I got autocorrected, but I fixed it.
Sure blame it on autoincorrect… 
No, really – I know I typed it right! I’d admit it if I made the mistake myself!
Two areas to watch for carefully. One is paltering. The other – I can’t remember the name fit it – is where most of the facts can be objectively proven but a few key details constitute the disinformation, This can be the most disturbing kind of functional disinformation because after a while you may stop fact-checking as intensively…
That’s the great thing about the study of many periods of history - frequent revisions based on new data uncovered. In that regard, it is somewhat like a science. I’m glad I was a European history major as an undergrad long ago.
One of the most valuable and interesting courses I took was ‘historiography’. Considerable time in the syllabus is devoted to various ways of identifying bias, skewed references, attempts at realizing telos, etc. in historical sources and back translating where possible to objective knowledge. (And understanding the sources and social tendencies in which the bias developed, which I find much more interesting than nominal political history, or Beard-style economic centering.
So, does suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus help the economy?
It might help the personal economies of certain folks.
Who taught it when you had the class?