The Fake Internet Court of Australia
PARTY A AND THE PEOPLE v MONSTER ENERGY DRINK [2023] - Judgement
H3237/1
It has come to this fake internet court's attention that a party which wishes to remain anonymous, would like judgement in establishing opinion about Monster Energy Drink. Generally speaking, this court is able to make objective rulings about subjective subjects, because the jurisdiction of The Fake Internet Court of Australia is in a unique position in that it simultaneously asserts that it is both definitive and irrelevant.
This party who which wishes to remain anonymous, will henceforth be named as Party A. The Fake Internet Court of Australia also notes that Party A is a person un their own right and completely unlike collective class actions such as the S Club because there ain't no party like an S Club Party.
These then are the facts as the court sees them:
Monster Energy Drink is a high-caffiene drink which calls itself a "formulated beverage". The actual drink itself is a green liquid that has a flavour which tastes broadly medicinal but with no obvious connection to any thing in nature. The drink is marketed in a black can with a green logo which is supposed to resemble a both a set of scratch marks from three claws as well as the letter M.
The idea that a drink doesn't actually taste of anything in nature is hardly a new concept. Dr Pepper which was very very late in the timeline of soda-fountain drinks, claims that it is a blend of 23 different flavours. 23 is an interesting number as that is about the upper limit for people to differentiate between different items. This is particularly useful when thinking about school class limits because 23 is about the number of children, when in the mind of the teacher they actually cease to be individuals and instead become a peloton. Dr Pepper as the result of extra-science-sciencey thingamabobs, is therefore not actually 23 different flavours but one unique thing.
Monster Energy Drink on the other hand makes no such claim about being a blend of any kinds of flavour in particular. It is the court's opinion that Monster Energy Drink taste pretty feral but as people will like what they like and dislike what they dislike, then a subjective opinion about the feralness of flavour is about as useful as trying to hammer an egg to the wall. Yes, you can do it but why?
Monster Energy Drink positions itself in the drinks market, in competition to other so-called energy drinks such as Red Bull, V, et. al.; which also mostly taste feral and with no obvious connection to any thing in nature. As with Red Bull, Monster Energy Drink chooses to market itself in motorsports, which seems to be the 21st Century marketing equivalent to that of tobacco companies in the 1970s and 1980s.
The nutrition information on the side of the can, informs us that Monster Energy Drink contains 160mg of caffeine in a 500mL can. This likely is the central problem as to why Party A has chosen to bring this case before this court. This court notes that this is similar to other so-called energy drinks such as Red Bull, V, et. al.
Before judgement is pronounced, this court would like to thank our learned friends and esteemed colleagues, Robin D Banks acting as counsel for Party A and The People and Marsha Mellow who acted as counsel for the defence.
With these known facts, the court is more than adequately armed to be able to make judgement.
Final Judgement:
This court notes that people like what they like and do not like what they do not like and have every right for that to be the case. However, as Monster Energy drink comes in an absurd size of can, this judgement is less about what people like and about the ontology of the product itself.
Monster Energy Drink is sold in US Pints in the United States, which is 473mL, and un Demi in the sensible metric kosmos, which is 500mL. The perfect cup of tea is 8 Imperial Fluid Ounces, which is 227mL. So not only to we have a wee-wee making chemical but we have that same wee-wee making chemical in far greater amounts and in a bladder filling serving size. This is absurd for not one but two reasons.
This court also would like to ask the question of why pray tell anyone needs to be that awake? Caffeine is a diuretic which means that it induces urination faster; which means that it is like its other wee-wee making cousin Alcohol. Alcohol because of its ability to reduce one's inhibitions, is famous for producing revelry and/or violence in people. Caffeine on the other hand, tends to increase alertness and awakeness; which is perfect if people are in social situations because mental alertness fosters closeness and community. It is no surprise that the Enlightenment was caffeine fuelled at night time, in almost direct opposition to the Gin Craze which made rapscallions and ruffians out of people. Being that awake though is not necessarily an advantage, if the thing that you are being made more alert to is the existential problem that everyone without exception suffers an existence failure and that Grimaldi Reaper will eventually collect his due.
The question is also begging as to why this court would bring Monster Energy into its domain as a unique defendant and not the whole suite of energy drinks such as Red Bull, Prime, V, et al. This relates to an older issue and one that demands its own tale by way of explanation.
A very long time ago when I was in the United States, I bought a Mountain Dew from a vending machine. I was informed, nay chided, nay almost reprimanded, for buying something with so much caffeine in it. Of course being from Australia, I came from somewhere where Mountain Dew was not caffeinated; so I was unfamiliar with the US product. This means that in the court of public opinion, that there can be a moral judgement against an amoral product. As precedent already exists, then this court asserts that a moral judgement against Monster Energy Drink can be made here.
As for why this court chooses to make a judgement against Monster Energy Drink as a unique defendant and not the whole suite of energy drinks, this is a matter of scope and merit. To bring a class action of Everyone v Everything, is incredibly difficult to manage. Perhaps if some other discrete case was brought forward, then this court would consider it.
Monster Energy Drink, as a bladder bursting, jitter making, feral tasting, liquid of insanity, you are guilty of both dastardliness and knavery. You have brought hateration and holleration into this fake internet court and as you have no business to exist, we order you to immediately suffer an existence failure. If we ever see you back before this court, the penalties will be severe. Get out; lest you make a mockery of my courtroom. We are already perfectly capable of making a mockery of this fake internet courtroom as it is.
If we allow things like this to exist, then where are we as a society? It is one thing be terrible on one's own time but to ensnare others in your villainy is malevolent. Can you not see what trouble thou hast wrought?
- ROLLO75 J
(this case will be reported in FILR as H3237/1 - Ed)
Obiter Dictum:
While we are at it, Ty Gibbs is a dastardly little chipmunk who needs to grow up an stop punting people into walls. This Fake Internet Court suspects undue influence of Monster Energy Drink. Jittery people who need to go wee-wee tend to do more irrational things.
No comments:
Post a Comment