/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>13838733
>Almost all whisky, by volume, is exactly 40%.

Are you stupid? 40% is becoming more popular, but there are no shortage of whiskeys that fall between the range if 43%-50%. There are several single barrel and cask strength whiskeys (which are becoming more popular, as well) that are well above 50%. Since ABVs have been measuring and certain standards put in place, whiskey has, generally, fallen within the 43%-50% range. If we take the average of whiskey ABVs of just today's whiskeys, you'll find that the mean average ABV falls somewhere between that range.

...But that's not the the real issue, here, and you already know that. The problem (which you must think you're so clever for trying to exploit) is that your whole post is irrelevant. The definition given is written as such to allow for outliers in regards to that given ABV range, so that they could still fit within the definition of "whiskey". The reason for posting the definition, though (and the whole discussion prior) was about the mash content of whiskey and how only grains are allowed. You saw that, realized how wrong you were, and, to try to save face, tried to be sneaky and throw out a red herring about ABV. You'd lost, already, so you tried to change the matter at hand, but what you had was, at best, a flimsy stance to take.

Why don't you go back to drinking your vodka and Red Bulls and let the adults finish the conversation, yeah?